Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

[GodisEnergy]

What do you think the rebar and corrugated metal might have been a part of. Do you really want to be quizzed on how the floors were constructed? And if the entire block was once a mass of molten iron, as your authority claims then why are these constituents not partially melted themselves? How about even bits of uncombusted paper?


I'll put this in laymen terms. The concrete slab on each floor system was 6 to 8 inches thick. The total area of each floor was an acre. Do you honestly believe that in a chaotic collapse such a relatively "thin" layer of concrete will remain in relatively pristine condition neatly stacked? Were aren't talking about those large T or double-T reinforced concrete structural beams between two and three feet thick at the thickest points. Remember that when you base your answers on examples like these.

I think you misfired when you wrote this portion...

Wow i can find uncombusted paper in my fire at home,therefor my fire didnt exist.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Wow i can find uncombusted paper in my fire at home,therefor my fire didnt exist.

You're not even trying anymore are you?

 

[beachnut]

Baart Vorsanger engineer examined the meteroite , he said it was made up largely of previously molten iron.
...
... any idiot with a video player can see that.

You believe in the insane ideas of Jones, a proven liar on 911 topics, so I don’t trust you!

Please source your statements in your post. Thank you.

Do you have a video player?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You believe in the insane ideas of Jones, a proven liar on 911 topics, so I don’t trust you!

Please source your statements in your post. Thank you.

Do you have a video player?

He's likely talking about one of the meteorite videos posted on whatreallyhappened, where the interviewee suggests that the mass is a combination of steel, concrete and other materials "melted" into one mass. The video however is an extremely low resolution making it impossible to confirm by visuals. As for the example posted here... how people can't even tell the different between concrete and steel is beyond me (although GIE seems to surprise me less and less)... The floor systems in the WTC were built in this fashion: LINK. Apparently GIE has never bothered to look at it or he discredits it outright, considering that his earlier comment acknowledging the presence of those components makes no mention of them being typical of the floor systems inside the buildings.

BTW GIE, no answer regarding this?

It would not be too difficult to determine it to be concrete. As for the rust bands on it, when the rebar, or the corrugated metal sheet contained in the floor system rusts, some of it "stains" and runs off onto the concrete over time. These are a few examples, albeit a bit less extreme than seen in the photo on post #100:

LINK 1
Link 2
link 3

 

[beachnut]

He's likely talking about one of the meteorite videos posted on whatreallyhappened, where the interviewee suggests that the mass is a combination of steel, concrete and other materials "melted" into one mass. The video however is an extremely low resolution making it impossible to confirm by visuals. As for the example posted here... how people can't even tell the different between concrete and steel is beyond me... The floor systems in the WTC were built in this fashion: LINK. Apparently GIE has never bothered to look at it or he discredits it outright, considering that his earlier comment acknowledging the presence of those components makes no mention of them being typical of the floor systems inside the buildings

The video player was ... (bad joke) Maybe it should read, he must have a lot of video players.

Does he knows the WTC was 110 stories high? And the fires were big, but were confined to the top floors. The paper would be proof the metal was not molten. I don't think people that believe Jones are wired correctly.

I doubt the standard Jones believer has the reading comprehension skills and research skills to find Jones using the torch cut columns as proof of thermite. So they are unable to verify Jones is a delusion spreader of the highest order; as in a liar.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The bits of paper remaining with legible writing IMO are the least significant in determining that the "meteorite" is a section of compressed floors and remnants of contents inside the building. People who are familiar with the construction should know immediately from the documentation that the floors were constructed in a particular fashion, and that none of the parts show any signs of exposure to excessive heat. It's apparent from looking at the photos that what we see are sections of the original concrete layer, and the steel reinforcement used in providing the tensile strength in the concrete.

Jones, didn't take note of the construction either, or is aware of it and intentionally ignores it. Little mundane things such os the rust staining, and the floor construction tend to bypass him. The similarities between GIE's and Jone's stances are to no surprise quite similar...

 

[Gravy]

Baart Vorsanger engineer examined the meteroite , he said it was made up largely of previously molten iron.

If he did, it's a hilariously inept statement or a lie, as even the photos show. The floor pans run the length of the object. Concrete with rust stains is not molten metal. There is no sign of any significant quantity of molten metal on it, much less "iron" (WTF?). I wonder if there's anything you won't believe.

And finally, as NIST points out, the presence of even molten steel in the piles would be plausible, simply from the fires there, and would give no support to any conspiracy theories.

ETA: Voorsanger is an architect, and he didn't say that.

How sad. Welcome to ignore. You're utterly hopeless.

 

[Gravy]

I'll put this in laymen terms. The concrete slab on each floor system was 6 to 8 inches thick.

Four to five inches thick, with most of that being lightweight concrete reinforced only with wire mesh.

Stack 4 or 5 sheets of normal copy 8.5x11" copy paper as flat as possible on a table. The long edge of the paper represents one wall of a WTC tower. The thickness of the paper is the thickness of the concrete. Hardly surprising that most of it was pulverized during the collapse of buildings that were over a quarter mile high and weighed hundreds of millions of pounds.

 

[johnny karate]

This should be noted once again:

Im not interested in Firefighters Opinions, Opinions are biased and i dont think most of them can handle the CD truth

Anyone who believes the FDNY was complicit in the 9/11 attacks is obviously deeply disturbed, and beyond the reach of reason.

 

[Gravy]

More Richard Gage Lies and Incompetence: molten metal

While I'm at it, I'll list a few more examples of what a lying jackass Richard Gage is.

Unusual erosion of a few steel pieces

​

In his PowerPoint presentation and on radio shows, Gage says this about the three pieces of steel that were preserved because they showed an anomalous eutectic formation, which occurred at temperatures far below the melting point of steel:

"FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples"

"Fire doesn't do this to steel." NIST "Threw this documentation out the window. It went as far as the world trade center, landing 500, 600 feet away." (laughs)

"This one got burned up by all the molten metal I suppose. "It's nowhere to be found in the NIST report."

This is further proof that Gage didn't read the NIST report. Not only are these strangely-eroded pieces discussed for several pages in NCSTAR 1-3C, but NIST did their own analysis that resulted in several different conclusions from FEMA's analysis.

Of the one piece that came from a column that could be site-identified, the column was below the 53rd floor and the damage was done while it was in a horizontal position: in the piles. There's even a photo of the whole column in the NIST report, showing that it clearly was not attacked by thermite, thermate, or any other fantasy weapons the truthers want to name.

To reiterate:

–Gage says information about this steel is "nowhere to be found in the NIST report."

–Not only is the information in the NIST report, it is discussed at length, and NIST didn't rely on previous findings. They tested it themselves.

–Further, tests continued to be done by metallurgy labs on this phenomenon, and it was discovered that it could be reproduced with a variety of common contaminants. (See WPI seminar presentation summaries on my website).

Tons of molten steel or iron?

This came up in the Hardfire shows, and is claimed by Gage in his radio shows and PowerPoint presentation:

“Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY and numerous other experts under all 3 high-rises.”

“Tons of it seen by the first responders and the demolition workers. Months afterwards.”

“They would bring up these multi-ton chunks of this previously molten substance, which turns out to be iron.”

There's just one problem: Gage can't name a single person who was there and claims this. I can name someone (as I did on Hardfire) who was there the whole time and didn't see any such thing: Dave Peraza, the engineer in charge of all Ground Zero cleanup.

Peraza told me, "I never saw pools or lakes of molten, or previously molten, steel. Neither in the subgrade levels, nor as material that was loaded onto trucks by the grapplers and cranes."

He went on to say, "By the way, some of the conspiracy theories state that the steel was sent to the scrap yards, presumably to destroy evidence of the conspiracy. I participated in the decision, ultimately made by DDC, to not retain the majority of the steel. I guess I was part of the conspiracy!”
​

 

[Gravy]

Yet more Richard Gage lies: experts agree with him?

One of the most reprehensible things this scumbag Gage does in his PowerPoint presentation is lie about legitimate, reknowned professionals supporting his claims. Here are some of the people he cites in a section called "Experts Agree."

Gage repeatedly cites Mike Taylor, the head of the National Demolition Association, in support of his claims. Here’s what Mike Taylor told me when I asked him about that: “The fall of the structures occurred because of a variety of circumstances ALL related to the crashing of the two airplanes into them. Numerous studies have been conducted by various governmental and independent entities to back this claim."

Gage cites fire scientist James Quintiere as being critical of the NIST report. He fails to cite Dr. Quintiere's conclusion, which is that towers likely would have collapsed from the fires alone, even without the structural and fireproofing damage caused by airliners hitting them.

Gage cites reknowned structural engineer Matthys Levy, who worked independently on the collapse investigations as saying, "It looks like a managed demolition.” Here’s what Levy actually says: "SOME people might thinks this: it LOOKS like a controlled demolition. But it has NOTHING to do with it."

In his slide show Gage says about structural engineer Ronald Hamburger, “Even FEMA's Structural Engineer Questions the Collapses.” Perhaps Gage should have attended Ronald Hamburger’s ANTI-conspiracy talk about the collapse of the WTC buildings at the Center for Inquiry in San Francisco.

Gage cites explosives expert Van Romero in support of his claims. Here’s what Romero says: "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail."

Gage takes Dutch demolitions contractor Danny Jowenko’s word as authoritative that building 7 was brought down by explosives. I assume that Gage ALSO takes Jowenko's word as authoritative that the Twin Towers were NOT brought down by explosives.

 

[Gravy]

The material I used in the Hardfire shows is a tiny fraction of what I've got on Gage. I could do this for a week.

I had intended to put all of this together on my website. The reason I didn't is the same reason I didn't do as well as I wanted to on the Hardfire shows: once I delved into Gage's work I became depressed by the subject, because it was clear that he wasn't just stupendously wrongheaded, but was mentally ill. Time and again he would make completely contradictory statements and not show any recognition that rational people don't do that. (e.g. lots of people heard explosions that initiated the tower collapses/there were no explosions because thermite initiated the collapses).

I learned that he lost his wife over this madness.

I saw his promotion of "professionals" like those I listed on a previous page in this thread, who signed up for his website and posted opinions that showed them to be proponents of nukes, no-planes, faster-than-freefall, collapse from the bottom due to damage at top, "9/11 Eyewitness," and other lunacy. These were his best and brightest, the ones he always listed as his most accomplished supporters.

I saw his claims become wilder and wilder, culminating in the "90,000 tons of structural steel turned to talcum powder" statement.

By the time the Hardfire shows came around, I was well and truly sick of the subject, and I knew I'd be breaking my vow not to do another show with someone who was clearly disturbed, as Jim Fetzer was. Gage's cardboard box demo (which I couldn't see in the NY studio) sealed that feeling. I haven't even watched it.

As far as I can tell, those shows were the only appearances that Gage has made that he didn't promote either before or after on his website, for obvious reasons.

What pisses me off is that those shows should have given Gage pause and made him at very least correct the errors I pointed out to him. I haven't gone over the whole 583-slide PowerPoint show again, but spot checks show that little has changed. He even left in the repeated lie that was the first thing I pointed out to him on Hardfire: that he needs money to support a dozen full-time staff working for 9/11 truth. What a despicable lie to tell potential donors. (BTW, in early 2008 a truther questioned him by email about that statement, and he said he had three volunteers who were nearly full-time).

Whatever his specific problem is, when it comes to 9/11, Richard Gage is not capable of understanding the truth or telling it.

Here's my summary of his online PowerPoint presentation, from when I studied it in June (you should see my spreadsheets on this!)

311 False statements (not including the same statements repeated on multiple slides)

114 Misleading statements

137 Logical fallacies employed

Zero original analysis by Richard Gage.

It is the most staggeringly incompetent and deliberately ignorant thing I have ever encountered. It makes the Loose Change videos look like the Encyclopedia Brittanica. It makes Judy Wood’s site seem like a marvel of restraint. I wish this were hyperbole, but it isn’t.

So, I never put all that info together online. But I have it all, in great detail. If you want to support Richard Gage and his band of pathetic losers, you came to the wrong place.

 

[Architect]

architect . My Quote was directed at Gravy. Me and him are both not Structual engineers.
If you want to Argue engineering and architecture do it with the architects and engineers for 911 truth.

With respect, no; you made an appeal to authority (vis structural qualifications) forgetting that I am qualified to talk on technical issues (ditto NB and others here). Hence, if I am to follow your logic, you are going to have to cede to our authority on such issues.

Incidentally, we wrote to Gage and he refused to debate us. Why? Because he's incompetent and can't back up his opinions.

 

[ref]

Great to see Mark's posts .

But I still don't believe the likes of Gage or Griffin are mentally ill, as I understand it. There is just something terribly wrong with their belief systems and self-deception (or it's all about the money and feeling important).

 

[RedIbis]

One of the most reprehensible things this scumbag Gage does in his PowerPoint presentation is lie about legitimate, reknowned professionals supporting his claims. Here are some of the people he cites in a section called "Experts Agree."

Gage repeatedly cites Mike Taylor, the head of the National Demolition Association, in support of his claims. Here’s what Mike Taylor told me when I asked him about that: “The fall of the structures occurred because of a variety of circumstances ALL related to the crashing of the two airplanes into them. Numerous studies have been conducted by various governmental and independent entities to back this claim."

Gage cites fire scientist James Quintiere as being critical of the NIST report. He fails to cite Dr. Quintiere's conclusion, which is that towers likely would have collapsed from the fires alone, even without the structural and fireproofing damage caused by airliners hitting them.

Gage cites reknowned structural engineer Matthys Levy, who worked independently on the collapse investigations as saying, "It looks like a managed demolition.” Here’s what Levy actually says: "SOME people might thinks this: it LOOKS like a controlled demolition. But it has NOTHING to do with it."

In his slide show Gage says about structural engineer Ronald Hamburger, “Even FEMA's Structural Engineer Questions the Collapses.” Perhaps Gage should have attended Ronald Hamburger’s ANTI-conspiracy talk about the collapse of the WTC buildings at the Center for Inquiry in San Francisco.

Gage cites explosives expert Van Romero in support of his claims. Here’s what Romero says: "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail."

Gage takes Dutch demolitions contractor Danny Jowenko’s word as authoritative that building 7 was brought down by explosives. I assume that Gage ALSO takes Jowenko's word as authoritative that the Twin Towers were NOT brought down by explosives.

Well, as your list points out Gage is wrong in assuming that all of these experts agree. Some believe that the crashing of the airliners caused the collapses, some that the fire alone caused the collapses. Doesn't sound like a consensus at all.

 

[twinstead]

Well, as your list points out Gage is wrong in assuming that all of these experts agree. Some believe that the crashing of the airliners caused the collapses, some that the fire alone caused the collapses. Doesn't sound like a consensus at all.

What? Red. Dude. The consensus is that the buildings can indeed collapse without the aid of CD. The consensus is that the building collapses were NOT suspicious.

 

[lapman]

Well, as your list points out Gage is wrong in assuming that all of these experts agree. Some believe that the crashing of the airliners caused the collapses, some that the fire alone caused the collapses. Doesn't sound like a consensus at all.

Bzzzzz! Wrong. They all have the consensus that the fire brought down the towers. The only difference is what part the damage caused by the plane crashes played in it. They also have the consensus that it was NOT explosives that brought down the towers. In other words, they may disagree on the minute details, but they agree on the final cause.

 

[Kent1]

Well done. I had no idea Gage was THAT insane. I knew he was bad, but wow!

 

[dtugg]

Red, what do you think caused the towers to collapse? Magical silent explosives? Magical them*te that has whatever properties necessary for your fantasy? Perhaps a giant laser orbiting the Earth?

Prediction: Red will not answer the question. When I am proved correct, will I win the million dollars?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Well, as your list points out Gage is wrong in assuming that all of these experts agree. Some believe that the crashing of the airliners caused the collapses, some that the fire alone caused the collapses. Doesn't sound like a consensus at all.

You need more training if you're going to pull on HI's method of basing the validity of a theory on nothing more than shallow consensus over very minor details. Looking at your response you've made one wrong interpretation in the context of what you quoted; namely that nobody on that list contends that the impacts alone could be attributed to the collapse. Instead, what NIST argues is that the combination of the structural damage incurred by the impacts AND then the damage added by the fire both contributed to the collapse. Other experts either echo similar concerns or disagree that the impacts were even necessary to begin with for the fires to sufficiently weaken the structure. What they highlight instead is what could potentially be an even broader issue. Regardless, you missed the general point, and you don't seem inclined to ever see it as such.