Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

[my ill will]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4617650616903609314

Excellent video from a scientific perspective.

 

[DavidJames]

Please share with us what you feel is the most compelling evidence.

 

[WildCat]

Did my ill will just use "scientific" to describe something made by cardboard box afficionado Richard Gage? (head asplodes)

 

[alexi_drago]

Watching this atm, at 14 mins the example of a test done with fire in a steel framed building is shown. At the start of the test it's said the test is to see the effect of an office contents fire on the heavy steel beams supporting the ceilings and also seen in the clip is the vertical steel columns within the floorspace. It is said that while the steel does not melt and there is no sudden collapse the steel does soften, lose it's strength and sag. That is with heavy steel beams of relatively short spans which cannot be compared to the construction of the WTC, why is an architect using such a comparison to base his claims?

Not very scientific at all IMO.

 

[johnny karate]

Has anyone heard about this "Loose Change" movie? I hope someone makes a thread about it.

 

[dudalb]

Wow, never heard of that group before......

 

[my ill will]

Please share with us what you feel is the most compelling evidence.

Well I try to be as uncontrolled by what I see as possible, but the fact is that the towers falling do look exactly like what a controlled demolition looks like...

in addition to the sulfur fingerprints found on the base of the tower (which with thermate lowers melting point and accelerates reaction)

along with the fact that the head of the "official" report didn't even acknowledge that there were molten pools of steel...

I don't know, I don't really know too much about everything. The evidence just seems a little too overwhelming for it to be looked down upon as "just another conspiracy theory"

I mean the evidence is there...

 

[twinstead]

Sadly, from a scientific perspective the video is full of crap. From a propaganda perspective, a lot of non-scientists are bound to fall for it.

ETA well, maybe not A LOT of non scientists, but a couple are bound to.

 

[my ill will]

Watching this atm, at 14 mins the example of a test done with fire in a steel framed building is shown. At the start of the test it's said the test is to see the effect of an office contents fire on the heavy steel beams supporting the ceilings and also seen in the clip is the vertical steel columns within the floorspace. It is said that while the steel does not melt and there is no sudden collapse the steel does soften, lose it's strength and sag. That is with heavy steel beams of relatively short spans which cannot be compared to the construction of the WTC, why is an architect using such a comparison to base his claims?

Not very scientific at all IMO.

Well it's the closest thing they could use, as it's the largest EXPERIMENT of it's kind to test that.

Keep watching, clearly you're jumping to conclusions

 

[my ill will]

Sadly, from a scientific perspective the video is full of crap. From a propaganda perspective, a lot of non-scientists are bound to fall for it.

Please elaborate. Where are they full of crap??

 

[Gravy]

I mean the evidence is there...

Yup, the evidence is there, and absolutely none of it points to anything but collapse due to damage and fire. Not a shred.

You've been sold a bill of goods by crackpots. And I mean REAL crackpots. These people are desperately sad, my ill will. They aren't well.

 

[my ill will]

Yup, the evidence is there, and absolutely none of it points to anything but collapse due to damage and fire. Not a shred.

You've been sold a bill of goods by crackpots. And I mean REAL crackpots. These people are desperately sad, my ill will. They aren't well.

I don't understand... I've looked up most of these people and they are all credited experts in their fields... on what basis can you say they are crackpots?

and how does molten pools of steel which melts at what, 2700 degrees or something, not point to something other than fire damage? well the fact that regular fire can't do that and make the building look exactly like a controlled demolition

I swear to god sometimes I think this website is solely for the purpose of shooting down any and all theories that are against the official report

Why does everyone overlook the facts?

 

[Gravy]

Here's a video by me that examines claims by AE911truth:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926

From my website:

The two Hardfire shows with myself and Richard Gage, head of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, are now online. The host is 9/11 conspiracy believer John Clifton. Here's some info on the shenanigans they pulled to try to get the upper hand before and during the shows. Or, save time and just go to this point in the second show when Gage "jumps the shark" and displays his staggering ignorance of structures and engineering for all to see. Funny how Gage didn't promote these shows before or after they aired!


Please read this letter of mine and tell me how credible Richard Gage is:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3834688&postcount=12

More analysis of AE911truth claims by knowledgeable people:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/theyoughtaknowbetter:critiquesoftheinept

 

[Corsair 115]

I don't understand... I've looked up most of these people and they are all credited experts in their fields... on what basis can you say they are crackpots?

and how does molten pools of steel which melts at what, 2700 degrees or something, not point to something other than fire damage? well the fact that regular fire can't do that and make the building look exactly like a controlled demolition

I suggest you use the forum search function, because all the points you raise have been dealt with here before many, many times.

 

[Gravy]

I don't understand... I've looked up most of these people and they are all credited experts in their fields... on what basis can you say they are crackpots?

Ahem.

Here's what Gage's "expert" structural engineers say:

–Charles Pegelow thinks nuclear weapons destroyed the towers. No, I'm not kidding.

–Robert T. Mote thinks the tower collapses started from the bottom: "I could never understand the 'convenient' vertical collapse at the BASE due to an extreme event at height."

–Structural engineer Dennis Kollar says, “For me the most convincing aspect that the 911 collapse was a controlled demolition is the recorded explosions on the 9/11 Eyewitness DVD.” The "recorded explosions" he's referring to are wind noise captured by the camera in Hoboken, a few miles away from the WTC. That should be staggeringly obvious to anyone who has seen footage from close to the WTC, where what would be absolutely enormous "explosions" are not captured by any microphones.

–Structural engineer Michael Donley says, "I have read the FEMA report and conclude that it is incomplete at best and a cover-up at worst.” The FEMA report? Welcome to 2002, Mr. Donley. You might try reading the 10,000 page NIST report. Can't blame you, though. Richard has led by example and not bothered to read the NIST report either. (Yes, I can prove that.)

–Engineer Edward Knesl says, “We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.” Faster than freefall! He' hasn't even bothered to review videos of the collapses. Can these people possibly be any less competent?

Actually, yes. Here's what AE 911 Truth engineer Donald Messerlian believes:

–“Seismographic evidence proved pre-planted explosives destroyed WTC 1, 2 and building 7 before the planes struck buildings 1 & 2.”

Right. The three WTC buildings were destroyed before the planes hit. In the same vein of disturbed fantasy, Richard's aerospace engineer is a "no-planer":

–"After performing some in-depth research on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that no commercial airplanes impacted the two WTC Towers. No commercial plane impacted the Pentagon. No commercial aircraft buried itself in Pennsylvania terra firma."

This is plain mental illness, and it's promoted by Gage on his website. How reprehensible, and how sad.

Why does everyone overlook the facts?

I suggest you spend a few days with the facts I linked above. I'll be glad to answer any questions you have after you've read and watched all the material. Fair enough?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I don't understand... I've looked up most of these people and they are all credited experts in their fields... on what basis can you say they are crackpots?

Authority in any particular field is no guarantee that the material they offer is accurate. Just about every profession has its share of incompetents, and their analysis of features with exceedingly mundane alternative explanations as being something to the contrary is, from my understanding not demonstrating anything significant on their part. AE911 has been discussed ad nauseum here so I can understand quite easily why it's cumbersome to retype everything in one place. I've put my two cents in a few times... such as here concerning their content, if your interested in addition to what Gravy linked to (his had much more time dedicated to it)

 

[bonavada]

the fact is that the towers falling do look exactly like what a controlled demolition looks like...

There is nothing about the towers falling that looks "exactly" like a controlled demolition, it's as good an example of totally uncontrolled destruction of a major building that one might find. (IE "Top down" destruction, debris scattered over several blocks etc etc )

BV

 

[VespaGuy]

Well I try to be as uncontrolled by what I see as possible, but the fact is that the towers falling do look exactly like what a controlled demolition looks like...

... except for all the parts that don't look like a controlled demolition.

in addition to the sulfur fingerprints found on the base of the tower (which with thermate lowers melting point and accelerates reaction)

What does a controlled demolition with thermate look like?

along with the fact that the head of the "official" report didn't even acknowledge that there were molten pools of steel...

Steel? Are you sure?

What is your explaination for molten pools of metal?

I don't know, I don't really know too much about everything.

I agree.

The evidence just seems a little too overwhelming for it to be looked down upon as "just another conspiracy theory"
I mean the evidence is there...

I'd love to see this "evidence" you speak of.

 

[my ill will]

Here's a video by me that examines claims by AE911truth:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926

From my website:

The two Hardfire shows with myself and Richard Gage, head of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, are now online. The host is 9/11 conspiracy believer John Clifton. Here's some info on the shenanigans they pulled to try to get the upper hand before and during the shows. Or, save time and just go to this point in the second show when Gage "jumps the shark" and displays his staggering ignorance of structures and engineering for all to see. Funny how Gage didn't promote these shows before or after they aired!


Please read this letter of mine and tell me how credible Richard Gage is:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3834688&postcount=12

More analysis of AE911truth claims by knowledgeable people:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/theyoughtaknowbetter:critiquesoftheinept

Hmm excellent post, I am watching the video and will check the other stuff out.

What I don't understand is why conspirators would go through so much trouble trying to prove the towers were done by explosives if they were completely wrong? What are they getting out of it? I mean it seems like they are only seeking the truth like anyone else...

 

[Gravy]

There is nothing about the towers falling that looks "exactly" like a controlled demolition, it's as good an example of totally uncontrolled destruction of a major building that one might find. IE "Top down" destruction, debris scattered over several blocks etc etc )

BV

Let's not forget that other aspect that the truthers have to conceal: what the collapses sound like. (See my video linked above, my ill will).

Oh, and of course there's the fact that not a single piece of steel shows the effects of demolitions explosives or incendiaries. Zero.