Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Varemia
he is funneling non-profit profits into his own pocket.

The NPO laws state he can do that. What's the problem?

As I've stated in another thread: if you or anyone else has a problem with the way AE911T uses their finances, then you should make a formal complaint to the IRS.

Anything else on this particular subject is just wasting forum space and bandwidth.

It's not about whether he's legally able to. It's about whether he should morally be doing that with the finances which I understood were meant to help further a new investigation into 9/11. The fact that people are defending his choice to take money from people and use it for himself is proof of point. Humans will defend whoever is "on their side."

I say good luck to him, and I mean that genuinely. I used to think that this sort of stuff was pernicious, and even possibly dangerous in extreme cases. But now I just think it's an obscure internet thing. Why not take a few quid off the gullible? I might even do it myself if I had the time.

Originally posted by SavedOne

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Yes, I can't find snake oil salesman in your list.

Gage paid himself (in 2009) the typical salary of an architect.

Well I'm an architect too, and have been for longer than Gage.

You might or might not be. Why do all those "architects and strucural engineers" only challenge sceptics online. Regardless of how much money on either side of the debate is being made, what counts is the facts and numbers presented. If somebody were to point out, that in the caspian sea and Iraq are a combined 24 Trillion worth of natural resources to be controlled, I imagine a 911 denier would argue that a sceptic only feels the need to point that out, because he cant find anything in the facts at hand to support his point.

Well the shoe is on the other foot now. Sure he payed himself a salary for running A&Efor911 truth. Why the need to point that out? Got nothing to topple what he and other architects, politicians, intelligence people and former head of states have to say about 911? If Iraq and Afghanistan being of geopolitical interest to the US and indeed the west and China (doubt they would want to see the dollar crash) does not automatically mean that 911 was an inside job, then the same is true for Gage not being a charlatan, just because he pays himself a salary. The guy who stands to inherit is seldome the murder, except for crime novels. So far the deniers have presented a possible motive for Gage. A motive is not enough for a conviction. You need to flesh that out, show that what he says is fringe science a serious architect or engineer possibly couldnt take serious. Another piece of work comes to mind in relation to 911 that carries that lable.

Some on here say if you want to find the reasons for 911 you need to 'follow the money'.
Well if you follow the ae911 money trail you quickly see why he does what he does.

No conspiracy means no paycheck.

And it's not a small one at that. How many times the national average is it?

Originally posted by samkent
Some on here say if you want to find the reasons for 911 you need to 'follow the money'.

If you follow the money you are putting very small sums up against 24 trillions to be had between Iraq and Afghanistan. A possible motive is not enough. Except for crime novels, how many times do the persons who stand to inherit turn out to be the murderers?

The money argument is in addition to everything else. With Gage it seems to be all 911 deniers have.