See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Former senator, engineers offer ‘proof’ of 9/11 controlled demolitions
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/ ... rs-911-controlled-demolitions/
Published: Sep 10, 2010
Author: Raw Story
Post Date: 2010-09-10 10:43:08 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 15316
Comments: 259
The nine-year-old body of 9/11 conspiracy theories includes many improbable (and sometimes contradictory) claims, everything from remote-controlled planes flying into the World Trade Center, to a missile hitting the Pentagon, to mass kidnappings of air passengers. But a group of more than 1,200 architects and engineers is building what it hopes is a scientifically sound argument about one 9/11 claim: That the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed not by fires caused by the airplane collisions, but by a controlled demolition. At a press conference in Washington DC, Thursday, the group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth offered evidence "that all three WTC skyscrapers on September 11, 2001, in NYC were destroyed by explosive controlled demolition." The third building the group referred to was World Trade Center 7, a skyscraper that collapsed about eight hours after the main WTC towers fell. For many 9/11 "truthers," WTC7's collapse despite not being hit by a plane is the "smoking gun" proving that something other than airplanes brought down the towers. The WTC7 collapse was not addressed in the official 9/11 Commission report. "That building fell completely into its own footprint," blogger Andrew Steele told WKTV in Utica. "You can watch on YouTube yourself and use your own common sense. Even if you don't have a scientific background ... if you have two eyes, you can see that fire alone did not bring down that building." His claims, and those of the 1,270 architects and engineers who have signed on to the effort, were bolstered by the support of former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, who said in a press release that "critically important evidence has come forward after the original government building reports were completed." Gravel has been concerned with the events of September 11, 2001, for some time now. He has called for an independent investigation into 9/11. "Unlike the first investigation, this commission should be granted subpoena power and full access to all governmental files and personnel," Gravel wrote. "George Bush should be forced to testify ALONE." San Francisco architect Richard Gage said the way the towers collapsed was consistent with a controlled demolition, not a chaotic structural collapse. "The official FEMA and NIST reports provide insufficient, contradictory, and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers' destruction," Gage said. "We are therefore calling for a grand jury investigation of NIST officials." But Gage added that "government investigators at the NIST have been forced to acknowledge the free-fall descent, an indicting fact, after being presented with analysis by AE911Truth petition signers." On its Web site, the architects' and engineers' group lists facts that suggest explosives were used to take down the towers. -- Rapid onset of "collapse" -- Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a second before the building's destruction -- Symmetrical "structural failure" -- through the path of greatest resistance -- at free-fall acceleration -- Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds -- Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional -- FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e. -- Slow onset with large visible deformations -- Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires) -- High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never "collapsed". Debunking9/11, a Web site devoted to disproving the claims of 9/11 "truthers," argues that no aircraft was needed to bring down WTC7, because "while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7." "Truthers" and debunkers have been arguing for years over whether the scant photographic evidence of WTC7's south side after the main towers' collapse shows enough damage to justify the building's collapse. "All the buildings just as far away from both towers as WTC7 were hit," Debunking9/11 asserts. "The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above them." "Justice for all." What's wrong with calling for a transparent, internationally-supported investigation? I want to know what happened that day to all of those buildings, and I want the chain of events that happened up to their collapse. Don't care how ugly the truth is, I just want to know. Why is asking for an independent investigation so bad? I'm not an engineering expert, but ALL of the buildings collapsing (WTC 1, 2, 7) look just like every other controlled demolition video I've seen from around the world. The pieces of the day's events (NORAD, Bin Laden's family being sent out, etc) don't fit together right. It just smells fishy. Who got fired for not doing their job? Who went to jail for criminal negligence? People of authority responding "nothing to see here, move along" aren't helping convince me that what we're being told is the truth. I just want to see Justice. Isn't wanting "Justice for all" patriotic?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 45.
#1. To: Ada (#0)
Former senator, Mike Gravel. What a media-hungry nutjob. I do actually know someone who sent $10 to his presidential campaign which does prove that even nutjobs, with publicity, can rake in money from the public no matter how nuts they are. During his "campaign" for president, he went back to NYC where he drove a cab back in the Fifties and took out a classic Yellow Cab. He was promptly involved in a collision.
He should change his name to "toostupid", because that was the lamest attempt to discredit 9/11 truth I have ever seen.
No, I won't. You guys don't grasp that a senile whackjob former senator from the early Seventies isn't actually an endorsement you should be seeking. And if you do somehow get such endorsements, you're not expected to brag about it. Of course, the fact that you don't realize that makes the whole thing even funnier. You guys are aware there are con-men that run around trying to take advantage of anyone who will listen to them? And that Gravel is a few ice blocks short of an igloo?
Those who believe the government is telling the truth about what happened on 9/11 couldn't even begin to build an igloo if we want to talk about being a few ice blocks short. They couldn't make the base of one.
Yeah, anyone that believes our government about 9/11 might as well off themselves now, they are too stupid to live.
Not the best way to win folks over and get across the truth. You get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.
deleted
LOL. I knew it. I think that is not an uncommon tale of woe among the Truther clan.
BBC Correspondent says MOSSAD did 9/11 and Iran doesn't want Nukes
Well, no one could possibly question the neutrality and professionalism of the BBC. [/sarc]
9/11 Truth from Director of US ARMY War College
I don't think Richard Perle was ever a student or the head of the War College.
As you will have noticed if you took the trouble to watch the video, that is a still of Perle in the YouTube. This is Sabrosky below. Dr. Alan Sabrosky
TooCon doesn't have to look at the evidence in order to make his judgment. He is all knowing.
I am well aware that cultists often have compiled obsessive lists with which to bombard any poor soul that falls into their clutches. So, no, I don't generally look at your "evidence". Especially since it rarely turns out to be what you claim it to be. As it turns out, Truther fanatics are pretty untruthful. Funny how that works.
Do you ever look at ANY evidence that doesn't "catapult the propaganda" of the government's official fairy tale? Seriously, do you believe the tale they told about the events of 9/11?
I've said many times that I don't believe they held a complete investigation, that much was withheld or simply ignored. That doesn't mean I'm jumping through the Looking Glass just becuase you think I should.
I'm not saying you should, or shouldn't, do anything. I was just curious if you believed the bs story they told about it. About how some raghead in a cave overwhelmed what is alleged to be the best military force in the world and caused NORAD to stand down, melted steel with Magic(k)al Jet Fuel™ and all the other insane things they would have you believe. I may have been born at night but it wasn't last night and I don't believe their wild tale for a minute and think people who do have some serious issues and need help.
#46. To: James Deffenbach (#45)
I think there is a lot we haven't been told, much more they won't allow to be investigated. Like how this bunch should have been caught and deported before 9/11. Like how it appears (to me) that the attack was timed to coincide with our civil defense drills. Like how maybe a lot of buildings really aren't up to the published specs, despite (corrupt) inspectors. Or there is something even more fundamentally wrong with their design. I do find it ironic that I reject the official 9/11 Commission Report as a complete and truthful account, something that many people would think makes me a Truther but you guys are on another planet from me. Some of you guys are the rather exotic Truther types. Some of you have got your antigravity and energy weapons (from the alien UFO stuff at Area 51) and nano-thermite and mini-nukes.
...that's where we come in.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: TooConservative (#1)
#6. To: ghostdogtxn (#2)
#7. To: RickyJ (#6)
(Edited)
He should change his name to "toostupid", because that was the lamest attempt to discredit 9/11 truth I have ever seen.
#13. To: TooConservative (#7)
You guys are aware there are con-men that run around trying to take advantage of anyone who will listen to them? And that Gravel is a few ice blocks short of an igloo?
#15. To: James Deffenbach (#13)
Those who believe the government is telling the truth about what happened on 9/11 couldn't even begin to build an igloo if we want to talk about being a few ice blocks short. They couldn't make the base of one.
#19. To: RickyJ (#15)
Yeah, anyone that believes our government about 9/11 might as well off themselves now, they are too stupid to live.
#26. To: titorite (#19)
#28. To: Eric Stratton (#26)
I for one get tired of some of my friends and family members that regardless of what I show them think I'm a kook...
#29. To: TooConservative (#28)
#30. To: Itistoolate (#29)
#31. To: TooConservative (#30)
#32. To: Itistoolate (#31)
#35. To: TooConservative (#32)
I don't think Richard Perle was ever a student or the head of the War College
#38. To: randge, TooConservative (#35)
#41. To: wudidiz (#38)
TooCon doesn't have to look at the evidence in order to make his judgment.
#42. To: TooConservative (#41)
So, no, I don't generally look at your "evidence".
#43. To: James Deffenbach (#42)
Seriously, do you believe the tale they told about the events of 9/11?
#45. To: TooConservative (#43)
Replies to Comment # 45. I'm not saying you should, or shouldn't, do anything. I was just curious if you believed the bs story they told about it. About how some raghead in a cave overwhelmed what is alleged to be the best military force in the world and caused NORAD to stand down, melted steel with Magic(k)al Jet Fuel™ and all the other insane things they would have you believe.
#47. To: TooConservative, James Deffenbach (#45)
...and need help....
End Trace Mode for Comment # 45.