• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

AE911Truth Watch

roundhead said:
Point out why Ryan was professionally incompetent at UL?

Hadnt he, not long before his letter, actually been promoted by UL to a position of much greater responsibility, implying competence and professional ability?

Otherwise, quit slandering Ryan's professional ability at UL
Click to expand...
Gage is a shameless charlatan who prey's on the mentally ill and disenfranchised. Why do you support him?
 
ref said:
Gage doesn't stop. He just keeps adding to his story. This is his letter to congressman Robert Wexler.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/31

Now, he has tried this tactic before:


Really?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/136394892c331b6104.jpg[/qimg]

Last year he was claiming their growth was exponential. Busted that time too.



Nothing new in Gageland. Wild accusations, zero knowledge.
Click to expand...

The site traffic has only gotten worse in the recent few months. The traffic has dropped 33%, traffic rank has dropped over 100K and the page views have dropped 60% from 2 to 1.1.

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/ae911truth.org
 
roundhead said:
Gage is way overqualified to state that Building 7 was brought down by something other than fire.
Click to expand...

Gage is clueless.
He is ignorant on large structures and his theories and ideas are as dumb as the rest of 9/11 truth. He has no evidence to back up his position.
Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings that function well and withstand potentially destructive forces. However, the 3 high-rise buildings at the World Trade Center which "collapsed" on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body of evidence (i.e., controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience.
Click to expand...
this was already pointed out to you; http://www.ae911truth.org/info/4
Gage is a fraud, does he have a clue?
 
Last edited:
The only thing Gage is overqualified in, is cheap, tangential modeling of building collapses.

TAM;)
 
A year ago I wrote about Gage's connections to Unity Church, and his role as a donation counselor for the church (the link in that post does not work anymore).

Well, he still very much supports his church.

His church had a fundraising event in November, 2008 called Casino Royale.

And who is #2 in the sponsors list?

Thanks to our Casino Royale Sponsors!
[FONT=Arial Narrow,Arial Narrow]Javier Cortez...Intero Real Estate
Richard Gage...Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

http://www.unitycenter.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/dec_08_centerpoint.pdf (page 3)

That is Gage alright. Using the AE911Truth title.

He wouldn't use the donations AE911Truth.org has received to sponsor his own church, would he? That's not possible, right?

[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
ref said:
A year ago I wrote about Gage's connections to Unity Church, and his role as a donation counselor for the church (the link in that post does not work anymore).

Well, he still very much supports his church.

His church had a fundraising event in November, 2008 called Casino Royale.

And who is #2 in the sponsors list?

Thanks to our Casino Royale Sponsors!
[FONT=Arial Narrow,Arial Narrow]Javier Cortez...Intero Real Estate
Richard Gage...Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

http://www.unitycenter.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/dec_08_centerpoint.pdf (page 3)

That is Gage alright. Using the AE911Truth title.

He wouldn't use the donations AE911Truth.org has received to sponsor his own church, would he? That's not possible, right?

[/FONT]
Click to expand...

The PDF has a URL for pictures of the event. I cycled through them quickly, and one of the first had a registration table with a sign saying Please Visit Our Sponsors' Tables. So, yes, he probably could have given some money to the event from AE911Truth. In return, he or someone else in the group (he was off in Europe on November 7, right?) could set up a table with AE911Truth wares. Sadly, the photographer didn't get many pictures of these sponsors' tables. I only saw one advertising Nano Nutrition, which sounds a lot like homeopathy.

So I can't verify that there was a table there, but AE911Truth funds definitely could have been used to sponsor the event. It looks like everyone there was having a good time.
 
boloboffin said:
The PDF has a URL for pictures of the event. I cycled through them quickly, and one of the first had a registration table with a sign saying Please Visit Our Sponsors' Tables. So, yes, he probably could have given some money to the event from AE911Truth. In return, he or someone else in the group (he was off in Europe on November 7, right?) could set up a table with AE911Truth wares. Sadly, the photographer didn't get many pictures of these sponsors' tables. I only saw one advertising Nano Nutrition, which sounds a lot like homeopathy.

So I can't verify that there was a table there, but AE911Truth funds definitely could have been used to sponsor the event. It looks like everyone there was having a good time.
Click to expand...

It really looks like a good time. No question about that.

It seems they sponsored the card tables, maybe some more. When I watched carefully (yes, I do have spare time today :p), some card table had a AE911Truth logo.

But sponsoring your own church (that you had worked as a donation counselor for) with money, that was donated to AE911Truth.. I have a problem with that :rolleyes: Of course, they can choose where they want to be present. What would be more convenient for him than that place.
 
I e-mailed this to AE911Truth via their 'Contact Us' form:

Hello,

Back in September of 2008, during the Q&A session
of a presentation by Mr. Gage, he was asked why
Mr. Danny Jovenko was included on the "expert
collaboration" section of WTC 7 for its
demolition, but not the Twins. Mr. Gage replied
that Jovenko was more familiar with the techniques
used for WTC 7's demolition than the Two Towers.

If that's true, how come other CD experts could
determine that WTC 1, and 2 were demolished? Are
they more familiar with top-down demolition than
Jovenko?

Thanks,
TSJ
Click to expand...

Now taking bets on whether they'll reply to it, starting at $50.
 
Blender Head said:
I e-mailed this to AE911Truth via their 'Contact Us' form:



Now taking bets on whether they'll reply to it, starting at $50.
Click to expand...

The cat's out of the bag at ae911truth. They know you're a mole. This is why God invented sock puppets.
 
Since I can't edit the above, I'll have to double post.

I got a reply, but can't make a lick of sense of it; anyone who does gets a free dinner at Chuck E. Cheeses:

Shane Geiger said:
A "controlled demolition" looks like a controlled demolition because it is one.
Therefore, it should not be too difficult for an expert in controlled demolition to recognize one.

A "deceptive controlled demolition" is done in a way so that it does not look like a conventional controlled demolition.
Consequently, the goal is to mislead people--perhaps even controlled demolition experts.

Other demolition experts agree that demolitions took place. The ones who are on record are here: http://demolitionexpertsquestion911.blogspot.com/ I know of others.

Under no circumstances are the laws of physics suspended--regardless of whether or not some sort of demolition was done.
NIST is not seriously investigating the possibility of the controlled demolition and deceptive controlled demolition hypotheses for WTC7 and the Twin Towers.

At the same time, NIST itself says that it has no explanation for the total collapse of the Twin Towers. In a letter dated September 27, 2007, NIST stated: "[W]e are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
NIST's reiterates this from their Twin Towers report (2005): "NIST has stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings." The next sentence admits, however: "NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue..."

Since NIST does not have an explanation and is not investigating the possibility of explosives, perhaps the explanation they do not seriously consider is viable. That is exactly what Dr. Steven Jones and others are doing.


Documentation of the Data Quality Act exchange is also available on the US Department of Commerce Web site and on the Journal of 9/11 Studies Web site.

Original RFC: http://ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/ssLINK/PROD01_003034
NIST Response: http://ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/ssLINK/PROD01_004108
Appeal Letter: http://ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/ssLINK/PROD01_004622

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/AppealLetterToNISTGourleyEtAl.pdf
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/NISTresponseToRequestForCorrectionGourleyEtal2.pdf

NIST reports are available at http://wtc.nist.gov
Click to expand...
 
I'm bored I'll try;


Originally Posted by Shane Geiger
A "controlled demolition" looks like a controlled demolition because it is one.
Therefore, it should not be too difficult for an expert in controlled demolition to recognize one.
Click to expand...

A controlled demolition is nothing more than a structural failure gravity collapse that was initiated in a way to control collateral damage. I don't remember anything like that on 9/11. Structural failure on the other hand happened several times. Try asking him to isolate the initiating event.

A "deceptive controlled demolition" is done in a way so that it does not look like a conventional controlled demolition.
Consequently, the goal is to mislead people--perhaps even controlled demolition experts.
Click to expand...

Total gibberish. See above


Other demolition experts agree that demolitions took place. The ones who are on record are here: http://demolitionexpertsquestion911.blogspot.com/ I know of others.
Click to expand...

Yet they don't present the evidence to convince the general public. I admit I did not click that link but I know these "experts" have never made any attempt to support their position.

Under no circumstances are the laws of physics suspended--regardless of whether or not some sort of demolition was done.
Click to expand...

The laws of physics (according to any report) were never violated. Tell him to support his accusation (he can't it's BS) or retract.


NIST is not seriously investigating the possibility of the controlled demolition and deceptive controlled demolition hypotheses for WTC7 and the Twin Towers.

At the same time, NIST itself says that it has no explanation for the total collapse of the Twin Towers. In a letter dated September 27, 2007, NIST stated: "[W]e are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
NIST's reiterates this from their Twin Towers report (2005): "NIST has stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings." The next sentence admits, however: "NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue...
Since NIST does not have an explanation and is not investigating the possibility of explosives, perhaps the explanation they do not seriously consider is viable. That is exactly what Dr. Steven Jones and others are doing.


Documentation of the Data Quality Act exchange is also available on the US Department of Commerce Web site and on the Journal of 9/11 Studies Web site.
Click to expand...

This is just a parroting of their party line. Ask them to support any of these lies. The silence will be deafening.
 
Last edited:
roundhead said:
Point out why Ryan was professionally incompetent at UL?

Hadnt he, not long before his letter, actually been promoted by UL to a position of much greater responsibility, implying competence and professional ability?

Otherwise, quit slandering Ryan's professional ability at UL
Click to expand...

Only problem is, he wasn't. You need to learn to read.
 
It's a new year, and they need more money. Much more money. In a short newsletter they have a total of 6 links to the Sustaining members -page.

http://www.ae911truth.org/actionalerts/action014.php

Last year, the response to our Sustaining Membership drive was less than hoped for. While we did double the number of Sustaining Members, the number still represents less than 4% of our 3,500 petition signers (approx. 100 people). This level of financial support does not allow us to meet our goals. If just HALF of our petition signers and other supporters upgraded to monthly Sustaining Memberships, it would make a HUGE difference in our ability to achieve a highly effective marketing presence in the professional architecture and engineering communities, and with our many other projects. At present we are only able to meet basic operating expenses at the beginning of this year and, in fact, are starting out in the red. Please join us and work with us actively to achieve the many goals set for us by you and the needs of the 9/11 Truth movement. Become a monthly Sustaining Member today!
Click to expand...

Ok, they say 4% of their petition signers give regular financial support to AE911Truth. In reality 100 out of 3500 equals 2,86%. They are correct in stating that it represents less than 4%, since it actually represents less than 3%. Not too high a percentage.

Here are the sustaining membership monthly payments they are hoping to get more and more, and the fancy donor titles.

Citizen / Student $10 monthly
Advocate $25 monthly
Activist $50 monthly
Patriot $100 monthly
Statesman $250 monthly
Ambassador $500 monthly
AE911Truth Hero $911 monthly


Let's see how much money they approximately made last year. They currently have about 100 sustaining members.

They say that number doubled last year, so in the beginning of 2008 they had about 50 sustaining members. That makes and average of 75 sustaining members for the entire last year.

In the most optimal case (each of the 75 is a "AE911Truth Hero") they received donations worth 75 x $911 x 12 months = $819 000.

But we all know that's not possible. Most likely a huge majority of these Sustaining members are "Citizens/Students" giving $10 a month.

Let's see how much they would have made in the most pessimistic scenario, where every one of the 75 Sustaining members was a "Citizen/Student". 75 x $10 x 12 months = $9000.

Thus, in 2008 AE911Truth received donations amounting between $9000 - $819 000, approximately that is.

The true number is most probably pretty close to $9000. At least much closer to the lower limit, than the higher limit.

Is that good business? Gage thinks not, he wants more. He wants HALF of the petition signers to become Sustaining members. With 3500 current petition signers, that means they currently would like to have at least a total of 1750 Sustaining members. These 1750 Sustaning members would stretch the previously calculated amount of yearly donations received to between $210 000 - $19 131 000.

They want to have donations amounting between two hundred thousand and 19 million dollars! Cheesh. That SURE would be good business.
 
Last edited:
It seems (to no-one's surprise) that Gage no longer works as an architect. This is what he says, when discussing the need of further donations:

Richard Gage said:
Become a Sustaining Member of AE911Truth today – a part of the family - giving monthly. You can start as low as $10/month – on up! This is how we keep our doors open and pay our operating expenses. All non-profits work this way. No one is getting rich over here. I, Richard Gage, am the only salaried employee and I receive only about half of my former pay as an architect.

http://www.ae911truth.org/sustain.php#SpecialProject_2009_AEConventionsAndOtherProjects
Click to expand...

So, he does receive a salary, the salary is paid out of the donations, and he no longer works as an architect. That's how I would interpret that sentence.
 
Last edited:
I don't mean the following in the sense of schadenfreude. Rather, I state it as relief for the safety of general public. But, if he's truly not working as an architect anymore, then thank goodness! His analysis of the WTC collapse dynamics suggests that he misunderstands what causes buildings to fail, and if that's the case, could he truly design a structure that is safe to begin with?

Granted, from what I understand, building engineers would sound off if a structure was designed in an unsound manner - other folks here working in the field can clarify or correct me on that point - but still, his statements do not engender trust in his abilities. If he's not designing anymore, I think it's better for the public.
 
(humor) I obtained the draft of the terms for their monthly contributors. I can't verify the accuracy of this information, my NWO handler won't provide it.


Uninformed Sucker $10 monthly
Gullible Joe Average$25 monthly
Cult Zealot $50 monthly
Bin Laden Lover $100 monthly
Treasonous Ghoul $250 monthly
Well-Endowed Idiot $500 monthly
Rich Moron $911 monthly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom