• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fire and Steel

Minadin said:
I am an actual architect. You know, someone who designs buildings, and has to integrate the structure with the building systems (damn engineers) with the interior design (damn interior designers) to try to make the building look and work like our clients intended? You can look up my qualifications here by using the search function, but if it makes you feel important I'll scan my degree and / or business card for you.
Click to expand...


Two of us on the same site?! It must be a conspiracy!!! What would architects know about buildings ?!?!?! :eek:
 
bofors said:
Presentations by Richard Gage and Steven Jones prove beyond any doubt that controlled demolitions brought down all three WTC buildings. There is no possibility that I am wrong here.
Click to expand...

Now that I would have to disagree with, save for the last bit. I do believe that no factual clarification can sway your decision about the WTC's.
Gage, he doesn't put forth any real new information on the table that hasn't been addressed numerous times, he cites technical papers written by the theology professor Griffin and derives from chemical analazys of Steven Jones etc etc, all have been addressed, hence Gage doesn't counter the critique laid upon the claims he's purporting.

For example, he puts forth the "free fall" fallacy, showing a video to a demolitions expert from one angle where obviously ignores the other material available that (in the case of WTC7) the building leaned toward the south and collapsed moreso in that direction due to the path of least resistence. He makes no word of this at all.
Gaged said "fires do not blow up buildings", erhh well did I miss something here, a WTC blowing up or? He also said, what can be called the Titanic-fallacy, that the building was too strong to have heat cause sinks in the structure, this is not just wrong, it's fraudulent.
 
boloboffin said:
Why did Richard Gage remove the sound of explosions from the clip he loops of an Oslo, Norway controlled demolition?

This clip is present on three different slides of his "self-guided" PowerPoint presentation.

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-14.php

There is even a gap in the sound at the very end of the clip while the building is still falling.

And yet another recording of this same demolition clearly has loud explosions happening just as the building begins to fall.



The explosions start at :22 in that clip.

What Gage is doing is conditioning his audience. He KNOWS that there are no loud sound of explosions in ANY clip of the 3 WTC buildings falling. He therefore takes out the sound of explosions from the Oslo CD, moves the sound up to the beginning of the clip to mask this, and then loops it over and over again to make people think that the Oslo CD was just like the WTC buildings falling.

Outright chicanery. Richard Gage is a liar.
Click to expand...
Excellent find, bolo.
 
Are you surprised he would manipulate the evidence to condition his audience...The cult of invalidity.

TAM:)
 
I wanted to be an architect, but my mum said I couldn't draw well enough, so to forget about that. Near enough for conspiracy theories, right?
 
boloboffin said:
Why did Richard Gage remove the sound of explosions from the clip he loops of an Oslo, Norway controlled demolition?

This clip is present on three different slides of his "self-guided" PowerPoint presentation.

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-14.php
Click to expand...
Interesting. Look at the source code for the page and this line jumps out:

<!-- C:\911-PPT\S-Jones-PPT\oslodemo-cut2PFC.wmv -->

That file isn't available on the site, but Googling for oslodemo takes us to http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/index.php?dir=BYUStevenJones/Flash/ , where there's a file called oslodemo-cut2.mpg. That appears to be a longer version of the same footage, only with no audio. So I'm wondering, have they added the entire audio track from somewhere else?
 
So I got to checking out some of the other "evidence" on that site and discover OMG! they used whacky old Judy's discombobulator ray gun on another building to test it before they did the WTC. Check it out.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/BYUStevenJones/Flash/southwark_towers(trim).mpg

Did you see that? The towers dustified as they fell. There was a building-shaped cloud of dust standing after the had dropped about half-way down.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Architects are just exterior designers as far as skyscrapers are concerned anyways.
:D
Click to expand...

Says the number cruncher in the corner-that's why so many engineers just go ahead and do it all themselves (no, ehm, wait, just a mo, I'll think of one in a moment, urm, eh.....let me come back to you on that)

:p
 
leftysergeant said:
Did you see that? The towers dustified as they fell. There was a building-shaped cloud of dust standing after the had dropped about half-way down.
Click to expand...

Man, that word used by the Truthers really annoys me....IT'S NOT A REAL WORD....although I have to say it wasn't nearly as appalling as the English eejit on the radio today who used the word "securitised" instead of "secured". ARGH!!!

[/rant]
 
Last edited:
Architect said:
RANT! Man, that word used by the Truthers really annoys me....ITS NOT A REAL WORD....although I have to say it wasn't nearly as appalling as the English eejit on the radio today who used the word "securitised" instead of "secured". ARGH!!!
Click to expand...


Didn't you receive your Judy Wood to English dictionary from NWO distribution?
 
I love how with one breath, Truthers say "the WTC was turned to dust...hence it must have been a controlled demolition!!!"....and then with the other breath they say "why did the authorities sell off the 400,000 tons of steel from the WTC?".

So which is it? Did the WTC get turned to dust.....or not?

This is why Truthers are seen as fools all over the country. Because they have no story, no theory, no explenation.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Architects are just exterior designers as far as skyscrapers are concerned anyways.

:D
Click to expand...

I always thought that they were like the "Designers" (As opposed to design engineers) who are always wanting to hang parasitic weight and "look good" "pretty stuff" on my fully-functional structure...:D:D:D:boxedin:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom