Another Look at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bilk22

The reason the OP is so long is BECAUSE proof was presented. Just because it spells a story you don't like doesn't make it a hoax. Try again.

What proof? There's no proof of anything.

a reply to: Bilk22

Did you miss all the links interspersed throughout his paragraphs that back up his claims? That is called proof. Seeing how his OP was three posts long, I find it unlikely that you clicked every one of those links to dismiss them as valid proof.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bilk22

Did you miss all the links interspersed throughout his paragraphs that back up his claims? That is called proof. Seeing how his OP was three posts long, I find it unlikely that you clicked every one of those links to dismiss them as valid proof.

And those links are official? You would stake your life on the facts presented? The links also prove nothing about the veracity of the A&E claims. So what's the point here?

That page is not on their web site. It is on an OSer web site. It could be doctored

It absolutely could be!

actually I was tempted not to put it in the thread for that very reason but then again I cannot see anything about it that would make me think it was doctored and I found it on a few other sites.

you post here to justify your .25/post on 911 or you'll lose your position as a debunker.

I don't quite think that works the same way, although you might want to call me a debunker i have also written several threads on ATS that you would be hard pushed to describe as a "debunker thread".

I mean you keep making threads about 911 though it's somewhat a dead subject.

9/11 has been the defining event of this century I believe, we will be feeling its ramifications for decades to come and as such I do not believe it to be a dead subject.

originally posted by: Bilk22
And those links are official?

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you shouldn't be making claims of no proof. Though regardless, the fact is the OP DID present proof. The onus is now on you to go through his proof and make a counter argument not just dismiss it because you don't agree with the presentation.

You would stake your life on the facts presented?

Not sure why this is a relevant question... I don't see anyone staking their lives on 9/11 truther opinions, why should I stake my life on the opposite opinion?

The links also prove nothing about the veracity of the A&E claims. So what's the point here?

How do you know if you haven't looked at them? Why haven't you done a point by point breakdown of his links yet to show that they prove nothing? Just because you say they prove nothing doesn't make it so. That is lazy, elementary school debating there.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

That page is not on their web site. It is on an OSer web site. It could be doctored

It absolutely could be!

actually I was tempted not to put it in the thread for that very reason but then again I cannot see anything about it that would make me think it was doctored and I found it on a few other sites.

you post here to justify your .25/post on 911 or you'll lose your position as a debunker.

I don't quite think that works the same way, although you might want to call me a debunker i have also written several threads on ATS that you would be hard pushed to describe as a "debunker thread".

I mean you keep making threads about 911 though it's somewhat a dead subject.

9/11 has been the defining event of this century I believe, we will be feeling its ramifications for decades to come and as such I do not believe it to be a dead subject.

So you admit to using a screen shot of a page that is/was allegedly used on the A&E site, yet you have no idea if it's real and accurate in what you claim it portrays. I see your threshold for proof is very low. Guess that's why you accept the official story.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The onus is now on you to go through his proof and make a counter argument not just dismiss it because you don't agree with the presentation.

well we all know that's not going to happen.....

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
I was on their email list, and would occasionally get phone calls about events etc. About a year ago I unsubscribed and when they asked why I said "because after all these years you have come up with nothing new and just seem to be more interested in collecting money." "You also diss people like Dr Judy Wood and Dimitry Khalezov whom I think you should be more open minded to."

I still think the Official 911 Story is BS. I think everybody knows who did it and why, just take a look around.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I looked at the links. They're dodgy websites. So the informations is dodgy at best.

a reply to: Bilk22

So you admit to using a screen shot of a page that is/was allegedly used on the A&E site, yet you have no idea if it's real and accurate in what you claim it portrays. I see your threshold for proof is very low. Guess that's why you accept the official story

I think this is part of the problem that many on this site have, a inability to critically appraise source materiel and themselves. I am not arrogant enough to argue that its not possible that picture was faked, it is possible but its been repeated on multiple websites (hear, hear, and hear) in fact if you copy paste that whole paragraph into goggle you will get almost 5000 results. I have yet to find a solid claim it has been doctored so I am confident it is accurate.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

The OP makes a claim that This Document "It lists only perhaps 100 structural engineers and probably even less architects." If the OP did indeed look at it, there are clearly hundreds if not thousands of professional engineering and architectural firms, engineers and architects listed.

Why should we believe anything else the OP has to say when he clearly lied about this fact?

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I looked at the links. They're dodgy websites. So the informations is dodgy at best.

hmmmm do you think the AIA is a dodgy website, what about the IRS pdf is that dodgy...... hey what about ae9/11truth.org is that dodgy because I think that the one used most in the OP?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I looked at the links. They're dodgy websites. So the informations is dodgy at best.

hmmmm do you think the AIA is a dodgy website, what about the IRS pdf is that dodgy...... hey what about ae9/11truth.org is that dodgy because I think that the one used most in the OP?

You can prove the IRS doc is authentic?

a reply to: Bilk22

Dodgy websites huh? Ok, let's take you to task then.

The first three links in the OP are youtube links to documentaries published by Robert Gage. The fourth link is to a petition on the AE911 for truth followed by the text of the petition underneath it. The fifth link takes you again to AE911 for truth to learn more about their group. The sixth link takes you to a document on ae911 for truth website that lists many if not all of the members of AE911 for truth. The seventh link takes you to the official about page for the ASCE and the seventh takes you to the official AIA page. The eighth link takes you to the FAQ for AE911 for truth page. The ninth link takes you to an article in Architect magazine. The tenth link is an audit report for AE911 for truth. The eleventh link takes you to an outside source with the picture from the official AE911 for truth site and their claim they were out of their expertise regarding explosives (first one I'd call dodgy).

So basically, unless you consider AE911 for truth a dodgy website, the OP got most of his facts and figures straight from the horse's mouth. Looks pretty credible to me. Though if you DO think that AE911 for truth is a dodgy website, then you are kind of proving the OP's point in a hypocritical kind of way.

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

The OP makes a claim that This Document "It lists only perhaps 100 structural engineers and probably even less architects." If the OP did indeed look at it, there are clearly hundreds if not thousands of professional engineering and architectural firms, engineers and architects listed.

Why should we believe anything else the OP has to say when he clearly lied about this fact?

Now now, lets look at what I said.

It lists only perhaps 100 structural engineers and probably even less architects. The rest are listed under “other engineers”, some come from fields that could be related such as aeronautical engineers but some of them really did leave me scratching my head.

look at the document, it has less than a page of people described as being High Rise Architects and Fellows of the AIA and then about two pages of individuals it lists as Structural Engineers the rest all come under "other architects and engineers". Roughly 100 engineers and then less AIA architects then the rest all fall under "other". The sentence you have quoted is just me describing the document, I was assuming you would take the time to read over it for yourself.

a reply to: Bilk22

You can prove the IRS doc is authentic?

The question actually is can you prove it is not authentic I have provided you with links and a logical argument that forms a basis for my concluding paragraph suggesting that people should be questioning these guys much more critically.

If you wish to counter that argument then the burden of proof is now on you.

So with that said prove to me the IRS doc is a fake.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I'm going to have to agree. This is a case of "attack the messenger" because the message cannot be easily dealt with.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

When Richard came to London I explained some of this www.abovetopsecret.com... to him and he obviously grasped it. His eyes lit up and he reached for my hand and shook it enthusiastically. He knows how to end it but he just keeps waffling on. www.abovetopsecret.com...

The majority of the physical evidence that can be used to settle the question of demolition is on the Fresh Kills Landfill. How often does the Truth Movement suggest going up there and digging up the evidence? That's all it takes.

Lloyds chose a world leading concrete expert to explain the nature of the structures they were paying for. www.abovetopsecret.com... The Truth Movement rattles on about the steel frame as if that had special significance.

A "representative of the British Establishment" uncomfortably introduced himself to Richard in front of me, gave him a card, and said "Ring this number, you need to talk to us".
Richard asked, "Have you been paying attention to my work?"
"Oh yes." Said the representative. "We've been watching you very closely."
"Good!" Said Richard, beaming. "I hope you carry on paying close attention."

Later the representative and I found ourselves alone. Having seen from his body language that he was wearing a hidden camera I took the opportunity to explain to the listeners how I knew without doubt, from the response to street activism, that those concealing false flag atrocities are risking the wrath of the mob. I put it a little more graphically than that. I believe "...literally torn limb from limb..." was the phrase I used. The representative's voice crumbled and he squeaked, "Yes.... I know."

I suspect Richard and I are similar in that we enjoy winding up spooks.

Winding up spooks and getting a free lunch isn't going to solve anything.

The WTC destruction was a Rockefeller Brothers production and a dismal failure.