Jump to content
The Education Forum
Len Colby

The AIA disowns Richard Gage "AIA" and few architect want to have anything to do with him.

Recommended Posts

When peddling his 9/11 claptrap Richard Gage's name is inevitably followed by the initials “AIA” obviously meant to suggest that the AIA (American Institute of Architects) endorses his views and/or that membership in the group is some sort of special honor like being a member of the National Academy of Sciences or Royal Society. But the truth is that full membership in the AIA is open to anyone with a valid US architects license who pays their (tax deductible) dues [1] and the group has fully accepted the “NIST report and recommendations” [2]. Gage obviously knows the former and has acknowledged he was aware of the latter in a letter to the group's president.[3]. The president and board had told him, "We believe that the NIST investigation and the resulting NIST report are valid and credible” [4]. So his use of the acronym is obviously a misleading attempt to beef up his credibility or perhaps he suffers from initial envy and like Fetzer, Jones, Griffin and other prominent truthers wanted the right to string three letters after his name. The group at least once (apparently privately) advised him not to create the impression there was any link between them and his group AE911T [5] But the AIA never AFAIK specifically and publicly disavowed Gage's views.

Not that is until now. Scott Frank, head of media relations for the AIA, told veteran journalist Jeremy Stahl writing for Architect, the group's magazine, “We don’t have any relationship with his organization whatsoever”, “It is somewhat troubling that he sort of portrays the notion that we have a relationship when we certainly do not” and “there is absolutely zero relationship … [between our groups], nor will there ever be in the future.” [6]

Gage recently wrapped up his 'WORLD PREMIERE TOUR “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out” Final Edition', which included an event at the AIA's national HQ in Washington D.C. and tried to make it seem as if this indicated some sort of endorsement of his views but “acknowledged that this was not an official AIA event but a rented space open to all members of the public, adding that he feels he hasn’t been given his proper due by the organization in the past.” [7]

Though this seems to have been the first time the national organization specifically rejected Gage's snake oil. Rick Bell head of the group's NY chapter who witnessed 9/11 said of Gage, “the professional community discredits this guy. We rent to just about anybody but if this guy came to me I’d say we don’t want your money, we don’t want you in our building.” [8] Gary Kohn chairman of KPF, NY's largest architectural firm and 'the AIA’s spokesman in the aftermath of the attacks, called Gage’s theories “ridiculous”' [9]. In response to a controversy over renting one its room for one of Gage's presentation's the Royal Institute of British Architects stated “any perception that this event was associated with the RIBA is regrettable. We will be reviewing our policy on private hire of our building in the light of this event.” [10] The RIBA's former president also criticized the event [11]. While AFAIK they have not specifically said anything specifically about Gage and his gaggle but the chairman Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats (CTBUH) said:

I see no credibilty whatsoever in the 911 truth movement and I believe, like the vast majority of tall building professionals, that all the failures at the WTC ( WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. I have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 truth movement presents and I cannot see any evidence of a controlled demolition. Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views. [12]

The American Society of Civil Engineers also seems not to have specifically addressed controlled demolition theories but the report they prepared in conjunction with the Structural Engineers Association of NY (SEAoNY), other engineering associations and FEMA concluded that the towers collapsed due to the plane impacts and resulting fires and they later endorsed the far more through report and resultant recommendations prepared by NIST [13].

Despite Gage's Washington event being held at the AIA's headquarters according to Stahl “aside from Gage, though, there was not a single other architect in the room, much less an official from AIA, or even another member. The 80-strong crowd was made up largely of members of the local 9/11 Truth movement and other political activists.” [14] Despite making about 20 posts none of the truthers who commented on the article disputed this [15]. About 5.6 million people live in the D.C. Metro Area [16] so it is quite remarkable that only 80 (0.0014%) who were mostly members of the choir and no architects showed up. Think of how remarkable that is, Gage keeps pimping how many architects and engineers supposedly back his theories but he held an event at the HQ of the nation's leading architectural association and no architects showed up.

The lack of interest from Gage's colleagues fits with a plateauing of their membership in his organization which has only increased by 20 or so (1.2%) in four months [17]. Though Gage and other truthers incessantly point to the number of architects and engineers who've signed his petition over the last six years, the truth is the numbers are remarkably UNimpressive, the 1200 or so US As & Es represent only about 0.07% of (or 1 in 1500 of) the approximately 1.7 – 1.8 million As & Es in that country and the 4 - 500 or so from the rest of the world and infinitely smaller proportion of those from the rest of the world [18]. By contrast NYC-CAN, another truther organization circulated a similar petition just in NYC and in a few months collected about 80,000 signatures of which they claimed to have certified about 50,000 as being from voters registered in that city but the board of elections only recognized about 30,000, that works out to about 1.2% of the city's registered voters [19]. Besides being circulated for less than 1/6 the time NYC-CAN petition had to be physically signed unlike the AE911T one which could be “signed” by e-mail, so why did the latter proportionally receive 1/60th the number of takers, the most logical explanation is that As & Es are far LESS likely to believe such nonsense which is why groups like the ASCE, RIBA, CTBUH and AIA do NOT want to associated with him.

EDITED TO ADD: I forgot to give credit were it was due, hat tip to: Screw Loose Change blog and David Thomas, Travis and Oystein at JREF forum

SOURCES

1] http://www.aia.org/j...ries/AIAS076857

2] http://books.google....RrRwkC&pg=PA126

3] http://911blogger.co...ichard-gage-aia

4] ibid

5] Stahl, http://www.architect...y-theory_2.aspx pg. 2

6] ibid pgs. 1 & 3

7] ibid pgs. 2 – 3

8] http://www.bdonline....5020382.article

9] ibid

10] ibid

11] ibid

12] http://www.skyscrape...32&postcount=14

13] http://www.asce.org/...ecommendations/

14] Stahl op. cit, pg. 2

15] ibid

16] http://factfinder2.c...&prodType=table

17] http://forums.randi....1&postcount=277

18] Gage's petition:

http://www2.ae911tru...ignpetition.php has the names of 1261 US As & Es but at least 57 are 'retired', 'inactive' 'student' or have expired licenses, presumably the several more are not working as As or Es, the death rate in the US is about 1% year, presumably a similar # retired according to the BLS about 20% lost their jobs 2008 – 10

BLS stats:

113,700 professional architects (Except Landscape and Naval) 2010 http://bls.gov/ooh/A.../Architects.htm

141,200 professional architects (Except Landscape and Naval) 2008 http://web.archive.o...oco/ocos038.htm

In 2008, engineers held about 1.6 million jobs.” http://web.archive.o...os027.htm#emply

Landscape Architects 21,600 2010 ring/Landscape-architects.htm

19] http://forums.randi....ad.php?t=167821

Edited by Len Colby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to add a few points about the dearth of support for controlled demolition theory among As & Es:

-Though several papers supporting the collapse theory have appeared in peer reviewed engineering journals* so far no papers supporting the CD theory have appeared in such publications. The only such paper published in a legitimate peer reviewed journal was about supposed thermite traces in WTC dust and appeared in an obscure environmental science journal.

* http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm

- Unless I'm mistaken, so far no officers or former officers and any architectural or engineering organisations have voiced support for such theories.

- Last time I checked based on their statements only one or two of the handful of structural engineers who signed up with Gage have actually read the NIST report and only one or two have experience with high rise buildings with no overlap between the two.

- Truthers rationalize that many As & Es don't sign the AE911T petition for fear it might hurt their careers, this does not seem to be the case because if it were so we would see a disproportionately large number of retirees and tenured profs. but that has not happened it also fails to explain why so few (if any) engineers from countries hostile to the US (Iran, China, Russia, Venezuela etc) have come forward.

Edited by Len Colby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colby says 1 peer review, Journal of 9/11 Studies says 60.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New papers and a new format at the Journal of 9/11 Studies

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-07-01/new-papers-and-new-format-journal-911-studies

We have a new format at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. As before, there are over 60 peer-reviewed articles, nearly 70 letters, and a section for those just beginning to look into the unanswered question of 9/11.

There are two new entries in the letter section.

The first is a detailed paper by Dr. Frank Legge entitled The 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon: the Search for Consensus.

The second is a letter written last year by the board of directors of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, addressed to Sir Paul Nurse of the Royal Society of London.

Unfortunately, Sir Paul and the Royal Society could not be troubled to respond. If you're wondering why, the Society's contact page is at this link.

The journal has also signed an agreement with a major distributor of academic content. As a result, the articles and letters in the Journal of 9/11 Studies will begin to see a wider audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that I specified “a LEGITIMATE peer reviewed journal” no one but truthers recognizes the 'Journal of 9/11 Studies' as such. Even some within the movement question its legtimacy, Morgan Reynolds wrote: “Peer-review normally boosts the prestige of academic articles because professors within the same discipline review manuscripts but in this case there is little or no such review, even when offered. That fact convinced [Dr. Judy Wood] to resign [as co-editor] It is even questioned byIt is put out to a group wedded to a controvercial viewpoint rather than an objective professional society, academic organization, educational institution or commercial academic publisher, its peer review process is murky it seems to consist of nothing more than floating the papers on a closed forum, if they had a legitimate review process they never would have published the astonishingly stupid 'flying elephant' paper which was a result of their habit of normally publishing papers by people far outside their areas or expertise something almost unheard of in legitimate journals. Nor would they have published a stupendously idiotic economic paper. They even admitted they weren't a real journal in 2008 when they announced the suspension of new papers “we encourage all potential contributors to prepare papers suitable for the more established journals in which scientists might more readily place their trust”

http://nomoregames.n...uble_with_jones

http://screwloosecha...ly-debunks.html

http://screwloosecha...s-not-peer.html

http://web.archive.o...911studies.com/

Still no convinced it's a sham journal, tell me which journal indexes list it, or what its impact factor is? Heck can you even point to when one of it's papers was cited in a paper in amore established journal” NOT written by someone associated with it? I couldn't find any on Google Scholar.

Note that these large online indexes do NOT list it:

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/journalList/journalList.jsp;jsessionid=EzKItrUYvFAJy7VszZjBnQ__.ericsrv003?journalList_alpha=X

http://journalseek.net/

Edited by Len Colby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the eye of the beholder,to me waPO and Slate are bad sources. Say HI !, to your anti-GAGE friend Jeremy Stahl of Slate.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1374

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/12/washington-post-fair-game-valerie-plame

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3700.htm

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/07/25/ny-times-government-censors-control-major-news-outlet-151551/

---------------------------

wiki

Slate is a US-based English language online current affairs and culture magazine created in 1996 by former New Republic editor Michael Kinsley, initially under the ownership of Microsoft as part of MSN. On 21 December 2004 it was purchased by the Washington Post Company. Since 4 June 2008 Slate has been managed by The Slate Group, an online publishing entity created by the Washington Post Company to develop and manage web-only magazines.[1]

A French version (slate.fr) was launched in February 2009 by a group of four journalists, including Jean-Marie Colombani, Eric Leser, and economist Jacques Attali. Between them, the founders hold 50% in the publishing company, while the Slate Group holds 15%.[2][3]

Since June 2008, David Plotz has served as the editor of Slate.[1][4] He had been the deputy editor to Jacob Weisberg, Slate's editor from 2002 until his designation as the Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of The Slate Group.[1] The Washington Post Company's John Alderman is Slate's publisher.[5] Slate (ISSN 1091-2339), which is updated daily, covers politics, arts and culture, sports, and news.

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are wandering off topic. We were discussing the lack of support from As & Es for the collapse theory and the failure of Truthers to get papers published in legitimate scientific journals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-Though several papers supporting the collapse theory have appeared in peer reviewed engineering journals* so far no papers supporting the CD theory have appeared in such publications. The only such paper published in a legitimate peer reviewed journal was about supposed thermite traces in WTC dust andappeared in an obscure environmental science journal.

* http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm

.

I turns out the paper in the Environmentalist was vanity published as well. The 1st link below is to the paper itself just over the title is a radio button indicating it is (Open Access) . The 2nd link lists the open access options. Since other papers in the issue were NOT open access they seem to have used the following:

Springer Open Choice – Your Way to Open Access

Our Open Choice program allows authors to publish open access in over 1300 established subscription-based journals

According to the third link the fee is $3000 plus tax they say such papers are peer reviewed but obviously they do NOT get the same scrutiny, Why would someone pay so much money if they could just as easily get their paper published for free, without the stigma of being 'open access', in the same journal?

(Hat tip Edx at JREF)

http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/?MUD=MP

http://www.springer.com/open+access?SGWID=0-169302-0-0-0

http://www.springer.com/open+access/open+choice?SGWID=0-40359-0-0-0

As for Gage here's another example of him being a fool and/or scam (bait n' switch) artist

(Hat tip dannyb and Dave Thomas at JREF)

For yet another example of a failure from his group they applied to participate at the Netroots Nation conference (formerly the Yearly Kos Convention) last June but were turned down despite a significant lobbying effort. (Hat tip Orphia Neynat JREF)

http://ae911truth.org/documents/co/Netroots_Followup_Board.pdf

http://let-the-architects-in.org/

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reply: Gage's Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Fraud. WTC7 "small fires" lie EXPOSED!

==========================================================================

Published on Jul 20, 2012 by RepresentativePress

http://911debunkers....ineers-for.html

(see link for mentioned videos/photos)

------------------------------------------------

Photographs and video footage have vindicated Gage, as they show the same phenomenon of negative low air pressure occurred with WTC 1 after the collapse of WTC 2 making it appear as if the entire building was on fire.

-----

Now to the official reports. As stated by the BBC program excerpted by RepresentativePress, "According to the official investigators, the main fires were concentrated on floors 6 through to 13, except floor 10. And there were fires initially on some of the upper floors."

The "Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation" webpage states that the sprinklers from the 21st through the 47th floor were working.

The FEMA report, section 5.3.3, states that, "Concrete floor slabs provided vertical compartmentalization to limit fire and smoke spread between floors."

So, the highest out of control fire was on the 13th floor, the sprinklers from the 21st through the 47th floor were working, and the building was designed to limit fire and smoke spread between floors.

It is also important to note that the fire shown by RepresentativePress is of the southeast wall, not the south face of the building covered in smoke. As WTC7.net points out, "This photograph (of the southeast wall) from FEMA's report, and others like it, appear to be the only evidence of emergent flames."

We also have visual evidence of fire on the north face.

Saturday, July 21, 2012Reply: Gage's Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Fraud. WTC7 "small fires" lie EXPOSED!

Published on Jul 20, 2012 by RepresentativePress

Reply:

Photographs and video footage have vindicated Gage, as they show the same phenomenon of negative low air pressure occurred with WTC 1 after the collapse of WTC 2 making it appear as if the entire building was on fire.

Skip to 10:25 in the following clip to see video of the above effect and proof that the majority of smoke around WTC 7 came from WTC 5 & 6. Click here to see just pictures showing that most of the smoke came from WTC 5 & 6.

Now to the official reports. As stated by the BBC program excerpted by RepresentativePress, "According to the official investigators, the main fires were concentrated on floors 6 through to 13, except floor 10. And there were fires initially on some of the upper floors."

The "Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation" webpage states that the sprinklers from the 21st through the 47th floor were working.

The FEMA report, section 5.3.3, states that, "Concrete floor slabs provided vertical compartmentalization to limit fire and smoke spread between floors."

So, the highest out of control fire was on the 13th floor, the sprinklers from the 21st through the 47th floor were working, and the building was designed to limit fire and smoke spread between floors.

It is also important to note that the fire shown by RepresentativePress is of the southeast wall, not the south face of the building covered in smoke. As WTC7.net points out, "This photograph (of the southeast wall) from FEMA's report, and others like it, appear to be the only evidence of emergent flames."

We also have visual evidence of fire on the north face.

---------------

The foreknowledge of the collapse spoke of in this video is another interesting aspect to all of this because the fires it shows are unsubstantial compared to other skyscraper fires, and we need only look to other footage taken by Steve Spak on 9/11 of WTC Building 5 for an example. As AE911Truth points out in an article which compares the other WTC buildings that did not collapse to the three that collapsed completely, "World Trade Center Building 5 was fully engulfed in flames - burning far more extensively than the few small isolated pockets of fire in WTC 7. If any WTC building was going to collapse by 'normal office fires' (the official cause of WTC 7’s destruction) it would be this one. Yet, it did not collapse."

-----------

If WTC 7 was possibly poised to collapse it is strange that there were no widespread reports that WTC 5 might do the same given the severity of the fires. The evidence indicates that there were very few individuals that concluded WTC 7 would come down based on direct observation, but rather parroted information passed down by individuals that also somehow predicted the unprecedented and unexpected fall of the Twin Towers, as evinced by the fact that so many firefighters bet their lives on the fact that the Towers were reported to be able to sustain such damage and fire. For the few who did believe WTC 7 might come down based on their own observations it must be pointed out that their opinion would have been skewed after just seeing two 110 story skyscapers crush themselves.

As Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor AdamT. pointed out in his post "Debunking Joseph Nobles: Other Buildings," "Many debunkers have suggested that the partial collapse of WTC 5 supports the theory that fire could have brought down Building 7. In fact, if anything, it does just the opposite."

Saturday, July 21, 2012Reply: Gage's Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Fraud. WTC7 "small fires" lie EXPOSED!

Published on Jul 20, 2012 by RepresentativePress

Reply:

Photographs and video footage have vindicated Gage, as they show the same phenomenon of negative low air pressure occurred with WTC 1 after the collapse of WTC 2 making it appear as if the entire building was on fire.

Skip to 10:25 in the following clip to see video of the above effect and proof that the majority of smoke around WTC 7 came from WTC 5 & 6. Click here to see just pictures showing that most of the smoke came from WTC 5 & 6.

Now to the official reports. As stated by the BBC program excerpted by RepresentativePress, "According to the official investigators, the main fires were concentrated on floors 6 through to 13, except floor 10. And there were fires initially on some of the upper floors."

The "Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation" webpage states that the sprinklers from the 21st through the 47th floor were working.

The FEMA report, section 5.3.3, states that, "Concrete floor slabs provided vertical compartmentalization to limit fire and smoke spread between floors."

So, the highest out of control fire was on the 13th floor, the sprinklers from the 21st through the 47th floor were working, and the building was designed to limit fire and smoke spread between floors.

It is also important to note that the fire shown by RepresentativePress is of the southeast wall, not the south face of the building covered in smoke. As WTC7.net points out, "This photograph (of the southeast wall) from FEMA's report, and others like it, appear to be the only evidence of emergent flames."

We also have visual evidence of fire on the north face.

The foreknowledge of the collapse spoke of in this video is another interesting aspect to all of this because the fires it shows are unsubstantial compared to other skyscraper fires, and we need only look to other footage taken by Steve Spak on 9/11 of WTC Building 5 for an example. As AE911Truth points out in an article which compares the other WTC buildings that did not collapse to the three that collapsed completely, "World Trade Center Building 5 was fully engulfed in flames - burning far more extensively than the few small isolated pockets of fire in WTC 7. If any WTC building was going to collapse by 'normal office fires' (the official cause of WTC 7’s destruction) it would be this one. Yet, it did not collapse."

If WTC 7 was possibly poised to collapse it is strange that there were no widespread reports that WTC 5 might do the same given the severity of the fires. The evidence indicates that there were very few individuals that concluded WTC 7 would come down based on direct observation, but rather parroted information passed down by individuals that also somehow predicted the unprecedented and unexpected fall of the Twin Towers, as evinced by the fact that so many firefighters bet their lives on the fact that the Towers were reported to be able to sustain such damage and fire. For the few who did believe WTC 7 might come down based on their own observations it must be pointed out that their opinion would have been skewed after just seeing two 110 story skyscapers crush themselves.

As Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor AdamT. pointed out in his post "Debunking Joseph Nobles: Other Buildings," "Many debunkers have suggested that the partial collapse of WTC 5 supports the theory that fire could have brought down Building 7. In fact, if anything, it does just the opposite."

From the book Mounting Evidence - Why We Need a New Investigation of 9/11 by Dr. Paul W. Rea, published September 2011:

The WTC-7 Fires...

The fire reports ranged widely. While no one has talked about a towering inferno or even a huge conflagration, Fire Capt. Brenda Berkman did affirm “fire on every floor” (S. Hagan and M. Carouba Women at Ground Zero p. 213). But perceptions do differ, even among professionals, and it would be easy to confuse a lot of smoke with a lot of fire. Mark Jacobson, a journalist who’d reported large fires, recalled “the whole building wasn’t on fire”; instead, he wrote, “there was a lot of fire coming out of a few floors” (NY Magazine 3/37/06). The photographic record also supports the conclusion that the building experienced medium to hot fires on a few floors.

Even those promoting the hypothesis of destruction from fire damage have come in way under Capt. Berkman’s estimate. According to NIST, itself a prime defender of this theory, fires burned on only ten of the building’s 47 floors—and only on six did they grow and burn out of control (NCSTAR1A p. xxxvi). Moreover, officials with Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) of New York who entered WTC-7 said “there was a fire, but they did not think the building would collapse” (http://media.nara.go...11MFR-00174.pdf). Thus Con Ed personnel apparently felt the building was safe to enter, reporting only “a fire,” not the “large fires” claimed by many proponents of the fire theory.

It was the Fire Department, then, that predicted the building was going to collapse. Granted, a walkthrough is not an inspection of a tall building. But if in fact the fires were small, on what basis did building security personnel and the FDNY chiefs make a different determination?

Related:

Fire, Steel, & WTC 7

Other Collapses in Perspective: An Examination of Other Steel Structures Collapsing due to Fire and their Relation to the WTC

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory?

Possible Confirmation of "Pull It" - In A Hitpiece!

######################################################

Posted by John-Michael P. Talboo at 2:11 AM

Debunking the Debunkers

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't changing the subject a sign of disinfo. I cited an unrelated video from RP get back to us when you can refute it. When I have time I'll look at the claims in your post above. But even IF Gage was right about the above (which I doubt) that wouldn't vidicate him using the wrong NIST simulation in his presentations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory?

http://911debunkers....ebunks-911.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

YouTube user "Moreofthesamez" recently posted the following response to the video "9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center's Collapse Explained" by "RKOwens4

The points raised by RKOwens in his video are akin to points raised by RepresentativePress.org in their article "WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 'Controlled Demolition' Theory."

In the case of the North Tower we are told that "police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed," with one of the pilots repordedly stating, "it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down,'' 20 minutes before it collapsed.

But did this pilot really anticipate exactly what happened next? Most people that day didn't actually fear a total collapse. As is pointed out in the article "Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories.": ((GO TOP LINK TO GET THIS LINK,Gaal))

When interviewees say in the FDNY oral histories that they were worried that the Twin Towers might collapse, it almost always turns out that what they were worried about was partial collapse--they worried, for example, that the portion of the building above the impact site might fall off. Almost without exception, they were staggered by the collapse that actually took place, which was sudden, violent, complete, symmetrical and extremely rapid.

It might be argued that since the police chopper pilot had a better view and saw the buckling of the perimeter columns that he was able to make a more unique and accurate prediction of the situation, however, he made his statement about collapse at 10:06 a.m. and his statement about buckling at 10:21 a.m. So, whatever "telltale signs" he may of seen at 10:06 a.m., it wasn't yet the buckling of any columns, which after all is the crux of this argument.

In a post on 911blogger.com that asks for any refutation of the article on Representative Press many problems with the bowing scenario are pointed out, here are three very good ones:

1) It is only an initial event, and does not provide any explanation for the global collapse events.

2) Its cause is based purely on speculation. The bowing may have occurred, but there is no evidence that supports that fire alone could have caused this, let alone after only a few minutes of fire.

3) If this was so obvious, why wasn't it the FIRST theory of collapse and not the THIRD theory of collapse?

The following is an except from the essay "A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario - A Plausible Theory Explaining the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers Using Aluminothermic Incendiaries and Explosives with Wireless Ignition Means."((GO TO TOP LINK to get this link,Gaal))

Stage 1: Thermate Melts and Corrodes Core Steelwork

During Stage 1, extending from up to 10 minutes before T-0, thermate coatings on key parts of the core structure steelwork are ignited via the wireless ignition control system. The two areas attacked are: the core columns on a few floors below the crash zone, just above where most of the columns transition from box columns to wide-flange beams; and the inner portions of the hat truss that connect it to the core.

The thermal/corrosive attack on these two portions of the structure leaves the entire block of the core structure above the upper mechanical equipment floor "floating," with no major steel members to transfer its gravity loads to the lower portion of the core or to the perimeter walls: it is now supported by the web-trussed floor diaphragms. The upper core block now exerts massive inward forces on the perimeter walls due to the high degree of leverage involved in the translation of the core block's gravity loads into pulling on the perimeter walls. It is these forces that produce the inward bowing of portions of perimeter walls that NIST claims are due merely to the sagging of floor diaphragms still supported by the core. :D

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really dumb even by truther standards. Yes, before the South Tower came down most experts predicted at best partial collapses, though Leslie Robertson, the towers' engineer of record, said when he saw the extent of the fires and damage on TV wondered if they could survive. But it is absurd to think that minutes AFTER 2WTC came down that the cop in the helicopter who said "it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down,'' only expected a partial collapse.

And yes it would take thermate minutes to cut through the WTC's columns thus it wouldn't work for controlled demo

Edited by Len Colby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it is absurd to think that minutes AFTER 2WTC came down that the cop in the helicopter who said "it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down,'' only expected a partial collapse // END COLBY

NOPE , YOU ARE WRONG

http://www.journalof...ingforSeven.pdf

Explain how firefighters comments about 7 WTC on the afternoon of 9/11 is relevant to cops comments about 1 WTC that morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DEBUNKERS REPRESENTATIVE PRESS & RKOwens assert that : firefighters comments that 7 WTC might collaspe ,indicates that building collaspe is easy ,can be caused by 'only fires' with the correlative implication that for twin WTC towers ,'fires caused collaspe'. HOWEVER :

It might be argued that since the police chopper pilot had a better view and saw the buckling of the perimeter columns that he was able to make a more unique and accurate prediction of the situation, however, he made his statement about collapse at 10:06 a.m. and his statement about buckling at 10:21 a.m. So, whatever "telltale signs" he may of seen at 10:06 a.m., it wasn't yet the buckling of any columns, which after all is the crux of this argument.

In a post on 911blogger.com that asks for any refutation of the article on Representative Press many problems with the bowing scenario are pointed out, here are three very good ones:

1) It is only an initial event, and does not provide any explanation for the global collapse events.

2) Its cause is based purely on speculation. The bowing may have occurred, but there is no evidence that supports that fire alone could have caused this, let alone after only a few minutes of fire.

3) If this was so obvious, why wasn't it the FIRST theory of collapse and not the THIRD theory of collapse?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In any case they (firefighters) didnt expect total collaspe of 7 WTC ,they only thought there was going to be partial damage from falling debris. Not as DEBUNKERS REPRESENTATIVE PRESS & RKOwens assert that they had (holy cow its that TRUTHER word) foreknowledge of total collaspe. SEE AGAIN WHAT THE FIREFIGHTERS ACTUALLY SAID

http://www.journalof...ingforSeven.pdf

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DEBUNKERS REPRESENTATIVE PRESS & RKOwens assert that : firefighters comments that 7 WTC might collaspe ,indicates that building collaspe is easy ,can be caused by 'only fires' with the correlative implication that for twin WTC towers ,'fires caused collaspe'. HOWEVER :

It might be argued that since the police chopper pilot had a better view and saw the buckling of the perimeter columns that he was able to make a more unique and accurate prediction of the situation, however, he made his statement about collapse at 10:06 a.m. and his statement about buckling at 10:21 a.m. So, whatever "telltale signs" he may of seen at 10:06 a.m., it wasn't yet the buckling of any columns, which after all is the crux of this argument.

You are demonstrating your characteristic confusion. MacQueen argued that the collapses of the Twin Towers were not expected, this is largely true but obviously after 2 WTC came down people must have wondered about its 'twin' 1 WTC. But the professor made no such claim about 7 WTC, in fact he quoted several FDNY chiefs saying they expected the building to come down and even cleared a collapse zone around it..

In a post on 911blogger.com that asks for any refutation of the article on Representative Press many problems with the bowing scenario are pointed out, here are three very good ones:

1) It is only an initial event, and does not provide any explanation for the global collapse events.

This was explained by others, notably Kausel from MIT and Barzant from Northwestern. But this isn't relevant the NYPD helicopter crew were not engineers, they'd just witnessed the collapse of one tower and due the observed instability expected the other to follow.

2) Its cause is based purely on speculation. The bowing may have occurred, but there is no evidence that supports that fire alone could have caused this, let alone after only a few minutes of fire.

The above “is based purely on speculation” and is a strawman. Neither NIST nor the ASCE before it said “fire alone” brought the towers down. Specifically regarding the sagging of the floor trusses and bowing of the perimeter columns NIST concluded that the impact damage and stripping of fireproofing were major contributing factors. The claim above is based on a page that did not make this specific claim and it compared the WTC fires to fires in buildings that had not suffered structural damage and were not constructed like the them.

3) If this was so obvious, why wasn't it the FIRST theory of collapse and not the THIRD theory of collapse?

This is based on a video of David Ray Grifter, he is quite confused he claimed the first theory was that the columns had melted, but this theory was never seriously put forward. He attributed the 2nd theory to the 9/11 Commission but it was actually put forth by the ASCE. It was not radically different from NIST's conclusions. Both reports attributed collapse initiation to failures of the floor trusses.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In any case they (firefighters) didnt expect total collaspe of 7 WTC ,they only thought there was going to be partial damage from falling debris. Not as DEBUNKERS REPRESENTATIVE PRESS & RKOwens assert that they had (holy cow its that TRUTHER word) foreknowledge of total collaspe. SEE AGAIN WHAT THE FIREFIGHTERS ACTUALLY SAID

http://www.journalof...ingforSeven.pdf


Wrong as stated above, if you'd actually looked at the paper you are citing you'd have known that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×