posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:10 AM
Here's another post made in another thread pretty much confirming my belief that the A&E truth is a sham as well as sullivan.
"My problem with AE9/11T have many parts. For one thing, their list of "suspicious" activity and events on 9/11 seems as if it was all copy and
pasted from every other 9/11 truther site. Second, their very own list contradicts itself a couple times. Third, they use some very poor terminology
in their accusations. Fourth, their list is based on observations of things they have no credibility to comment on. (For example: Griffin, a
Let us look at their WTC7 list. I remember seeing on that list a while ago, that one "characteristic" of the collapse of the WTC7 was squibs. Now,
take a look. No mention of squibs. Why?
Second, that term, "pyroclastic dust clouds". Did a volcano erupt in Manhattan? You mean to tell me an "intelligent" group of "professionals"
would use such poor terminology to describe dust from a collapsing building? After all these years?? Sorry, more credibility down the toilet.
Third: First they say it was demolition charges exploding. They were allegedly heard right before the start of collapse. So that means, demo charges.
Or bombs. Then, they go and say a few lines down, "evidence of intergranular melting and oxidation of steel" as strong evidence of demolition using
incendiary devices. Wait, so we just jumped from explosives to incendiary devices? Incendiary devices are not explosives. Geeze even a lay person
should understand THAT basic fact. How did these "professionals" and "experts" miss that is beyond me. Even for the acclaimed demolition
"experts" on their site. Sorry, but that bird wont fly with me.
Fourth: They claim that: WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire such as slow onset with large visible deformations. That is
a flat out lie, and there was significant evidence of it ALL DAY. That was why firefighters were pulled from the building., that was why they put a
transit on it, that was why they saw a bulge appearing early in the afternoon, that was why the building was noticed to be leaning towards the south
before the collapse, that was why people heard creaking and groaning from inside the building, and that was why the firefighters KNEW it was going to
collapse early on. How the hell can such a bunch of "experts" and "professionals" MISS all of that evidence and LIE right to your face? And of
course, Joe Schmo who has no idea about the story of WTC7 looks at it, reads their claims and is automatically biased, and believes the false claims.
And we all know he doesnt know the rest of the story, because AE9/11T conveniently leaves out the reports and accounts of the firefighters that
specifically mention the deteriorating condition of WTC7. Is that honest? No. And they pulled the same crap with the WTC1+2 part and lied the same way
about no "obvious slow onset of collapse or deformation". Did they forget the reports from police pilots who saw the towers leaning in one
direction, or the exterior columns bending inwards, or hanging floor slabs and trusses that failed well prior to collapse? Again, these are left off
the site. Honest? NOPE.
I'll keep going down the list if you dont mind.
The claim samples of explosives found in the dust. Where? What? I've never heard this nonsense. Oh are they referring to those paint chips that
somehow have contradicting properties of being explosive, melting, silent, loud powerful, and painted on? I wish to see this report of explosives
found in dust. FYI: thermite is not an explosive. You'd think a demo "expert" would know that.
They mention some European demo "expert" as confirming demolition evidence. But strange, they didnt go to Explosion World or use their expertise or
knowledge. Why is that? Explosion World is a respectable demolition company, why arent they included or mentioned?
Then they use an appeal to authority. They think that if you have the title: pilot, doctor, or engineer, that somehow validates their claims. Sorry,
but that aint going to work on me. No matter how hard you try, you cannot convince me that a person with a doctorate in THEOLOGY is a credible source
on ANYTHING involving with demolition, highrise construction or highrise engineering. And for another "professional" using boxes as comparison to
the WTC Towers (ahem Richard "Boxboy" Gage") really seals the deal.
In the end, this is just a motley rabble of loosely related fields with varying levels of education but not the least bit as relevant to the
complexity of the WTC events. Once again, a theologian is not a credible source for anything mechanical, engineering, or demolition.
But he did start a heck of a new religion though! Gotta give him credit for that!"