From Richard Gage, AIA...

[Jack White]

The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions:

1.

Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”

2.

Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)

3.

Observations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals)

4.

Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos

5.

Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust

6.

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

7.

Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves

8.

Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

9.

1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint

10.

Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away

11.

Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet

12.

Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.

13.

Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)

14.

Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

15.

FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

16.

More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1.

Slow onset with large visible deformations

2.

Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3.

Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4.

High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

[Jack White]

Peter...My antique Mac will not view movies except QuickTime. Can you

summarize the main points of this movie?

Thanks.

Jack

[Len Colby]

Gage compiles yet another laundry list, too bad for him that his sources rarely back his claims. For example his 2nd claim is

”Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)”

But when one follows his link very few people said they heard an explosion just before the onset of collapse.

He also said the collapses, "exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1.

Slow onset with large visible deformations

2.

Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)"

But offers no evidence that this is how other buildings collapsed and opined:

"High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”"

But none of the buildings in the cited article suffered the pre-fire structural damage that affected the Twin Towers and is a critical part of the collapse theory. Also 2 of the buildings the Parque Central in Caracas and the Windsor Building in Madrid had concrete frames. The Windsor did have unprotected steel perimeter columns (The rest of the frame was concrete) and they did collapse along with the floor sections they were supporting after about an hour.

In the US and most other countries any building over a few stories tall needs to have its structure designed by a licensed structural engineer, architects aren’t considered competent to do so. Mr. Gage shows the wisdom of such rules.

[Michael Hogan]

Peter's post includes a reference to an interview with General Heinz Karst. According to Karst:

“When, in 1995, the Federal building in Oklahoma was blown up and 168 human beings were killed, people first thought of Islamic terrorists. But they were Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, two elite soldiers of the Green Berets."

A minor issue, but McVeigh was never an elite soldier of the Green Berets. He dropped out of training after the first or second day and left the US Army shortly after. I could find no evidence that Nichols was ever involved in any way with the Green Berets.

I'm not sure of the relevance of Karst's interview in the first place, but to get such a simple fact wrong casts doubt on whatever point or points he was trying to make.

Edited September 23, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[Evan Burton]

Peter's post includes a reference to an interview with General Heinz Karst. According to Karst:

“When, in 1995, the Federal building in Oklahoma was blown up and 168 human beings were killed, people first thought of Islamic terrorists. But they were Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, two elite soldiers of the Green Berets."

A minor issue, but McVeigh was never an elite soldier of the Green Berets. He dropped out of training after the first or second day and left the US Army shortly after. I could find no evidence that Nichols was ever involved in any way with the Green Berets.

I'm not sure of the relevance of Karst's interview in the first place, but to get such a simple fact wrong casts doubt on whatever point or points he was trying to make.

Michael,

That's a very important point. Naturally I have my own views on 9/11, but if the people who believe it was not what it appears to be want to ensure their credibility is untarnished, they should check their facts and ensure that things like this do not occur.

Sure, it sounds juicier if you say someone belonged to this or that organisation, holds this or that qualification... but is it true? Things like this have a habit of being uncovered, so if you "enhance" someone's reputation in order to promote your views their discovery ultimately leads to them being discredited. This is very important because perhaps some - or even all - of what they say might be important / relevant / accurate. After being shown to have ones qualifications / experience / whatever not to the standard claimed, everything else they say is considered suspect.

If you hold a minority opinion, then your evidence should be above reproach and be able to withstand the utmost scrutiny by anyone - pro or con.

[Jack White]

Peter's post includes a reference to an interview with General Heinz Karst. According to Karst:

“When, in 1995, the Federal building in Oklahoma was blown up and 168 human beings were killed, people first thought of Islamic terrorists. But they were Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, two elite soldiers of the Green Berets."

A minor issue, but McVeigh was never an elite soldier of the Green Berets. He dropped out of training after the first or second day and left the US Army shortly after. I could find no evidence that Nichols was ever involved in any way with the Green Berets.

I'm not sure of the relevance of Karst's interview in the first place, but to get such a simple fact wrong casts doubt on whatever point or points he was trying to make.

Michael,

That's a very important point. Naturally I have my own views on 9/11, but if the people who believe it was not what it appears to be want to ensure their credibility is untarnished, they should check their facts and ensure that things like this do not occur.

Sure, it sounds juicier if you say someone belonged to this or that organisation, holds this or that qualification... but is it true? Things like this have a habit of being uncovered, so if you "enhance" someone's reputation in order to promote your views their discovery ultimately leads to them being discredited. This is very important because perhaps some - or even all - of what they say might be important / relevant / accurate. After being shown to have ones qualifications / experience / whatever not to the standard claimed, everything else they say is considered suspect.

If you hold a minority opinion, then your evidence should be above reproach and be able to withstand the utmost scrutiny by anyone - pro or con.

Burton believes that:

"If you hold a minority opinion, then your evidence should be above reproach"

AMAZING! ASTOUNDING! He thinks "TRUTHERS" should be held to a higher

standard than LIARS. What bias!

Evidently he may be forced to change his mind when he reads about the Zogby poll

report below:

Kansas City, MO (Zogby International) September 6, 2007 - As America nears the sixth anniversary of the world-churning events of September 11, 2001, a new Zogby International poll finds a majority of Americans still await a Congressional investigation of President Bush’ and Vice President Cheney’s actions before, during and after the 9/11 attacks. Over 30% also believe Bush and/or Cheney should be immediately impeached by the House of Representatives.

The 911truth.org–sponsored poll also found that over two-thirds of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the still unexplained collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001.

WTC 7 housed the mayor’s emergency bunker and offices of the SEC, IRS, CIA and Secret Service and was not hit by any planes but still completely collapsed into its own footprint nearly eight hours after the Twin Tower attacks. FEMA did not explain this collapse, the 911 Commission ignored it, and the promised official study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is now 2 years overdue.

Janice Matthews, executive director of poll sponsor 911truth.org, observes:

“The supermajority response to the WTC Building 7 question signals an increasing public concern about this remarkable event — up from 38% last year. We can perhaps credit this rising awareness to the millions who have recently witnessed videos or Youtube clips of this skyscraper’s descent and the outspoken demands for a new WTC inquiry from over 150 architects and engineering professionals, including NIST’s own former Fire Science Division Chief, Dr. James Quintiere. Another contributory factor is the increased questioning among Hispanics, Blacks and Asians whose responses appear significantly more critical of the 9/11 Commission than Whites, sometimes twice as critical.”

Strategy aide W. David Kubiak adds,

“While only 32% seek immediate Bush and/or Cheney impeachment based on their current personal knowledge, a clear majority of citizens still seems hungry for a full exposure of the facts. The results suggest widespread public support for legislators like Rep. Dennis Kucinich who pledge to investigate unanswered 9/11 questions in the relevant congressional committees this fall. We hope more of our representatives find the spine to respond to this escalating dissatisfaction with the dubious accounting we have received thus far.”

9/11 family member and 911truth.org advisor Donna Marsh O’Connor notes,

“I’m not sure this poll is at all surprising. Over half of those polled want more answers from Congress, from those they hired to represent them. One quarter of the country knows enough to want to impeach both. Doesn’t it just mean people need figures they consider credible to tell them whether key details add up or not? Truth advocates need to press their case in Congress, on college campuses, in church groups with reason and absolute discipline regarding what can and cannot be proven. The strongest evidence needs to reach the people—including people who hate computers. We must present it calmly. Like whispering so that people reach in to hear.”

Continue reading ‘Zogby poll released today - 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks’

[Duane Daman]

Jack ...It's obvious by now that the Democrats in the House don't have what it takes to impeach Bush and Cheney , and bring the real 9/11 criminals to justice .... So short of a bloody revolution in the streets of America, where the 9/11 truth seekers would be squashed like flys , nothing can be done to get the truth out or stop the bad guys .

Since the media won't touch this subject , the only place left is the internet to get the truth out ... but as we both very well know , the disinformation agents and promoters of the official version of the events of that day , will do whatever it takes to stop this information from spreading any further than it already has .... and will also do whatever it takes to stop the 9/11 Truth Movement ... These are the worst of times for America and I don't see it ever getting any better .

Edited September 24, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Jack White]

"If you hold a minority opinion, then your evidence should be above reproach"

This is to me a revolting idea, as minorities often do not have the resources, access to power, money and influence or media as non minorities. I know this was meant about those here who all likely have some access to some of the above, but still is a falacy in logic. Those few persons who escaped the Nazi Concentration camps and had precious little proofs and evidence should be held to the standards of the Reich's Propaganda apparatus?! Or those of us who said when it happened that the Gulf of Tonkin was a invented false-flag operation and had small voices in the media, little hard proofs.....well, we were right against the might rebuff and lies of the System. Ditto those first voices of decent against the official version of 11/22/63 - we were considered as 'nuts' as Lee Oswald was....well we were IMO [and that of a majority in the USA and World] correct. Besides, belief in the official verson of both Dallas or 911 is NOW THE MINORITY OPINION - SO YOU CAN KEEP YOUR OWN STANDARDS AND BE ABOVE REPROACH....ALL THE UN-TRUTHERS.

Excellent, Peter. From now on, since the opposite of TRUTH is LIE, I intend to call

the provocateurs "911 LIARS" since they are the opposite of "911 TRUTHERS".

Jack

[Michael Hogan]

If you hold a minority opinion, then your evidence should be above reproach and be able to withstand the utmost scrutiny by anyone - pro or con.

Burton believes that:

"If you hold a minority opinion, then your evidence should be above reproach"

AMAZING! ASTOUNDING! He thinks "TRUTHERS" should be held to a higher

standard than LIARS. What bias!

Evidently he may be forced to change his mind when he reads about the Zogby poll

report.....

Jack, for the sake of discussion I'm going to adopt your nomenclature despite my disinclination for labels that

put people in one camp or another when in reality the issues are much more complex.

Truthers should want to hold themselves to a higher standard in my opinion. Each time one of theirs

uses sloppy research methods or misrepresents evidence, it casts aspersions on the group as a whole.

People that are neutral or leaning toward conspiracy or just want simple questions answered by the government are turned away when they are presented with evidence that does not make sense or that they recognize to be untrue. Then, the movement as a whole is harmed.

It is precisely because of all the erroneous claims and unverified information flooding the internet, that truths and legitimate questions become obscured. And thus, the truth movement is hindered.

"If you hold a minority opinion, then your evidence should be above reproach"

This is to me a revolting idea, as minorities often do not have the resources, access to power, money and influence or media as non minorities. I know this was meant about those here who all likely have some access to some of the above, but still is a falacy in logic. Those few persons who escaped the Nazi Concentration camps and had precious little proofs and evidence should be held to the standards of the Reich's Propaganda apparatus?! Or those of us who said when it happened that the Gulf of Tonkin was a invented false-flag operation and had small voices in the media, little hard proofs.....well, we were right against the might rebuff and lies of the System. Ditto those first voices of decent against the official version of 11/22/63 - we were considered as 'nuts' as Lee Oswald was....well we were IMO [and that of a majority in the USA and World] correct. Besides, belief in the official verson of both Dallas or 911 is NOW THE MINORITY OPINION - SO YOU CAN KEEP YOUR OWN STANDARDS AND BE ABOVE REPROACH....ALL THE UN-TRUTHERS.

Since posting my reply to Jack, I've seen Peter's above comments and acknowledge the points he is making.

My original comments (and I believe Evan's also) were meant to be taken in the context of the presentation of research.

To use one example, early researchers that made wild and erroneous claims about President Kennedy's murder have long been forgotten. Researchers such as Weisberg and Meagher (and many others) that purposefully held themselves to a higher standard than the Warren Commission have had their work stand the test of time and they influenced countless others to seek the truth. They did so with much more limited resources than the federal government they were questioning.

Edited September 24, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[Len Colby]

Forum rule (vi)

“Make sure your postings are relevant to the thread. Please start another thread if your comments do not belong to any existing threads.”

Peter why do you insist on spamming most of the 9/11 threads with irrelevant “truther” statements? Is it because you know that most of the specific claims don’t stand up to scrutiny and try to obscure that fact by turning every thread into one about 9/11 in toto so muddy that it is difficult to discuss anything in depth? Go ahead prove me right an continue to post stuff that has nothing to do with Gage’s presentation here and other off topic stuff on other threads. Interestingly you post stuff relevant to Gage’s presentation on other threads.

[Jack White]

Forum rule (vi)

“Make sure your postings are relevant to the thread. Please start another thread if your comments do not belong to any existing threads.”

Peter why do you insist on spamming most of the 9/11 threads with irrelevant “truther” statements? Is it because you know that most of the specific claims don’t stand up to scrutiny and try to obscure that fact by turning every thread into one about 9/11 in toto so muddy that it is difficult to discuss anything in depth? Go ahead prove me right an continue to post stuff that has nothing to do with Gage’s presentation here and other off topic stuff on other threads. Interestingly you post stuff relevant to Gage’s presentation on other threads.

Colby is full of --it!

Everything Peter has posted is RELEVANT AND ON TARGET!

Jack

[Len Colby]

Peter the slide is too low resolution to see how exactly they match where did you find it?

What is the citation that one is the signature of thermate? What is the citation that the other was recovered from Ground Zero?

If this is the sample Dr. Jones supposedly received or retrieved from a sculpture supposedly made from WTC there are a few problems

1) It’s provenance is far from certain

2) The sculpture was welded; thermate is commonly used in welding. IIRC the guy who made it died and the person who contacted Jones was his widow so there is no way of confirming if the sample could have been contaminated after 9/11

3) IIRC There has been no independent confirmation of Jones’ findings and he hasn’t allowed others to have access to the sample

the 911 turth movement - now at about 35% of the US - and growing

Not quite the poll showed that 16% of the population thinks the LIHOP and MIHOP theories are “very likely” and 20% “somewhat likely” saying maybe they let it happen doesn’t make one a “truther”

[Evan Burton]

Burton believes that:

"If you hold a minority opinion, then your evidence should be above reproach"

AMAZING! ASTOUNDING! He thinks "TRUTHERS" should be held to a higher

standard than LIARS. What bias!

I suppose you could call it bias. I think that truth should be able to withstand any scrutiny. Anyone who proclaims something as being the truth should have no fear of that 'truth' being examined.

It reminds me of how you, and others, call people disinformation agents.

If a person states a fact, a fact which can be proven, then it doesn't matter who utters the fact. The fact IS, can withstand examination, and rather than hide from people who dispute it goes toward them, knowing it is a fact and incontrovertible.

Facts are stubborn things.

[Michael Hogan]

If a person states a fact, a fact which can be proven, then it doesn't matter who utters the fact. The fact IS, can withstand examination, and rather than hide from people who dispute it goes toward them, knowing it is a fact and incontrovertible.

Facts are stubborn things.

What constitutes a fact, or proof can often be a very subjective judgement. An internet forum or website is far different than a court of law.

All the disagreements that occur here on a daily basis should be "proof" of that. People are stubborn too.

[Evan Burton]

I expect the normal howls of protest, but I think that you Peter should be actually putting forward some type of major point rather than just posting material that is pro your view.

Do you think it would be acceptable for me to post material that simply supports my view? I might put forward a view and ask people to try and challenge it, but if I just post material which is pro my view...

The way things are going I might post a couple of threads to do with developments based on Apollo-era technology, or large quotes from websites which support my own view that 9/11 was nothing more than a terrorist action - nothing to do with Bush, the CIA, or even a New World Order.

If you have a point to make, could I ask you to simply make it? Otherwise we are going to clog up the Forum with long rants from all sides.

Please - be concise. An example might be:

Some people still deny the obvious - that 9/11 could not have happened as proposed by the 9/11 Commission Report. Those of who disagree with that report are often accused of not having experts to back our opinions; this is not so. There are many people, with qualifications in the fields, that believe the 9/11 report is wrong:

www.truthersitefortruth.org

anothertruthersite.net.

crossdressingtruthers.whaheyhey

etc, etc.

(please pardon my injection of humour; you can't be too serious all the time...)