[Merged]architects and engineers for 9/11 truth = SCAM!

Swing Dangler said:
As a relatively new poster here, I'm simply flabergasted by people who have committed or are considering fraud to attack an organization like AE when the facts alone from FEMA, NIST, and the Federal Government should stand on their own.

Why would you discredit yourself in an attempt to discredit an organization?
Shouldn't the facts and experts alone discredit A/E911?

Your activities alone bring into doubt the official story. Why the need to commit fraud if the facts of the OS are exactly that?

IMHO, the tactics only bring into question why someone would do that with the end result being support for the official story that should stand on its own.
Click to expand...
I think it was more like helping them identify a security flaw in their member system. It makes their site better.:D
 
DGM said:
I think it was more like helping them identify a security flaw in their member system. It makes their site better.:D
Click to expand...

Yeah, helping them... that's it. We were helping them to improve the quality of their site. (That's my story and I'm sticking to it! :spjimlad: )
 
Swing Dangler said:
As a relatively new poster here, I'm simply flabergasted by people who have committed or are considering fraud to attack an organization like AE when the facts alone from FEMA, NIST, and the Federal Government should stand on their own.

Why would you discredit yourself in an attempt to discredit an organization?
Shouldn't the facts and experts alone discredit A/E911?

Your activities alone bring into doubt the official story. Why the need to commit fraud if the facts of the OS are exactly that?

IMHO, the tactics only bring into question why someone would do that with the end result being support for the official story that should stand on its own.
Click to expand...

Of course they did nothing to dicredit themselves when they set up the site so that anyone could claim to be a structural engineer or architect.

(Or they did and thus the mocking...)
 
Swing Dangler said:
Why would you discredit yourself in an attempt to discredit an organization?
Shouldn't the facts and experts alone discredit A/E911?

Your activities alone bring into doubt the official story. Why the need to commit fraud if the facts of the OS are exactly that?

IMHO, the tactics only bring into question why someone would do that with the end result being support for the official story that should stand on its own.
Click to expand...

The reason, in this particular case, for pretending to be an architect or engineer, is to demonstrate that there is no verification process to determine whether someone claiming to be so actually is an architect or engineer. It's a relevant matter, because one of the most serious failings of the Truth Movement is that while they make claims that rely on architectural and engineering expertise, they don't have anyone on board who actually possesses such expertise. The issue in this case is the claim to have a stack of engineers who support their ideas. By showing how easy it is to make fraudulent claims, the credibility of the site has been shown to be doubtful.

As to whether the people involved have been acting fraudulently - to act fraudulently implies an intent to decieve. In this case, they have publicly advertised what they have done. It may be disruptive, but there is clearly no intention to decieve.
 
Last edited:
Swing Dangler said:
As a relatively new poster here, I'm simply flabergasted by people who have committed or are considering fraud to attack an organization like AE when the facts alone from FEMA, NIST, and the Federal Government should stand on their own.
Click to expand...

A&E for truth is founded on the very notion that they are all qualified to speak with authority on what they claim to be evidence of controlled demolition of the wtc buildings.

That they are not very choosy about who they include in their list of 'qualified' people, and that they themselves are not as qualified as they would have the world believe merely invites the ridicule they deserve for being so pathetically arrogant to assume that no one would notice or test them.

And lets face it, if they can't even get a simple thing like a bloody website right, what hope is there that they're going to be right about anything else?

Oh, and it's fun to mock them.
 
Swing Dangler said:
As a relatively new poster here, I'm simply flabergasted by people who have committed or are considering fraud to attack an organization like AE when the facts alone from FEMA, NIST, and the Federal Government should stand on their own.

Why would you discredit yourself in an attempt to discredit an organization?
Shouldn't the facts and experts alone discredit A/E911?
Click to expand...

The facts and experts do discredit AE911, Swing.

Part of this is the fact that people who AE911 claims are experts are in fact not experts.

God only knows how AE911's shabby membership standards is something that discredits debunkers.
 
exactly.

Just because pfizer makes viagra, and it works, and has evidence to back it up, doesnt mean we should allow Snakez Pharmaceuticals to put out their own version and take their word for it that it does the job just as well...get my drift.

Because we know the REAL truth, does not mean we should not try to expose the frauds for what they are.

TAM:)
 
Its that they represent an authority on the subject matter they don't have. Its like giving someone legal council and making them think you are a lawyer. It can be disastrous for a person not in the know.

That and we like to be a-holes sometimes.
 
That and the fact that they had a system for admission to their group that was so easily exploited, and unvetted, as to make it useless...so now we try to keep them honest.

TAM;)
 
You guys can justify as long as you wish, but the fact remains that what you did was very childish. A simple email to the AE911 people would probably have been more than sufficient. If that failed, then something more drastic could have been done.

This is a perfect example of why dailogue between the truthers/debunkers is so strained. And as much as you would like to think that the debunkers always have the moral high-ground, this is just a case of how that is not true.
 
Newtons Bit said:
You guys can justify as long as you wish, but the fact remains that what you did was very childish. A simple email to the AE911 people would probably have been more than sufficient. If that failed, then something more drastic could have been done.

This is a perfect example of why dailogue between the truthers/debunkers is so strained.
Click to expand...
This is why the dialog is strained? You're kidding, right? The dialog is strained because our standards of truth are at odds. The mockery etc. is a reaction to the strained dialog.
Newtons Bit said:
And as much as you would like to think that the debunkers always have the moral high-ground, this is just a case of how that is not true.
Click to expand...
 
Newton:

I for one, made no entries of funny names into their site at all, if that is what you are referring to. My comments of support are in reference to the "outting" of the sham, not the method...That said, I do not see any harm that was done...silly yes, perhaps a little juvenile, but in need of your repremand...I am not sure.

We do, all to often, get down in the mud, I do confess...

I have no problem with taking the moral highground wrt the 9/11 truth movement, as in almost all cases it is quite clear that the highground is not where they reside.

Dialogue strain, is an understatement. There rarely is civil discussion between the groups. I think this is largely due to (A) the complete and utter ridiculousness of 95% of the truther arguments, and (B) Debunking Fatigue Syndrome.

Your comments, as usual, are appreciated and thoughtful.

TAM:)
 
Actually TAM, some of the truthers have a moderate deal of respect for you (A JREF'er, imagine!) because you treated them with politeness. No one is ever going to believe anything (regardless of evidence) that someone else presents if that person is hostile. This is what is known as having TACT when having an arguement/discussion with someone. You have the ability to change some of their minds simply by being polite and offering research and facts. People who are openly hostile, will never be able to change someone elses mind.

Some people here just want to bash truthers because ti's fun. I'm doing this because I feel that it's necessary to at least try to pull a few of the souls who aren't too deep out of the poisoned well of 9/11 truth. This is being a "good guy". And if we are supposed to be the good guys, we need to act like [rule8]ing boyscouts. Not a bunch of 12 year olds on a playground.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Actually TAM, some of the truthers have a moderate deal of respect for you (A JREF'er, imagine!) because you treated them with politeness. No one is ever going to believe anything (regardless of evidence) that someone else presents if that person is hostile. This is what is known as having TACT when having an arguement/discussion with someone. You have the ability to change some of their minds simply by being polite and offering research and facts. People who are openly hostile, will never be able to change someone elses mind.

Some people here just want to bash truthers because ti's fun. I'm doing this because I feel that it's necessary to at least try to pull a few of the souls who aren't too deep out of the poisoned well of 9/11 truth. This is being a "good guy". And if we are supposed to be the good guys, we need to act like [rule8]ing boyscouts. Not a bunch of 12 year olds on a playground.
Click to expand...



Even the Eagle Scout can occasionally transition to a Jekyl and Hyde.
 
I was curious as to who some of the "signers" at the AE site might be and thought I'd do a quick internet search. The very first person I looked up was Ronald F. Avery. The first site I checked into was http://9-11.meetup.com/311/members/4246622/

Fair enough.

The second site I saw on this guy was http://www.weeklyuniverse.com/2003/avery.htm

That second one is a doosey.

Are these the types of people signed up at ae911truth?

I'm scared to look-up any more.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
Actually TAM, some of the truthers have a moderate deal of respect for you (A JREF'er, imagine!) because you treated them with politeness. No one is ever going to believe anything (regardless of evidence) that someone else presents if that person is hostile. This is what is known as having TACT when having an arguement/discussion with someone. You have the ability to change some of their minds simply by being polite and offering research and facts. People who are openly hostile, will never be able to change someone elses mind.

Some people here just want to bash truthers because ti's fun. I'm doing this because I feel that it's necessary to at least try to pull a few of the souls who aren't too deep out of the poisoned well of 9/11 truth. This is being a "good guy". And if we are supposed to be the good guys, we need to act like [rule8]ing boyscouts. Not a bunch of 12 year olds on a playground.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe you can change a hardcore 'truther'?

They still talk about aviation fuel melting steel for god's sake!!

It's not the 'truthers' who need to be reached, it's those poor souls who sadly take the 'truther' message and kinda sorta believe it. They are the ones who need to be shown just how unreliable, untrustworthy and unbelievable the 'truthers' are.

No one here is going to change a dylan avery or lyte trip or gage or any of the other shining lights of the 'truth' movement. They've made their minds up for various reasons, some of which are in no way connected to 911.

If they get shown up for the sad little fantasists that they are then maybe we can prevent someone else from being sucked into the fantasy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom