Monday, August 15, 2011

Steve Fahrney

Encounters with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
See "Confessions of a 9/11 Activist", VETERANS TODAY


  1. I cannot download this podcast. Was really looking forward to hearing it.

  2. Finally got the podcast to play. New deal this time. Did not have to download. It just started playing.

  3. Just listened to the program. I find myself wishing that right now there were put out there at least a short video enumerating what the nanothermite paper by Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. Niels Harrit actually says and what it does not say with some brief commentary about the significance of those facts. The video should also include the phrases that Richard Gage and some from the "hard science" group write or say in ancillary discussions of 9-11 from the time the nanothermite paper was published, for example, their constant “molten metal”, “explosive” “explosives” and “explosive controlled demolition” terms.

    It would be so great if all the "patriots" who are flocking up to Toronto to attend, and to stream live on the web (e.g. The Simple Truth program of will stream the "hearings" live) could understand the basic facts that underlie and will be taken as understood during all the "Toronto Hearings.” Such a video could be spread quickly before the “hearings” and it would be fighting untruth with truth.

    I would mention that Steve Farhney's reference to the Architects & Engineers for 9-11 Truth having a special "NIST Pursuit Team" and that the whole group is really waging a strong real fight against NIST was just another proof to me of A&E NOT being "the real deal." I think that pretending to be about to wage a strong fight against NIST is what they are doing. It is another one of those useful fake fights. It is intended to convey the impression that A&E really does believe “9-11 was an inside job” and that they are really fighting the inside government agency – NIST. Another manipulative deception.

    The A&E group and the "hard science" group are all speaking as if Building 7 was destroyed in the exact same way as were WTC 1 & 2 buildings. They imply whatever the destructive agent was for the WTC buildings, it all was “placeable” in the buildings by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.
    I look at the fruits borne by Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth and I find nothing of solid value. All it appears they did was corral the 9-11 truth seekers and put them in a holding tank where no progress toward truth could happen. As Dr. Morgan Reynolds says - their pupose appears to have been to "run out the clock."

  4. You want to visit Veterans Today and read "Is '9/11 Truth' based upon a false theory?" and (it just went up today) "Nanothermite: If It Doesn't Fit, You Must Acquit!" I have the impression that A&E has just launched a counter-offensive on VT, which should be most interesting. So you can check out the latest columns published there (on a listing on the right-hand side of the page) and check them out, too! Thanks for your excellent posts, Jeannon. I am sorry to say you are probably right.

  5. Well, this thermite business is a red herring in my opinion. The burden of proof for what really happened is on NIST and the US government. All 911 truth movement need to to is falsify the official account. Specualation into what happened instead of the official lies are counterproductive.
    Hammer on the inconsistensies and demand a new investigation and release of evidence.
    That is what I think is most damaging to the official conspiracy theory. Specualating about this and that only diverts attention from what is important, that the US goverment lied about the new pearl harbor event. The dark side wants us to fall into speculation, that way they get a target to ridicule . Their biggest fear is that we stick to what we know, wich is plenty, and repeat, repeat, repeat the lies. You know when you confront a liar and repeat a known fact to his face that falsifies his account on something, he ususally panicks and say or do something really stupid or akward, that is what we need to provoke. NOW, internal debate, such as on this show can and should speculate, because thinking out of the box is good. External communication though must avoid specualation and stick to facts.

  6. I second the motion for a video on Jim's points, to hit the psywar before 9/11 Toronto conference. DOES ANYONE HAVE THE CAPABILITIES AND KNOWLEDGE TO PRODUCE A SUMMARY VIDEO ON JIM'S RESEARCH GUESTS ON THE ISSUE OF THERMITE AND FAKERY?

    And Jim, are you coming? If so, can we meet? I have no $ to attend the actual conf.

  7. Steve, I commend you for sharing your testimony and for continuing to look at things, in case your revulsion to them would turn out to be mere prejudice (from others or yourself).

    I went through something similar (albeit solo). In the process, I found that there were incomplete aspects to some of the materials I read, and people dug in their heels and fighting (even among the "weird" idea crowd).

    But the gist of their claims, weird only if one did not yet understand them, held. In fact, combinations and comparisons of their findings reconcile and correct some of their misplaced conclusions, while at the same time affirm even more strongly the gist of the "weird" argument, in spite of their own resistance sometimes to combination answers.

    Anyway, I found indeed, that my own resistance to the general lines of research was mere prejudice. The arguments they made had some conclusions with rough edges (self-imposed by them sometimes, in over-weening pride for their own work), but once one compared the lines of research, these "weird" lines were not at odds, but strengthened each other.

    Kudos! And thanks to you (and Jim, for having you on).