AE911truth deceptions in their talk the other night...

AE911truth did a presentation the other night in Melbourne, 17th November, 2009.

I went along. The lecture theatre looked like it could hold 250 people and it was mostly full, at least 200 people were there. Gage initially asked how many people believed the official government story. There were about three (brave) people put up their hands, they were in 'enemy' territory, so to speak. He asked for the number of unsure people, around twenty or so hands. He was preaching to the converted in terms of people who doubted the official story. Gage made a remark that it is not the audience he wants. He wanted a room full of people who were unsure or believed the official government story, so that his presentation would have more impact on them.

While I already had a fair idea about what Richard Gage was going to present, I knew that I could still learn something new.

To me, if an organisation is seeking the truth, then they should have no reason to use sleight-of-hand deceptions.

I was a little annoyed that Gage kept saying that WTC 7 fell at free fall rate, when this is not the case. WTC 7 was confirmed by NIST and other independent people, to have fallen for 2.25 seconds with a free fall rate. Gage did not speficially mention this or make it clear that only part of the collapse sequence was at free fall rate.

EDIT: In the pamphlet that was handed out, it is mentioned that free fall rate was over 100 feet. I guess that they were not avoiding that fact, but I never heard it clearly mentioned in the talk.

Take a look at this NIST webpage. I don't know how to imbed the video, so you will need to click on the NIST webpage yourself.

Gage was saying how steel framed buildings do not collapse in upon themselves. They tilt, lean over and fall, etc. He then showed the bottom-right video of WTC 7 collapsing (from the NIST page). The video shows the roof line crumpling in upon itself. Gage was chuckling as he said that we certainly did not see that happen to WTC 7. He was poking fun at NIST's poor model.

Why was I annoyed? Well, the bottom right video is the animation that NIST produced for no debris impact damage. Gage did not mention that in his talk.

Look at the top right video on the NIST page. That video was produced with the impact damage modelled in the collapse sequence. While there is some crumpling in the roof line, it is not as dramatic as the previous video.

There you have it. Two reasons why I was left scratching my head, wondering why Gage would be deceptive about WTC 7.

I don't care what conclusions you draw from this thread. I'm honestly reporting something that I saw, for the sake of being neutral. It proved to me, that both sides are willing to lie and decieve. The government has certainly used lies to obscure 9/11 truth. Ultimately, will it take more lies to uncover the truth?

[edit on 21-11-2009 by tezzajw]

reply to post by tezzajw


Tezzajw I don’t know what to say, your facts are correct, and I am really upset that A&E would lie like that. I wonder if Gage was a plant to begin with, to derail the truth.

I was a little annoyed that Gage kept saying that WTC 7 fell at free fall rate, when this is not the case. WTC 7 was confirmed by NIST and other independent people, to have fallen for 2.25 seconds with a free fall rate. Gage did not speficially mention this or make it clear that only part of the collapse sequence was at free fall rate.

Has anyone confronted Gage about his comments? Have you had a chance to write Gage to find out why he did not substantiate the NIST 2.25 seconds free fall rate? I would like to know what he would say.
I am really disappointed in Richard Gage, but let’s not disregard what other good Engineers and Architect have to say regarding A&E and the events of the WTC. I already see the debunkers are going to run with your post, in fact they are going to be so delighted that they have a new tool that they can throw in the Truthers face, against A&E.

S&F great post!



[edit on 21-11-2009 by impressme]

Originally posted by impressme
Has anyone confronted Gage about his comments? Have you had a chance to write Gage to find out why he did not substantiate the NIST 2.25 seconds free fall rate? I would like to know what he would say.

I stated in my EDIT that it was printed in the pamphlet they handed out that free fall was for 100 feet.

I did not hear Gage mention 2.25 seconds in his talk, so he can be forgiven if he didn't mention it, as it was printed for people to read. Gage had a lot of info on his power-point slides and the whole presentation was running over time. He needs to K.I.S.S. and cut down some of the clutter on his slides (in my opinion).

I found the NIST video more deceptive though... why show the modelled video of the undamaged WTC 7 collapse, when everyone knows that WTC 7 did suffer some debris damage.

The debunkers can do what they like. I was there, that's what I saw, so be it. Bear in mind that it is a couple of minor points and there was a lot of other information given out during the night.

Also, someone asked Gage about the upcoming 9/11 trials in New York. Gage mentioned words to the effect that they may try and help the defence team in some kind of capacity. However, he also stressed that all caution needs to be taken so they are not seen to be supporting terorists. He seemed a little unsure about how to respond to that question.

Someone else asked how the super-nano-therm*te was planted in WTC 1&2. He answered by saying that a real investigation may determine this. However, he stated how ACE Elevators had the contracts to both towers and that it would certainly be feasible to apply the explosives from the elevator shafts to access the core columns. Gage hinted that future research should put ACE Elevators under the spotlight. They supposedly worked from the 37th floor on one of the towers, yet it was vacated early on, something like that. (From my memory... I don't recall exactly what Gage spoke about that.)

reply to post by tezzajw


Let's not play semantics. WTC 7 fell near free-fall speed. It fell close enough to free-fall that it shouldn't matter that definitive free-fall speed was only 2.25 seconds. Even if the building fell for one second longer than free-fall, you're not going to notice with the naked eye the slight difference of free-fall or one second longer than free-fall. The only thing that matters about free-fall and near free-fall is the numbers on paper. Did it fall in free-fall for 6 seconds or 7.25 seconds? You will never notice that differentiation with your eyeballs. It's only noticeable on paper.

As far as the video goes, I wasn't there so I don't know what context it was used. I also don't know if he saved the video and used it or he actually went to that NIST website and used it during the presentation.

If I were you, I would email Gage and tell him your feelings and ask him why he used that video and see what his response is.

As a member and sustaining member of AE911T, I find your thread very offensive. To insinuate that Gage is purposely lying and purposely being deceptive is a very serious accusation towards the most prominent organization in the 9/11 truth movement. And even more-so since you haven't even tried to get a response from Gage about your thoughts first before making such accusations.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
As far as the video goes, I wasn't there so I don't know what context it was used. I also don't know if he saved the video and used it or he actually went to that NIST website and used it during the presentation.

The video appeared to be on his power point slide. He did not link to the NIST website.

Gage stated that a natural collapse of a steel framed skyscraper from asymmetrical damage should show buckling, tipping, leaning, falling, etc... It should not collapse how WTC 7 was observed to collapse on 9/11 - straight down.

Showing the NIST collapse video of the undamaged WTC 7, was reinforcing his point that the roof line will crumble, buckle, deform, etc, as that video shows. He did not show the video of the damaged WTC 7 collapse model, which shows far less roof line deformation.

I'm only typing what I saw. In fact, the only reason I am posting this thread now, instead of days earlier, is because it's raining outside. I was bored and decided to search the NIST page to look at the collapse video. I was surprised to see that NIST had the two collapse videos, one for the damaged WTC 7 and the other for an undamaged WTC 7. Gage only showed the video for the undamaged WTC 7, as it helps reinforce his point of a buckling, crumpling roof line, which was not observed.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
If I were you, I would email Gage and tell him your feelings and ask him why he used that video and see what his response is.

I've got no interest in doing that. I was there, I saw how he used that video.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
As a member and sustaining member of AE911T, I find your thread very offensive.

Yeah, I get that a lot about a lot of my posts and threads. Welcome to the club.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
To insinuate that Gage is purposely lying and purposely being deceptive is a very serious accusation towards the most prominent organization in the 9/11 truth movement. And even more-so since you haven't even tried to get a response from Gage about your thoughts first before making such accusations.

Point taken. Maybe Gage had a reason for linking the NIST video of an undamaged WTC 7, instead of linking to the video of the damaged WTC 7 collapse.

He certainly got a few 'oooohhs and aaaaaahhs' from the audience when the NIST video showed the severe deformity and buckling in the roof line, which was not observed that day in reality.

From my understanding, Gage was using that video to imply that the NIST model was wrong, as it did not show the observed behaviour of WTC 7 as it collapsed straight down, instead of with the buckling and roof line deformities that the video shows.

You're free to ask Gage why he linked to the undamaged NIST video, instead of the damaged NIST video.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
As a member and sustaining member of AE911T,

Just to touch on this again... if it makes you feel any better I put $10 in the donation box. The event was free of charge but I can appreciate that AE911truth do have costs and they provided a fairly comprehensive presentation.

Good luck to them and Gage. I hope they manage to bust the truth open.

Turbofan has a thread on the twins and their explosive collapse. Very detailed.
I asked a couple times if he had any video of externally seen squibs on building seven.
No one would answer. You have anything like squibs on seven. I know the building is way shorter and needed less demo work and being shorter would have way less visibility.
Just asking!

reply to post by tezzajw


Just for the record, Gage isn't the only one that works on his powerpoint presentation material. Other people also help with that facet as well. So we really have no idea who put that particular video in his presentation and why. That's why contacting him to bring this information to his attention and get a response would be the better thing to do before just all-out calling people liars and accusing them of being purposely deceptive when it might have just been a mistake or an accident or something that was overlooked.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Just for the record, Gage isn't the only one that works on his powerpoint presentation material. Other people also help with that facet as well. So we really have no idea who put that particular video in his presentation and why.

Point taken. However the fact remains that the undamaged NIST video was on the power point slide and Gage was commenting how NIST stopped the animation proceding any further after the model clearly shows severe buckling in the roof line, which was not observed in reality.

If Gage was not aware that this was the undamaged NIST animation video, then he's clearly not done his research too well. I used "NIST WTC 7 collapse animation" in Google and found the page within seconds.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
That's why contacting him to bring this information to his attention and get a response would be the better thing to do before just all-out calling people liars and accusing them of being purposely deceptive when it might have just been a mistake or an accident or something that was overlooked.

Point taken.

If it was a mistake, then it was unfortunate for them to make. If it wasn't a mistake, then I consider it a little deceptive to include the undamaged WTC 7 NIST animation, instead of the damaged animation video. From memory, the animation on Gage's powerpoint slide did not include the line "WTC 7 Collapse with No Debris Impact Damage – Physics Based Model Credit: NIST" underneath it, as it appears on the NIST webpage. I don't recall a link or reference to it either.

Here's your chance, as a supporting member of AE911truth to clarify this with them.

I'm only reporting what I saw. You can shoot the messenger if you like but it doesn't change the content of the message.

As I stated in my OP, it was a minor point that I am nit-picking. I didn't find any other obvious flaws in the rest of the presentation that stuck out as being BS or deliberately deceptive.

Originally posted by tezzajw
The lecture theatre looked like it could hold 250 people and it was mostly full, at least 200 people were there. Gage initially asked how many people believed the official government story. There were about three (brave) people put up their hands,

Nothing "brave" about them. I'd call them gullible, naive and lazy for relying on the MSM for (mis)information instead of doing their own research.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Nothing "brave" about them. I'd call them gullible, naive and lazy for relying on the MSM for (mis)information instead of doing their own research.

I can understand that view point. However, consider that the average person knows very little about 9/11. Most of the people the other night were already informed about 9/11 to some degree. It's a brave person to put up your hand giving support to the official government story, when you are completely surrounded and outnumbered by people who don't believe it. Peer pressure works, dude.

Similarly, if the audience and talk was pro official government story, it would be brave for a person to put up their hand, identifying themselves as being a dissenter.

People probably need some help to realise that everything being fed to them by governments and their propaganda agents, the MSM, is not necessarily true. I remember when I used to believe most of everything that I saw on the TV... a long time ago.

reply to post by tezzajw

I can't tell if you're sympathetic or antagonistic to the 9/11 truth movement. The complaints you have about Gage's presentation seem kinda petty and nitpicky (especially compared to the massive U.S. government lies), yet you claim to have donated to AE911truth.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Most of the people the other night were already informed about 9/11 to some degree.

It seems that people in other countries know more about 9/11 than most Americans. I honestly believe we're the most deceived and brainwashed people on the planet.


[edit on 21-11-2009 by GoldenFleece]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I can't tell if you're sympathetic or antagonistic to the 9/11 truth movement.

That's the problem with online communication. It always loses something in the translation.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
The complaints you have about Gage's presentation seem kinda petty and nitpicky (especially compared to the massive U.S. government lies),

Yes, they are petty and nitpicky. I stated that in an earlier post. I'm not denying that they are nitpicky. I'm allowed to express my opinion about the meeting that I attended, warts and all. Overall, it was a good presentation even though there were a couple of glossed over 'facts', if you will...

As I stated earlier, it kind of raises a minor moral dilemma. Is the end goal of seeking the truth, worth a few lies along the way?

The government has told lies to obscure the truth, so should it be ok for others to tell lies to try and expose the truth?

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
yet you claim to have donated to AE911truth.

It's not a claim, it's a fact. Of course, I can't prove it, so you'll have to take it as my opinion and leave it at that. I put a $10 note in the donation box, that was on the far left of the merchandise table (closest to the door) before the event, close to 6.55pm. You don't have to believe me and I am not expecting you to believe me, but it's what I did. I can appreciate the time and effort it takes to organise a presentation and I don't have a problem with paying $10 for a presentation lasting close to three hours. It was value for money.

reply to post by tezzajw

I've read some of your other posts. You're definitely one of the good guys. But I do think the title of your thread is misleading. There's a big difference between minor mistakes and "deception."

reply to post by GoldenFleece

I understand that.

Whether intentional or not, I feel that there was a deception in that presentation. I can understand if it was a mistake and I hope it was a mistake.

However, whether intentional or not, it does not change the fact that when discussing the NIST animation model for the WTC 7 collapse, Gage's powerpoint slide showed the undamaged animation, instead of showing the damaged animation.

The 'ooooohs and aaaaaaaahs' from the audience showed that the animation had the desired effect to convince people that NIST really stuffed up with their collapse model animation.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that. I don't see much point repeating myself over and over in this thread. I do that in other threads instead, where repetition is needed to expose them.

reply to post by tezzajw


Not the best thread title but thank you for the honest report of your attendance at the event tezza

I would love to go to an event like that. Not much happening down here at the bottom of the world. I am working on changing that though.

Hey bonez, what would be the best way to get hold of Gage? I will ask him about the model collapse vid if you are busy.

Keep up the good work guys, let the truth be known. Peace