Major coup for AE911Truth – American Institute of Architects green lights Building 7 vote

By Craig McKeeAIA Atlanta
Sometimes it really pays to be persistent.
That’s what Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth found out this week when the organization achieved something truly remarkable. It succeeded in getting a commitment from the largest association of architects in the U.S. to debate and vote on a resolution supporting an investigation into the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.
The vote will take place at the annual convention of the American Institute of Architects, May 14-16, in Atlanta, GA. (If you’re not sure how much of a big deal this convention is, the keynote speaker is former president Bill Clinton.)
After several failed attempts to get the AIA to even consider looking into Building 7, AE tried a different approach in early 2015. Instead of simply appealing to the AIA leadership, they used the organization’s own rules to create a resolution that, pending approval by the AIA resolution committee, would come to the floor of the convention where it would be debated and voted on by delegates.
That approval came this week. The committee made only minor changes to the resolution so that it conformed to AIA style. The substance remained unchanged.
“We’re ecstatic about this,” says AE911Truth founder Richard Gage, who will be attending the convention with a team from the organization.
For any resolution to be considered by convention delegates, it must be sponsored by the AIA’s board of directors or strategic council; a regional, state or local AIA chapter; or 50 AIA members. In this case, the sponsor was AE911Truth board member Dan Barnum, who holds the prestigious title of Fellow of the American Institute of Architects. Another 54 AIA members are listed as co-sponsors – all of whom are signatories of the AE911Truth petition.
Here is the text of the resolution that was just approved by the AIA resolution committee:
WHEREAS, under the AIA Public Policies and Position Statements, it is the responsibility of architects to design a resilient environment that can more successfully adapt to natural conditions and that can more readily absorb and recover from adverse events; and
WHEREAS, architects and others involved in the design and construction of buildings depend upon the information obtained from investigations into building failures to inform the development of model building codes; and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise building, suffered a complete collapse; and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2008, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released the final report of its three-year investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center, which concluded that fires, an unprecedented cause of failure for a modern high-rise building, were the primary cause of failure; and
WHEREAS, the cause of failure identified by the NIST investigation would mean that hundreds of high-rise buildings in the United States are susceptible to similar failure from fire; and
WHEREAS, thousands of members of the architecture and engineering professions, including the 55 sponsors of this resolution, believe the NIST investigation did not adhere to the principles of the scientific method and, as a result, the conclusions of the NIST investigation are fatally flawed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the AIA Board of Directors shall adopt a Position Statement, to be published in the AIA Directory of Public Policies and Position Statements, stating:

  • The AIA’s belief that incidents involving the catastrophic failure of buildings and other structures must be investigated using the highest standards of science-based investigation and analysis in order to provide accurate and meaningful information in the development of model building codes;
  • The AIA’s recognition that many members of the architecture profession believe the NIST investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, did not adhere to the principles of the scientific method and, as a result, the conclusions of the NIST investigation are fatally flawed;
  • The AIA’s belief that this perspective merits further study; and
  • The AIA’s support for a new investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is advised that this Position Statement be incorporated as Position Statement #3 under the Construction Industry Regulation Public Policy. The recommended language of this Position Statement is as follows:

  1. World Trade Center 7

The AIA believes that incidents involving the catastrophic failure of buildings and other structures must be investigated using the highest standards of science-based investigation and analysis in order to provide accurate and meaningful information in the development of model building codes. In adherence to the scientific method, investigations should:

  • Consider all available data;
  • Consider hypotheses that most readily explain the available data;
  • Test those hypotheses and analyze the results without bias; and
  • Provide for external review and replication by making all data available.

The AIA recognizes that many members of the architecture profession believe the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, did not adhere to these principles and, as a result, the conclusions of the NIST investigation are fatally flawed. The AIA believes this perspective merits further study and supports a new investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center.
AE911Truth approached the AIA in both 2013 and 2014 about supporting a new investigation but was turned down with the AIA claiming that this goes beyond their purview. Shortly before the 2014 convention, that position appeared to soften somewhat as then AIA president Helene Combs Dreiling formed a committee to examine the evidence provided by AE911Truth. (Interestingly, Combs Dreiling has just now succeeded AE911Truth petition signatory John Braymer as CEO of the Virginia Society of the American Institute of Architects.)
AE got the news in January that the AIA had rejected their request because it fully supports the official story that office fires alone were sufficient to account for Building 7’s destruction.
Now it will be up to AIA delegates to debate this carefully crafted and scientifically sound resolution – which puts the focus on the integrity of buildings and not on conspiracies. While it will still be an uphill battle, just bringing it to the floor to be deliberated on by this major professional association is a significant accomplishment.
If the AIA delegates have the courage to vote for this resolution, then the 9/11 Truth Movement will have made a mainstream breakthrough that could seriously change things.
A long shot? Perhaps. But watching this play out is going to be very interesting.


  1. I’m not sure how they couldn’t know already, about 7’s collapse. Anyone can see that is was controlled by the way each columns in the building had given way at the exact same time, all the way down.

      1. Because the vast majority of people are not logically or rationally minded. They are not trained in science. The abhor science and find it boring and uninteresting. That’s the reason. About the JFK assassination, of which “science” has not been the issues, the late Michael Ruppert commented, paraphrasing, “you’ll never convince a jury or even the general public of anything via overwhelming scientific evidence because after a while their eyes glaze over and they stop paying attention. What you have to do is plant enough seeds of doubt to make them distrust the story.”

    1. I’m trying to get a copy of the revised Codes and Standards that were changed as a result of 9/11. Can someone help me? I have the ones from Kansas City and the changes as a result of the Bejing fire, but somehow I misplaced the changes made from 9/11. Thanks!

  2. fkn Y A Y ! Whatever way around you want, this is a crack in the door ! If Richard doesn’t get ambushed – which will be in play now., if AE get to produce/present the argument properly, this is a fundamental shift in time and space and needs be protected all the way.

  3. Calling this a long shot is very wise. As 9/11 Truth has matured, activists have learnt to not hold their breath. But it is another step forward. If anything, it makes 9/11-cognizant people aware of the painful fact that the technical community has abdicated its responsibilities over 9/11. The AIA is only one instance of the worldwide failure of professional and academic engineering institutions to squarely denounce the World Trade Center’s self-evident controlled demolitions.
    Another very important side-teaching of this long shot is the realization that the necessarily brilliant engineers who directed the controlled demolitions received assurances, early in the 9/11 project, that the AIA and its foreign counterparts would try hard to not inform their members of the subterfuge. This suggests that the 9/11 conspiracy encompasses much more than the false flag and its cover-up with Osama bin Laden’s aerial show and fraudulent official reports. But this is another story.

    1. It’s not active deception or directed in any way. Most architects and engineers won’t begin to entertain any contrary, “out there beliefs.” It’s self regulating. The bigger the scam, the easier to conceal.

      1. I don’t want to start an argument with you, but there appears to be an active deception on the part of the mainstream technical community. Leaders of civil engineering associations and faculties, all around the world, necessarily looked at the video record of the Twin Towers’ destruction. The idea that they were too dumb to not understand that it exhibited major macroscopic characteristics that could not be straightforwardly connected to Osama bin Laden’s airplanes and worthy of some technical investigation is very difficult to defend.
        Of course a very good member and chapter officer of the American Society of Civil Engineers can be forgiven for believing the 9/11 myth. (S)he blindly trusts, in good faith, that the ASCE must have duly and properly informed her/him of the Twin Towers’ destruction mechanism. (S)he will be astonished when told about Building 7.
        9/11 was unconceivable without a prior commitment by the ASCE and its foreign counterparts to censor the televised controlled demolition of the Twin Towers. Ditto for controlled demolition corporations and faculties of civil engineering, worldwide.

        1. Can we blame them, really, when the likes of Danny Jowenko, the Danish controlled demolition expert, keep dying in questionable circumstances? That’s how the JFK assassination witnesses and experts were contained, and that is how 9/11 narrative is being protected.
          You don’t really need to kill everyone that speaks out. Just a few will do the job as long as all of the others are made “aware” of the risks of speaking out. I am not sure how many of us here would be willing to sacrifice their own and their loved ones’ lives to fight for truth.

  4. This is splendid news!
    Of course I like others am dubious that there may not be political interests that sabotage the honest analysis of scientific matters.
    It wouldn’t be a long shot but for the strong political factions that have attempted all these years to keep the issue under covers. It will be interesting to see what sorts of counter arguments might be brought by those hoping to maintain the status quo.

  5. What is AIA’s voting process – in particular, who is getting to vote when, and how?
    Are there delegates, or are all members called to vote?
    Are only attendees voting that day, or is there some mail-in process, also? If the latter, will it take place before or after the Convention and debate?

  6. Similarly to AIA, economists have an annual meeting of comparable size, the past January’s meeting being in Boston. Getting passed a motion like this one is extremely difficult. Supporters have to know all the parliamentary tricks of opponents before and at the meeting. Even more important is the mass inertia of the members who arrive with “we shouldn’t get involved”, “NIST did its report”, “conspiracy theory”, etc.
    One of the most important factors is access to members well BEFORE the meeting. If that is not possible, I cannot imagine changing many minds about NIST on the spot.
    If I were leading the opposition, I might call to “table indefinitely” this motion, which means kill it. Surely, the AIA agenda has many speeches and items with limited time. Or, outright defeat it, to try to end such resolutions for the future and simply declare victory.
    Frankly, if I had drafted a motion for that economists’ meeting on insider trading before 9-11, I would have been somewhat more “neutral” in language if I wanted to have a chance of such a resolution passing. The risk here is a defeat so resounding as to become a weapon against us. For example, I would have assumed that everyone is scientific – the result of a second investigation, if done properly, would draw the appropriate conclusion. In other words, the phrasing suggests prejudgement.
    For the previous blog on alleged hijackers but at the end of comments, I posted Zelikow’s reaction to being asked about the lack of evidence in the 9/11 Commission’s Report. That was the first several minutes. The second part of the seven-minute video provides his reaction to a query about the lack of even discussion of WTC 7 in the Report — see .

    1. That’s the way I feel about all these initiatives aimed at breaking through. It’s not all or nothing. Just because the odds may be against something like this succeeding, it is still worth doing. Raising awareness and being heard is never a bad thing.

    2. @Barrie Zwicker
      Alternatively when people are presented with false and misleading information from the start, and are told it’s ‘the Truth’…
      e.g. quote from ‘The Great Deception”
      “In other words , around 8.46 at the very latest , the Secret Service and George Bush would have known of all four hijacked airliners and that one had hit the World Trade Centre.”

    1. Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger
      Journal Article, Foreign Affairs, volume 77, issue 6, pages 80-94
      November / December 1998
      Authors: Ashton B. Carter, Former Co-Director, Preventive Defense Project, Harvard & Stanford Universities, John M. Deutch, International Council Member, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Philip D. Zelikow, Former Associate Professor of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School; Former Faculty Affiliate, International Security Program

  7. Besides the desired outcome of this vote, it’d be very interesting to be able to observe not just the presentations made on the podium, but also the words and reactions of the square-pants architects and engineers, who generally have huge vested interest in not rocking the boat, since, just like most industries, they are heavily dependent on big money corporations, banks and multinationals. And I suppose we already know where those stand, and how hard they will try to avoid a definitive outcome to say the least.
    Does anyone know if AIA conventions provide webcasts of their meetings? I would so love to be able observe the whole thing through a c-span style feed…

  8. LOL, conspiracy theorists, AE911T, spread lies about 911. A few people who can’t figure out 911 after 13 years want people to vote for a new investigation for a collapse caused by fire. I will contact AIA, and expose a fringe few nuts are trying to claim a coup, celebrating ignorance (aka 13 years of BS lies, CD, explosives, inside job). Who planted the explosives in your fantasy CD? Where do you get the silent explosives.

    1. Wow! This page is honored by an expert in controlled demolitions and office fires, coming with a PhD from the University of Neanderthal.
      The University of Neanderthal is known for putting the cart before the horse. Before you go any further, I challenge you to start closer to the beginning and deny any resemblance between the video records of Building 7’s destruction and of a controlled demolition.
      If you can’t go through this elementary exercise, the fundamental 9/11 concepts you just lucubrated about are beyond your intellectual abilities.

    2. I have a better question: how do a few isolated fires cause a steel-framed building to collapse symmetrically into its own footprint in 6.5 seconds? That’s the story you believe, so defend it. Or would you prefer to stick to generalities?

    3. “Where do you get the silent explosives.”~eyesuntzu
      Where do you dig up myths that the demolition of #7 was “silent”?
      I know from whence this bullshit derives. I just want to read you repeating it.

      1. “I know from whence this bullshit derives. I just want to read you repeating it.”
        I like that, I’ll have to use it to shut someone up sometime. 🙂

        1. Yea, of course it came from NIST’s Shyam Sunder, who totally misstated the facts about decibels and loudness distances.
          I have gone through that in detail on my blog on The Demise of WTC.

    4. The explosives were not silent
      There were many witnesses who were filmed later who heard the successive explosions as the towers were collapsing
      Are you for real

  9. The problem here is that the twin towers will still be stonewalled. It MUST be pointed out that the remains of the much smaller building being re-investigated left a “mountain” of debis compared to those towers, which left almost nothing. They were not all brought down the same way. Particle beams on the towers.

    1. From ‘eyesuntzu’ to ‘Tony B.’ we now have the two extremes of woowoo on 9/11.
      Both escapees from the Funny Farm…

      1. Having listened to Rebekah Roth I wonder what she would have done in a hijacking situation. Sat in a seat taken off her badge and covered her head with a blanket? Or alternatively taken charge? If people were stabbed she wouldn’t try to help them? If her colleagues were stabbed she wouldn’t try to help them? She wouldn’t try to contact the cockpit? She wouldn’t try to contact the airline to tell them what was going on?-because she might be on hold for 20 minutes (note, Betty Ong was not on hold for 20 minutes). Not inform people on the ground which passenger they thought was responsible for the hijacking? Basically she would have responded to this emergency situation by doing nothing, while her colleagues dealt with the hijackers by having their throats cut.

    1. I have listened to several of her interviews. Only one I heard had a discussion that included questioning of content, namely, if high-speed water can cut steel, could not a high-speed jet (going 300 or more mph) do the same going into the towers. She didn’t seem to truly get the point of that alternative explanation – an explanation that a high-speed impact engineer once confirmed to me – but rather kept talking past it. (Be reminded what can happen in a tornado.)
      In any case, these interviews expose how she arrived at her conclusions, starting from learning that many of the alleged hijackers were alive after September 11th. Sometimes her conclusions directly oppose statements of others. Here is what I gleaned from the ones I listened to:
      a) The AA and UA flights on 9-11 did take off. BTS data should not be relied upon for full accuracy in this respect (thus, opposing those who do rely upon them). However, their paths were nothing like portrayed, a result of sophisticated interference with blips on radar renderings on controller screens.
      b) “Middle Eastern” hijackers were not on the planes, but handlers were.
      c) All planes were taken over by software that shut all communications from the planes, including transponders, and then controlled the planes to their destinations, in fact, a single destination, as it turns out.
      d) Cell phones in 2001 did not work above 1800 feet and the conversations from flight attendants actually took place from the ground, and, as she figured out, from a single location.
      e) These conversations were not morphed (D.R. Griffin’s claim) but real, but they were not what any flight attendant would say in a real situation. Rather, the handlers on the planes told all attendants and passengers that they were in an exercise.
      f) Judging by timings of phone calls and related factors, she figured out that all calls were made from Westover Air Force Reserve Base in Massachusetts, her novel offering the reader a template how to figure this out for themselves.
      g) Passengers not needed for the drama were killed, while the attendants were asked for specific participation in this “drill”, then killed. Against all protocol none of attendants identified themselves with their personal numbers, all were too calm, and many claimed things impossible to accept if the situations were real.
      I have not read her novel. She says she used the novel format to make it easier to be digested by persons new to September 11th.
      The interview that seems to me to be the most comprehensive of her position is at dated on February 7 and offers, at the end, her perspective of what is coming down. This interview earlier claims that put options purchased before September 11th were not exercised, a claim I could show is not correct but would not impact her other conclusions.
      I have attempted to provide an accurate statement of the keys to her research.

      1. Paul,
        I want to agree with you on the points made about Rebecca Roth. I think her contribution as to the realities of being a stewardess, and all the related matters flowing from that expertise are valid, and should be taken seriously.
        When she strays off to statements concerning physics, such as the repetition of a Fetzerism,
        “The planes went into the buildings like a hot knife through butter” — that is when she started to loose me. Where do we go from that statement? To ‘video fakery’?, ‘holograms’? or whatever totally nonsensical conjecture…
        Like many who jump into deep end of the 9/11 subject, she rushes in where wise-men are careful not to go.
        So I don’t write Roth off completely, but do caution to take much of what she says beyond her own expertise with a grain of salt.

        1. Agreed on all counts. My excitement is about the revelations she made as a stewardess and the implications of those.

  10. The relevance of this comment is within this speech by Kennedy himself, wherein he succinctly describe the world today that is the result of US belligerence. One of those results is “radical Islam” which Kennedy predicts will be the result of the US refusing to support nationalist leaders such as Nasser, Patrice Lamumba, and Ho Chi Minh – who were each forced into the arms of Moscow as protection against the US; as indeed Castro was in Cuba.
    Imperialism – The Enemy of Freedom
    July 2, 1957
    Mr. KENNEDY: “Mr. President, the most powerful single force in the world today is neither communism nor capitalism, neither the H-bomb nor the guided missile it is man’s eternal desire to be free and independent. The great enemy of that tremendous force of freedom is called, for want of a more precise term, imperialism – and today that means Soviet imperialism and, whether we like it or not, and though they are not to be equated, Western imperialism.
    Thus the single most important test of American foreign policy today is how we meet the challenge of imperialism, what we do to further man’s desire to be free. On this test more than any other, this Nation shall be critically judged by the uncommitted millions in Asia and Africa, and anxiously watched by the still hopeful lovers of freedom behind the Iron Curtain. If we fail to meet the challenge of either Soviet or Western imperialism, then no amount of foreign aid, no aggrandizement of armaments, no new pacts or doctrines or high-level conferences can prevent further setbacks to our course and to our security.
    I am concerned today that we are failing to meet the challenge of imperialism – on both counts – and thus failing in our responsibilities to the free world. I propose, therefore, as the Senate and the Nation prepare to commemorate the 181st anniversary of man’s noblest expression against political repression, to begin a two-part series of speeches, examining America’s role in the continuing struggles for independence that strain today against the forces of imperialism within both the Soviet and Western worlds. My intention is to talk not of general principles, but of specific cases – to propose not partisan criticisms but what I hope will be constructive solutions.
    There are many cases of the clash between independence and imperialism in the Soviet world that demand our attention. One, above all the rest, is critically outstanding today – Poland.
    The Secretary of State, in his morning news conference, speaking on this subject, suggested that, if people want to do something about the examples of colonialism, they should consider such examples as Soviet-ruled Lithuania and the satellite countries of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and others.
    I agree with him. For that reason, within 2 weeks I hope to speak upon an issue which I think stands above all the others; namely, the country of Poland.
    There are many cases of the clash between independence and imperialism in the Western World that demand our attention. But again, one, above all the rest, is critically outstanding today – Algeria.
    I shall speak this afternoon of our failures and of our future in Algeria and north Africa – and I shall speak of Poland in a later address to this body.”
    You won’t understand who Kennedy was if you don’t read this speech.
    If this isn’t put in perspective, we cannot understand Kennedy and his views on imperialism – he opposed it, and grasped that it was not only the USSR, but Western Imperialism.
    One more quote from that visionary 1957 speech:
    “If we are to secure the friendship of the Arab, the African, and the Asian – and we must, despite what Mr. Dulles says about our not being in a popularity contest – we cannot hope to accomplish it solely by means of billion-dollar foreign aid programs. We cannot win their hearts by making them dependent upon our handouts. Nor can we keep them free by selling them free enterprise, by describing the perils of communism or the prosperity of the United States, or limiting our dealings to military pacts. No, the strength of our appeal to these key populations – and it is rightfully our appeal, and not that of the Communists – lies in our traditional and deeply felt philosophy of freedom and independence for all peoples everywhere.
    Perhaps it is already too late for the United States to save the West from total catastrophe in Algeria. Perhaps it is too late to abandon our negative policies on these issues, to repudiate the decades of anti-Western suspicion, to press firmly but boldly for a new generation of friendship among equal and independent states. But we dare not fail to make the effort.
    Men’s hearts wait upon us–”

  11. In my opinion the truth movement in general and AE911TRUTH in particular are taking the absolute wrong approach in their attempts to get justice and truth for 9/11. This effort to get the AIA board to vote on this resolution is just the latest of many examples of the wrong approach in action.
    So what will happen with this vote? Let’s evaluate it. If the resolution were passed, which it definitely will not be, what does it mean for our goal of justice for 9/11? It would mean that even more architects are saying “hey there is a problem with the way building 7 came down”. It would mean those architects and probably the entire AIA organization would be attacked and ridiculed as crack pots and every attempt in the world would be made to silence them, discredit them, or even eliminate them. OK but so what if they did pass the resolution? We already have architects and engineers, a lot of them, saying it was blown up with explosives, which it was, but them saying this has not led to justice has it? No it hasn’t led to justice. So why hasn’t it let to justice? This is the crux of the issue, why haven’t the truth movements efforts over 14+ years led to justice? BECAUSE WE HAVE TAKEN THE WRONG APPROACH!
    This resolution is the best possible example of the wrong approach. Essentially this resolution is saying hey we need these “official guys” at AIA to support our movement because only when these “official guys” say there is a problem with building 7 will the rest of the world listen. FALSE!!! Totally false premise and totally counterproductive. Why you might ask? Well the answer is simple and right in your face. The reason the “official guys” will not approve this resolution and the reason it would not matter if they did is because it was the “official guys” that did the crime in the first damn place! Isn’t that obvious to everyone at this point that the entire establishment is in on the crime up to it’s eyeballs? Isn’t it obvious that the AIA board full of “official guys” intentionally ignored their responsibility to expose the obvious controlled demolition of the WTC buildings? Haven’t they already shirked their responsibility for 14+ years now? Just like the MSM shirked their responsibility to tell the truth for 14+ years. Just like the entire government of the United States has treasonously shirked their responsibility to investigate and tell the truth about 9/11 for 14+ years? When is the truth movement going to “get it” that the “official guys” are the problem not the solution?
    Going to the “official guys” like the AIA board with our hats in our hands and saying “hey will you guys support us in exposing the fact that you all totally shirked your responsibility, as architects and as human beings, to expose the truth about the WTC demolitions?” “Please guys will you support us and show the world what establishment shills and pigs you really are?” “Pretty please with sugar on top.” My God man it really makes me sick. When in the hell is the truth movement going to “get it”? The media isn’t going to investigate or report the truth! The AIA isn’t going to admit that they knew all along that the WTC was blown up. The government isn’t going to even survive if it admits any part of it’s roll in perpetrating 9/11 so they sure as hell will NEVER help us. In fact all the groups I just mentioned have a vested interest in preventing the truth of their complicity and negligence from coming out!
    We are NEVER going to make any real progress until we face the truth about what it really is we are up against here. We are up against the entire establishment including the AIA board. They will fight against us tooth and nail because their very survival depends on it. Have any of you in the truth movement ever really considered what would have to happen for 9/11 justice to even occur? The entire government of the United States would have to be removed from office and replaced somehow without the country collapsing into anarchy. Many officials would have to be prosecuted for treason up to and including the president(s) that have presided over the cover-up and crime itself. The entire banking system would have to be dismantled and a new system would have to be put in place and many banking elites would have to be prosecuted. The entire MSM would have to be dissolved and many of it’s controllers prosecuted. The whole legal system would have to be radically changed and most of it’s top judges and AG’s would have to be prosecuted for misprision of treason. In short people the whole damn thing has to come crashing down before we will see justice for 9/11.
    In other words we have to have a full blown revolution to get justice for 9/11. Just get that straight in your mind and think about that and then ask yourself if we as a movement are pursuing the right strategy with efforts like this one. Hell ask yourself if you even want justice for 9/11 considering the monumental consequences of actually getting it.
    My strategy is simple but Jim Garrison said it for me a long time ago. “Let justice be done though the heavens fall!”

    1. We are hacking at the small branches instead of taking an axe to the trunk and that is why we have failed for 14+ years.

    2. @ruffadam A big thank you to Barrie Zwicker, David Ray Griffin, Dave Von Kleist, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, Dylan Avery, Kevin Barrett, Richard Gage, Keith Dewdney, Fran Shure, Jesse Ventura, Barbara Honegger, Rebekah Roth, Alex Jones, and any others I’ve forgotten to mention. Good job.

      1. You know something A.Wright even though the truth movement has not achieved justice for 9/11 yet and even though it may be going about the whole thing the wrong way you are forgetting one thing in all of your smug arrogance. Do you know what that one thing is that you forgot and all the perpetrators also forgot? It is a very simple thing you forgot but oh how you are going to wish that you didn’t overlook this one little thing A.Wright. Here it is although right now today you will probably try to just laugh it off thinking you and the perps are invincible, tomorrow though, a year from now though, five years from now though, I suspect you will not be laughing.
        You forgot that lies never last but the truth lasts forever.
        So live it up now A.Wright because your time is running out. No matter how inept and ineffective the truth movement may be it will eventually succeed. No power in the universe, no lies you can tell, no dirty tricks can prevent this truth revolution from unfolding nor can any of those things mitigate the awesome and terrible consequences of the revolution. All the minions like you toiling away trying to stop this are doomed to fail and doomed to eventually answer for being the traitors to humanity that you are. You will fail to stop the truth because it lasts forever and it cannot be stopped. Day by day inch by inch it is inevitable.

    3. “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
      ~John F. Kennedy

    4. Adam, I agree that total justice would indeed require the heavens to fall. But there is also value in making incremental progress.
      DRG wrote a book called “The New Pearl Harbor,” and I guess you could say it was failure as it hasn’t brought anyone to justice either. But I read that book and I have, hopefully, been the instrument for many people learning the truth about 9/11, the Boston bombing, the anthrax attacks, the faked plane crash at the Pentagon, and other media lies.
      We must be satisfied with slow, steady growth. Each additional person who has the scales fall from their eyes is a victory for our side.
      So I applaud anything that puts 9/11 truth in the public eye, and keeps making the point that many people do not accept the official story. I hope, at the very least, that all the AIA boot-lickers will feel queasy self-loathing when they pretend that Richard is talking nonsense.

      1. Sheila,
        I have to respectfully disagree with: “We must be satisfied with slow, steady growth.”
        In fact I think that is the exact problem with the truth movement as a whole, it appears to be satisfied with slow steady growth.
        You do however make a very valid indirect point about the benefit of the early work on 9/11. I think you are absolutely right, those early books and videos were very necessary to get us as far as we have gotten. Without those books and articles and videos way back when the movement might have just disappeared altogether or been considerably smaller and weaker today. So my criticism is not of those early works at all. In fact I consider them vital and monumentally important.
        My criticism has to do with the way “the movement” is going about things now 14 years later. We are still proceeding under this false assumption that we need “officials” to validate our findings. WE DON’T!!! The “officials” are the enemy of the truth movement and I consider that to be quite obvious at this point in time. So calls for an “official” investigation ring hollow to me because I say to myself:
        “why do I give a shit what those lying cowardly bastards have to say? They are the ones preventing justice for 9/11. They are the ones benefiting from the crime. They belong in a deep dark prison.”
        The last thing in the world we should be doing is turning to them as some kind of authority or advocates for truth and justice. They are the opposite of that and God dammit it is time we grow up and admit it. Sorry to be so blunt here but fuck what the AIA board says or doesn’t say, if they had any merit or honor whatsoever they would have said loud and clear a long time ago that the WTC was blown up with explosives. Any human being with a functional brain who has looked into 9/11 knows the buildings were blown up so who cares what these cowards say?
        We 9/11 truthers needed to be shaken out of our complacency a long time ago. We needed to start taking effective mass actions a long time ago. We needed to throw our bodies onto the gears of this machine a long time ago. We needed to do what Gandhi did and stop these maniacs in their tracks. Now millions are dead and countries are destroyed because of the 9/11 wars, our beloved Constitution has been shredded, our country has been hijacked by the very fascist regime that pulled off 9/11. Now it is going to be a fight to the death just to survive the path we are set upon by these crazy bastards. They are literally trying to start WW3 right now regardless of the prospect of nuclear annihilation.
        All the while we are still doing these pathetic non actions that will lead exactly nowhere even if they are successful. We as a movement obviously do not understand where we are. We clearly do not realize that the bad guys who did 9/11 are in charge now and they are actively engaged in destroying us while we are going to them with our hats in our hands saying “please investigate and prosecute yourselves for 9/11, pretty please”. They are ready to walk us out back and put a bullet in our heads or take us to the already built concentration camps. It is pathetic.
        So what should we do? Motivate people to make justice happen! REALLY MOTIVATE PEOPLE! Lead people on a path that can achieve something! REALLY LEAD THEM! Activate the human spirit with real commitment and action. REALLY ACTIVATE THEM! In short we need to do the exact opposite of what we have been doing for the past 7 or 8 years now.
        Here is what motivates me so maybe it will mean something to the rest of you, I don’t really know.
        So is it time to shut down Washington DC with a sea of humanity so large that no car, train, bus, or truck can move? Is it time for all of us to refuse to pay taxes? Is it time to stop cooperating with the system in any way? You tell me. Shall we wait too long like most people throughout history have? Wait until it is too late?

        1. If I may, and w/ due respect, what the Truth Movement really needs more than anything is consensus on the counter-narrative to the official story. There are so many crazy off-shoots to the movement — holograms, “NO PLANES!!!”, Flight 93 deplaned in Cincinnati, etc. — that people outside the movement have a really hard time understanding what the movement claims happened that day, what they want, and who they want it from. In a way, it’s the same problem that sunk the Occupy movement: they had lots of valid concerns and many of their desired answers/action from the gov’t would have been shared my a majority of Americans (imo, you may disagree), but the vast majority of Americans who would have found the objectives agreeable were put off by the seeming lack of defined goals and leadership, and the very same media problem that Truth has: the media likes to stick a mic in the face of the guy who looks like he just rolled out of bed and can’t articulate the claims / goals of the movement in a way that’s A) representative of the movement as a whole and B) compelling to potential sympathizers.
          Here’s where I’m coming from: I’m a journalist, most of my friends are journalists (tho not current or aspiring beltway journo-types — btw, what people don’t understand about why the media is so orthodox/doctrinaire/protective of the status quo is that the journey to the “top” of journalism in this country — to writing about politics for a major market daily or working in TV news — is one that’s self-selecting for people with no principles they aren’t willing to chuck out the window as soon as it’s convenient or necessary or requested by bosses. By the time you get a WH press pass, you know that follow-up questions are frowned upon and won’t help you get access in the future, or get invited to the right parties… I could go on and on, but the point is that there’s no media conspiracy in the the way that word is generally understood — that the heads of the networks/cable news/NYT&WAPO meet to discuss how they’re going to sell out the people and subvert democracy. The reality isn’t quite as sexy, but it’s actually far more dangerous and resistant to reforms: it’s just individuals pursuing their own self-interest, who are willing to chuck their ideals / principles in favor of advancement / being part of the club / tickets to the correspondent’s dinner ), and I am perfectly willing to accept the possibility that our government would kill its own people to achieve its ends. (It shouldn’t even be a controversial statement, when you think about it.) In 2004, when I was in my 20s, I watched Loose Change and got interested in learning more. Over the next few years, I researched everything I could get my hands on, and I think I really wanted to believe that 9/11 was an inside job… but I ultimately concluded (and re-confirmed about once every couple years) that by/large 9/11 unfolded as the history books say it did. I also think the Bush administration and all the intelligence agencies covered up lots of things for their own convenience, and to disguise their incompetence.
          I still can’t understand why the gov’t won’t release the confiscated videos (80-something of them , I believe?) of the plane (or whatever..) hitting the Pentagon; if i was a Truth leader, I’d make that one of the top few objectives, because it’s so uncontroversial, and it would actually answer tons of questions. If you made that one of your top 3 immediate goals, and included it in all your talking points, every time a truther spoke w the media, then the gov’t’s constant refusal to release them would appear highly suspicious and lend common-sense credence to the reasonableness of the truth movement. IE, instead of saying “no plane hit the pentagon,” say “we’re asking the gov’t to put the question to rest and just release the videos they confiscated.” — that way you’re not making a claim that seems crazy to Joe Citizen, you’re making a request that should appear totally reasonable.
          Then I’d take the same approach with Bush’s testimony to the 9/11 commission, and pretty much everything else. Instead of making claims about “what really happened” — which opens you up to tin-foil-hat-type mockery / dismissal — ask for the info the gov’t has that would prove 9/11 truth wrong. Then they either produce that info — and answer questions in the process — or they won’t. And the fact that they won’t then creates a reasonable suspicion among those who might be sympathetic, but because of basic human nature don’t want to identify with what’s seen as a fringe group of crazy people.

          1. bigbankhank,
            Very cleverly put ‘Hank’… well done…. perhaps to well done, charred black and inedible.
            But of course there are those of us here who have a firm enough grasp on the architecture of modern political power to see through your rather tepid attempt to dismiss the larger conspiracy, wherein the Public Relations Regime is in fact working in concert, of course taking advantage of the small minds and useful idiots who will sell their souls for a buck, or two or three.
            How many bucks did it take to buy yours biggo Hank? Maybe a whole bank?

          2. This is almost funny, quoting…”I researched everything I could get my hands on, and I think I really wanted to believe that 9/11 was an inside job… but I ultimately concluded (and re-confirmed about once every couple years) that by/large 9/11 unfolded as the history books say it did.”
            Bringing this thread on topic, the more you examine the video record of Building 7 and the relevant official technical report, the more you confirm that it was necessarily destroyed by an office fire and that it is natural that the mass media has hardly informed the public of it. Or is Building 7 the exception that confirms the rule that “by/large 9/11 unfolded as the history books say it did?”
            More seriously, your piece could not be much improved upon. You can safely use it to earn a thumbs-up wherever you work.

          3. But Daniel! Don’t you realize you are part of a “fringe group of crazy people”! Lol

          4. “At least we shall concede to bigbankhank that her/his prose requires some intelligence and a good knowledge of 9/11’s fundamentals to falsify.”
            Yes Daniel, that is why I took those big hank think tank scrabble pieces to be some sort of Sunsteinian glare from a mirror on the hills of DC, or Wall Street. A whizkid jazzpipe toot, like the Pied Piper viper snare lair.
            Perhaps he/she shares a stall with writhing Agent Wright!! .. a double blight to bring the long dark night.

  12. the heavens have already fallen. thats what 911 was. free fall bang bang . the heavens falling.
    Atlanta may well end in epic fail; its a known known the guns will be out. But AE are at least putting it to them. Giving those AIA fucks a bit of a go. I live a long way away from the nuts and bolts of any chance of seeing a trunk, let alone taking a swipe at it. I take my hat off to AE, but cannot disagree with adam’s overall….

  13. While I hear ruffadam’s frustration, I have to disagree that the AIA were complicit.
    Architects were not directly involved in the immediate investigation. I would put the blame squarely on the ASCE engineers, and at least one investigator from the NFPA, who saw unusual melting of steel beams and columns and shirked their responsibility.
    Both signed non-disclosure agreements when they joined the FEMA team.
    A NIST engineer (John Gross) saw this melting and lied about it.
    NIST engineers purposely left out critical structural elements from their analyses of WTC7.
    Contractors for NIST created fraudulent simulations that looked pretty good on the surface, but lacked credibility when studied carefully.
    I am hopeful that the AIA will step up to the plate, recognize that if the official explanation is true, then many buildings need to be evaluated for possible defects. If they determine that the standards are suitable to protect the public this will suggest that the NIST cause is not valid and the focus will shift to NIST to justify their hypothesis.
    A&E has done the right thing and should be commended for having the persistence to carry it to completion.

    1. I hope you are right about this and I am wrong Winston. The AIA board was not complicit in the crime and I never said they were however they are complicit in the cover-up through willful blindness at least. As human beings they have a responsibility, considering they are architects, to support efforts to find the truth. The fact they have not lifted a finger for 14 years to help speaks volumes. But again I hope something positive comes from this effort. I think the whole movement is going about this the wrong way though and the proof is in the pudding.

      1. It is the ‘going along to get along’ that can be seen as complicity.
        We do not have the luxury of naivety any longer, it can no longer be held out as an excuse.
        Naivety is not innocence, it is a mortally dangerous ignorance. It is jejune and childish. People need to grow up and face personal responsibility.

      2. What if we were to compile a massive, PEACEFUL demonstration of Engineers, Architects, Scientists, Scholars, Chemists, Demolition Experts, Firefighters (every expert imaginable who can bring the evidence to light & discredit the official story) Family Members AND CIVILIANS (the very public AIA swears to protect in these instances) pressing THIS ISSUE at the GATEWAY of this convention with alternative media coverage? They’ve got to FEEL that there is a public awareness beyond and right outside the closed doors where they vote. We’ve got tons of videos, documentaries & interviews where people view from the comfort zones of their homes and on the boards of the Internet. But what we need is to take a visibly physical stand. If Dan Barnum and Richard take this on themselves, it becomes a closed door, small committee meeting with no visible support. If they have support, it needs to be by public presence, whereby AIA makes headlines with its decision, one way or another.
        Petition signers don’t tend to bring with their signatures, a feeling, or sense that they are a force to be reckoned with in terms of public presence. AIA has a job to do, and if they’re not charged with the responsibility in a public forum to adhere to their own standards, they will not oblige themselves. This does not have to be a 9-11 Truth gathering, just one that points to the issues pertinent to the AIA’s responsibility to public safety. I wouldn’t have any idea how to get this rolling, but am aware of the multitudes of people who have obviously been engaged in organizing such demonstrations.
        Just an idea unfolding as a result of your posts, ruffadam

  14. 14 years AIA and comparative bodies in Engineering have turned their faces away from their responsibility. They don’t have an excuse. Its their JOB to immediately understand and register Free Fall as evidence of demolition in the first instance.
    They didn’t. They are complicit by silence. Its their JOB and they failed us.

  15. 21st Century Schizoid Planet
    “The search for difficult, ferociously hidden truth”~Galbraith
    The stunted epistemology of a people regimented and brainwashed from cradle to grave is difficult to counter with rational argumentation alone. They are stuck in jejune, like little children needing daddy’s approval. They are distracted by shiny things and trite toys and temporary shattered substance.

  16. speaking of 911.con ; i see team Saud.Israel , fresh from the killing rooms of Ghouta,
    just hit another refugee camp……
    O ho hum. In the land of JOB, SAM can do that with a sniper…

  17. Question: Would you say that the Warren Commission created a blueprint of sorts for how the government can fix the outcome of a heated, controversial investigation? If so, in what ways?
    Gerald McKnight: The key to government commissions is not the names of prominent members who appear on the marquee for public consumption,but in the chief counsels and executive directors—these are the entities that run the investigation. In the case of the WC it was the Hoover-picked J. Lee Rankin, the director’s friend. Rankin was not the choice of [former Chief Justice and Commission Chair] Earl Warren.He was forced on Warren by Hoover, [then Assistant Attorney General Nicholas] Katzenbach, anda like-minded majority of the commissioners. This clique was determined to submit a report that found Oswald the sole assassin, no conspiracy. In short, to underwrite the “official truth” of the assassination, which was settled upon over the weekend after the assassination by Hoover, LBJ, and Katzenbach.
    As for the 9/11 Commission, the executive director was Philip D. Zelikow, a Republican with very close official ties to the Bush administration, and a close friend of [former National Security Advisor and current Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice.
    Both Rankin and Zelikow, as a result of their positions, ran their respective investigations.They picked the areas of investigation, the topics of the hearings, what witnesses to call forth and what lines of questioning to engage, etc.

    1. Zelikow, warmed from the 1995 “Germany Unified and Europe Transformed” with “Chevy” Rice, and after the 1998 co-authored “Imagining the Transforming Event” with Carter and Deutch ; arrived to manage that precise transforming event, filling the Commission Chair- but only after Dr.Strangelo…sorry…Kissinger, had been outed by ‘The Jersey Girls’ with interests in BinLaden.INC via Carlyle.
      At least Kissingers’ conflicts were material.
      Zellikow’s are esoteric, arriving with him and the format/chapter headings of the Commission Narrative already written.
      aPriori anyone?
      The ‘Commission Sensitive” email Oct.2, 2003 from Scheid, Fenner and Lederman titled “Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses,’ is an indictment needing independent investigation as to control methods identified at play during 911 OCT event management .
      But also on the time-line, as found by the Senate Intelligence Report: are the “Flawed and Fabricated” testimonies regarding key 911 ‘operatives’, Zubaydah/KSM/etc – ‘filling in’ the blanks as apparently required – being drawn from extended torture sessions at CIA Black-sites, and delivered back to CIA HQ with an absolute firewall between ‘Commission’/staffers and primary source – including video [later destroyed] of the torture session information extraction. Or, as maintained by Thierry Meyssan – testimony inculcation.
      In September, 2009, the U.S. government admitted that Zubaydah – alQaeda #3 in the commission narrative – was never a member or associate of al Qaeda at all.
      A letter to Kean and Hamilton from Ashcroft Rumsfeld and Tenet of Jan 16 2004 forbade any commission staff participation in questioning detainees [“….would cross that line”.]
      So testimony drawn under conditions found in the 2014 Senate report to be flawed and fabricated – and by 2 senior CIA officers not part of the program to be violating Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects regarding human experimentation [pp13 of 19findings/conclusions]; testimony making up major parts of the official conspiracy theory as documented in the Commission report, were allowed NO primary source interaction or cross examination etc by staff investigating and writing the report of the crime’ and later had one of the KEY participants redacted……
      by its own documentation , the commission report is flawed and fabricated.

  18. Bizarre Chomsky
    “People shouldn’t be killed, whether they are presidents or kids in the urban slums. I know of no reason to suppose that one should have more interest in the JFK assassination than lots of killings not far from the White House.”~Noam Chomsky

    1. Bizarre indeed.
      I can think of one reason why someone would take more of an interest in the JFK murder. It has something to do with him being a member of huge importance on the global stage whereas the kids in the urban slums aren’t.
      There, my intellect has trumped that of the giant Chomsky. While I have arrived at the station and thought of the reason, his brain is still spinning in circles and trying to figure it out.
      I must be truly one of the smartest people in the world now, because he’s considered among the most intellectual of the intellectual.
      Unless of course he’s being deliberately disingenuous.

      1. Hey Adam,
        Chomsky loathed Kennedy, was fanatical in his hatred of the man and the clan. He denies known history to outright lie about John Kennedy. As you know The twisted little gnome of M.I.T. has no patience with ‘conspiracy theories’. He is as fanatically adamant about that as the CIA., and denies all of the evidences we know to be facts that prove 9/11 was a PSYOP.
        As I am as well versed on the Kennedy assassination as I am on 9/11, I can place the dunce hat firmly on this blatant gate keeper Chomsky.
        I have to find the link to an essay Chomsky wrote denying JFK’s plans to pull the military out of S.E. Asia by 1965. Chomsky, like many state propagandists, writes brilliantly plausible rhetoric that is utterly false. In this way Chomsky is as evil as Kissinger, and even more dangerous due to his clad disguise.

        1. His comment about the “miniscule number” of architects and engineers who support the truth movement, and his assertion that the A’s and E’s should easily be able to get their findings verified via the mainstream peer review process, and without any institutional backlash, tells us all we need to know about him. What’s even more alarming are the people in that audience who applauded his words, as if, to borrow someone else’s expression, they were being offered roses from the lips of Buddha.

          1. well. we know which lips of the Buddha the bloom comes from.
            Any observation of an ‘accepting’ crowd during a 911truth confrontation with the authority system on stage, confirms audience participation ‘as part’ of the censorship process. A known-known dynamic. I mean, audience applaud the put down because the questioner threatens the entire audience world view. Dozens of people puckering up in shock/fear/outrage at vocal question/dissent applaud in immediate release-of-tension when dissent is squashed/mocked/derided from ‘the podium’, and the interloper led from the chamber.
            From Maher to Clinton to Sunstein and Silverstein its always the same process. Let the voice of dissent use up his/her initial power in delivery, then, when the embarrassment/anger levels of audience signal the ‘rebuttal’ time is ripe, the microphone will always be on stage to deliver coup-d-grace.

  19. Does anybody know and can explain the procedure by which AIA votes on such resolutions? Are there delegates, or are all members called to cast a ballot? Is there a mail-in procedure, or do only those present in Atlanta on that day get to vote?

  20. “I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.” ~Voltaire

  21. AE911 Truth reported late this afternoon that the AIA convention in Atlanta voted 160 in favor, but 3892 opposed to its resolution, i.e., it was rejected by 96% of the votes!
    How is this result not a significant setback, rather than a major coup? AE911 has spent several years at these conventions trying to penetrate the convention members. This year AE911 made a particularly strong effort.
    Supporters of the government can now say that U.S. architects and engineers overwhelming oppose a new investigation of 9-11. This is far more effective in support of the government’s story than when a court rules that a case cannot go to voters, e.g. NYC. Very many professionals were called upon to address the issues … and they did … and are now on the record.
    Afterwards, Richard Gage spoke live at, being introduced by Cynthia McKinney at 7:36 p.m. Eastern. Gage showed some slides and video about 9-11 which were not new, presumably for those new to the issues. Then he introduced Board member Dan Barnum who explained how AE911 got to the point of introducing its resolution. Barnum said he thought the resolution would get 10-20% of the vote. He thinks we learned how hard it is to get people to rethink. Gage went back to lecturing again without evaluation of the day. Only afterwards, at 9:36, did Gage introduce discussion, at one point mentioning Ted Walter as the key person behind the AE911 resolution. In any case, the live portion ended at 10:17.

    1. Paul,
      I share your frustration. However, there are positives to be gained from this. 160 professionals including several fellows of the Institute did sign onto the petition of AE. Who knows how impassioned those professionals might become and help spread the ripple effect of awareness. I sincerely hope they go beyond just merely signing the petition. And, this is for the historical record. When lies are voted on in favor of truth, we in the 21st century have in front of our eyes the power to expose this farce to the world, as AE is doing in their public response.

      …The vote came after a number of impassioned statements from supporters and opponents. It was evident that those who opposed the resolution did not fully understand the official explanation of WTC 7’s destruction for which they claimed such adamant support. One architect from New York stated that diesel fuel fires were responsible for WTC 7’s destruction, an explanation that even NIST itself has disavowed.

      This is on the record for history. Public opinion DOES inevitably turn to the side of truth. The battle/question is HOW LONG. Look at 75% of the public disbelieving the official JFK story. It wasn’t like that in the first decade or two. According to scientific polls, more than 50% of the country now supports full cannabis legalization, whereas during the Reagan and George HW Bush eras, those numbers were in the single digits and teens. So change does happen, it’s the speed of it that we’re concerned about.
      Maybe someday when the truth has won out, we can look back and actually smile at this day, in the sense that it’s a significant dot on the timeline of evolution. Like when Michael Jordan probably now smiles when he thinks of how he didn’t get accepted onto his high school basketball team.

      1. Dear Adam
        “Public opinion DOES inevitably turn to the side of truth.”
        I wish this was so. More than slightly.

          1. The question is, will we be alive to witness mainstream acceptance of 9/11 truth? Call me a skeptical optimist. Or an optimistic skeptic.

          2. Sure, Adam, 9/11 truth may one day emerge. In our lifetimes? No idea. May or may not, I guess?
            I think ruffadam made some awesome posts with a lot of authentic feeling in them earlier in this thread.
            I guess we will see. If it does get exposed fully and utterly, I’m pretty sure the ensuing events will be far from quiet. Anyway let’s see.
            Peace! 🙂 Best wishes.

    2. Paul,
      Going along to get along… that is what explains it in my book. How many of these people really took the time to grasp the argument from AE9/11, compared to how many took the temperature of their colleagues attitudes?
      Since we know the science, we know the answer to my last question.

  22. Major coup = major failure. Guess AIA knows AE911T spread lies and nonsense about 911. How will AE911T spin complete failure for the paranoid delusional followers who donate 500,000 dollars to Gage’s folly. Why are AE911T followers paranoid.
    Where do you get the silent explosives and termite which leaves no evidence for the fantasy CD? Guess anything is possible for followers who fail to think for themselves.
    Liars usually fail, proved by the vote. AE911T is fraud, spreading lies about 911, mocking the murder of thousands. Apologizing for 19 murderers with lies and fantasy of CD.

    1. Great point, dude! Thanks for the refreshing input! Instead of wasting time on this, we should seek to understand the previously unknown, marvelous properties of jet fuel and office furnishings!. Since the official story is true, these materials must be able to unleash enormous powers!!! Maybe we can even solve the energy crisis in the world! Let’s start finding out how to take advantage of the power of these materials. Nuclear energy and other things governments cling to will soon be redundant once people start researching 9/11 and understand the amazing, previously unknown power contained in jet fuel and office furnishings.

    2. “Liars usually fail, proved by the vote.”~eyesuntzu
      Spectacularly absurd reasoning there eyesuntzu.
      “Where do you get the silent explosives and termite which leaves no evidence for the fantasy CD?”~eyesuntzu.
      Where do you get this bullshit that the explosives were silent? What the fuck are you talking about termites for? They attack wood, these were steel framed high rise buildings that were destroyed by demolition.
      And here you are spewing the official line, making an argument from authority, and saying we don’t think for ourselves. You obviously know absolutely nothing about physics to buy into the absurd official story. You are just another dupe of mainstream media.
      Educate yourself:

    3. eyesuntzu: you post like a middle school bully. You must be your playground’s terrorist-in-chef. If you ever wish to understand 9/11, start at the elementary level:
      * Are you capable of denying any resemblance between the video records of Building 7’s destruction and a controlled demolition?
      * If not, are you capable of listing the major features of the videos that force you to accept some resemblance?
      As long as you do not graduate from 9/11’s elementary level, you will be incapable of understanding your own ramblings, which deal with the fundamentals of 9/11. Therefore you are biologically unable to understand a rational answer to them.
      Readers: should a 9/11 skeptic (i.e. a polite individual who knows nothing of 9/11) raise eyesuntzu’s objection, an easy answer is to remark that this objection suggests that if Building 7 was destroyed by a criminal controlled demolition, then the AIA appears to be one more watchdog that has failed to bark. This yields immediate conclusions:
      * This does not disprove the controlled demolition.
      * This suggests that the conspiracy of Building 7, if it is true, necessarily involves a process to prevent watchdogs from barking, and therefore is much more frightening than the criminal controlled demolition.
      * This calls reasonable people to not affirm Building 7’s controlled demolition unless and until they are very sure of it.

  23. Seriously, did anyone but the terminally naive think that an apparatus such as AIA would come to any but a politically acceptable conclusion?
    Just as I have always argued, you are not dealing with rationality here, you are dealing with a completely pathological system. The majority of the people living on this planet today are going to die stupefied, still in trance.

    1. I am an economist by profession and there are professional, peer reviewed articles exposing insider trading before September 11th, even in ‘mainstream’ professional journals. In this respect (rightly or wrongly), this other 9-11 topic is ahead of the topic of controlled demolition. Yet, never in my dreams did I imagine going to the American Economics Association’s meeting, just as large as AIA’s, and asking them to vote for study of insider trading before September 11th, even though many of AEA members have that protection of ‘tenure’.
      You don’t want to commit suicide for either the topic of insider trading or of controlled demolition.
      I am sorry, but I think asking for that vote was a mistake. Who said, “timing is everything”?
      Also, I don’t understand why Richard Gage had nothing to say in evaluation thereafter, as if nothing had happened.

      1. “Also, I don’t understand why Richard Gage had nothing to say in evaluation thereafter, as if nothing had happened.”
        It is all quite surreal. Isn’t it Paul?
        Some might propose some sinister intent on Gage’s part, but I think not. I think Richard Gage is a delusional fool. He has been politically naive throughout this whole trip. I mean a real dumbfuck, to speak frankly.
        You say “mistake” … huh, I say tragedy. A goats play. Completely absurd.
        In my honest assessment, I must say that most of the so-called “9/11 Truth leaders” have been jejune fools strategically & politically. They turned the so-called “movement” into a fading historical afterthought.
        Dust to dust, ashes to ashes…

      2. Well, Paul, what’s done is done. Timing is indeed everything. We can only move forward from here.
        I agree; while I admire Richard’s activism re the towers, he has his flaws. Some of those flaws involve strategy. But he can at times be quite gullible (i.e. endorsing Frank Legge’s Pentagon “work”) and he lacks backbone because he wants to keep everyone happy.

  24. Science and Reason Takes Back Seat to 9/11 Official Story In Historic AIA Resolution Vote
    By Bernie Suarez
    In a historic vote delegates of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) overwhelmingly voted down Resolution 15-6 which called for AIA to support a new investigation of the destruction of World Trade Center building 7 on September 11th 2001. The resolution, which was introduced by AIA member Dan Barnum FAIA, was voted down overwhelmingly by a vote of 3892 – 160 meaning 96% of the delegates voted to ignore the science, the facts, and the evidence which is today common knowledge about the destruction of WTC 7!
    That’s right. 96% of voting AIA delegates voted with intentions and goals outside the realm of science and reason. Could it be that to 96% of AIA delegates two planes CAN symmetrically destroy three massive towers at freefall speed through the path of most resistance? Can it be that to 96% of AIA voting delegates a 47-story state-of-the-art tower CAN disintegrate at freefall speed due to ordinary office fires? If this was really the case, would you trust these people to build the apartment building you live in or office building you work at?
    The question all truth seekers and lovers of critical thinking, science and reason should be asking then is, why the overwhelming vote? As resolution introducer Dan Barnum explained afterwards:
    We are a professional – not a political – organization. But in this case, if we vote “no” on this resolution, we are making a political decision, not a professional one. Thank you very much.

    1. Wow. Yes, extremely likely he’s working for the other side. I found his 9/11 documentaries to be spot on, especially Terrorstorm. But there’s no denying: what he did to that rally is absolutely, to a tee, how I would expect an operative to behave.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *