AE911Truth lies about "118 Witnesses", is made aware, then lies further...

They've finally done it. The Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has now lost any shred of dignity or honesty they may have once had (if that's even possible). A few weeks ago, I sent the following message to the group through their contact page:

On your main page, you state that 118 first responders heard sounds of explosions "at the plane impact zone - a full second prior to collapse". I've read and re-read AE911truth's Graeme MacQueen's paper "118 Witnesses" and can't find a single witness who reported hearing an explosion at the impact zone a full second prior to collapse, much less 118.

The majority of witnesses (all 31 in the "bomb" category and well over half in the "explosion" category) use the term bomb or explosion to describe the sound DURING the collapse. IE, the roar of the collapse sounded like an explosion/bomb. The remaining accounts describe explosions well before and well after the collapses, as explicitly described by the first responders, and many say they believe in hindsight that the explosions were electrical (Stephen Gregory) or the like. Will you please provide me with information on which eyewitness(es) reported an explosion a full second prior to collapse at the plane impact zone, or remove this at the very least misleading/worst case dishonest claim from your main page? The 118 first responders deserve nothing less.

Click to expand...

A few of the eyewitnesses do say that they heard an "explosion" above them and looked up to see one of the towers collapsing. Since the eyewitnesses don't say that the explosion occured before the collapse began (as opposed to the noise they heard being the collapse itself), it's completely dishonest to say that the noise was heard "a full second prior to collapse". Absolutely none of them (unless I'm missing one) describe the noise as coming from the impact zone, which makes this a double lie. A couple days later, a Judy Shelton responded by saying, "Thank you for pointing this out, we are fixing it."

Weeks passed without them changing a thing. Finally today I checked back and see that the main page now reads, "Sounds of explosions and flashes of light witnessed at the beginning of the "collapse" by 118 first responders". Instead of CORRECTING what was already a lie about the sounds of explosions, they pushed it even further to now include "flashes of light" as well! I know of one person (Stephen Gregory) who talked about flashes of light, but he explicitly states that he believes it was electrical, due to the building coming apart. They're taking his words out of context, but this is still only one person (MAYBE a few others that I'm missing). Certainly not all 118! Maybe this group should reconsider its reason for existing if they have to lie to support their existence.

RKOwens4 said:

A few of the eyewitnesses do say that they heard an "explosion" above them and looked up to see one of the towers collapsing. Since the eyewitnesses don't say that the explosion occured before the collapse began (as opposed to the noise they heard being the collapse itself), it's completely dishonest to say that the noise was heard "a full second prior to collapse". Absolutely none of them (unless I'm missing one) describe the noise as coming from the impact zone, which makes this a double lie. A couple days later, a Judy Shelton responded by saying, "Thank you for pointing this out, we are fixing it."

Weeks passed without them changing a thing. Finally today I checked back and see that the main page now reads, "Sounds of explosions and flashes of light witnessed at the beginning of the "collapse" by 118 first responders". Instead of CORRECTING what was already a lie about the sounds of explosions, they pushed it even further to now include "flashes of light" as well! I know of one person (Stephen Gregory) who talked about flashes of light, but he explicitly states that he believes it was electrical, due to the building coming apart. They're taking his words out of context, but this is still only one person (MAYBE a few others that I'm missing). Certainly not all 118! Maybe this group should reconsider its reason for existing if they have to lie to support their existence.

Click to expand...

Unless you have proof that 118 witnesses didn't see flashes of light or hear sounds of explosions at the beginning of the collapse, you're out of line calling them "liars" (because you have no way of knowing whether they have evidence that wasn't included in their presentation). You can accuse them of making unsubstantiated claims.. but not lying.

Either way- you're willing to completely write-off all 350+ professional opinions because of a single (supposedly) unsubstantiated claim about eye-witnesses.. which they already said they would look into and address. You guys never cease to amaze.

deep44 said:

Either way- you're willing to completely write-off all 350+ professional opinions because of a single (supposedly) unsubstantiated claim about eye-witnesses.. which they already said they would look into and address. You guys never cease to amaze.

Click to expand...

Of whom how many are qualified architects and structural engineers? And how many of those have tall buidlings expertise?

and unless you have proof that all 118 witnesses didn't see santa claus flying around, calling them liars about it is out of line. Maybe Deep can list the names of those 118 people who saw flashes. And then maybe he can list the names of the ones who heard explosions a ull second before the collapse ( which wouldn't be out of question since sound travels slower than light).

Unless you have proof that 118 witnesses didn't see flashes of light or hear sounds of explosions at the beginning of the collapse, you're out of line calling them "liars" (because you have no way of knowing whether they have evidence that wasn't included in their presentation). You can accuse them of making unsubstantiated claims.. but not lying.

Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? So I can say that I've compiled a list of 200 firefighters who say that they witnessed two asteroids hitting the World Trade Center, and I provide 200 quotes from the firefighters but not one of them says a word about asteroids, according to you that must mean you would have to believe me, since the firefighters never specifically said that they DIDN'T see asteroids, right? The burden of proof is on AE911Truth. They have to provide their evidence, their quotes, that firefighters saw flashes at the beginning of the collapse. To truthers, making a claim and then providing no evidence counts as evidence of controlled demolition.

Either way- you're willing to completely write-off all 350+ professional opinions because of a single (supposedly) unsubstantiated claim about eye-witnesses.. which they already said they would look into and address. You guys never cease to amaze.

Click to expand...

So I'm writing off professional opinions? AE911Truth includes all types of engineers (not just civil or structural but also electrical and chemical engineers) and architects as well as those who are working in the field or teaching it at a university. There are about 135,000 structural engineers in the American Society of Civil Engineers. Probably an equivalent number in the electrical or chemical engineering fields (270,000), and probably an equivalent number in the architectural field (let's say 500,000), and maybe 100,000 people who teach architecture OR engineering of some kind at a university. Let's say 600,000 total, and that's being conservative. But we're not done, because AE911Truth includes members from all around the world. America is 5% of the world population. It may not be accurate to multiple 600,000 by 20, so I'll be generous and go with a number smaller than 10. Say, 5 million worldwide.

There's always going to be that 1 in 1,000 geologists who believes the earth is 6,000 years old (as the bible suggests). AE911Truth only has 350 members, out of 5 million??? That's 1 in 14,000! For every 1 architect/engineer who support the controlled demolition theory, there are 13,999 who DON'T support it. Even 1 in 1,000 would be laughable, but 1 in 14,000 is PATHETIC! You're ignoring the overwhelming consensus of the engineering community in favor of that one oddball. So who's the one ignoring professional opinion here? Answer truthfully.

deep44 said:

Unless you have proof that 118 witnesses didn't see flashes of light or hear sounds of explosions at the beginning of the collapse.

Click to expand...

Oh God-Allah-SpaghettiMonster, he wants us to prove a negative now