AE911T to Display Evidence at National AIA Convention w/multimedia presentation to 20,000 architects

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+3 more 
posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

AE911Truth to Display Evidence at National AIA Convention 4/30 — 5/2, Moscone Center Press Conference/Speaking Engagement Saturday May 2 at 4 pm, Westin Market Street Hotel

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact Phone: 510-292-4710
Site: AE911Truth.org
Email: Contact rg-aia at ae911truth.org

Berkeley, CA, April 23, 2009 — More than 640 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) are calling for a new, independent investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center high-rises. These building professionals cite evidence of explosive demolition at all three WTC high-rises on 9/11 and document the evidence at their website. Michael Heimbach, assistant director of the FBI's counterterrorism division, wrote that their claims and conclusion were "backed by thorough research and analysis."

AE911Truth will host exhibitor's information booth #2609 at this year's annual convention of the prestigious American Institute of Architects (AIA). The convention, with more than 800 exhibitors and more than 20,000 participating architects, will take place in San Francisco's Moscone Center, April 30-May 2.

This exhibition will be followed up on Saturday May 2nd with a dynamic multi-media presentation by AE911Truth founder Richard Gage, AIA. Mr Gage will cover the forensic evidence found at the crime scene as well as a review of the omissions in the official FEMA and NIST reports. Join AE911Truth at the Westin Market Street Hotel at 50 Third St. in San Francisco at 4:00 pm on Saturday for this thorough review of the myth-shattering information.

Time magazine acknowledged in 2006 that the 9/11 Truth movement was not a "fringe phenomenon," but "a mainstream political reality." As well, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition signers have been encouraged by President Obama's promise to "restore science to its rightful place."

Join AE911Truth at booth #2609 to review the startling evidence not reported in the media or by agencies in charge of the investigations.


www.ae911truth.org...




[edit on 24-4-2009 by _BoneZ_]




posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Forensic evidence? Oh yea, Dr Johns and his make believe thermite. At this point why not just state you found traces of C-4 as well. It wouldnt be true either, and yet there would be sheep there that believed it as well as the thermite lies.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
that's awesome.
nice comment, swampfox. what are your post-nominals?


+4 more 
posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


If only you knew what you were talking about, you might sound remotely credible. It's Dr. Steven JONES who is a physicist (yes, smarter than me or you) and has nothing to do with this thread.

This thread is about Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth having a booth at the national American Institute of Architects (AIA) convention in Los Angeles, California April 30 - May 2.

Along with having a booth to diseminate 9/11 truth amongst the 20,000 attending architects, Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, will be giving a multimedia presentation to the 20,000 attending architects.

The thermite has been found in more than one different sample of WTC dust and was tested and analyzed in a laboratory by a 20-year physicist. Now, if you think that tangible, physical evidence is a lie, then make your own thread and start showing that evidence by getting your own samples and having them tested in a lab. But coming into these threads and making blatant lies about things that are only your opinion without showing any evidence, just makes you look like the fool that you are. Just because you don't want to believe the evidence, doesn't make it a lie.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Johns, Jones, doesnt matter, he is a charlatan....or a total idiot. He reminds me of the morons from NIS that decided it was a bomb that blew up the turret on the Iowa, because he seems to use the same methods of reasoning.

Almost worth booking a trip just to see how Mr. Gage gets treated.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Jones, doesnt matter, he is a charlatan....or a total idiot.

Aw, so sorry for somebody getting off their buttocks and having the cahonas to do some independent laboratory testing of the dust samples from ground zero. And so sorry that explosive residue was found in more than one sample and you just can't come to terms with those facts because of your denial or inability to comprehend the facts.

You may want to look in the mirror before calling others "stupid"....


[edit on 25-4-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Gage tried to infiltrate the AIA meeting last year in Boston. I reported him to BCEC and hotel security. I also reported him to the AIA for using their symbol inappropriately.

I found it interesting the Gage does not bring up him being shunned last year in Boston, or the swift removal of the AIA symbol after he was reported.

As far as evidence, Gage will probably bring his cardboard boxes.

Any serious architect will laugh hysterically at this joke.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Can you site this incidence please Cameron?



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


which one?



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


First off, its cojones. Second, would you make up your mind was it thermite residue or was it explosive residue? Either way it really doesnt matter I guess, because neither one was used that day. Actually I wish he would find a court of law that would hear him, it would take an educated lawyer all of about thirty seconds to rip apart his conclusions.

The earlier comment stands about his (and others) reasonings being the same as the fools who first investigated the USS Iowa accident.




You may want to look in the mirror before calling others "stupid"....


I believe the words I used were "charlatan", "idiot", "morons" and now "fools", not "stupid".



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I just don't understand how someone can be against people doing research. I am sure if your mother or wife was killed you would want people to do immense amounts of research. The motives don't add up.

I may believe that this was, in fact, a Terrorist attack, but I also believe that when Henry Kissinger was appointed the 911 commision chief, then stepped down because of accusations of "conflicting intrest" is the most intresting point the truth seekers have.

Whether I think the investigation was good or not. I still don't go around calling people foolish for doing further investigations, on anything.


edit - to change "stupid" to "foolish"

[edit on 26-4-2009 by sticky]



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Actually I wish he would find a court of law that would hear him, it would take an educated lawyer all of about thirty seconds to rip apart his conclusions.


Yes, because educated lawyers always are looking for the truth. Johnie Cochran and O.J. come to mind.



I believe the words I used were "charlatan", "idiot", "morons" and now "fools", not "stupid".


And that's mostly all you have to debate with.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Any part of your previous post.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Any serious architect will laugh hysterically at this joke.

So the 640 architects and engineers that are already signed up at his site are all not serious and just idiots? Once again, look in the mirror.

Also, keep an eye on that number. It's about to go up significantly after this conference. Then we'll all laugh hysterically at YOUR joke.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
it really doesnt matter I guess, because neither one was used that day.

And you know this how? Have you gotten samples of dust and had them examined? Please show us links to this research, thanks.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Any part of your previous post.



The correspondence that took place was via e-mail and telephone. If you would like to U2U me, I will tell you who I spoke with and how I know what took place. To do so on this forum will reveal too much of my identity.

The e-mails, I no longer have as they were with an old work e-mail address. (almost a year ago)

In regards to the AIA symbol, I ask that you write Mr. Gage and ask him. He failed to respond to several I had sent him. Could it have been a coincidence? Sure.


edit to add: again, go to his website. There is no mention of the convention last year that he was supposed to "infiltrate"

[edit on 26-4-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Okay, fine, an experienced forensic investigator will have no problems ripping apart his testimony...feel better now?

As for the other part, Im not the only that shares the belief that the good Dr IS a charlatan and those that believe every word that comes out of his mouth are fools. Now, if you want to discuss actual evidence, we could do that.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_


Also, keep an eye on that number. It's about to go up significantly after this conference. Then we'll all laugh hysterically at YOUR joke.


Are they all idiots? No. Some are misinformed. Some believe nukes played a roll in the collapses. Will there be more after the convention? I would have to say yes. They too, will fall under the idiot label or the misinformed.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I could take a vial of dust at any construction site that is using steel framing and it would show evidence of "thermite". Thats what you continue to refuse to understand. The chemical residues he declares are thermite...arent. They are the normal residues that you would expect to find.

Like I alluded to earlier, during the Iowa investigation, they found sodium chloride, steel wool, break free, and a couple other chemical residues and declared it was a bomb that destroyed the turret. The morons failed to understand that those were NORMAL residues to be found in a gun turret aboard a Navy ship. The "thermite" believers are using the same methodology. So, either the good Dr has either failed to properly investigate or he is willfully misleading the "truth" movement..you decide.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
The correspondence that took place was via e-mail and telephone.

Ah, so you made claims that you have no proof of. Got it.




Originally posted by CameronFox
Will there be more after the convention? I would have to say yes. They too, will fall under the idiot label or the misinformed.

So a very prominent architect or engineer would be a credible person one day, but if they look at and agree with the evidence AE911T presents, then they become instantly idiots?
Gotta love the logic of debunkers. But, that's how debunkers debunk. Just attack and call others names.

A prominent architect or engineer's degrees, education and background don't change just because they believe in 9/11 truth. Maybe you should start a quest to see where these hundreds of architects and engineers are being schooled to see what is going on with the education they're receiving to make them believe the way they do. Because it couldn't possibly be from great education and they can't possibly know what they're talking about from all their years of schooling and practicing.




Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I could take a vial of dust at any construction site that is using steel framing and it would show evidence of "thermite".

You go do that for us, take it to a lab and show us the results. Until then, you're just saying blah blah blah with no evidence to support your claim. If your test results show the same thing, then some of us will start to question Dr. Jones' work. Until then, you're just opinionating.





top topics
 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join