AE911Truth Watch [Archive]

Terral

19th February 2008, 08:07 AM

Hi REF:

This has taken place on screwloosechange (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/02/ae911-truth-watch.html) as well.

Number of days that have gone by since Richard Gage admitted (http://911blogger.com/node/13263#comment-173535) that his squib claim was false, without removing it from his website: 30

Man-0-man are you guys WAY off track. This is a clear case of far too many CT ‘debunkers’ (heh) writing nonsense in a 911Truth vacuum, when you have no “Building Fires Did It” or “Building Debris Did It” or “19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals Did It” case using any evidence at all. Richard Gage has no reason to remove the ‘squib’ (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html) evidence from his presentation, but “Squibs” (Chris Sarns) is merely pointing out that these complicated points be dropped from ‘future presentations because they just give ‘debunkers’ something to rail about.’ (Sun, 01/06/2008 - 5:25pm. (http://911blogger.com/node/13263#comment-173535)). I know Chris from the Loose Change Board where he writes on my WTC-7 thread (like here (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=29000&t=72336) = I like his avatar (http://209.85.62.24/18/3/0/a22783/avatar-22783.jpg)) and he is very much in support of the Controlled Demolition Explanation. I am also an AE911Truth member like Chris and know Richard Gage from our many conversations on these WTC topics. You guys act like this ‘squib’ argument is the basis of Richard’s entire Controlled Demolition Explanation (http://www.ae911truth.org/), when in reality that is just one minor piece of the puzzle. Does this mean REF or any of these JREF ‘debunkers’ have a “WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires” Case? No! Does ‘this’ (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/explo2.jpg) look like a picture of a real skyscraper collapsing from Building Fires? No!

Take another look at the ‘squib’ evidence frame-by-frame (here (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_jets_frames.html)) and decide for yourself. The counter starts at 00:00, but click the >> button and keep your eyes fixed just above the “KTLA 5” logo showing “this” (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/docs/ktlac.jpg) and evidence of this (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/docs/nt_col6502c.jpg). Richard Gage is not the only 911Truther highlighting the evidence of ‘squibs’ (http://www.yourdailymedia.com/post/1152446814) (see the video (http://www.yourdailymedia.com/media/1152446814/911_WTC_Squibs)) in the WTC Controlled Demolition cases. Here (http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm) we have ‘squibs’ emerging on several WTC-7 floors simultaneously AND none of the concrete floors are in the process of collapse.

Richard’s biggest problem (IMHO) is that he is a really nice guy and wants very much to please everyone, which at times is interpreted as him being wishy-washy. All you are seeing here is Richard’s attempts to shape his CD Presentation for acceptance by an even wider audience, by eliminating what Chris sees as a weakness in the much larger overall case. That means Richard’s next presentation might contain more ‘molten metal’ (http://www.nasathermalimages.com/#%5B%5BWorld%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots%5D%5D) evidence and less from the ‘squib’ side of the equation. However, the “Building Fires Did It” cronies will still have NO CASE for anything at all. That is the very reason they chuck stones at Richard rather than ‘debate’ the substance of his many CD arguments . . .

GL,

Terral

boloboffin

19th February 2008, 08:29 AM

Terral, you don't understand. This is what Gage said:

We will strike the controversial WTC7 squibs (in the upper right corner) from the online PPT and upcoming DVD update. I agree with the analysis - particularly the impossible "stationary explosions". ((Damn - I thought these were the real deal!)).

His agreement with the analysis is more than enough reason for getting rid of the argument. If he thinks that it's a false argument, why is he still, STILL, promoting it?

Terral

19th February 2008, 08:42 AM

Hi Bolo:

Terral, you don't understand. This is what Gage said:

His agreement with the analysis is more than enough reason for getting rid of the argument. If he thinks that it's a false argument, why is he still, STILL, promoting it?

Richard Gage is not the originator of the “squib” argument or the supreme being in charge of representing the entire 911Truth Movement on anything at all. He is just one architect trying to make everybody happy, which includes AE911Truth members like Terral and Chris on the one side and delusional Building Fires Did It ‘debukers’ on the other side. This is a good lesson proving beyond all doubt that it is impossible to make everyone happy, which hopefully Richard will learn at some point down the road . . .

The ‘squib’ evidence should remain a part of Richard’s larger CD Explanation simply because so much ‘squib’ evidence exists in the different videos showing the CD-like collapse of all three WTC skyscrapers. Just put ‘squib’ and ‘WTC’ into your Google search engine (http://www.google.com/search?gbv=2&hl=en&q=squibs+WTC&btnG=Search) and you find MUCH more than just information about Richard’s CD Presentation . . .

GL,

Terral

twinstead

19th February 2008, 09:14 AM

Terral nice try, but this is a PRIME example of the tactics your movement uses.

Just look at that slide boloboffin posted! It's crap. Iron Microspheres and molten Iron? In WTC7??? It is carefully crafted to fool people who don't actually do their own research. This is PROPAGANDA, Terral. This should be anathema to people truly interested in the truth, on either side of this issue.

Good Lt

19th February 2008, 09:23 AM

Hi Bolo:

Richard Gage is not the originator of the “squib” argument or the supreme being in charge of representing the entire 911Truth Movement on anything at all. He is just one architect trying to make everybody happy,

So he's more interested in making his legions of followers happy than in getting the facts right? That's your excuse of this fraud's incompetence and errors?

which includes AE911Truth members like Terral and Chris on the one side and delusional Building Fires Did It ‘debukers’ on the other side. This is a good lesson proving beyond all doubt that it is impossible to make everyone happy, which hopefully Richard will learn at some point down the road . . .

It is also impossible for Troofers to understand simple standards of evidence, to correct their mistakes, to put forth theories and alternative explanations supported by reems of factual evidence, etc.

In other words, he's just another fradulent Troofer trying to make money off of the gullible and off the memory of the 9-11 victims.

The ‘squib’ evidence should remain a part of Richard’s larger CD Explanation simply because so much ‘squib’ evidence exists in the different videos showing the CD-like collapse of all three WTC skyscrapers. Just put ‘squib’ and ‘WTC’ into your Google search engine (http://www.google.com/search?gbv=2&hl=en&q=squibs+WTC&btnG=Search) and you find MUCH more than just information about Richard’s CD Presentation . . .

They're not 'squibs,' and there is no "evidence" of controlled demolition. (http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm) Sorry to ruin the fact-free nature of you response.

So now the results of a Google search are considered evidence of something? It's not even research. It's just being lazy and saying "see, other Troofers pave posted this on their meaningless websites thousands of times."

As is often forgotten by the Troof cult, repeating a lie over and over again doesn't make it true. Ignoring the facts does not change the facts.

defaultdotxbe

19th February 2008, 09:55 AM

Richard Gage is not the originator of the “squib” argument or the supreme being in charge of representing the entire 911Truth Movement on anything at all. He is just one architect trying to make everybody happy
GL,

Terral
so the 911truth movement isnt about 911truth, its about making everybody happy?

1337m4n

19th February 2008, 10:01 AM

so the 911truth movement isnt about 911truth, its about making everybody happy?

And suddenly, everything made sense.

twinstead

19th February 2008, 10:08 AM

Terral you should be all over Gage on this issue if you are indeed looking for the 'truth'. He makes your movement look like idiots. And not in the "he must be disinfo" way that most truthers resort to, but actively demanding he clean up his act. You should be just as hard as people within your own movement whom you feel misrepresent facts as you are everybody else.

PB&J

19th February 2008, 10:20 AM

I wish I could live in Terral's world where buildings are only 5' tall :D

boloboffin

19th February 2008, 10:47 AM

Richard Gage is not the originator of the “squib” argument or the supreme being in charge of representing the entire 911Truth Movement on anything at all.

He IS responsible for his own material and he is ON RECORD as relinquishing that squib foolishness, and yet he continues to promote it.

Let me explain this to you. For example, let's suppose that you managed to speak to Pat Robertson, let's say. You managed to convince him about your Two Churches interpretation. You would expect him to immediately change his website and teaching materials about the Two Churches doctrine, wouldn't you? Pat's got a lot of stuff out there, of course, and it wouldn't be an immediate change, but a visible effort should be apparent to you if only as a symbol of good faith.

This is the same thing. Gage has disavowed the argument. He thought, past tense, that it was the real thing. He no longer thinks this and yet he is continuing to post what he considers to be an inaccurate and untruthful argument about 7 World Trade. It is a disgrace to the word "Truth" for Gage to display and support something he considers to be false.

And this remains true as long as his linked remarks stand.

Terral

19th February 2008, 11:09 AM

Hi Twinstead:

Terral you should be all over Gage on this issue if you are indeed looking for the 'truth'.

We already ‘know’ the 911Truth that the WTC skyscrapers were taken down by Controlled Demolition (http://www.ae911truth.org/) (my LC Thread (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/72336/1/)). Richard is receiving advice about making ‘his’ CD case that much stronger by possibly omitting the ‘squib’ evidence.

He makes your movement look like idiots.

JREF ‘debunkers’ (heh (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/Bigsmile.jpg)) call ‘this’ (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/93crash2.jpg) a crashed 100-Ton Jetliner. You say a real 100-Ton Jetliner went through this 18-feet 3-inch second story hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg) (a close-up shot (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/facade-intactesma.jpg)). Your leaders like “Gravy” are professing “De Facto Atheists” (shown here (http://forums.randi.org/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=60792)) finding many of you standing with him. These readers can decide for themselves which side of the 911Truth debate has the most blooming idiots. (http://photo.net/bboard-uploads/00CcTp-24250584.jpg) :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

And not in the "he must be disinfo" way that most truthers resort to, but actively demanding he clean up his act. You should be just as hard as people within your own movement whom you feel misrepresent facts as you are everybody else.

For the last time: There is PLENTY of ‘Squib’ evidence (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3449985&postcount=9) in all the video footage of these WTC skyscrapers collapsing CD-style into their own footprints. Do Richard Gage, the AE911Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/) architects and engineers or the scholars at Scholars For Truth (http://stj911.org/index.html) want to withdraw their Controlled Demolition Explanations (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm) (like 911Research) from the public record? NO! So stop being foolish . . . Real CD squibs ‘can’ look like puffs of smoke, clouds of hot air escaping from between collapsing floors or any number of things. Chris is suggesting that Richard remove the ‘squib’ EVIDENCE from ‘future’ CD Presentations, so the so-called ‘debunkers’ (heh (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif)) have less to whine (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/tantrumwithpans.jpg) about. If you guys had a real “Building Fires Did It” Case, or a real “Building Debris Did It” Case, or a “19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals Did It” (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/BushieBadGuys.jpg) Case, then you would have no reason to attack real 911Truthers with your constant flow of stupidity. Can anyone here point me into the direction of a “Building Fires Did It” Thread anywhere on this Conspiracies Forum? No! The reason is because you have NO CASE from ‘the evidence’ to support that kind of nonsense . . . Thus “Twoofer-bashing” (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/Bigsmile.jpg) is all you got . . .

GL,

Terral

Good Lt

19th February 2008, 11:30 AM

We already ‘know’ the 911Truth that the WTC skyscrapers were taken down by Controlled Demolition (http://www.ae911truth.org/) (my LC Thread (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/72336/1/)). Richard is receiving advice about making ‘his’ CD case that much stronger by possibly omitting the ‘squib’ evidence. There is no case to make stronger. There was no controlled demolition. Period. You have not provided, nor can you, any evidence for this whatsoever. Stop repeating debunked claims knowing full well that they're false. That's called lying.

JREF ‘debunkers’ (heh (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/Bigsmile.jpg)) call ‘this’ (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/93crash2.jpg) a crashed 100-Ton Jetliner. You say a real 100-Ton Jetliner went through this 18-feet 3-inch second story hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg) (a close-up shot (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/facade-intactesma.jpg)). Your leaders like “Gravy” are professing “De Facto Atheists” (shown here (http://forums.randi.org/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=60792)) finding many of you standing with him. These readers can decide for themselves which side of the 911Truth debate has the most blooming idiots. (http://photo.net/bboard-uploads/00CcTp-24250584.jpg) :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

Oh, believe me. We know which side the blooming idiots reside on. It's the side with the no-planers. It's the side with the space-beams idiocy. It's the side with the Mossad/JOOOOOISH cabal theories. It's the side claiming there were "explosives" in the WTC.

Again, your citations here prove nothing, do nothing to support any of your wild claims about controlled demolitions or any other buffoonery your cult comes up with.

For the last time: There is PLENTY of ‘Squib’ evidence (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3449985&postcount=9) in all the video footage of these WTC skyscrapers collapsing CD-style into their own footprints.

No, there isn't.

They're not "squibs." They're jets of ejecta and debris from the collapsing building. (http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm)

DEAL WITH IT.

Do Richard Gage, the AE911Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/) architects and engineers or the scholars at Scholars For Truth (http://stj911.org/index.html) want to withdraw their Controlled Demolition Explanations (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm) (like 911Research) from the public record? NO! So stop being foolish . . .

LOL

Foolish? We're not the ones claiming that mysterious secret teams of government agents wired up the WTC for demolition.

Apparently, AEFRAUDS for 9-11 Troof don't like making corrections to their asinine claims as well. No loss here. They're the ones with no careers trying to make a living off of the 9-11 Troof cult. It's not our job here to talk people out of ruining their lives or reputations.

Real CD squibs ‘can’ look like puffs of smoke, clouds of hot air escaping from between collapsing floors or any number of things.

A foul ball can look like a fair ball from the other side of the stadium, but that doesn't make the ball fair. Your argument boils down to this:

Bedivere: "How do you know she is a witch?"

Townsman: "SHE LOOKS LIKE ONE!!!"

Chris is suggesting that Richard remove the ‘squib’ EVIDENCE from ‘future’ CD Presentations, so the so-called ‘debunkers’ (heh (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif)) have less to whine (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/tantrumwithpans.jpg) about.

So much for the factual accuracy of your claims, then, huh? I mean, those interested in the accuracy of the claims and factual veracity and evidence are just "whiners."

Thanks for revealing, again, what the Troof cult is all about, because it ain't facts.

If you guys had a real “Building Fires Did It” Case, or a real “Building Debris Did It” Case, or a “19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals Did It” (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/BushieBadGuys.jpg) Case, then you would have no reason to attack real 911Truthers with your constant flow of stupidity.

Can anyone here point me into the direction of a “Building Fires Did It” Thread anywhere on this Conspiracies Forum? No! The reason is because you have NO CASE from ‘the evidence’ to support that kind of nonsense . . . Thus “Twoofer-bashing” (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/Bigsmile.jpg) is all you got . . .

Can you look for the thread yourself? Have you ever searched for anything on the Internet before?

Sorry to flummox you, but 'Troofer-bashing' what we do to fools who make outlandish claims with no evidence to support them. Repeatedly. Every day. Over and over. In defiance of evidence, fact and logic.

You left us no choice. You've demonstrated again why you truly earn your derision. Congratulations.

twinstead

19th February 2008, 12:26 PM

Obviously Terral could care less about the truth. Like all who have come before him (at least the ones who aren't out to just make a buck), this is an issue of ideology, pure and simple. It's all about world view. Truth be damned. Evidence be damned. Propaganda is okay as long as it's propaganda from the 'truth' movement.

Preconception ROCKS!

In order to spread the truth, a few lies may just have to be told, eh, Terral?

ref

19th February 2008, 03:11 PM

Gage HAS removed the squibs -claim from www.ae911truth.org front page WTC 7 evidence.

And it didn't take long. :eye-poppi

boloboffin

19th February 2008, 03:26 PM

Squibs are still listed as part of the Powerpoint presentation on slides 24 and 66 (the hypothesis slide, before and after). Squibs is still checked off as if he's proven it.

Of course, so is the crazy claim of molten iron and microspheres. I digress.

Squibs are still listed on slides 38-39. The text reads:

Side-by-Side Comparison to a Known Controlled Demolition

-- Note the Explosions (Squibs) on Upper Right Corner --

Gage has therefore whitewashed his front page, but continues to promote squibs in his online Powerpoint presentation.

This irredeemably destroys his entire argument, however. By removing this item from his list of controlled demolition characteristics, Gage has revealed the Texas Sharpshooter nature of the list. The front page still reads:

As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47 story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives:

Yet one of these characteristics was eliminated as soon as Gage realized he couldn't prove it anymore. Which is it? Has Gage truncated his list and now is calling an incomplete list of characteristics complete? Or should squibs never have been on that list in the first place?

By placing squibs on that list and then removing it while still presenting the list as complete, Gage has revealed his utter lack of authority in presenting this list in the first place. His argument is worthless now.

Christopher7

19th February 2008, 06:24 PM

Squibs are still listed as part of the Powerpoint presentation
This irredeemably destroys his entire argumentLogic of desperation.

Good Lt

19th February 2008, 06:39 PM

Logic of desperation.

Nope. Just plain old logic.

jhunter1163

19th February 2008, 06:48 PM

Ideologues ROCK!

Christopher7

20th February 2008, 12:55 AM

Nope. Just plain old logic.If one statement is wrong then that makes all the other statements wrong.

That's not logic, that's a lame excuse to deny the evidence.

Arus808

20th February 2008, 01:33 AM

If one statement is wrong then that makes all the other statements wrong.
false.

That's not logic, that's a lame excuse to deny the evidence.
false.

how can someone be wrong so many times..oh wait...

boloboffin

20th February 2008, 03:28 AM

If one statement is wrong then that makes all the other statements wrong.

That's not logic, that's a lame excuse to deny the evidence.

Perhaps you don't understand Gage's argument. Gage has presented us all with a list of what he calls the characteristics of controlled demolition. He then proceeds to prove every one of these characteristics exist in 7 World Trade's collapse. Therefore, Gage argues, 7 World Trade is a controlled demolition.

The two premises of his argument are the list and how 7 conforms to each item on the list. You are pretending that I have denied the second premise here. I am denying the first, Gage's authority to present a list of characteristics of controlled demolition.

By eliminating an item from his list and still saying that the list is complete, Gage has voided any such authority he might have had. He's merely building a list with the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. As I go on to demonstrate at the website, he then cannot actually prove a single item of his list, making him the finest example of a Texas Footshooter available. But that is not the issue here. It is on his authority alone that this list of characteristics stands or falls, and by changing the list based on what he thinks he can prove, he has demonstrated the fallacious nature of the list. It is not a serious attempt to list actual characteristics of controlled demolition at all. It's a lousy CT argument.

twinstead

20th February 2008, 08:31 AM

This is funny. Not ha ha funny, but sad funny. In a ha ha kind of way. Anyway, if Gage supported the 'official story', and it was found that some of his evidence to support it was suspect, people like Terral land Christopher7 would be ALL over it, claiming the rest of his research just may be suspect because of it.

But, since Gage is a conspiracy theorist, he pretty much gets a pass on any lies he tells because, I can only imagine, he is after all seeking the 'truth'.

Terral

20th February 2008, 09:15 AM

Hi Twinstead:

This is funny. Not ha ha funny, but sad funny. In a ha ha kind of way. Anyway, if Gage supported the 'official story', and it was found that some of his evidence to support it was suspect, people like Terral land Christopher7 would be ALL over it, claiming the rest of his research just may be suspect because of it.

But, since Gage is a conspiracy theorist, he pretty much gets a pass on any lies he tells because, I can only imagine, he is after all seeking the 'truth'.

Hold on one minute! Senor Bushie and his inside-job clan (http://liberty.hypermart.net/cgi-bin/blogs/media/bushgang911b.jpg) were in the ‘conspiracy theorist’ business (http://911review.com/myth/imgs/fbi_hijackers.jpg) pushing the “Official Story” (http://911review.com/myth/hijackers.html) long before Richard Gage (http://www.ae911truth.org/) or Dr. Steven Jones (http://stj911.org/index.html) by claiming 9/11 was carried out by a bunch of Bearded Jihadist Radicals like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/BushieBadGuys.jpg) using boxcutters and whatnot. Twinstead simply stands with Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, etc. (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/photos/uncategorized/bush_and_cabinet.jpg) in defending the Official Conspiracy Story (http://911research.wtc7.net/) rather than stand with the experts in the field and their CD explanations told by THE EVIDENCE. Never allow these so-called ‘debunkers’ to pretend ‘they’ are anything but ‘conspiracy theorists’ pointing fingers at people like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/BushieBadGuys.jpg) with their bold accusations. 911Truthers are ‘also’ in the conspiracy business just like Bush, the DoD, the FBI, the CIA and everyone else truly responsible for carrying out these 9/11 attacks ‘and’ for running the ongoing Cover-Up Operation.

Did Bearded Jihadist Radicals give away American Sovereignty by signing the illegal North American Union treaty in March of 2005? No. Bush did that (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50618). Did Bearded Jihadist Radicals allow 20 million illegals to run around loose in this once-great-country? No. Twenty-five US citizens are killed EVERY DAY (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103) here at home and BUSH is allowing that madness to continue. Bush is the one allowing Ramos and Compean to rot in prison (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58229) for simply doing their jobs in defending our borders. Are Bearded Jihadist Radicals working behind the scenes to bring in the North American Union (http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf) NASCO Super-highway? No! Senor Bushie and his newly created ministerial groups (http://www.nascocorridor.com/pages/ports_network/ports_network.htm) are doing all of that behind the scenes to bypass US ports of entry, our unionized longshoremen and truckers to ‘displace’ as many US workers as possible in his constant and unrelenting task of destroying the American Middle Class (http://www.unlvrebelyell.com/article/2005/08/08/cafta-will-destroy-the-american-middle-class/). That is the reason you have a Department of Homeland Insecurity (http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/12/08/corruption-crime-inside-homeland-security/) to place illegal wiretaps on US Citizens (http://www.alternet.org/rights/32218/) ‘and’ 20 million illegal aliens (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42216) running around loose from sea to shining sea. MANY of you have been DUPED by the Global Imperialist Elites working to bring in their New World Order and simply because Senor Bushie pointed to 19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals and YOU were stupid enough to buy ‘his’ ridiculous ‘conspiracy theory’ based nowhere in reality at all.

The USA is imploding upon itself just like WTC-7 and right before your very eyes, but you would rather stand and defend the inside-job bad guys (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/images3/warprofiteers.jpg) than simply wake the heck up and look at ‘all’ the Controlled Demolition evidence. In that case, you deserve the coming DOOM facing America even as we speak . . .

GL, because you need it,

Terral

Good Lt

20th February 2008, 09:30 AM

The USA is imploding upon itself just like WTC-7 and right before your very eyes, but you would rather stand and defend the inside-job bad guys (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/images3/warprofiteers.jpg) than simply wake the heck up and look at ‘all’ the Controlled Demolition evidence. In that case, you deserve the coming DOOM facing America even as we speak . . .WTC7 did not "implode." It collapsed.

There is no "controlled demolition evidence."

America is not "imploding." The Troof cult is.

And through it all, you still haven't proved 9-11 was an inside job, have you Terral?

Didn't think so.

twinstead

20th February 2008, 09:36 AM

Terral just admit you are biased and hold evidence counter to your viewpoint to a different standard than you do evidence that supports it and you'll feel much better about yourself. You know you do it. We know you do it.

I promise. The truth will set you free.

And by the way, exactly how do you know YOU'RE not disinfo? I suspect that "They" have got to you, my friend, maybe blackmail, maybe brainwashing (the NWO are SLY, SLY, SLY!) who knows? Boy, they must have seen you from a mile away. You have disinfo written all over you.

twinstead

20th February 2008, 09:40 AM

The USA is imploding upon itself just like WTC-7 and right before your very eyes, but you would rather stand and defend the inside-job bad guys (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/images3/warprofiteers.jpg) than simply wake the heck up and look at ‘all’ the Controlled Demolition evidence. In that case, you deserve the coming DOOM facing America even as we speak . .
Terral

Wow. Ouch, that's going to leave a mark! LOL. I haven't read a good old-fashioned irrational, paranoid diatribe in a while (since the last time you typed one, probably).

Yea yea yea whatever. Rant all you want. You're just the internet equivalent of the bearded old man on the street corner in every big city staring wide-eyed and spewing spittle about how the world is going to end.

pomeroo

20th February 2008, 09:45 AM

Hi Twinstead:

Hold on one minute! Senor Bushie and his inside-job clan (http://liberty.hypermart.net/cgi-bin/blogs/media/bushgang911b.jpg) were in the ‘conspiracy theorist’ business (http://911review.com/myth/imgs/fbi_hijackers.jpg) pushing the “Official Story” (http://911review.com/myth/hijackers.html) long before Richard Gage (http://www.ae911truth.org/) or Dr. Steven Jones (http://stj911.org/index.html) by claiming 9/11 was carried out by a bunch of Bearded Jihadist Radicals like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/BushieBadGuys.jpg) using boxcutters and whatnot. Twinstead simply stands with Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, etc. (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/photos/uncategorized/bush_and_cabinet.jpg) in defending the Official Conspiracy Story (http://911research.wtc7.net/) rather than stand with the experts in the field and their CD explanations told by THE EVIDENCE. Never allow these so-called ‘debunkers’ to pretend ‘they’ are anything but ‘conspiracy theorists’ pointing fingers at people like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/BushieBadGuys.jpg) with their bold accusations. 911Truthers are ‘also’ in the conspiracy business just like Bush, the DoD, the FBI, the CIA and everyone else truly responsible for carrying out these 9/11 attacks ‘and’ for running the ongoing Cover-Up Operation.

Did Bearded Jihadist Radicals give away American Sovereignty by signing the illegal North American Union treaty in March of 2005? No. Bush did that (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50618). Did Bearded Jihadist Radicals allow 20 million illegals to run around loose in this once-great-country? No. Twenty-five US citizens are killed EVERY DAY (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103) here at home and BUSH is allowing that madness to continue. Bush is the one allowing Ramos and Compean to rot in prison (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58229) for simply doing their jobs in defending our borders. Are Bearded Jihadist Radicals working behind the scenes to bring in the North American Union (http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf) NASCO Super-highway? No! Senor Bushie and his newly created ministerial groups (http://www.nascocorridor.com/pages/ports_network/ports_network.htm) are doing all of that behind the scenes to bypass US ports of entry, our unionized longshoremen and truckers to ‘displace’ as many US workers as possible in his constant and unrelenting task of destroying the American Middle Class (http://www.unlvrebelyell.com/article/2005/08/08/cafta-will-destroy-the-american-middle-class/). That is the reason you have a Department of Homeland Insecurity (http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/12/08/corruption-crime-inside-homeland-security/) to place illegal wiretaps on US Citizens (http://www.alternet.org/rights/32218/) ‘and’ 20 million illegal aliens (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42216) running around loose from sea to shining sea. MANY of you have been DUPED by the Global Imperialist Elites working to bring in their New World Order and simply because Senor Bushie pointed to 19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals and YOU were stupid enough to buy ‘his’ ridiculous ‘conspiracy theory’ based nowhere in reality at all.

The USA is imploding upon itself just like WTC-7 and right before your very eyes, but you would rather stand and defend the inside-job bad guys (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/images3/warprofiteers.jpg) than simply wake the heck up and look at ‘all’ the Controlled Demolition evidence. In that case, you deserve the coming DOOM facing America even as we speak . . .

GL, because you need it,

Terral

You've been caught lying again. American sovereignty has not been "given away."

When will you stop lying?

defaultdotxbe

20th February 2008, 10:15 AM

Hi Twinstead:

Hold on one minute! Senor Bushie and his inside-job clan (http://liberty.hypermart.net/cgi-bin/blogs/media/bushgang911b.jpg) were in the ‘conspiracy theorist’ business (http://911review.com/myth/imgs/fbi_hijackers.jpg) pushing the “Official Story” (http://911review.com/myth/hijackers.html) long before Richard Gage (http://www.ae911truth.org/) or Dr. Steven Jones (http://stj911.org/index.html) by claiming 9/11 was carried out by a bunch of Bearded Jihadist Radicals like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/BushieBadGuys.jpg) using boxcutters and whatnot. Twinstead simply stands with Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, etc. (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/photos/uncategorized/bush_and_cabinet.jpg) in defending the Official Conspiracy Story (http://911research.wtc7.net/) rather than stand with the experts in the field and their CD explanations told by THE EVIDENCE. Never allow these so-called ‘debunkers’ to pretend ‘they’ are anything but ‘conspiracy theorists’ pointing fingers at people like this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/BushieBadGuys.jpg) with their bold accusations. 911Truthers are ‘also’ in the conspiracy business just like Bush, the DoD, the FBI, the CIA and everyone else truly responsible for carrying out these 9/11 attacks ‘and’ for running the ongoing Cover-Up Operation.

Did Bearded Jihadist Radicals give away American Sovereignty by signing the illegal North American Union treaty in March of 2005? No. Bush did that (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50618). Did Bearded Jihadist Radicals allow 20 million illegals to run around loose in this once-great-country? No. Twenty-five US citizens are killed EVERY DAY (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103) here at home and BUSH is allowing that madness to continue. Bush is the one allowing Ramos and Compean to rot in prison (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58229) for simply doing their jobs in defending our borders. Are Bearded Jihadist Radicals working behind the scenes to bring in the North American Union (http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf) NASCO Super-highway? No! Senor Bushie and his newly created ministerial groups (http://www.nascocorridor.com/pages/ports_network/ports_network.htm) are doing all of that behind the scenes to bypass US ports of entry, our unionized longshoremen and truckers to ‘displace’ as many US workers as possible in his constant and unrelenting task of destroying the American Middle Class (http://www.unlvrebelyell.com/article/2005/08/08/cafta-will-destroy-the-american-middle-class/). That is the reason you have a Department of Homeland Insecurity (http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/12/08/corruption-crime-inside-homeland-security/) to place illegal wiretaps on US Citizens (http://www.alternet.org/rights/32218/) ‘and’ 20 million illegal aliens (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42216) running around loose from sea to shining sea. MANY of you have been DUPED by the Global Imperialist Elites working to bring in their New World Order and simply because Senor Bushie pointed to 19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals and YOU were stupid enough to buy ‘his’ ridiculous ‘conspiracy theory’ based nowhere in reality at all.

The USA is imploding upon itself just like WTC-7 and right before your very eyes, but you would rather stand and defend the inside-job bad guys (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/images3/warprofiteers.jpg) than simply wake the heck up and look at ‘all’ the Controlled Demolition evidence. In that case, you deserve the coming DOOM facing America even as we speak . . .

GL, because you need it,

Terral
so do you have a script that puts the scare quotes around random words or do you do it manually?

twinstead

20th February 2008, 10:58 AM

so do you have a script that puts the scare quotes around random words or do you do it manually?

He uses a software package called Special Program for Exclamation Words.

Probably SPEW 2.0

20th February 2008, 01:50 PM

Gage HAS removed the squibs -claim from www.ae911truth.org front page WTC 7 evidence.

And it didn't take long. :eye-poppi

Are you being sarcastic?
(it's hard to tell on the internet sometimes...)

"Squibs" is still present on the front page.
It's item 4 in the list of "characteristics of destruction by explosions:".

It links here (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html).

below is a screenshot I just took, with the computer clock included.

Christopher7

20th February 2008, 03:04 PM

WTC7 did not "implode." It collapsed. Pure denial.
You call Gage a liar because the squibs in WTC 7 are inconclusive and then you make asinine statements like this one.

Stacy Loizeaux: The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion."

FEMA 5-31
"Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded"
"WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the façade came straight down"

NIST L-33
"The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building."

Building implosion is a fine art. It cannot happen by chance. WTC 7 was a CD

Christopher7

20th February 2008, 03:10 PM

;3454847']"Squibs" is still present on the front page.
It's item 4 in the list of "characteristics of destruction by explosions:".
It links here (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html).
below is a screenshot I just took, with the computer clock included.
The squibs in question are the ones in WTC 7, not the Trade Towers.

DGM

20th February 2008, 03:11 PM

How far outside a footprint should gravity throw things?:boggled:

20th February 2008, 03:13 PM

The squibs in question are the ones in WTC 7, not the Trade Towers.

Ah.
Thanks for the clarification.

boloboffin

20th February 2008, 03:16 PM

Edited: Never mind. The page is alternating the Twin Tower list and the 7 World Trade list as the top and bottom of that column. Why would they do that? Weirdest thing I've ever seen.

pomeroo

20th February 2008, 03:18 PM

Pure denial.
You call Gage a liar because the squibs in WTC 7 are inconclusive and then you make asinine statements like this one.

Stacy Loizeaux: The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion."

FEMA 5-31
"Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded"
"WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the façade came straight down"

NIST L-33
"The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building."

Building implosion is a fine art. It cannot happen by chance. WTC 7 was a CD

No, there is no evidence to suggest that the collapse of WTC 7 was a demolition.

Christopher7

20th February 2008, 03:59 PM

No, there is no evidence to suggest that the collapse of WTC 7 was a demolition.The FACT that it IMPLODED is evidence that it was a CD.

CD is the ONLY known cause of high rise building implosion.

It is a fine art, extremely difficult to accomplish.

To say that the implosion of WTC 7 isn't evidence, is pure denial.

The fires in WTC 7 did not burn long enough to heat a column weigh over 7 tons per floor to over 1000° F.

boloboffin

20th February 2008, 04:02 PM

The FACT that it IMPLODED is evidence that it was a CD.

CD is the ONLY known cause of high rise building implosion.

It is a fine art, extremely difficult to accomplish.

To say that the implosion of WTC 7 isn't evidence, is pure denial.

The fires in WTC 7 did not burn long enough to heat a column weigh over 7 tons per floor to over 1000° F.

This is not true, Christopher. The use of the term by FEMA should tell you that implosion doesn't mean "with explosive devices."

Stars implode all the live long day. Are they controlled demolitions?

twinstead

20th February 2008, 05:10 PM

Please don't let Chris get into another semantics discussion. It is a prime truther tactic to avoid answering legitimate contradictions to their points.

FactCheck

20th February 2008, 06:05 PM

"The FACT that it IMPLODED is evidence that it was a CD. "

The fact that it hit other buildings around it and fell to the south proves it didn't implode. That is also evidence it isn't CD

"CD is the ONLY known cause of high rise building implosion."

Since it didn't implode it doesn't matter

"It is a fine art, extremely difficult to accomplish."

It fell, that not hard for a building constructed like WTC 7 to do in a fire.

"To say that the implosion of WTC 7 isn't evidence, is pure denial."

To say it was an implosion is pure denial.

The fires in WTC 7 did not burn long enough to heat a column weigh over 7 tons per floor to over 1000°F.

That's your uninformed statement out of ignorance. The WHOLE FREAKEN FIRE DEPARTMENT KNEW THE BUILDING WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE BY FIRE BEFORE IT FELL. THE ENTIER MEDIA KNEW! Structural engineers have created papers saying how they think the fires collapsed the building... Just who the hell are you??? Heh!

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Again, just who the hell are you and wheres your peer reviewed paper from a respected journal saying anything close to what you're saying??? That the WTC 7 could not have collapsed by fire??? No quote mining please...

Christopher7

20th February 2008, 11:46 PM

This is not true, Christopher. The use of the term by FEMA should tell you that implosion doesn't mean "with explosive devices."Correct. It's just stating the obvious. WTC 7 IMPLODED.
[fell in on itself]

NIST L-33
The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building. From aerial photos, the debris visible on top of the pile is mostly façade structure. This failure sequence suggests that the interior of the building collapsed before the exterior.

Although they don't use the word 'implosion', NIST is describing a building implosion.
Blowing the interior columns first, in a precisely timed manner, will make a building implode.
WTC 7 IMPLODED.

Arus808

21st February 2008, 12:48 AM

no, wtc 7 did not implode,. you might want to educate yourself on its definition first

Christopher7

21st February 2008, 01:33 AM

The fact that it hit other buildings around it and fell to the south proves it didn't implode. That is also evidence it isn't CD.WTC 7 was 576 feet tall. Damage to some of the surrounding buildings is not surprising.
The fact that the center of the debris pile is near the center of the footprint clearly shows that WTC7 fell mostly straight down.

The interior falls first, the building falls in on it self and mostly straight down. This is a classic* building implosion.

L-51
The working hypothesis, for the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, if it holds up upon further analysis, would suggest that it was a classic* progressive collapse.
Progressive collapses of the kind in WTC 7 have occurred only in controlled demolitions.

Encarta Dictionary [Windows XP Microsoft word]
classic:
1]top quality, the highest quality
2]definitive , a standard of it’s kind

It fell, that not hard for a building constructed like WTC 7 to do in a fire.Normal building fires could not heat columns weighing over 7 tons per floor to over 1000° F on 1 floor, much less 4 contiguous floors.

That's your uninformed statement out of ignorance. The WHOLE FREAKEN FIRE DEPARTMENT KNEW THE BUILDING WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE BY FIRE BEFORE IT FELL.Two chiefs and a Capt. thought WTC 7 was in danger of collapse. [one chief disagreed]
The WHOLE FREAKEN FIRE DEPARTMENT and the ENTIRE MEDIA heard about it thru the grapevine.

Structural engineers have created papers saying how they think the fires collapsed the building.http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

He just repeated the NIST hypothesis and offered no detail to back it up.

Again, just who the hell are you and wheres your peer reviewed paper from a respected journal saying anything close to what you're saying??? That the WTC 7 could not have collapsed by fire??? No quote mining please...You believe the unproven official hype on blind faith and demand a "peer reviewed paper from a respected journal" to tell you that normal building fires could not heat columns weighing over 7 tons per floor to over 1000° F on 4 contiguous floors.

Christopher7

21st February 2008, 01:43 AM

no, wtc 7 did not implode,. you might want to educate yourself on its definition firstPerhaps you missed this:

Stacy Loizeaux: The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion."

Since the Loiseaux family coined the term "implosion" to describe what they do, it has become synonymous with a controlled demolition that causes a building to fall in on itself.
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

This does not mean that stars are CD's, as someone asked, it only means that the word "implosion" now has another definition.

Every high rise building that has ever imploded was a CD.

funk de fino

21st February 2008, 03:35 AM

C7

NIST call it a collapse. They do not call it an implosion.

Lets see what the definition of collapse is and if it could apply to WTC7

1.To fall down or inward suddenly; cave in.
2. To break down suddenly in strength or health and thereby cease to function: a monarchy that collapsed.
3. To fold compactly: chairs that collapse for storage.
v.tr.
To cause to fold, break down, or fall down or inward.
n.
1. The act of falling down or inward, as from loss of supports.
2. An abrupt failure of function, strength, or health; a breakdown.
3. An abrupt loss of perceived value or of effect: the collapse of popular respect for the integrity of world leaders.

Yes, it seemingly can. Motion denied C7

Now I will let you define progressive collapse as well as classic.

CHF

21st February 2008, 02:58 PM

I joined with a fake engineer name just to get on his nutcase email mailing list.

After realizing that the emails were garbage, I replied to the last one (about 3 weeks ago) and fessed up. I told him to remove the name.

Guess what.

It's still there...:jaw-dropp

That's what they get for putting Doug Plumb in charge of quality control

:dl:

boloboffin

21st February 2008, 04:02 PM

To be perfectly honest, the way that the website flips the two lists back and forth, I might have mistaken when Gage changed the website's front page.

However, the slideshow remains the same, as do the downloadable handouts.

boloboffin

23rd February 2008, 03:50 PM

A video presentation of the new slideshow has just been released:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4182115161669945121&hl=en

The date of this presentation is February 9, 2008.

At 31 minutes in, Gage presents the controlled demolition slide now visible on his front page. The squibs argument is IN. He specifically refers to it.

However, when he applies this to 7 World Trade, he refers not to the "mistimed explosions" but to "chemical evidence of thermite cutter charges," evidence for which he will present when he gets to the Twin Towers, because "the evidence is the same."

:yikes:

slyjoe

23rd February 2008, 05:30 PM

How's he doing on that gravity thing? ;)

Christopher7

23rd February 2008, 10:57 PM

C7
NIST call it a collapse. They do not call it an implosion.
Lets see what the definition of collapse is and if it could apply to WTC7
Yes, it seemingly can. A rose by any other name .........

1.To fall down or inward suddenly; cave in.
v.tr.
To cause to fold, break down, or fall down or inward.
n.
1. The act of falling down or inward, as from loss of supports.

WTC 7 fell inward and landed mostly in its own footprint.
i.e. it fell mostly straight down.

You can use implode or collapse if you like, both are correct.
The building demolition community uses the word implode because the family that developed the fine art of getting a building to collapse into its own footprint coined the term "implosion" to best describe what they did.
Hence:
http://www.implosionworld.com/

defaultdotxbe

24th February 2008, 07:33 AM

A rose by any other name .........

1.To fall down or inward suddenly; cave in.
v.tr.
To cause to fold, break down, or fall down or inward.
n.
1. The act of falling down or inward, as from loss of supports.

WTC 7 fell inward and landed mostly in its own footprint.
i.e. it fell mostly straight down.

You can use implode or collapse if you like, both are correct.
The building demolition community uses the word implode because the family that developed the fine art of getting a building to collapse into its own footprint coined the term "implosion" to best describe what they did.
Hence:
http://www.implosionworld.com/
are you saying implode and collapse are the same thing? if so you may want to rethink this statement of yours:

"CD is the ONLY known cause of high rise building implosion."

boloboffin

24th February 2008, 10:06 AM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4182115161669945121#37m10s

At :37:20 in that movie, Richard says that some people believe that those upper floor blobs are "squibs." He says that it needs further investigation. He doesn't disavow it as he did at 911 Blogger. He made no mention of the "stationary" part AT ALL.

Pure grade snake oil going on right there.

Minadin

24th February 2008, 10:08 AM

Stacy Loizeaux: The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion."

What Stacy is describing here is how they started to use the term "implosion" as a figurative way to describe the collapse of the building. They don't mean it literally. They don't define the word, either. The word "implosion" dates from the 1870's (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=implosion&searchmode=none). By the way, you can find her entire interview with Nova here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html

If you read the transcript there she'll say things like:

Well, the explosives are really just the catalyst. Largely what we use is gravity.

JamesB

24th February 2008, 10:23 AM

~enigma~

24th February 2008, 10:25 AM

This is Stundie material. Gage 1:16 through, on the beginning of the collapse of one of the towers.

"The gravitational potential hasn't even developed and there is smoke coming out almost everywhere"

Uhh, I am no architect, and it has been a while since I took physics in college, but doesn't a tall building always have gravitational potential, no developing needed?
Tall building...short building...jungle gym...there was potential energy in each and every bolt.

ETA - Unless he proposes a construction method where no work whatsoever is required.

JamesB

24th February 2008, 10:47 AM

Another bizarre statement, from 1:36

"The security was changed out 6 weeks prior to 9/11 to a company called Securacom. Their contract ended on either September 10th or 11th, I mean that is the way it was written, only for 6 weeks. Who is on the board of directors of Securacom? Marvin Bush, Wirt Walker III a Bush cousin. These individuals need to be asked some very tough questions."

So is Gage going to show us this contract that he seems to have such an intimate knowledge of?

boloboffin

24th February 2008, 10:50 AM

I think I posted this here somewhere, but he invokes Fat Osama at the end of his speech. "Google 'fatty Osama'!"

What a tool.

~enigma~

24th February 2008, 10:51 AM

Any ideas on why I can view every video on GV EXCEPT those from ae911truth.org?

boloboffin

24th February 2008, 10:59 AM

I don't know, enigma. I cleared my cache and I'm still able to view the videos.

~enigma~

24th February 2008, 11:09 AM

I don't know, enigma. I cleared my cache and I'm still able to view the videos.
It appears to be cleared up at the moment. Maybe it is a GV glitch cause when I tried again I was given a message that the video is no longer available. 2 min later it worked....go figure :)

Christopher7

24th February 2008, 02:07 PM

What Stacy is describing here is how they started to use the term "implosion" as a figurative way to describe the collapse of the building. They don't mean it literally. Tell that to these guys:
http://www.implosionworld.com

JamesB

24th February 2008, 02:18 PM

peteweaver

24th February 2008, 02:25 PM

As of today, the number of days that have gone by since Richard Gage admitted (http://911blogger.com/node/13263#comment-173535) that his squib claim was false, without removing it from his website: 40

In the meantime, AE911Truth has completely erased his old slideshow. Two days ago, they updated the front page to remove the sample slide of the old slideshow and replaced it with a sample slide from the new slideshow.

Both slides were the collapse hypothesis slide for 7 World Trade. Both slides continue to display the squibs argument. The slide is so small that the type is illegible, but there are clearly still 10 points under the Characteristics of Controlled Demolition section of the slide. This is slide 24 in his new Powerpoint, and it is reproduced here:

http://ae911truth.info/img/NSlide024.jpg

40 days after Gage admitted the speciousness of the 7 World Trade squib argument, he continues to show no sign of removing this argument from his site. Indeed, he shows every sign of continuing to promote an known false argument.

Some ammendments for the flawed chart presented by Boloboffin:
NO sounds of explosions were heard, and there were no flashes of bombs detonating.

Fire and explosives should not be on the same billing, explosives are flammable, and have a habit of detonating in fierce fire.

WTC7's collapse initiated with the upper penthouse which fell into the building and wrecked what was left of its innards.

Intense fire burned for seven hours before WTC7 collapsed, and after collapse its contents continued burning until no further fire were possible.

Fire triangle: Fuel Heat Air.

Performance of structural steel in fire is determined by the effect of load and by the effect of heat; WTC 7 Load distribution was VERY WIDE.

Loss of structural integrity was noted by firefighters

Firefighters had to be pulled out.

No molten steel was found under WTC 7 or any of the other towers due to the fact that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel, and explosives don't melt steel either, they blast with intense pressure.

ZERO evidence of explosive demolitions.

Minadin

24th February 2008, 02:56 PM

Tell that to these guys:
http://www.implosionworld.com

Yeah, I don't actually have to do that. They're experts and they know exactly what they are about. In fact, that's probably why Stacy says in the same interview (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html): (same exact response in fact as your initial quote)

It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.

They're using the term to describe (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/describe) what they are doing. Metaphorically (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphor). It's a figure of speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech).

Christopher7

24th February 2008, 03:45 PM

Yeah, I don't actually have to do that. They're experts and they know exactly what they are about.They named their site "Implosion World" and have videos of building implosions because the word implosion has become synonymous with a controlled demolition that causes a building to fall in on itself.

FEMA recognized that WTC 7 imploded.
Danny Jowenko said:
I: Yes, you see the bottom floors go first.
J: Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition.
I: You sure?
J: Absolutely, it’s been imploded.
This is a hired job. A team of experts did this.

Why do you persist in denying that implosion, has become nomenclature for a controlled demolition that causes a building to fall in on itself?

LashL

24th February 2008, 05:03 PM

1:55 in Gage states that thermate would not cause clean cuts like an acetylene torch. Wait a minute, haven't they for the last two years been claiming that that photo of a clean angle cut was a signature of the use of thermate?

Indeed.

No consistent logic required with these guys.

Consistency and logic are anathema to twoofers. Employing either one would cause their heads to explode.

Christopher7

24th February 2008, 05:53 PM

1:55 in Gage states that thermate would not cause clean cuts like an acetylene torch. Wait a minute, haven't they for the last two years been claiming that that photo of a clean angle cut was a signature of the use of thermate? You nitpick and babble about the precise meanings of words and ignore the point.

This column was cut at a 45° angle.
This is consistent with CD, it is NOT consistent with cutting a column manually as it requires more cutting than a straight cut.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8391/pic879706ic1qe7.jpg

Magenta

24th February 2008, 06:07 PM

This column was cut at a 45° angle.
This is consistent with CD, it is NOT consistent with cutting a column manually as it requires more cutting than a straight cut.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8391/pic879706ic1qe7.jpg

You can't think of any other reason it was cut on an angle?

boloboffin

24th February 2008, 06:08 PM

That column was cut by an torch during cleanup.

It was cut at an angle because the workers were directing the fall of the beam. How many times do you have to be shown the picture of the worker cutting the beam at an angle at Ground Zero? It came from the same collection of cleanup pictures as that angle-cut beam, Christopher7.

Minadin

24th February 2008, 06:23 PM

They named their site "Implosion World" and have videos of building implosions because the word implosion has become synonymous with a controlled demolition that causes a building to fall in on itself.

FEMA recognized that WTC 7 imploded.
Danny Jowenko said:
I: Yes, you see the bottom floors go first.
J: Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition.
I: You sure?
J: Absolutely, it’s been imploded.
This is a hired job. A team of experts did this.

Why do you persist in denying that implosion, has become nomenclature for a controlled demolition that causes a building to fall in on itself?

My point is that they are using the word (implosion) to figuratively describe what they are doing (removing key supports in the building) to achieve their goal (building collapses upon itself due to gravity). They use the word to describe the overall effect. Essentially any situation that meets their primary condition (the removal of key supports in the building) will have the same effect (building collapses upon itself due to gravity) and will look very similar. Some people might use that same sort of figurative language to describe the event.

You can't rely solely on visual data here. Many of the conditions would be the same, since the main condition and driving cause of the collapse is the same in both cases. But what's the cause of that condition (the removal of key supports)? In the case of the videos you see on the Implosion World website, it's explosive charges cutting those key supports. In the case of WTC7, it's failure due to fire and prior impact damage from the collapse of WTC1. What's the difference? Detonations of explosive charges make extremely loud, percussive noises. (some of the charges CDI likes to use explode at 17,000 fps / 11,500 mph) Fire, by comparison, is relatively quiet.

JamesB

24th February 2008, 06:24 PM

Ack, now he is talking about the oil pipelines we are currently building across Afghanistan. Geez, this guy is still stuck on Loose Change V2.0

defaultdotxbe

24th February 2008, 09:15 PM

Tell that to these guys:
http://www.implosionworld.com
yes, tell it to them
http://www.implosionworld.com/dyk2.html

you say WTC7 fell mostly into its own foothprint, an imploded building falls entirely within its own footprint so it doesnt damage neighboring buildings (which WTC7 did, quite badly too)

JamesB

24th February 2008, 09:23 PM

yes, tell it to them
http://www.implosionworld.com/dyk2.html

you say WTC7 fell mostly into its own foothprint, an imploded building falls entirely within its own footprint so it doesnt damage neighboring buildings (which WTC7 did, quite badly too)

Actually what is most amusing about that argument is that Gage says that WTC7 falling in its own footprint is a sign of controlled demolition. Then he says for the twin towers, falling outside of its footprint is a sign of controlled demolition.

Essentially, ANYTHING to him can be a sign of controlled demolition.

Architect

25th February 2008, 02:07 AM

I wish the AIA had a more robust professional practice committee.

DGM

25th February 2008, 04:45 AM

You nitpick and babble about the precise meanings of words and ignore the point.

This column was cut at a 45° angle.
This is consistent with CD, it is NOT consistent with cutting a column manually as it requires more cutting than a straight cut.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8391/pic879706ic1qe7.jpg

Chris:
Do loggers cut their trees straight across or do they angle the cut to direct the fall? Iron workers don't like things falling wherever they please either. Think!

Dave Rogers

25th February 2008, 04:48 AM

This column was cut at a 45° angle.
This is consistent with CD, it is NOT consistent with cutting a column manually as it requires more cutting than a straight cut.

Just so everyone knows Chris is lying here, go to:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

and scroll down to the fourth photo, which shows a steelworker at Ground Zero during the cleanup in the process of cutting a column manually, which he is doing at an angle rather than making a straight cut. There are, of course, perfectly good reasons for cutting a column at an angle rather than straight. If the upper part of the column is supported by a crane, then a cut angled such that the bottom of the cut faces the direction of motion of the crane will allow the crane to move the upper part away without the possibility of it snagging on the lower part. If the aim is to allow the upper part to fall clear, then an angled cut ensures that it will fall clear in the desired direction. Chris cannot have made as many posts as he has here without having been told all this many times, yet he is pretending here that he doesn't know anything about it. This is a typical level of honesty within the truth movement.

Dave

Christopher7

25th February 2008, 08:09 PM

Just so everyone knows Chris is lying here, go to:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

DaveYou're quick to call someone a liar without cause.

Debunking 911 tries to make the case for the column being cut after the collapse.

It does NOT disprove the possibility that the column was cut using Thermite.

BTW: What is the source of the Oct. and Dec. dates for those pictures of the firefighters on the pile?
What are the qualifications of the authors?
More on this site to follow.

Christopher7

25th February 2008, 08:13 PM

Actually what is most amusing about that argument is that Gage says that WTC7 falling in its own footprint is a sign of controlled demolition. Then he says for the twin towers, falling outside of its footprint is a sign of controlled demolition.That's because you don't know the difference between implosion and explosion.

Christopher7

25th February 2008, 09:25 PM

yes, tell it to them
http://www.implosionworld.com/dyk2.html

you say WTC7 fell mostly into its own foothprint, an imploded building falls entirely within its own footprint* so it doesnt damage neighboring buildings** (which WTC7 did, quite badly too)*Not so.
Implosions bring a building 'more or less' straight down and cause it to land 'mostly' in its own footprint, to minimize damage to surrounding buildings.
Very few implosions land entirely within their own footprint.

**Prior to 911, the tallest building ever imploded was Hudson's, a 26-story, 439-foot tall structure that was brought down in 1998.
Hudson's footprint was much larger WTC 7's. There were large spaces on two sides, yet:
Pile up of debris during the fall of Hudson’s pushed four steel columns against and two columns over the post-tensioned concrete elevated People Mover Tramway near the south west corner of the structure.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/6958/hudsonssmoz2.jpg

Because of WTC 7's height and narrow footprint, there was damage to some of the surrounding buildings.
This does not mean that it didn't implode.

FEMA recognized that WTC 7 imploded.
Danny Jowenko recognized that WTC 7 imploded.
Saying WTC 7 didn't implode is just denying the obvious.

Minadin

25th February 2008, 10:27 PM

My point is that they are using the word (implosion) to figuratively describe what they are doing (removing key supports in the building) to achieve their goal (building collapses upon itself due to gravity). They use the word to describe the overall effect. Essentially any situation that meets their primary condition (the removal of key supports in the building) will have the same effect (building collapses upon itself due to gravity) and will look very similar. Some people might use that same sort of figurative language to describe the event.

You can't rely solely on visual data here. Many of the conditions would be the same, since the main condition and driving cause of the collapse is the same in both cases. But what's the cause of that condition (the removal of key supports)? In the case of the videos you see on the Implosion World website, it's explosive charges cutting those key supports. In the case of WTC7, it's failure due to fire and prior impact damage from the collapse of WTC1. What's the difference? Detonations of explosive charges make extremely loud, percussive noises. (some of the charges CDI likes to use explode at 17,000 fps / 11,500 mph) Fire, by comparison, is relatively quiet.

Um, Chris7?

Dave Rogers

26th February 2008, 02:16 AM

This column was cut at a 45° angle.
This is consistent with CD, it is NOT consistent with cutting a column manually as it requires more cutting than a straight cut.

You're quick to call someone a liar without cause.

The statement that the 45º angle is inconsistent with cutting a column manually is an incorrect statement. It is proven incorrect by the picture of a steelworker cutting a column manually at 45º. You have seen this picture before and had its significance explained to you, therefore you knew the statement to be incorrect when you made it. That's the definition of a lie.

Dave

Drs_Res

26th February 2008, 06:18 AM

And I post this video of cleanup. Watch and listen.

FfgSr2eBXls

boloboffin

26th February 2008, 06:27 AM

Excellent video, Drs_Res.

Drs_Res

26th February 2008, 06:33 AM

Thanks.
It needs to be seen by more people.

peteweaver

26th February 2008, 06:46 AM

Chris, even explosive demolitions do not literally implode a building, they collapse it, into the smallest space they can, but its not literally imploding something, its a figure of speech.

As for your claim about thermite.

I have yet to see any evidence that thermite can burn horizontally, or even make neat 45 degree cuts through large load bearing steel columns.

Truthburn were going to do that last year at the burning man festival, and then they chickened out at the last minute because it cannot be done.

twinstead

26th February 2008, 07:19 AM

I have yet to see any evidence that thermite can burn horizontally, or even make neat 45 degree cuts through large load bearing steel columns.

Truthburn were going to do that last year at the burning man festival, and then they chickened out at the last minute because it cannot be done.

This isn't an insurmountable problem for most truthers. The easy answer is "well, then they must have had some special technology that we don't know about".

For tried and true truthers, lack of technology doesn't appear to be a show stopper for their theories; they just assume the NWO scientists figured it out. (hey, they had all that practice fooling experts for their moon landing hoax project, right?)

Christopher7

29th February 2008, 05:12 PM

My point is that they are using the word (implosion) to figuratively describe what they are doing (removing key supports in the building) to achieve their goal (building collapses upon itself due to gravity). They use the word to describe the overall effect The word 'implosion' is now demolition industry nomenclature.

Essentially any situation that meets their primary condition (the removal of key supports in the building) will have the same effect (building collapses upon itself due to gravity) and will look very similar. Some people might use that same sort of figurative language to describe the event.True, any situation where the central supports fail in the correct sequence will result in an implosion.
Getting that sequence correct is a fine art and it cannot happen by chance.
Implosions have always been a result of CD.
The NIST hypothesis says bad design caused the collapse.

Christopher7

29th February 2008, 06:25 PM

The statement that the 45º angle is inconsistent with cutting a column manually is an incorrect statement. It is proven incorrect by the picture of a steelworker cutting a column manually at 45º. You have seen this picture before and had its significance explained to you, therefore you knew the statement to be incorrect when you made it. That's the definition of a lie.
DaveNote the slag is on the back side of the cut.
A cutting torch creates a high pressure stream of fire that blows away the steel as it cuts. There is buildup of slag [melted steel running down and hardening like candle wax] on the backside of the cut.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9259/acetylenecut2em3.jpg

There is very little slag on the cutting side.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2976/acetylenecut1wk0.jpg

Now note that there is slag on the outside as well as the inside of this column.
To get that much slag on the outside, it would have to be cut from inside the column, or cut with Thermite.

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/909/corecolumncropyg2.jpg

Now note that this cut has been made from the back side as is evidenced by the slag and the uncut steel strap in front of the cut.
They had to cut away a section of the other side of this column to do this.
That's a lot of unnecessary cutting.

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/8456/cut2bi7.jpg

This photo appears to have been staged.

Mr. Skinny

29th February 2008, 06:32 PM

beachnut

29th February 2008, 06:39 PM

To get that much slag on the outside, it would have to be cut from inside the column, or cut with Thermite.

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/909/corecolumncropyg2.jpg
Cut during clean up; nice photo
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/8456/cut2bi7.jpg
Not staged; wrong again. They cut off the 3 inches of wallboard and then started to cut. There is no thermite that cuts horizontally, it works vertically. If you use the thermite cutting device, you would have hundreds of them after the collapse found in the pile! Sorry 9/11 truth still has no facts or evidence, just worthless hearsay junk and false conclusions. Why is that? Thermite is just another dumb of 9/11 truth idea.

Minadin

29th February 2008, 06:50 PM

Now note that there is slag on the outside as well as the inside of this column.
To get that much slag on the outside, it would have to be cut from inside the column, or cut with Thermite.

If they started the cut at the upper left and ended at the lower right, they'd be cutting from the outside on one end and the inside on the other. Mystery solved?

Also, I note without satisfaction that you completely avoided the half of my prior post which was the most damaging to your mythology. I'll assume that was on purpose.

Christopher7

1st March 2008, 01:17 AM

If they started the cut at the upper left and ended at the lower right, they'd be cutting from the outside on one end and the inside on the other. Mystery solved?No.
This is a BOX column. In order to have slag run down the outside of the box, the cutter would have to be inside the box

Whiplash

1st March 2008, 01:49 AM

It does NOT disprove the possibility that the column was cut using Thermite.

It's not anyones job or responsibility to disprove that possibility. It's the job of those who believe it was cut with thermite that to actually prove that it was.

What is it about the burden of proof that is so mind bogglingly difficult for your guys to comprehend?

Christopher7

1st March 2008, 01:51 AM

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/909/corecolumncropyg2.jpg
Cut during clean up;IYO

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/8456/cut2bi7.jpg

Not staged; wrong again. They cut off the 3 inches of wallboard and then started to cut.The slag is on the back side of a cut. [see first picture in my post] This is the back side of a cut.

There is no thermite that cuts horizontally, it works vertically. If you use the thermite cutting device, you would have hundreds of them after the collapse found in the pile! Are you an expert on demo techniques and devices?
Are you saying Thremite is not used in demolition?

Christopher7

1st March 2008, 02:22 AM

It's not anyones job or responsibility to disprove that possibility. It's the job of those who believe it was cut with thermite that to actually prove that it was.

What is it about the burden of proof that is so mind bogglingly difficult for your guys to comprehend?Ask yourself that question.
You have no proof that it was cut after the collapse.

It would be impossible to get a cherry picker in there for a cutter to cut that column.
Do you think someone used a ladder?
Do you think they would let something that heavy just fall?
Where is the piece that was cut off?
They would need a crane to move it so why not pick it up as it's being cut?
That would be a lot safer for the cutter.
It would also make the 45º angle cut unnecessary.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2557/cutcorecolumnqg2.jpg (http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2557/cutcorecolumnqg2.jpg)

Minadin

1st March 2008, 02:47 AM

What if the column you're talking about is leaning forward, with the top closer to the photographer than the base, similar to the column to its right in the above photograph, of which we have a side view? In that case, cutting straight across would be the least amount of cutting and also produce the desired effect of being able to direct the fall of the upper portion.

Also, you can continue to ignore that controlled demolition style "implosions", which employ explosives, make very distinct and extremely loud noises for as long and as blatantly as you wish, but their absence from any recording of building 7's collapse continues to destroy the argument put forth by you, Richard Gage, or anyone else who choses to make it.

Frontrunner91

1st March 2008, 03:57 AM

According to Implosion World the record for the tallest building brought down by explosive demolition is 439 feet. WTC 7 was 570 feet. <~ I can't post link due to low post count. Google Implosionworld

Save for the Twin Towers, Building 7 was a worthy attempt to smash the record. I'm still trying to grasp how they did it. I just cannot find enough information on silent fireproof explosives. :boggled:

Frontrunner91

1st March 2008, 04:01 AM

I'd like to see peole start using the proper term explosive demolition instead of the more general controlled demolition. I have participated in a couple of controlled demolitions and we used no explosives to tear down those houses.

boloboffin

1st March 2008, 09:25 AM

C7: If the beam had been cut on three sides, allowed to fall, and then the final side was cut, the beam would look just like that.

beachnut

1st March 2008, 10:32 PM

Ask yourself that question.
You have no proof that it was cut after the collapse.

It would be impossible to get a cherry picker in there for a cutter to cut that column.
Do you think someone used a ladder?
Do you think they would let something that heavy just fall?
Where is the piece that was cut off?
They would need a crane to move it so why not pick it up as it's being cut?
That would be a lot safer for the cutter.
It would also make the 45º angle cut unnecessary.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2557/cutcorecolumnqg2.jpg (http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2557/cutcorecolumnqg2.jpg)
So you have decided to go completely fantasyland now. Where is the device to make the thermite cut sideways in a world of gravity? Funny stuff. Not very good questions, just move on to the goal post next set and get it over. Why does 9/11 truth make up stuff about clean up cuts clearly debunked by visual evidence, and why do you lack the evidence and research to even try to back up your false ideas?

jberryhill

1st March 2008, 10:36 PM

First, Christopher, you asked about the origin of the photo itself. It was taken by Sam Hollenshead:

In 2001, Sam Hollenshead was a staff photographer for Labor Research Associates.

For example, if you search the articles from the union site workinglife.org, you will find a lot of examples of his work.

http://wbff.org/films/detail.asp?fid=664

Sam Hollenshead worked as a photographer from 2001-2003 documenting union labor throughout NYC. In 2004 his photographs of the rebuilding of subway infrastructure at the World Trade Center site were exhibited at the Museum of the City of New York.

http://www.samhollenshead.com/bio01.html

After 9/11, he documented workers at the World Trade Center site clearing debris and rebuilding damaged subway lines. Images from this project were published in the New York Times Magazine and displayed at the Museum of the City of New York in a group show with Magnum photographer, Bruce Davidson and MacArthur fellowship recipient, Camillo Jose Vergara. A solo exhibition of his subway photographs is currently on display at the New York City Transit Museum until December 2006.

http://www.samhollenshead.com/escontacts/wtccontact.htm...

http://www.lraphotography.com/essays/sep11/essay_wtc.ph...

When historians sit down to write about September 11th and its aftermath, they will have to reserve a page of History for the workers at ground zero whose tireless efforts saved lives and helped New York City rebuild itself. Here is the story of workers at ground zero. Photography by Sam Hollenshead.

Here is the sequence of photos taken by Mr. Hollenshead showing steelworkers engaged in the cleanup. Please not the presence of your favorite photo in the sequence:

http://www.lraphotography.com/photos/wtc/gzworkers/wtc.g0.b2.2.jpg

http://www.lraphotography.com/photos/wtc/gzworkers/wtc.g0.b2.3.jpg

http://www.lraphotography.com/photos/wtc/gzworkers/wtc.g0.b2.4.jpg

http://www.lraphotography.com/photos/wtc/gzworkers/wtc.g0.b3.1.jpg

http://www.lraphotography.com/photos/wtc/gzworkers/wtc.g0.b3.2.jpg

http://www.lraphotography.com/photos/wtc/gzworkers/wtc.g0.b3.3.jpg

Hollenshead was there to document the efforts of union steelworkers. That's what he was doing for a living at the time. That's why, if you know anything about the photographer and why the picture was taken, that it was relevant to all of the other pictures Mr. Hollenshead took of guys with torches cutting stuff.

I wrote to Mr. Hollenshead about that picture specifically, and he said:

"i do recall that the photo of the firefighters was taken almost a month after 9/11 and the cut beam in the background was almost certainly cut by a worker, not the result of 'intentional demolition.'"

That's why it has the date that you asked about.

Gage and Jones still use this photograph as evidence of CD, and their lack of investigation into it is, to me, convincing evidence of their intellectual bankruptcy.

In order to have slag run down the outside of the box, the cutter would have to be inside the box

So, how do you suppose someone put thermite inside of a box beam, to make that happen.

But, in fact, yes, you do want to cut a box beam from the inside out. You do this by making a hole large enough to get an angle-tipped torch in there.

Why? So, you can be sure you are cutting all of the way through.

If you take a look at the box column with the strap on it, discussed above, you can see that there is a large hole in the facing side. Waddya suppose that hole is for?

jberryhill

1st March 2008, 10:40 PM

You have no proof that it was cut after the collapse.

Yes, we do. We know who took the photograph and why.

It would be impossible to get a cherry picker in there for a cutter to cut that column.

Take a closer look at the photo:

http://www.hobartwelders.com/mboard/attachment.php?attachmentid=17434&stc=1&d=1146672888

beachnut

1st March 2008, 11:26 PM

Yes, we do. We know who took the photograph and why.

Take a closer look at the photo:

http://www.hobartwelders.com/mboard/attachment.php?attachmentid=17434&stc=1&d=1146672888
Thanks for the facts and information.

Drs_Res

2nd March 2008, 01:31 AM

*sigh*
I even gave him YouTube evidence, and he still gets it wrong.

Repost of the YouTube video, in case you missed it:

And I post this video of cleanup. Watch and listen.

FfgSr2eBXls

1337m4n

2nd March 2008, 01:40 AM

Are you saying Thremite is not used in demolition?

Yes.

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 02:28 AM

Yes, we do. We know who took the photograph and why.
Take a closer look at the photo:
http://www.hobartwelders.com/mboard/attachment.php?attachmentid=17434&stc=1&d=1146672888
Nice work.

No one answered the question "Where is the piece that was cut off?"

Dave_46

2nd March 2008, 02:50 AM

Late to this discussion, but has the term "implosion" been agreed upon for purposes of this thread?

In my work-a-day world, I tend to think of "implosions" as materials failures that occur in systems under vacuum.

I also tend toward the belief that every implosion ultimately can become an explosion (for certain values of vacuum, etc.)

Just curious.

Sorry if this is off topic/derail.

My recollection of the first time I heard the word implosion was more years ago than I care to remember. It described what happened to a television CRT when it was broken, i.e. the opposite of explosion.

Dave

Dave_46

2nd March 2008, 02:54 AM

<snip>
It would be impossible to get a cherry picker in there for a cutter to cut that column.
Do you think someone used a ladder?
<snip>

How about a working platform supported from a crane?

Dave

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 03:03 AM

Gage and Jones still use this photograph as evidence of CD, and their lack of investigation into it is, to me, convincing evidence of their intellectual bankruptcy.Stephen Jones was a professor of physics at a very conservative university for 20 years. He has 2 PhD's.
Richard Gage has been an architect for 20 years.
They became involved with the "Truth Movement" after seeing some of the evidence.
Based on further investigation and their expertise, they have determined that the Tread Towers and building 7 could not have fallen the way they did without explosives.

You have NO evidence that the core column was cut after the collapse.
All you have is suggestion and supposition.
Yet you say Stephen and Richard are "intellectually bankrupt".

You [all] say this kind of thing about anybody, no matter how qualified,
who says the official story is BS.

By engaging in relentless adolescent insults, you only expose your own intellectual bankruptcy.

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 03:22 AM

Drs_Res

2nd March 2008, 03:29 AM

How about a working platform supported from a crane?

Dave

It would be impossible to get a working platform in amongst the surrounding debris, and why bother trying?
It would be easier to cut the column at chest level or higher up from a working platform suspended from a crane.

Did you read what you just wrote?

And what about the video I posted to this thread (twice) of a worker on the cleanup pointing out columns cut at an angle.....by people doing the cleanup.

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 03:46 AM

My recollection of the first time I heard the word implosion was more years ago than I care to remember. It described what happened to a television CRT when it was broken, i.e. the opposite of explosion.

Dave"Implosion" is part of the CD industry's nomenclature.
Hence: Implosion World
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

No amount of sophistry can obfuscate this reality.

boloboffin

2nd March 2008, 04:08 AM

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 04:16 AM

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/stickdog.jpg

No one at Implosion World would back you up on this, Chris. Not even Stacy herself.

When the part was cut away, they put it on a truck and hauled it away. You have the photographer himself saying that the beam was cut by clean up workers. Let it go."cut beam in the background was almost certainly cut by a worker"
i.e. He did not know, he is speculating.
The man is entitled to his opinion.

Your reading comprehension is intentionally flawed.

Foolmewunz

2nd March 2008, 04:19 AM

I'm beginning to love Gage.

I love his email response (of his same old/same old) to the NIST that in his opening, he makes seem as though he was there.

I love the fact that there's no coverage whatever of the great event in L.A. on the 23rd. Surely they should be mobilizing with the force of the truth now known to so many people. (Venue held 1700, up from 1500 originally announced. Funny how no one's flogging pics of this great event.)

I also love this "massive" (well, he's a big guy) outpouring of support. Looks like the famous "Lonely Twoofer" photo.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1108547ca8d5154af1.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11094)

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 04:38 AM

Did you read what you just wrote?Did you?
The cut was too high to make from the ground and too low to get around it with a platform.

And what about the video I posted to this thread (twice) of a worker on the cleanup pointing out columns cut at an angle.....by people doing the cleanup.Point made.
What is the URL and how long has this been available?

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 04:44 AM

I'm beginning to love Gage.

I also love this "massive" (well, he's a big guy) outpouring of support. Looks like the famous "Lonely Twoofer" photo.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1108547ca8d5154af1.jpg

By engaging in relentless adolescent insults, you only expose your own intellectual bankruptcy.

DGM

2nd March 2008, 04:51 AM

Hey Chris:
Why don't you prove that cut was done with "thermate" by doing one on a vertical column? I can demonstrate it with a torch but no one to date has done it your way. Ask Gage about "Truth Burn"?

uk_dave

2nd March 2008, 04:53 AM

Stephen Jones was a professor of physics at a very conservative university for 20 years. He has 2 PhD's.
Richard Gage has been an architect for 20 years.

So what? I would bet that I could (should I be so inclined) find at least one doctor in the world who believes prayer can cure cancer, or one astronomer who believes little green men live on mars, or one marine biologist who believes Nessie exists.

I can most certainly point to a number of scientists who have made mistakes when their judgement has been clouded by their need for public recognition before the end of their careers.

And I can give a number of examples of architects who have failed miserably at their chosen profession.

They became involved with the "Truth Movement" after seeing some of the evidence.No such evidence exists.

Based on further investigation and their expertise, they have determined that the Tread Towers and building 7 could not have fallen the way they did without explosives.About which they are demonstrably wrong and they are unable to even explain how these silent, invisible explosives came to be installed, survived the impacts and fires and were controlled.

Total fail

You have NO evidence that the core column was cut after the collapse.
All you have is suggestion and supposition.
Yet you say Stephen and Richard are "intellectually bankrupt".
A clear up was taking place. People carrying out the clear up had cutting tools.

Remaining steel members needed to be cut before they could be removed.

We have pictures of a column which has been cut.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I wonder ......

You [all] say this kind of thing about anybody, no matter how qualified,
who says the official story is BS.They fail to convince. They are a very small minority. Their methods are suspect. Their conclusions are even more suspect.

By engaging in relentless adolescent insults, you only expose your own intellectual bankruptcy.No, we just don't take the 'truth' movement seriously. If you want to be taken seriously then present a coherent argument backed up by verifiable evidence.

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 05:44 AM

What is the URL and how long has this been available?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FfgSr2eBXls
July 9, 2007

sleahead

2nd March 2008, 05:45 AM

How about a working platform supported from a crane?

Dave

Indeed. Something like this, I guess.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/952447caa117bd44f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11096)

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 06:01 AM

Hey Chris:
Why don't you prove that cut was done with "thermate" by doing one on a vertical column? I can demonstrate it with a torch but no one to date has done it your way.Been done.
The slag is on the inside and the outside.

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/909/corecolumncropyg2.jpg

This does not happen with a cutting torch.
The slag is on the back side

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9259/acetylenecut2em3.jpg

not the cutting side.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2976/acetylenecut1wk0.jpg

DGM

2nd March 2008, 06:04 AM

Been done.
The slag is on the inside and the outside.

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/909/corecolumncropyg2.jpg

This does not happen with a cutting torch.
The slag is on the back side

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9259/acetylenecut2em3.jpg

not the cutting side.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2976/acetylenecut1wk0.jpg

The bottom side is used as a hinge to guide the column and is cut after it falls. Did I mention I do this stuff all the time?

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 06:21 AM

So what? I would bet that I could (should I be so inclined) find at least one doctor in the world who believes prayer can cure cancer, or one astronomer who believes little green men live on mars, or one marine biologist who believes Nessie exists.There are now 283 architects and engineers and the number is steadily growing.

Also:
Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider Professors emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH.

Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation
http://patriotsquestion911.com/Article%20Federal%20Engineers%20and%20Scientists.p df

Torin Wolf demolitions expert
http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=2

You can continue to deny the truth but you can't stop qualified patriots from learning the truth and speaking out.

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 06:25 AM

The bottom side is used as a hinge to guide the column and is cut after it falls. Did I mention I do this stuff all the time?The core column was 4" thick. It had to be cut all the way around.
4"x 21" of solid steel doesn't 'hinge' very well.

DGM

2nd March 2008, 06:29 AM

The core column was 4" thick. It had to be cut all the way around.
4"x 21" of solid steel doesn't 'hinge' very well.
How do you know that? Wedge a 30' tall column that size and it will roll right over (you can heat it a little if you like). Did I mention I do this sort of thing for a living?

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 06:41 AM

Indeed. Something like this, I guess.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/952447caa117bd44f.jpg
Now try to get one of those next to this column:

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2557/cutcorecolumnqg2.jpg

DGM

2nd March 2008, 06:51 AM

Now try to get one of those next to this column:

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2557/cutcorecolumnqg2.jpg
It's not uncommon to tack weld staging to columns that need to be removed. After the work you cut of the tacks and remove the staging, "Safety First" (mostly speed)!

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 06:54 AM

How do you know that? Wedge a 30' tall column that size and it will roll right over (you can heat it a little if you like). Did I mention I do this sort of thing for a living?This column shows no sign of bending.

DGM

2nd March 2008, 06:57 AM

This column shows no sign of bending.
Shows no signs of "thermite" either. Why don't you guy's just demonstrate this cut and prove everyone wrong? I can do it with my torch.

jhunter1163

2nd March 2008, 07:14 AM

Torin Wolf demolitions expert
http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=2

This Torin Wolf?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88484

Newtons Bit

2nd March 2008, 08:29 AM

How do you know that? Wedge a 30' tall column that size and it will roll right over (you can heat it a little if you like). Did I mention I do this sort of thing for a living?

This is correct. A 4" plate bent the "easy way" doesn't have much stiffness or strength.

uk_dave

2nd March 2008, 08:35 AM

There are now 283 architects and engineers and the number is steadily growing.

Also:
Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider Professors emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH.

Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation
http://patriotsquestion911.com/Article%20Federal%20Engineers%20and%20Scientists.p df

Torin Wolf demolitions expert
http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=2

You can continue to deny the truth but you can't stop qualified patriots from learning the truth and speaking out.

You are so very gullible.

Why don't you look closely at the sites you link to?
Why don't you look closely at what those people actually say?
Why don't you look closely at how qualified some of those people are?
Why don't you look closely into their backgrounds?

C'mon 'truther' investigator. Stop lapping up everything you're being fed without question.

Unsecured Coins

2nd March 2008, 08:59 AM

This Torin Wolf?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88484

the very same

Dave_46

2nd March 2008, 10:35 AM

beachnut

2nd March 2008, 10:55 AM

"cut beam in the background was almost certainly cut by a worker"
i.e. He did not know, he is speculating.
The man is entitled to his opinion.

Your reading comprehension is intentionally flawed.
And you have fantasy and no evidence.
A&E have to be the dumbest guys around not to check out the evidence and figure out Gage is a fraud. Who falls for lies and false information? And they are suppose to be A&Es? There is no evidence to back up Gage's "plagiarized" presentations. He has to be pure nuts on 9/11 issues, there is no logic to it.

Funny how you fight for fantasy when proof is shown you are wrong. You must prove your points with evidence to succeed; you have no evidence.

ElMondoHummus

2nd March 2008, 11:08 AM

Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation
http://patriotsquestion911.com/Article%20Federal%20Engineers%20and%20Scientists.p df...

You can continue to deny the truth but you can't stop qualified patriots from learning the truth and speaking out.

Ah. Yet another citation of Dr. Quintierre from the PQ911 site. Tell me, please, what is it about the "official conclusion" that he's challenging again?

(Hint: Think "fireproofing" and "building codes". Oh, shoot, did I just give away the answer??)

uk_dave

2nd March 2008, 11:19 AM

(Hint: Think "fireproofing" and "building codes". Oh, shoot, did I just give away the answer??)

Well, you had to because Chris most likely has not read Dr Quintierre's comments and most certainly has not understood those comments, but Chris has swallowed hook, line and sinker the 'truther' interpretation of those comments, fed to him by members of the 'truth' movement.

I just hope he hasn't parted with any money.

Minadin

2nd March 2008, 11:20 AM

"Implosion" is part of the CD industry's nomenclature.
Hence: Implosion World
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

No amount of sophistry can obfuscate this reality.

What are you complaining about? Nothing in that post went against people in the demolition industry using the word. Just because the demolition industry have appropriated the use of an inappropriate (in my view) word does not alter the use of the word that I recalled from years ago. It looks as if you are the one trying to "obfuscate this reality".

The problem is that he doesn't want to agree that, even though widely used in the industry, the term "implosion" is still used figuratively by demolition experts to describe the building collapsing inward on itself. Since it's a figurative term, other people may use it to describe other things as well. This damages Chris's argument because in his world he needs every single use of the word "implosion" to literally mean, "building collapse initiated by removing critical supports using explosives".

Dave_46

2nd March 2008, 02:28 PM

The problem is that he doesn't want to agree that, even though widely used in the industry, the term "implosion" is still used figuratively by demolition experts to describe the building collapsing inward on itself. Since it's a figurative term, other people may use it to describe other things as well. This damages Chris's argument because in his world he needs every single use of the word "implosion" to literally mean, "building collapse initiated by removing critical supports using explosives".

You know that.

I know that.

I suspect that the majority of posters here know that.

Sad really, isn't it.

Dave

Architect

2nd March 2008, 02:31 PM

There are now 283 architects and engineers and the number is steadily growing.

How many qualified structural engineers and architects are there in (a) the US, (b) the UK, and (c) the rest of the World?

So what proportion do 283 represent, Chris?

CHF

2nd March 2008, 02:44 PM

How many qualified structural engineers and architects are there in (a) the US, (b) the UK, and (c) the rest of the World?

So what proportion do 283 represent, Chris?

The ASCE has 120,000 I believe...

CHF

2nd March 2008, 02:48 PM

Architect

2nd March 2008, 02:53 PM

Numbers of engineers and architects. Well, just looking at the UK bodies.....

IStuctE has over 22,000 apparently:

http://www.istructe.org/index.asp?bhcp=1

The RIBA has 40,500:

http://www.architecture.com/TheRIBA/Home.aspx

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 03:29 PM

How many qualified structural engineers and architects are there in (a) the US, (b) the UK, and (c) the rest of the World?

So what proportion do 283 represent, Chris?A year ago you guys were asking "Where are the experts". Now that hundreds of experts have come forward you simply call them "kooks" and dismiss them out of hand.

Are Mark Loiseaux and Peter Tully kooks?

2nd March 2008, 03:33 PM

A year ago you guys were asking "Where are the experts". Now that hundreds of experts have come forward you simply call them "kooks" and dismiss them out of hand.

Are Mark Loiseaux and Peter Tully kooks?

Considering that you reject the work of the thousands (or tens of thousands) mentioned in Architects, who are you to criticise him for being skeptical of the claims of 283?
Especially since their claims have no basis in reality, and are instead based upon an almost embarassing misunderstanding of physics and engineering.

1337m4n

2nd March 2008, 03:35 PM

By engaging in relentless adolescent insults, you only expose your own intellectual bankruptcy.

Well you're just a big POOPIE HEAD!!!

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 03:36 PM

You know that.

I know that.

I suspect that the majority of posters here know that.

Sad really, isn't it.

DaveThe point here is:
WTC 7 imploded.

FEMA recognizes this, Danny Jowenko recognized this, the videos and the debris pile confirm this.

No amount of sophistry can obfuscate this fact.

DGM

2nd March 2008, 03:43 PM

The point here is:
WTC 7 imploded.

FEMA recognizes this, Danny Jowenko recognized this, the videos and the debris pile confirm this.

No amount of sophistry can obfuscate this fact.
Gravity's funny like that!

1337m4n

2nd March 2008, 03:48 PM

A year ago you guys were asking "Where are the experts". Now that hundreds of experts have come forward you simply call them "kooks" and dismiss them out of hand.

No, you don't get it. We're STILL asking "where are the experts". Just because someone signs Gage's petition, does not mean that an expert supports 9/11 Truth. There's a few things to take into consideration:

1) Not everyone on the AE911Truth petition is an expert in a field that is even remotely relevant. For example, I recall seeing at least one "Software Engineer" on that petition. A "Software Engineer" is not qualified to analyze the mechanics of a building collapse or the structural integrity of a 110-story skyscraper; he is qualified to analyze machine code.

In fact, there seem to be more non-relevant signatories on that petition than there are relevant experts.

2) A person who signs Gage's petition does not necessarily believe in thermite magic bombs and controlled demolitions. We've seen the technique dozens of times before: questions are worded such that even a debunker like me would find themselves answering "yes". A question like "Do you believe Bush is hiding something?", for instance. Even I would sign that. But, they never ask "Do you believe WTC was destroyed by bombs secretly planted inside by members of our own government?" or "Do you believe that fire can destroy steel-framed skyscrapers?" So you end up with a whole bunch of people signing that actually agree with the NIST version of the collapse, but whose words have been twisted and misinterpreted into a suggestion that they support controlled demolition CTs.

3) Gage does not accept it when people change their minds. Once your name is on his petition it is on there forever. You cannot email him and ask to be removed. The names are there to stay. We've even still got some prank names on that petition. We have informed Gage that they are fake names; he refuses to remove them.

4) Speaking of faked, prank names, how do you think we got fake names onto that petition? Gage provides absolutely no screening process. Anyone can sign his petition and pretend to be an engineer and he does not question it. Even now, all you have to do is email him some credentials that you could've very well made up. So we can't trust that everyone on that petition is actually what they say they are.

I can't speak for everyone else, of course, but THIS debunker is STILL asking "Where are the experts?"

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 03:56 PM

Shows no signs of "thermite" either.You admit that there is no evidence to back up your 'bending' hypothesis.
The large amount of slag on the outside of the column is a sign of thermite.

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 03:58 PM

Well you're just a big POOPIE HEAD!!!
:D

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 04:11 PM

;3490025']Considering that you reject the work of the thousands (or tens of thousands) mentioned in Architects???
Please list some of the tens of thousands of experts who say the official story is true.

who are you to criticise him for being skeptical of the claims of 283?
Especially since their claims have no basis in reality, and are instead based upon an almost embarassing misunderstanding of physics and engineering.Who are you to say to say they are wrong or that a professor of physics doesn't understand the laws of physics?

uk_dave

2nd March 2008, 04:11 PM

Gravity's funny like that!

Thank you, that saved me the bother.

Jeez, what is it with 'truthers'? IMPLOSION is just a word. It describes many different phenomena, one of which is the collapse of a building towards it's centre.

It's just a way of defining that the building didn't 'topple' forwards or backwards or to the side, but that it suffered structural failure towards it's centre and (deep breath) pulled the remaining structure inwards.

Demolition experts use carefully designed and timed structural damage to cause a collapse in a predictable and (hopefully) clean manner. That is their talent.

But at the end of the day it is still just structural damage. Gravity does all the really hard work.

So, when a building such as wtc7 suffers structural damage (especially given that it has a cantilever structure over the con ed sub-station) and then un-fought fires over a period of hours (exceeding the specified endurance of the remaining fireproofing) and this damage effects it in such a way as to cause the centre of the structureto fail first and pull the structure at either side inwards, it could be said to have been imploded but this has nothing to do with controlled demolition.

It's a word. Get over it Chris.

uk_dave

2nd March 2008, 04:13 PM

???
Please list some of the tens of thousands of experts who say the official story is true.

If the US government said that cigarettes are good for you and can cure epilepsy, would you expect the worlds medical professions to remain quiet?

DGM

2nd March 2008, 04:20 PM

You admit that there is no evidence to back up your 'bending' hypothesis.
The large amount of slag on the outside of the column is a sign of thermite.
Why don't you demonstrate it and show us how it's done? Why don't you guy's just do this?

I've asked you this before but you never address this question. Why is that?

Drs_Res

2nd March 2008, 04:21 PM

Did you?
The cut was too high to make from the ground and too low to get around it with a platform.

Yes I did, you yourself suggested that a platform hanging under a crane, which is what the person you were answering had just said.

Point made.
What is the URL and how long has this been available?

Thanks for acknowledging the point, they were clearing the area and cutting columns at an angle.

What is the URL and how long has this been available?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FfgSr2eBXls
July 9, 2007

And that means what to you exactly?

That is when that version of the clip was added to YouTube. I was looking for the original version of that clip I saw months, if not a year ago.
The other version was the same, except the sync on the audio was better IIRC and it was longer.

In the first version of the clip, they also showed them "Pulling" a building (WTC 5? not sure) with cables.

Foolmewunz

2nd March 2008, 04:43 PM

By engaging in relentless adolescent insults, you only expose your own intellectual bankruptcy.

In case you missed it Chris, this is a thread that's supposed to be about A&E911blahblah. Anything posted (from the front page of his website, by the way) on said topic is viable. If I choose to make light of it, it's only because banging one's head against your constant slag-on-the-backside (great name for a band, by the way) is not worth the trouble, and I thought we'd maybe get back to discussing Gage and NOT YOU!

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 04:49 PM

Thank you, that saved me the bother.

Jeez, what is it with 'truthers'? IMPLOSION is just a word. It describes many different phenomena, one of which is the collapse of a building towards it's centre.Correct

It's just a way of defining that the building didn't 'topple' forwards or backwards or to the side, but that it suffered structural failure towards it's centre and (deep breath) pulled the remaining structure inwards.
This only happens in a CD.

Demolition experts use carefully designed and timed structural damage to cause a collapse in a predictable and (hopefully) clean manner. That is their talent.
But at the end of the day it is still just structural damage. Gravity does all the really hard work.Correct

So, when a building such as wtc7 suffers structural damage (especially given that it has a cantilever structure over the con ed sub-station) The cantilever played no part in the implosion.

and then un-fought fires over a period of hours (exceeding the specified endurance of the remaining fireproofing) and this damage effects it in such a way as to cause the centre of the structureto fail first and pull the structure at either side inwards, The core area was mostly elevator shafts where there was no fuel to heat up the core columns.

it could be said to have been implodedCorrect
FEMA and the owner of a CD company said WTC 7 imploded.

The fires in WTC 7 did not cause the core columns to collapse.
The NIST hypothesis does not offer an explanation as to how the north and south core column rows collapsed.

CD explains how WTC 7 imploded, the NIST hypothesis does not.

twinstead

2nd March 2008, 04:51 PM

2nd March 2008, 05:00 PM

???
Please list some of the tens of thousands of experts who say the official story is true.

Who are you to say to say they are wrong or that a professor of physics doesn't understand the laws of physics?

Did you catch that subtle little detail in my posts about how you are accusing thousands of people of being wrong on the evidence of mere hundreds, who have been shown to be wrong on a great many things?
The point is not the numbers. The point is that you are accusing us of doing exactly the same thing you and the rest of the Truth Movement does. Only, the Truth Movement ignores on a much grander scale.

I'll stick with the trustworthy majority, thanks.

beachnut

2nd March 2008, 05:00 PM

???
Please list some of the tens of thousands of experts who say the official story is true.

Who are you to say to say they are wrong or that a professor of physics doesn't understand the laws of physics?
If you are a 9/11 truth person, you are lucky, you have 0.0087 or less percent of all engineers on your side. Good job. Looks like you have not asked many physics teachers why your ideas, like Jones', are wrong on 9/11.

I am an engineer, and all those who support Gage's ideas on 9/11 are wrong. I think I can gather 1000 times the engineers Gage can if I needed to stop a rebellion, the likes of a NAZI take over. But since you and 9/11 truth are a fringe group, a group most people think are pure nuts running around saying "9/11 was an inside job", I will never have to put together a counter 9/11 real truth movement to put your experts down!

This is the closet 9/11 truth will ever be to breaking the big truth news.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904670cd1dc0fcb.jpg
So when will Gage take his evidence and expose 9/11? never

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 05:25 PM

In case you missed it Chris, this is a thread that's supposed to be about A&E911blahblah. Anything posted (from the front page of his website, by the way) on said topic is viable. If I choose to make light of it, it's only because banging one's head against your constant slag-on-the-backside (great name for a band, by the way) is not worth the trouble, and I thought we'd maybe get back to discussing Gage and NOT YOU!JamesB brought up the subject.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3467784#post3467784

The large amount of slag on the outside of the core column is evidence of thermite.
People here have tried in vain to explain how the this could occur using a cutting torch.

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 05:36 PM

;3490230']Did you catch that subtle little detail in my posts about how you are accusing thousands of people of being wrong on the evidence of mere hundreds, ......
I'll stick with the trustworthy majority, thanks.You are assuming there are thousands of qualified people who support the official hype.
Please list their names them before making that absurd statement again.

CHF

2nd March 2008, 05:37 PM

Chris,

have you talked to any WTC clean-up workers regarding those "thermite" cuts?

twinstead

2nd March 2008, 05:42 PM

You are assuming there are thousands of qualified people who support the official hype.
Please list their names them before making that absurd statement again.

the authors and contributors to the NIST report are a veritable who's who of eminent 'qualified people'.

That's just the beginning, cause Purdue University's experts would probably be miffed to be left out of the list. So would many others.

A list of these people are available in the public domain, as is their contact information. Dude. It wouldn't be called 'the official story' if it wasn't out there for everybody to read.

Perhaps you should submit a list that equals or surpasses the list of qualified people I refer to; your insinuation that no real expert supports the official account by demanding we 'list their names' is a well-worn truther tactic.

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 05:56 PM

CD explains how WTC 7 imploded, the NIST hypothesis does not
Frankly, Chris, people who are every bit or more qualified than you state otherwise, both on this forum and in the 'real world'.
You opinion is noted.Please list the qualified persons who say "CD does not explain how WTC 7 imploded".

Name one person who says the NIST hypothesis explains the collapse of all the core columns.

2nd March 2008, 05:57 PM

You are assuming there are thousands of qualified people who support the official hype.
Please list their names them before making that absurd statement again.

No.
I am assuming there are thousands (and more) who do not support your conspiracy theory(ies).

Please answer my question:
Considering that you reject the work of the thousands (or tens of thousands) mentioned in Architects post, who are you to criticise him for being skeptical of the claims of 283?

twinstead

2nd March 2008, 06:00 PM

Name one person who says the NIST hypothesis explains the collapse of all the core columns.

Your loaded question noted. The key here is which theory BEST explains the collapse of all the core columns given ALL the available evidence.

Perhaps the CONTRIBUTORS to the NIST report would be a good place to start. Unless you deny their 'expertness'

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 06:19 PM

the authors and contributors to the NIST report are a veritable who's who of eminent 'qualified people'.We've been over this. Stop making the assumption that all the contributors to the report agree with [Bush appointee controlled] hypothesis.
How many of them have stated so publicly?

That's just the beginning, cause Purdue University's experts would probably be miffed to be left out of the list. So would many others.
Names and statements please.

your insinuation that no real expert supports the official account by demanding we 'list their names' is a well-worn truther tactic.You have stated that there are thousands of qualified people who support the official hypothesis.
That is a baseless assumption.
Back up that statement or stop making it.

A W Smith

2nd March 2008, 06:24 PM

Ask yourself that question.
You have no proof that it was cut after the collapse.

It would be impossible to get a cherry picker in there for a cutter to cut that column.
Do you think someone used a ladder?
Do you think they would let something that heavy just fall?
Where is the piece that was cut off?
They would need a crane to move it so why not pick it up as it's being cut?
That would be a lot safer for the cutter.
It would also make the 45º angle cut unnecessary.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2557/cutcorecolumnqg2.jpg (http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2557/cutcorecolumnqg2.jpg)

Chris you are over your head when dealing with construction. The columns were accessed with both lifts and man baskets swung from cranes. You don't need to be inside the column to cut that face with the slag. All you need to do is cut from the preceding cuts reaching in with your lance on the left and right side. Trust me. You don't want to be positioned on that face of a column when cutting it. Thats the direction it will swing when you finish the cut.

Also your claim that the column tree photo was staged or fake is moronic. The video shows an entire row of column trees with that cut. You can also see in that photo that the lift is on the high side of the angle cut.

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 06:24 PM

Your loaded question noted. The key here is which theory BEST explains the collapse of all the core columns given ALL the available evidence.WRONG!
The NIST hypothesis DOES NOT explain how the north and south core column rows collapsed.

Christopher7

2nd March 2008, 06:54 PM

You don't need to be inside the column to cut that face with the slag. All you need to do is cut from the preceding cuts reaching in with your lance on the left and right side. Trust me. You don't want to be positioned on that face of a column when cutting it. Thats the direction it will swing when you finish the cut. Truth is, you don't want to be anywhere near that column when it falls. It could 'kick back' when it hits another column during it's fall.
Do you have any evidence that this is the way it is done?

Also your claim that the column tree photo was staged or fake is moronic. The video shows an entire row of column trees with that cut. You can also see in that photo that the lift is on the high side of the angle cut.The slag was on the outside of the cut.
Therefore, the cut was made from the back side.
It is moronic to assume it was necessary to cut a section out of the other side just to cut the side we can see from the inside of the column.

CHF

2nd March 2008, 08:15 PM

Christopher7,

Answer the question, please.

Have you talked to any WTC clean-up workers regarding those "thermite" cuts?

That would seem a logical place to start on your quest for "truth."

Drs_Res

2nd March 2008, 09:59 PM

Yes, I'd think if someone, anyone that was cleaning up the area saw those cuts BEFORE they started cutting, they would have spoken out.

uk_dave

2nd March 2008, 10:20 PM

The cantilever played no part in the implosion.

That's the kinda bold statement we love so much from 'truthers'.

:D And you ask to be taken seriously.

Seriously?

Not a chance.

twinstead

3rd March 2008, 08:19 AM

Yes, I'd think if someone, anyone that was cleaning up the area saw those cuts BEFORE they started cutting, they would have spoken out.

Not in truther world they wouldn't. In truther world they're afraid that if they mention anything about something that suggests the government was complicit in the murder of 3000 innocent people they might lose their jobs.

Architect

3rd March 2008, 09:29 AM

A year ago you guys were asking "Where are the experts". Now that hundreds of experts have come forward you simply call them "kooks" and dismiss them out of hand.

Are Mark Loiseaux and Peter Tully kooks?

Chris

You are seeking to suggest, implicitly or explicitly, that 283 (or thereby) is a significant number. In effect you are trying to appeal to their collected authority.

All I have done is point out that they are, in fact, an absolutely miniscule proportion of the qualified professionals in their fields - even if we assume they are all actually qualified in relevant disciplines, which is patently not the case.

Now let's turn your response on its head. Have you read the RIBA Journal? NCE Magazine? Are you familiar with the curricula of the various university courses covering our field? Have you aquainted yourself with the Eurocodes or other Building Regulations which have been revised to limit the scope for progressive collapse?

The fact is - and you can like it or lump it - that the NIST findings are almost universally supported across the very construction industry professionals who are qualified to understand them. The only disent is the Edinburgh/Arup view that fire might have been sufficient to induce collapse even without the aircraft damage.

The reason you seek to rely on AE's 283 members is because your - their - arguments have been torn to shreds here time and time again. If that's all you can manage, then I suggest you reconsider your position.

ElMondoHummus

3rd March 2008, 09:48 AM

Name one person who says the NIST hypothesis explains the collapse of all the core columns.

Let's name two:

Dr. James Quintiere
Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-AslNow, let's see that one explained in the context of what their differences with NIST findings really are. (Hint: Fireproofing and codes.) :)

Christopher7

3rd March 2008, 02:52 PM

That's the kinda bold statement we love so much from 'truthers'.
And you ask to be taken seriously.
Seriously?
Not a chance.Point taken.
That statement should read.
The cantilever played no part in the initiating event or collapse of the core columns.

Christopher7

3rd March 2008, 03:31 PM

Name one person who says the NIST hypothesis explains the collapse of all the core columns. [WTC 7]

Let's name two:
Dr. James Quintiere
Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-AslDr. James Quintiere does not say the NIST report explains the collapse of all the core columns.

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...

Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm

Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl does not say the NIST report explains the collapse of all the core columns.
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/1-Services/Astaneh-Testimony%20Congress-March%206%20Final.pdf

Architect

3rd March 2008, 03:33 PM

Chris

You are seeking to suggest, implicitly or explicitly, that 283 (or thereby) is a significant number. In effect you are trying to appeal to their collected authority.

All I have done is point out that they are, in fact, an absolutely miniscule proportion of the qualified professionals in their fields - even if we assume they are all actually qualified in relevant disciplines, which is patently not the case.

Now let's turn your response on its head. Have you read the RIBA Journal? NCE Magazine? Are you familiar with the curricula of the various university courses covering our field? Have you aquainted yourself with the Eurocodes or other Building Regulations which have been revised to limit the scope for progressive collapse?

The fact is - and you can like it or lump it - that the NIST findings are almost universally supported across the very construction industry professionals who are qualified to understand them. The only disent is the Edinburgh/Arup view that fire might have been sufficient to induce collapse even without the aircraft damage.

The reason you seek to rely on AE's 283 members is because your - their - arguments have been torn to shreds here time and time again. If that's all you can manage, then I suggest you reconsider your position.

(cough) Since you're here, Chris (cough)

3rd March 2008, 03:37 PM

You seem to be laboring under a misconception, Christopher7.

Allow me to explain to you something about professionalism:
If a professionals name is on a report, and the professional does not agree with the conclusions of that report or the way their input was used, the professional will not let their name remain on the report.

They may disagree on minutia and minor side details, but most of them absolutely will not allow their name to go onto something they do not approve of.
It stems from professional ethics, accountability and reputation.

If a contributor to NIST has not raised hell to have their name removed and their association annulled from the report, it is safe to assume they support it.

CHF

3rd March 2008, 03:38 PM

Still not answering this simple question, huh Chris?

Have you talked to any WTC clean-up workers regarding those "thermite" cuts?

I wonder why....

Christopher7

3rd March 2008, 04:06 PM

Chris
All I have done is point out that they are, in fact, an absolutely miniscule proportion of the qualified professionals in their fieldsSo what?
Will you continue to ignore these and other qualified persons like Hugo Bachmann, and Jörg Schneider until a majority of all the world's qualified professionals speak out?
Setting the bar in the stratosphere will keep you safe in your denial.

The fact is - and you can like it or lump it - that the NIST findings are almost universally supported across the very construction industry professionals who are qualified to understand them. The only disent is the Edinburgh/Arup view that fire might have been sufficient to induce collapse even without the aircraft damage.Please post the statements of support for the NIST findings.

The reason you seek to rely on AE's 283 members is because your - their - arguments have been torn to shreds here time and time again.You [all] have noted two errors so far.
1) All the columns did not fail at the same time. [WTC 7]
2) A posted video shows exterior columns cut at an angle, negating the argument that the angle cut on the core column indicates it was cut before the collapse.

You [all] have also noted that the 'squibs' are inconclusive.

Your claim that "their arguments have been torn to shreds" is incorrect.
Deniers lullaby:
If i can find fault in any statement they make, i can deny everything they say.

Architect

3rd March 2008, 04:14 PM

So what?
Will you continue to ignore these and other qualified persons like Hugo Bachmann, and Jörg Schneider until a majority of all the world's qualified professionals speak out?

Frankly, I'd be interested in seeing a peer-reviewed paper in any of the professional publications. So, for example, NCE published a summary of the Arup study and has followed the Edinburgh project.....indeed the latter even made the broadsheets.

But you don't have that, do you Chris? In fact you don't actually have any serious professional disagreement as to the thrust of the NIST findings. But of a problem there, eh?

Setting the bar in the stratosphere will keep you safe in your denial.

Pot meet kettle.

Please post the statements of support for the NIST findings.

I see. So the acceptance of the findings in, say, the revision of the Eurocodes does not count as "acceptance" unless the authors actually write down "We all agree with NIST" - is that your own little stratospheric bar, is it?

You [all] have noted two errors so far.
1) All the columns did not fail at the same time. [WTC 7]
2) A posted video shows exterior columns cut at an angle, negating the argument that the angle cut on the core column indicates it was cut before the collapse.

Rubbish.

You [all] have also noted that the 'squibs' are inconclusive.

Air puffs. Not our fault you don't understand it.

Your claim that "their arguments have been torn to shreds" is incorrect.

'fraid not.

Christopher7

3rd March 2008, 04:16 PM

Still not answering this simple question, huh Chris?
I wonder why....Your question is sarcastic and rhetorical.
1) You know i have not talked to the clean-up workers.
2) It would be impossible for me to track down all these people to find one that remembers seeing that particular column.

Have you tracked down all these people and asked them if they remember that particular column?

Of course not.

Christopher7

3rd March 2008, 04:45 PM

Frankly, I'd be interested in seeing a peer-reviewed paper in any of the professional publications. So, for example, NCE published a summary of the Arup study and has followed the Edinburgh project.....indeed the latter even made the broadsheets.So what?
Did they "peer review" the NIST report and support it?

But you don't have that, do you Chris? In fact you don't actually have any serious professional disagreement as to the thrust of the NIST findings.Wrong!
Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation
http://patriotsquestion911.com/Article%20Federal%20Engineers%20and%20Scientists.p df

I see. So the acceptance of the findings in, say, the revision of the Eurocodes does not count as "acceptance" unless the authors actually write down "We all agree with NIST" You made the claim that "the NIST findings are almost universally supported across the very construction industry professionals who are qualified to understand them."
Post the statements that support the NIST report.
Revising codes does not equal support of the NIST explanation for the collapses.

Air puffs. Not our fault you don't understand it.Air puffs?
There was no collapse in that area.
I'm stickin with 'the bolb tried to escape the collapse and got stuck!' :rolleyes:

CHF

3rd March 2008, 05:24 PM

Your question is sarcastic and rhetorical.
1) You know i have not talked to the clean-up workers.

Of course I knew you hadn't. You're a twoofer, after all. The next obvious question is: why have you not done so?

2) It would be impossible for me to track down all these people to find one that remembers seeing that particular column.

The laziness of your "truthseekers" never fails to amaze!

You don't need to find someone who remembers that particular column. All you need is to talk to a few iron workers who were at GZ and show them the pics.

"Hey, does this look like the cuts you guys made? Do you see any cuts that you can't explain?"

Basic research, Chris.

Have you tracked down all these people and asked them if they remember that particular column?

Of course not.

I'm not the one running around the internet screaming "thermite!" so I'm not sure why you'd think I should look into it.

I happen to accept the fact that workers cut a lot of columns and see no reason why that one would be different.

ElMondoHummus

3rd March 2008, 05:42 PM

Dr. James Quintiere does not say the NIST report explains the collapse of all the core columns.

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...

Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm

Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl does not say the NIST report explains the collapse of all the core columns.
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/1-Services/Astaneh-Testimony%20Congress-March%206%20Final.pdf

Thank you. Quintierre's complaint is that he believes the NIST report whitewashes the question of whether the fireproofing detached during the impact or not. His complaint wants a revisiting of the evidence to study whether the fireproofing standards are sufficient (Note: Not a new investigation, rather a peer reviewal of the current information). He does not dispute that fire plus impacts is what led to the collapses. His complaints are centered around NIST's model that says the fireproofing detached, and the dangers that he sees in refusing to revisit the issue of fire protection on steel.

Take into account what Quintiere's recommendations actually are:

1. Experimental studies to establish temperatures and fire duration characteristic of modern facilities including office large plan spaces, places assembly, and underground structures should be undertaken to validate models and establish design methods. The current correlations are incomplete in terms of fuel type and building type.

2. The standard time-temperature structural fire tests should be examined in light of computational methods. Data for the tests yielding temperature and deflection should be integrated with computations to extrapolate to actual assemblies used in practice.

3. Sensor technologies integrated with alarm monitoring for building performance should be integrated into the emergency response network for assessing the nature of the hazard.

4. Forensic techniques and standards should be established to assess failure information from structural debris. The elimination of the steel structure from the WTC site should be fully addressed, and its consequences fully stated.

5. Fire and disaster planning should include full and proper analyses for safe egress and effective response. Responders and building planners need to have the benefit of analyses that quantitatively address these facets. Real time modeling of the fire effects based on sensor information are possible and should be integrated into special building designs and response actions.

6. Novel techniques need to be investigated to rescue people and to fight high-rise fires.

7. Current codes weaknesses, in light the WTC collapses, need to be fully addressed. Issues of lightweight construction designs that are vulnerable to catastrophic collapse of a structure need particular attention.

8. A nationally supported infrastructure is needed to insure that objective scientific input is placed into the code consensus process to bring fire safety to a proper level of engineering analyses. The current code process is lacking in scientific underpinning, and the WTC disaster should stand for change in this direction, especially if the scientific community cannot render a clear and decisive verdict.

(Source: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/11_22_2004/QuintiereStatement_112204.pdf)

Where in those recommendations does Dr. Quintiere dispute the central findings, that fire and impact damage led to the collapse? On the contrary, he seems to use that paradigm as his starting point. The only point that echos the conspiracy fantasy's viewpoint is the one about spoilation, and Quintiere attaches no notion of hiding use of thermite or explosives to that point. Rather, he complains that the spoilation prevented them from gathering data regarding the fire's effects.

Quintiere does not dispute the narrative of impacts plus fires led to the collapses.

-------

Astaneh-Asl's complaint is that he believes codes and engineering practices were violated in the construction of the WTC, and that this problem was not discussed in the NIST report:

As Mr. Astaneh-Asl examined the construction documents, however, he was horrified by aspects of the design. He says the structure essentially threw out the rule book on skyscraper construction. "This building was so strange, and so many violations of practice and code were introduced," he says.

The design contains at least 10 unusual elements, he says. For example, rather than using a traditional skeletal framework of vertical and horizontal columns, the twin towers relied partly on a "bearing wall" system in which the floors and walls worked together to support each other, says Mr. Astaneh-Asl. That system allowed designers to use thinner steel in the buildings' columns and exterior than would be used in a traditional design, he says, adding that in some places the steel in columns was only one-quarter of an inch thick. And he says the designers used stronger steel (measured in what is known as "yield strength") in some columns than is allowed by any U.S. building codes, and that such steel is less flexible — and therefore more brittle — than the type traditionally used in such buildings.

As a result of such design elements, he argues, when the two airliners smashed into the upper floors of the towers, both planes plunged all the way in, wings and all. Airliners carry much of their fuel in their wings. His model clearly shows that in the initial fight between the plane and the building's exterior, the plane won, easily breaching the structure....

Even so, he argues, if the World Trade Center towers had been designed "using the codes and traditional systems, the building most likely would have survived — it most likely would not have collapsed."

(Source: http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/06/berkeley-engineer-searches-for-truth.html; my bolding for emphasis)

Note his statement:

"Unfortunately and tragically, when [this design] was subjected to this terrorist attack, there's no way this building could stand it."

He's not referring to any use of thermite or explosives. He's referring to the impact of the jetliners. He most definitely does not support the conspiracy fantasy:

Mr. Astaneh-Asl also rejects such alternative theories. "I certainly don't buy into any of the conspiracy stuff," he says. "Those are lightweight buildings," he adds. "There was no need for explosives to bring them down."

Neither of these researchers dispute the thesis of fires and impact damage causing the collapse. On the contrary, they support it. Their quibble is with specific details, not the overall direction of the NIST hypothesis. You are wrong in your assertion that their disagreement is a contradiction of NIST. Dr. Quintierre and Dr. Astaneh-Asl support the reality view, and are on record as disagreeing with any thesis involving explosives or incindieries. You are correct about identifying both of them as having major issues with the NIST report, but you must be careful about conflating disagreements about specific issues in the report with disagreements about the general thrust of the NIST theory. Both researchers have severe and legitimate complaints about problems with the NIST findings, but both of them support the notion that impact plus fires led to the collapse. This is an inescapable conclusion once one reads their work.

Architect

3rd March 2008, 05:57 PM

So what?
Did they "peer review" the NIST report and support it?

You don't really know what peer review is, and when it's used, do you Chris.

NCE and the RIBA journal both reported and commented on the findings of the NIST study. Neither learned journal expressed surprise or concern at the findings, nor did they spot all these "glaring errors" which the Truth Movement so keenly spotted.

You made the claim that "the NIST findings are almost universally supported across the very construction industry professionals who are qualified to understand them."
Post the statements that support the NIST report.
Revising codes does not equal support of the NIST explanation for the collapses.

I see, Chris. You're seeking to suggest that the the general acceptance of the report findings by the professional community is not in itself indicative of support for the findings. And that thousands of engineers revising building codes based on the NIST findings does not show their endorsement of the study.

What a peculiar position.

ElMondoHummus

3rd March 2008, 06:41 PM

NCE and the RIBA journal both reported and commented on the findings of the NIST study. Neither learned journal expressed surprise or concern at the findings, nor did they spot all these "glaring errors" which the Truth Movement so keenly spotted...

You're seeking to suggest that the the general acceptance of the report findings by the professional community is not in itself indicative of support for the findings. And that thousands of engineers revising building codes based on the NIST findings does not show their endorsement of the study.

He also misrepresents the level of dissent of the pair of researchers I mentioned: Dr. Quintiere and Dr. Astaneh-Asl. While it is totally legitimate to use their stances to demonstrate disagreements with elements, even important ones of the NIST narrative, it is a misrepresentation to say that they call for a new investigation from the beginning or to claim that their claims undo the central narrative of impact plus fires led to collapse.

Christopher7

3rd March 2008, 07:45 PM

Thank you. Quintierre's complaint is that he believes the NIST report whitewashes the question of whether the fireproofing detached during the impact or not. His complaint wants a revisiting of the evidence to study whether the fireproofing standards are sufficient (Note: Not a new investigation, rather a peer reviewal of the current information) WRONG!
Secondly, the core column theory requires that the columns got sufficiently hot, say 500 C, and tangible evidence from metallurgical analysis is crucial in supporting the NIST conclusion. Unfortunately, that evidence has not been found by NIST.
Thirdly, as a consequence, this crucial lack of evidence must indict the selling of the WTC steel debris before an investigation could be launched. Will NIST speak to this as they now have future investigative authority?

He does not dispute that fire plus impacts is what led to the collapses.

Take into account what Quintiere's recommendations actually are:
(Source: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/11_22_2004/QuintiereStatement_112204.pdf)

Where in those recommendations does Dr. Quintiere dispute the central findings, ......
Quintiere does not dispute the narrative of impacts plus fires led to the collapses.
You ignored his comments on the site i posted.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm
“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere.

“Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers

The alternative cause is CD.

-------

Astaneh-Asl's complaint is that he believes codes and engineering practices were violated in the construction of the WTC, and that this problem was not discussed in the NIST report:
You ignored the point, which was:
Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl does not say the NIST report explains the collapse of all the core columns.

Christopher7

3rd March 2008, 07:51 PM

NCE and the RIBA journal both reported and commented on the findings of the NIST study.Please post their comments before claiming they support the conclusions.

Christopher7

3rd March 2008, 08:04 PM

Principal Electrical Engineer for WTC: "Fuel and Planes Alone Did NOT Bring the Towers Down"
Tuesday February 12, 2008
Richard F. Humenn, PE was the Senior Project Design Engineer for electrical systems for the entire World Trade Center, and he had 60 people working under him. In other words, he was the guy in charge of all electrical at the WTC. A retired licensed professional engineer, he was certified by the States of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington, D.C.
Humenn stated to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:

On September 11, I watched the live TV broadcast of the progressive collapse of the World Trade Towers with disbelief, as the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel.

I viewed the presentation of Richard Gage and other related material, which compels me to believe that the fuel and planes alone did not bring the Towers down. I, therefore, support the proposal to form an international group of professionals to investigate all plausible causes for the virtual freefall and the almost total destruction of the WTC structures.
Humenn also recently gave a two-hour recorded interview to an attorney and former law school professor (a transcript of the interview will soon be posted to AE911Truth.org). In that interview, Humenn expressed his opinion that the Twin Towers were intentionally demolished. (He stated that he could not believe the U.S. government could have done such a thing; however, he was not asked about rogue elements within the government).
Few engineers have as much first-hand knowledge of the Twin Towers as Humenn, so his opinion carries some weight. As he explains, "Though an electrical engineer by trade, I was also very familiar with the structures and their conceptual design parameters."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/120208Towers.htm

DavidJames

3rd March 2008, 08:12 PM

So Chris, what did Quintiere and Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl say when you contacted them to get a first hand response to how you interpret their objections?

You didn't contact them did you?

Coward.

johnny karate

3rd March 2008, 08:21 PM

Wow.

Dr Quintiere again.

It's as if CTers are that guy from Memento, only with access to the Internet.

I suggest we give up pointing out that all these experts that CTers love to cherry-pick quotes from don't actually agree with them.

That way, when they finally get their "new investigation" off the ground (Ha!), and it goes to trial (Ha! Ha!), we all get to see the looks on their faces when they hear the testimony of their "star witnesses".

ElMondoHummus

3rd March 2008, 08:29 PM

WRONG!
Secondly, the core column theory requires that the columns got sufficiently hot, say 500 C, and tangible evidence from metallurgical analysis is crucial in supporting the NIST conclusion. Unfortunately, that evidence has not been found by NIST.
Thirdly, as a consequence, this crucial lack of evidence must indict the selling of the WTC steel debris before an investigation could be launched. Will NIST speak to this as they now have future investigative authority?

You ignored his comments on the site i posted.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm
“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere.

“Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers

The alternative cause is CD.

-------

You ignored the point, which was:
Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl does not say the NIST report explains the collapse of all the core columns.

Once again, Dr. Quintiere's analysis is that NIST is handwaving past their explanation of fireproofing becoming separated from the steel. That is the conclusion that Dr. Quintiere challenges. Read Dr. Quintiere's own words:

The October surprise in the NIST investigation was the assertion that all of the core column insulation was knocked off by the airplane impacts. To a lesser extent, reliance on NYNJPA audit insulation data solidified the NIST assertion that the failure of the core columns, and not the trusses, were to blame for the collapses of the South and North towers. That audit information was reported by NIST to have the fire floors of the north tower with truss insulation thicknesses as an average of 2.5 inches up to 4 inches instead of the prescribed 1.5 inches.

NIST needs to produce demonstrable and clear substantive information to support this rationale for its conclusions.

It needs to be clearly demonstrated how the core column insulation was removed. This cannot simply be based on an assumption or an extrapolation from impact calculations. It is too important to the conclusions to have modeling as the sole basis.

(Source: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/n...ent_112204.pdf (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/11_22_2004/QuintiereStatement_112204.pdf))

You are the one ignoring Dr. Quintiere's own words. The "alternative cause" he supports is not CD. He has come out and said this.

Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”

(Source: http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/06/berkeley-engineer-searches-for-truth.html)

Dr. Quintiere has stated what his "alternative cause" is:

Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”...

Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.

(Source: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/n...ent_112204.pdf (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/11_22_2004/QuintiereStatement_112204.pdf))

His work and conclusions have nothing to do with controlled demolitions and do not lead in that direction. He comes out and says so.

-----

Dr. Astaneh-Asl has also come out and said what he believes:

Mr. Astaneh-Asl is careful when discussing his findings, stressing that the people who perished in the buildings' collapse "were murdered by terrorists." But he insists that it is his obligation as an engineer to seek "the truth" about the buildings' history and structure.

The "truth" he discusses is that the towers were, in his opinion, flawed in the execution of the design:

As a result of such design elements, he argues, when the two airliners smashed into the upper floors of the towers, both planes plunged all the way in, wings and all. Airliners carry much of their fuel in their wings. His model clearly shows that in the initial fight between the plane and the building's exterior, the plane won, easily breaching the structure.

"It's like a soda can hit with a pencil," says Mr. Astaneh-Asl. "It was so easy that the plane went in without any damage and took the thousands of gallons of jet fuel in."

The structural innovations meant the developers saved money because they could use less steel, says Mr. Astaneh-Asl...

"Structural engineering is something that evolved," he says. "It was not invented."

"Unfortunately and tragically, when [this design] was subjected to this terrorist attack, there's no way this building could stand it."

He comes out and states what he believes were the flaws in the towers:

The collapse of the towers was most likely due to the intense fire initiated by the jet fuel of the planes and continued due to burning of the building contents. It is also the opinion of the author that had there been better fireproofing installed to delay the steel structure, specially the light weight truss joists and exterior columns from reaching high temperature until the content of the buildings burned out, probably the collapse could be avoided and the victims above the impact area rescued. Finally, in the opinion of the author, if the walls around the stairwells were stronger and the stairwells were not all located at one place, many of the victims who were trapped in the floors above the impact area probably could find a useable staircase and escape to safety.

(Source: http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/world-trade-center-collapse-field.html)

And, bottom line: Dr. Astaneh-Asl rejects the notion of CD:

Mr. Astaneh-Asl also rejects such alternative theories. "I certainly don't buy into any of the conspiracy stuff," he says.

"Those are lightweight buildings," he adds. "There was no need for explosives to bring them down."

Neither researcher supports CD, and neither intends their work to be misrepresented as supporting such. You are right, sir, in saying that neither says the NIST report properly explains the cores collapse, but you are very, very wrong in saying that their objections amount to a challenge in the direction that NIST points, which is towards fire and impact damage causing the collapse. They come out and say this. Their own words illustrate this stance. And that is what I've been pointing out: What their specific objections really are. Their objections do not point in the direction of CD. All the bolded, 7 points fonts in the world do not undo or change that conclusion.

Christopher7

3rd March 2008, 08:29 PM

So Chris, what did Quintiere and Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl say when you contacted them to get a first hand response to how you interpret their objections?

You didn't contact them did you?

Coward.You cannot dispute what Dr. Quintiere clearly said so you resort to rhetorical questions and name calling.

3rd March 2008, 08:33 PM

Christopher7:

Have you actually read the replies showing that Dr. Astaneh-Asl and Dr. Quintiere do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis?

That their reservations are due to minutiae, not the collapse itself?

How can you keep on misrepresenting their works and words, in spite of all the evidence that shows that they do not support your hypothesis?

Unsecured Coins

3rd March 2008, 08:35 PM

i'm not going to dispute that he clearly does not say what you're implying he's saying

CHF

3rd March 2008, 08:36 PM

So Chris...you won't contact iron workers, or the engineers you quote.

Not much of a "truthseeker" are you?

tsig

3rd March 2008, 09:14 PM

By engaging in relentless adolescent insults, you only expose your own intellectual bankruptcy.

By ignoring all the evidence and repeating yourself over and over you are showing you have no facts.

Your questions have been answered over and over yet you keep asking. Why is that?

tsig

3rd March 2008, 09:37 PM

So Chris...you won't contact iron workers, or the engineers you quote.

Not much of a "truthseeker" are you?

The ironworkers would cut him off at the knees. lol

Christopher7

3rd March 2008, 10:30 PM

Once again, Dr. Quintiere's analysis is that NIST is handwaving past their explanation of fireproofing becoming separated from the steel. That is the conclusion that Dr. Quintiere challenges. Read Dr. Quintiere's own words:
"Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives."
Point made. My bad.
The difference between me and you guys is, i will admit when i am wrong, you will not.

This part is incorrect. It's the material being ejected 100' during the collapse that is said to be 'squibs'.
“If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”

And, bottom line: Dr. Astaneh-Asl rejects the notion of CD:
Once again, my statement about Dr. Astaneh-Asl:
Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl does not say the NIST report explains the collapse of all the core columns.

Neither researcher supports CD, and neither intends their work to be misrepresented [I]as supporting such.Correct

You are right, sir, in saying that neither says the NIST report properly explains the cores collapse.Correct
NIST only explained the collapse initiation of the Towers, they did not explain the collapse.

http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

pg 3
NIST has stated that it did not analyze the collapse of the towers.

PG 4
We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.
NIST’s analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation.

NIST did not even offer an explanation of how the the north and south core column rows in WTC 7 collapsed, nor can they confirm any part of their hypothesis.

Six and a half years later, NIST cannot explain the collapse of the Trade Towers or WTC 7.

Yet, you guys have this blind faith in the NIST report, that doesn't explain the collapses, even though the Bush administration is known to systematically distort scientific documents.
Why do you still believe Dick Cheney and his front man/cheerleader/idiot?

Walter Ego

3rd March 2008, 11:11 PM

And, bottom line: Dr. Astaneh-Asl rejects the notion of CD:
Once again, my statement about Dr. Astaneh-Asl:
Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl does not say the NIST report explains the collapse of all the core columns. [in WTC7]

So, Chris, have you contacted the good doctor yet to confirm your analysis of his work? Or would that be redundant?

Christopher7

3rd March 2008, 11:41 PM

So, Chris, have you contacted the good doctor yet to confirm your analysis of his work? Or would that be redundant?That would be redundadundant.
Telling me to contact people is just ......... dumb.
It only proves you have nothing of value to say.
This is the last time i will respond to that question.

Arus808

3rd March 2008, 11:55 PM

Telling me to contact people is just ......... dumb.

translation: you're not interested in the truth. instead of contacting those invovled, you rather play "guessing games", and "put words into their mouths".

Sorry, but its not "dumb" for us to ask that you contact the people you seem to have a problem with what they've stated.

It only proves you have nothing of value to say.

No it proves that you have nothing to contribute and that you're unwilling to do the RIGHT thing by contacting the very people you continue to use as your "support' when what they've stated publicly doesn't actually support what you claim.

This is the last time i will respond to that question.

could this be the last time YOU ever respond?

R.Mackey

4th March 2008, 12:06 AM

This part is incorrect. It's the material being ejected 100' during the collapse that is said to be 'squibs'.

Somebody's been reading Jim Hoffman much too credulously.

Jim Hoffman cites "smoke moving at 100 feet per second" as evidence of explosives. Only problem is, 100 feet per second equates to a pressure of well under 1 PSI. If there were explosives, they were too weak to even destroy windows, let alone perimeter columns.

Your hypothesis has been destroyed by your own evidence.

I might also add that Jim Hoffman's "CD" hypothesis involves several thousand tons of explosives. Follow him, and you follow the lunatic ravings of an incompetent.

Yet, you guys have this blind faith in the NIST report, that doesn't explain the collapses, even though the Bush administration is known to systematically distort scientific documents.
Why do you still believe Dick Cheney and his front man/cheerleader/idiot?

I assume you're referring to events such as Dr. Hansen and climate research? Well, when such tampering takes place, it gets caught by scientists. That's how you know about it. No such tampering took place with NIST. Scientists are unanimous* that the whole "controlled demolition" idea is utterly mad.

The most "distortion" that has been alleged by those who know what they're talking about is that NIST deemphasized design flaws in the WTC Towers and substandard code due to the Port Authority. This is approximately the position of Dr. Astaneh-Asl. Not explosives. This question needs answering. The "CD" question needs to be ashcanned.

*: There have been many publications about the WTC events, both pro and con NIST's hypothesis. There have been exactly zero in support of any controlled demolition hypothesis, no matter how tenuous the link. Zero. Game over, man, game over!

Christopher7

4th March 2008, 12:10 AM

Arus

:cool:

Arus808

4th March 2008, 12:36 AM

is that all you can say? typical. C7, continue being the ignorant person you wish to remain.

CHF

4th March 2008, 06:48 AM

Telling me to contact people is just ......... dumb.

No Chris, it's call "research."

Try it sometime.

Dave_46

4th March 2008, 09:08 AM

Chris

You are seeking to suggest, implicitly or explicitly, that 283 (or thereby) is a significant number. In effect you are trying to appeal to their collected authority.

<snip>

Please forgive my ignorance, but are these 283 people from that list on a website that contains:

a) known false entries, put there to test the checking system of the site

and b) people who do not support the conjectures on the site.

Dave

Architect

4th March 2008, 09:13 AM

Please forgive my ignorance, but are these 283 people from that list on a website that contains:

a) known false entries, put there to test the checking system of the site

and b) people who do not support the conjectures on the site.

Dave

Aye, apparently.

jberryhill

4th March 2008, 08:57 PM

Have you tracked down all these people and asked them if they remember that particular column?

I tracked down the guy who took the picture of it, yes, and posted about that upthread.

Christopher7

6th March 2008, 11:53 PM

Please forgive my ignorance, but are these 283 people from that list on a website that contains:

a) known false entries, put there to test the checking system of the siteSomeone lied, committed fraud, and then faults AE 911 Truth.
They check out applicants before posting their names, so the information was verifiable.
They were not expecting 'dirty tricks'.
Who makes this claim?
What was the name, title and other false information given to AE911 Truth?
Is it still there?

and b) people who do not support the conjectures on the site.
DaveDr. Quintiere agrees with AE 911 Truth that “the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.” and is calling for for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

His full statement was posted, including the part where he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives.

Dr. Quintiere said that WTC 7"collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 8 seconds*".
"In addition to NIST’s failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7’s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's [I]"full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."
“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.
This is a PC way of saying "The NIST report is a sham".

*Most people define 'the building' as the entire building, not just a portion of it.
Only those who wish the obfuscate the facts insist otherwise.

Christopher7

6th March 2008, 11:59 PM

I tracked down the guy who took the picture of it, yes, and posted about that upthread.Would you post his email please?

Arus808

7th March 2008, 12:03 AM

Someone lied, committed fraud, and then faults AE 911 Truth.

again you place blame on t hose who found the GLARING hole in the AE911 truth website and their acceptance of membership to their website; instead of AE911 , who should have since day 1 been checking the credentials of those who do sign up to make sure they say they are the person they claim to be

the fact that thye STILL have names on there that have BEEN told to them, that they are FAKE, shows exactly how not credible the website and its members are.

They check out applicants before posting their names, so the information was verifiable.If they did, I wouldn't be seeing no less than 4 names on that list, that are of FAKE people

They were not expecting 'dirty tricks'.

Oh yes they are. they continue to list fake people, when they were told that they weren't real.

What was the name, title and other false information given to AE911 Truth?the website owners know who they are.

Is it still there? yes, 4 names that I can see that are still there.

Dr. Quintiere agrees with AE 911 Truth that “the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.” and is calling for for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

false, you mis read his claims and are putting words into his mouth

Christopher7

7th March 2008, 12:12 AM

you guys have this blind faith in the NIST report, that doesn't explain the collapses, even though the Bush administration is known to systematically distort scientific documents.
Why do you still believe Dick Cheney and his front man/cheerleader/idiot?

I assume you're referring to events such as Dr. Hansen and climate research? No
I was referring to this:
Scientists Say Administration Distorts Facts

By JAMES GLANZ
Published: February 19, 2004
More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technology&res=9A00E2DD133DF93AA25751C0A9629C8B63

Dr Quintere: "“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations ....... by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."

Christopher7

7th March 2008, 12:27 AM

again you place blame on t hose who found the GLARING hole in the AE911 truth website and their acceptance of membership to their website; instead of AE911 , who should have since day 1 been checking the credentials of those who do sign up to make sure they say they are the person they claim to beThey do check the credentials. Your liar gave the name and information of a qualified person.

the fact that thye STILL have names on there that have BEEN told to them, that they are FAKE, shows exactly how not credible the website and its members are.What are the names?

they continue to list fake people, when they were told that they weren't real.Source?

Dr. Quintiere agrees with AE 911 Truth that “the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.” and is calling for for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

false, you mis read his claims and are putting words into his mouthI quoted him verbatim.

Arus808

7th March 2008, 12:49 AM

They do check the credentials.

If they did, the 4 names wouldn't still be there. No amount of your lying on their behalf changes their laxed nature.

Your liar gave the name and information of a qualified person.

no, 2 of the four are of fictional characters (one is found on the Simpsons)
So much for your "verification" process. The other two, are made up names; all four are not even of anyone that is remotely qualified (unless you think that a known home makers, who does knitting on public access tv is qualified as an engineer)

What are the names?

The owners of the website, have been told which names were fake.

Architect

7th March 2008, 12:49 AM

[shakes head wearily]

So, Chris, you're not going to address the point that 283 is, in fact, a tiny proportion of the people that are qualified to comment on, and understand, the issues presented in the 911 report and that by seeking to rely on this - apparently unreliable - number you are placing undue emphasis on a minority view?

Or is it solely your contention that the silent masses of trained professionals do not represent general acceptance of the NIST findings?

uk_dave

7th March 2008, 01:03 AM

Or is it solely your contention that the silent masses of trained professionals do not represent general acceptance of the NIST findings?

Well that appears to be how his fellow 'truther', LastChild, views the world.

If people in a professional field do not explicitly come out and state that they support the findings of a report which directly effects the very thing they specialise in, then 'truthers' are prepared to claim that those professionals are agnostic at best, and at worst 'critical' of the report.

It's a weird and wacky and very amusing world 'truthers' inhabit.

Christopher7

7th March 2008, 02:06 AM

no, 2 of the four are of fictional characters (one is found on the Simpsons)What are the names?

The owners of the website, have been told which names were fake.How do you know?

uk_dave

7th March 2008, 02:14 AM

They shouldn't need to be told if Doug Plumb was actually doing his job properly.

Christopher7

7th March 2008, 02:16 AM

So, Chris, you're not going to address the point that 283 is, in fact, a tiny proportion of the people that are qualified to comment onWho are you to say that someone with a degree in architecture or engineering isn't qualified to look at the evidence and make an educated judgment.

How many qualified people have studied the evidence and the NIST report, and personally gone on record saying they support the NIST conclusions?

Or is it solely your contention that the silent masses of trained professionals do not represent general acceptance of the NIST findings?It cannot be assumed one way or the other.

Brainache

7th March 2008, 02:17 AM

They shouldn't need to be told if Doug Plumb was actually doing his job properly.

Am I the only person who reads that guy's name as Plug Dumb?

Probably.

Christopher7

7th March 2008, 02:22 AM

They shouldn't need to be told if Doug Plumb was actually doing his job properly.So, you don't even know the names.

You are taking the word of someone who says they are lying and posting phony names.
Did it occur to you that perhaps they are lying about the whole thing?

Christopher7

7th March 2008, 02:29 AM

Eight Senior Republican Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 - "Not Possible", "a Whitewash", "False" (http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_071202_seven_senior_republi.htm)
[/URL]
[URL]http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_071202_seven_senior_republi.htm (http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_071202_seven_senior_republi.htm)

Paul Craig Roberts, PhD, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan

Catherine Austin Fitts, Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George H.W. Bush

Morgan Reynolds, PhD, former Chief Economist of the U.S. Department of Labor under current President George W. Bush

Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald ReaganMary Schiavo, JD, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation under Presidents George H.W. Bush and William Clinton

Mary Schiavo. Appointed under the administration of President George H. W. Bush, Ms. Schiavo served as the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Transportation from 1990 - 1996.

Barbara Honegger, served as Special Assistant to the Chief Domestic Policy Adviser to President Ronald Reagan and as a White House Policy Analyst.

Edward Peck, Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under President Ronald Reagan. Former Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the U.S. State Department. Former U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission in Iraq

Morton Goulder, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning under Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

Christopher7

7th March 2008, 02:36 AM

Well that appears to be how his fellow 'truther', LastChild, views the world.

If people in a professional field do not explicitly come out and state that they support the findings of a report which directly effects the very thing they specialise in, then 'truthers' are prepared to claim that those professionals are agnostic at best, and at worst 'critical' of the report.Really?
Please show where i said that.

Just the poopsite is true.
quote [x]
Considering that you reject the work of the thousands (or tens of thousands) mentioned in Architects

uk_dave

7th March 2008, 02:42 AM

Did it occur to you that perhaps they are lying about the whole thing?

Right back 'atcha.

Do you ever question the information you're being fed by people you have no knowledge about?

I don't really care whether or not there are fake names on the aetruth website. It amuses me that Gage was stupid enough, or naive enough, to think he could set up his organisation and claim to the world that 'Architects and Engineers' disagree with the accepted account of 9-11, without having the decency to make a distinction between engineers who actually deal with structural building design, or even engineers who still work for a living, but rather just go for quantity over quality to the extent that he didn't even have vetting procedures in place, and yet he believed that this scam wouldn't be revealed within minutes of his site going live.

Or maybe he didn't (doesn't) care because he knew there'd be a few useful.... people... out there who would be willing to defend him come what may.

Christopher7

7th March 2008, 03:17 AM

Right back 'atcha.
Do you ever question the information you're being fed by people you have no knowledge about?I have done my own research and i concur with the conclusions of AE 911 Truth.

I don't really care whether or not there are fake names on the aetruth website.Some people here are making a big deal of it based on the word of a liar.

It amuses me that Gage was stupid enough, or naive enough, to think he could set up his organisation and claim to the world that 'Architects and Engineers' disagree with the accepted account of 9-11, without having the decency to make a distinction between engineers who actually deal with structural building design, or even engineers who still work for a living,He lists members by category and gives their qualifications.
Architects (Degreed & Licensed - Active & Retired) (http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=ARCH)
Architectural Professionals (Degreed) (http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=ARCHPROF)
Engineers (Degreed & Licensed - Active & Retired) (http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=ENG)
Engineering Professionals (Degreed) (http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=ENGPROF)
Non-U.S. Architects and Engineers & Architectural and Engineering Professionals (http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=NON-US)
Other Supporters and A&E Students (http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=XMISC)

Richard Gage has been honest and straightforward about the qualifications of the members of AE 911 truth.
You are desperately trying to spin diversity into dishonesty because you can't accept reality.
286 professional architects and engineers don't believe the official story and are demanding that the 9/11 investigation be re-opened, and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7.

You didn't [nor will you] answer this question:
Did it occur to you that perhaps your liar is lying about the whole thing?

CHF

7th March 2008, 06:28 AM

286 professional architects and engineers don't believe the official story and are demanding that the 9/11 investigation be re-opened, and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7.

And when can we expect some of these people to produce some kind of research and publish it somewhere other than a kook website?

Unsecured Coins

7th March 2008, 06:30 AM

no, of course not.

Christopher7

7th March 2008, 01:40 PM

And when can we expect some of these people to produce some kind of research and publish it somewhere other than a kook website?They have done the research and your calling it a 'kook' website is just pure denial.

I have listed many other qualified people who have gone on record saying the official story is a crock or WTC 7 was a CD, but you [all] just ignore them or write them off as 'kooks' and change the subject.

Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider Professors emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH.

Anders Börkman, M.Sc. Naval Architect and Marine Engineer

Jeff King, MIT engineer

Torin Wolf demolitions expert

Danny Jowenko

Charles Pegelow, structural engineer (http://www.911blogger.com/node/2257), of Houston, Texas (and see this (http://www.ae911truth.org/info/9))

Dennis Kollar, structural engineer (http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php), of West Bend, Wisconsin

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (http://stj911.org/members/index.html)(retired)

Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer (http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php) and architect (ret.)

Joseph M. Phelps, MS, PE. Structural Dynamicist (http://67.15.255.19/%7Ec911sch1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=35)(ret.), Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers

Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer (http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=ENG)

William Rice, P.E., structural engineer (http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml), former professor of Vermont Technical College

Patriots question WTC7
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS, U.S. Air Force (ret)Col. James R. Uhl, MD, MC, U.S. Army (ret)
Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps (ret)
Lt. Col. Paul F. Getty, DDS (ret)
Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. ArmyDavid L. Griscom, PhD
Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS EngLon J. Waters, PhD Mathematics
Robert David Steele
Enver Masud, BS EE, MS OR (Operations Research), PE
Joel S. Hirschhorn, BS Metallurgical Engineering, MS Metallurgical Engineering, PhD Materials Engineering

Eight Senior Republican Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 - "Not Possible", "a Whitewash", "False" (http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_071202_seven_senior_republi.htm)
http://www.opednews.com/articles/gen...or_republi.htm (http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_071202_seven_senior_republi.htm)

Paul Craig Roberts, PhD, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan

Catherine Austin Fitts, Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George H.W. Bush

Morgan Reynolds, PhD, former Chief Economist of the U.S. Department of Labor under current President George W. Bush

Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald ReaganMary Schiavo, JD, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation under Presidents George H.W. Bush and William Clinton

Mary Schiavo. Appointed under the administration of President George H. W. Bush, Ms. Schiavo served as the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Transportation from 1990 - 1996.

Barbara Honegger, served as Special Assistant to the Chief Domestic Policy Adviser to President Ronald Reagan and as a White House Policy Analyst.

Edward Peck, Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under President Ronald Reagan. Former Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the U.S. State Department. Former U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission in Iraq

Morton Goulder, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning under Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

Tuesday February 12, 2008
Richard F. Humenn PE,"Fuel and Planes Alone Did NOT Bring the Towers Down"

The list is long and growing.

Despite claims like:
Architect
The fact is - and you can like it or lump it - that the NIST findings are almost universally supported across the very construction industry professionals who are qualified to understand them.

No one has posted the name of a qualified person who has studied the evidence and the NIST report, and stated publicly that they support the NIST conclusion.

Arus808

7th March 2008, 01:44 PM

What are the names?

are you the owner of the website? Why should I tell you those names? If the owners of the website were doing their jobs, they would have removed the names when they were told, and bothered to verify those names.

LastChild

7th March 2008, 01:46 PM

They have done the research and your calling it a 'kook' website is just pure denial.

I have listed many other qualified people who have gone on record saying the official story is a crock or WTC 7 was a CD, but you [all] just ignore them or write them off as 'kooks' and change the subject.

Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider Professors emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH.

Anders Börkman, M.Sc. Naval Architect and Marine Engineer

Jeff King, MIT engineer

Torin Wolf demolitions expert

Danny Jowenko

Charles Pegelow, structural engineer (http://www.911blogger.com/node/2257), of Houston, Texas (and see this (http://www.ae911truth.org/info/9))

Dennis Kollar, structural engineer (http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php), of West Bend, Wisconsin

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (http://stj911.org/members/index.html)(retired)

Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer (http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php) and architect (ret.)

Joseph M. Phelps, MS, PE. Structural Dynamicist (http://67.15.255.19/%7Ec911sch1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=35)(ret.), Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers

Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer (http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=ENG)

William Rice, P.E., structural engineer (http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml), former professor of Vermont Technical College

Patriots question WTC7
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS, U.S. Air Force (ret)Col. James R. Uhl, MD, MC, U.S. Army (ret)
Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps (ret)
Lt. Col. Paul F. Getty, DDS (ret)
Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. ArmyDavid L. Griscom, PhD
Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS EngLon J. Waters, PhD Mathematics
Robert David Steele
Enver Masud, BS EE, MS OR (Operations Research), PE
Joel S. Hirschhorn, BS Metallurgical Engineering, MS Metallurgical Engineering, PhD Materials Engineering

Eight Senior Republican Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 - "Not Possible", "a Whitewash", "False" (http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_071202_seven_senior_republi.htm)
http://www.opednews.com/articles/gen...or_republi.htm (http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_071202_seven_senior_republi.htm)

Paul Craig Roberts, PhD, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan

Catherine Austin Fitts, Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George H.W. Bush

Morgan Reynolds, PhD, former Chief Economist of the U.S. Department of Labor under current President George W. Bush

Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald ReaganMary Schiavo, JD, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation under Presidents George H.W. Bush and William Clinton

Mary Schiavo. Appointed under the administration of President George H. W. Bush, Ms. Schiavo served as the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Transportation from 1990 - 1996.

Barbara Honegger, served as Special Assistant to the Chief Domestic Policy Adviser to President Ronald Reagan and as a White House Policy Analyst.

Edward Peck, Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under President Ronald Reagan. Former Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the U.S. State Department. Former U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission in Iraq

Morton Goulder, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning under Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

Tuesday February 12, 2008
Richard F. Humenn PE,"Fuel and Planes Alone Did NOT Bring the Towers Down"

The list is long and growing.

Despite claims like:
Architect
The fact is - and you can like it or lump it - that the NIST findings are almost universally supported across the very construction industry professionals who are qualified to understand them.

No one has posted the name of a qualified person who has studied the evidence and the NIST report, and stated publicly that they support the NIST conclusion.

Good point.