See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth[Impressive List]
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php
Published: May 30, 2007
Author: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Post Date: 2007-05-30 14:39:15 by honway
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 215
Comments: 16
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Please Take Notice That: On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7. Sincerely, The Undersigned Click the link below for the list of names.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
#1. To: honway, ALL (#0)
Not all that impressive. Gage's website claims that 60 architectural and engineering professionals have joined his organization. But if you look at the names provided on the website, about 34 are architects. And whether you admit it or not, there is a big difference between an architect and a civil/structural engineer. Many of the others are listed as electrical engineers, or mechanical engineers, or avionics engineers, or quality engineers, or urban planners, or water resource engineers, or manufacturing engineers, or land surveyors, or construction engineers, or chemical engineers. In other words, occupations that have nothing to do with structures, fire, steel, concrete, impact, buckling or demolition. Let's examine the few (and there are only a few) that are listed as being structural or civil engineers: Was he really a structural engineer? Here's what his own son said about him: http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Akol_Kem_386453870.aspx "His father, Haluk was an architect who came from Istanbul in 1945." And note that would make him over 80 years old. I can't find anything on the web about him. Nothing at the University of Texas either. Who does he work for? What has he been working on since graduation? When was that? Elsewhere, he's listed as belonging to ASCE and being a project coordinator. But again, what is his actual experience. Is it water treatment? Foundation engineering? Road construction? Without knowing more, it's impossible to tell whether he actually has any relevant qualifications. The Scholars for 9/11 *Truth* website claims he is a "naval aviator, commercial pilot, structural engineering". But what engineering work did he ever actually do to merit the claim of being a structural engineer? At the http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Muga site we find he lists himself as a retired aviator and pilot. But there is no mention of being a structural engineer. Why not? You are claiming he's an expert in that regard ... right? At http://www.topcomp.ca/bb/2007-04-23.mp3 has an interview with him where we learn that (1) he was born in Dallas Texas, (2) he got his degree at the Southern Methodist University, (3) he retired as a naval aviator in 1985, (4) he retired as a commercial pilot in 1991, (5) and he loves to join 911 truth organizations (member of at least half a dozen). Again, there is no mention of his doing structural engineering at any time in his life. Why not? A little over half way through that interview, the interviewer makes several false claims. He says there was "a visible lack of wreckage around the site of the hole" in the Pentagon. But there was wreckage in numerous photos. Lots of it. The interviewer says "there was no indication that the large turbine engines on each wing of the plane had impacted the sides of the Pentagon. There would have been some mark or small holes or something in the side of the Pentagon. The momentum of those heavy engines would have carried forward with the plane hitting in the side of the pentagon at over 200 mph and made some mark but there was nothing there." This is absolutely false as the photos I've posted have repeated proven. Here are some again: The distance from the left edge of the left side hole to the right edge of the right side hole was at least 70-80 feet. Some sources say is more than more than 90 feet across. The diameter of the fuselage of a 757 is about 13 feet. The outer edge of the engines on a 757 are at most 20 feet from the outer wall of the fuselage. So clearly, the engines hit the structure within the boundaries of the hole in those photos, proving the interviewer is a liar. And Ted Muga, claimed structural engineer, is asked about this and doesn't correct him. No, instead he claims the plane wreckage and contents (fuselage fragments, wing fragments, seats, etc) should have been strewn all over the front of the pentagon. He says that the engines didn't damage the building but should have. He claims that the fuselage and most of the rest of the plane (other than engines and landing gear) couldn't have damaged the building ... that the fuselage and wings should have shattered on impact. He says "there is absolutely no evidence at all that a large commericial aircraft had gone in there." Well that is absolutely FALSE. So clearly Ted is NOT the structural engineer he (or some conspiracy site) claims. Clearly, he's completely ignorant of the facts about the damage that occurred. He is too lazy to even look at widely available photos that prove what he claims is wrong. Or he is too incompetent to understand them. Ted Muga would rather regurgitate the LIES of the interviewer because he, like the interviewer, has an agenda so the truth doesn't matter to him. And you folks consider him an expert. What can one do but laugh. ROTFLOL! In other venues, he claimed to have "worked in structural steel for years" and "studied major structural collapses." But all we really know about this guy is what he claims. We don't know where he's worked. We don't know what degrees he has. And the http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/l_lookup.htm site for searching California Professional Engineers returns no hits under that name. Again, there is no other reference to this person on the web than this. We have no idea if this a real person, where he got his degree, where he's been practicing engineering, what projects he's been involved in or what he actually thinks. ROTFLOL! Apparently, Rob Tamaki is not an expert in buildings. He's on the Small Water and Waste Systems Committee for B.C. (http://www.bcwwa.org/committees/dwmc/documents/technicalguidelines.pdf ). He works for P.S. Turje & Associates Ltd. in Vancouver. Come on, honway ... this just makes you folks look desperate. It's an embarrassment to the *truth* movement. Now as I said, Richard Gage's (architect) website is filled with lies and disinformation. For example, it displays this: with the caption "Previously molten metal was found "flowing like lava" by the FDNY in the basements of all 3 WTC High-rises. Surely everyone who has signed his petition and claims to be an *expert* is sufficiently well informed to know that's not a photo of molten steel. Apparently not. ROTFLOL! Here's another example of Gage's dishonesty and the evident gullibility of all those *professionals* who supposedly have joined his organization. The website shows this image: with the caption: "Which 20 story building will fall to the ground first? Until 9/11/01 most physicists would have agreed that the one that didn't have to crush though 100,000 tons of steel would fall first — at free-fall speed. On 9/11, the example on the left "collapsed" at virtually free-fall speed! But this could only have been accomplished by removing the columns ahead of the fall — with explosives." What's being implied about what happened is a LIE. The towers did NOT collapse at "virtually free-fall speed". Material thrown out to the side of the towers during the collapse reached the ground well ahead of the collapsing level of the tower ... contrary to what the caption is clearly suggesting. The website states "The debris was equally distributed across a 1,400 ft. diameter. There are no "pancakes" stacked up at the bottom of either tower! " This too is a lie. The debris was NOT equally distributed over that diameter an area and the photo noted above that they called "previously molten metal" is in fact an example of pancaked floors. Several are one on top of another in that chunk of material. Can *experts* be this clueless folks ... or do these *experts* just not bother to look beyond the nearest conspiracy website because they've got preconceived notions? The website shows this image: with the caption "It takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this without buckling." This is a lie. Steel need only be softened then have force applied to it (say during a violent collapse) for something like this to happen. And here are some more lies. The site claims that "Steven Jones, PhD physicist discovers previously molten iron spheres in the WTC dust which blanketed lower Manhattan. Sizes are up to 1/16" diameter. The findings are corroborated by EPA but not explained." False. The EPA expert that Dr Jones quoted concerning these spheres has published a report explaining them. And it's an innocuous explanation. The website claims that this: "is the only photo evidence of fires in Building 7." FALSE. Even honway knows that. The website claims WTC 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds. FALSE. The east mechanical room on the roof disappeared into the roof more than 6 seconds before Mr Gage claims the collapse began. The website repeats the lie that "pull" is an industry term meaning "demolish". It repeats the lie that Silverstein told the NYC fire commander to "'pull' WTC 7". To be blunt, folks, you will not find the truth on a foundation of lies and misinformation. You are only being deceived and used by those promoting these people as *impressive* experts.
One thing is certain. Based on their education, every person on the list is more qualified to provide an expert opinion than you are concerning 9/11. I have read your posts for years. Never have you demonstrated in your posts any technical expertise or any technical education of any kind, based on the content of your posts.
honway, you know nothing about me. Unlike you, I never felt the need to share my life's story on the internet. Your argument is moot, since I have never claimed expertise. I've been content to support my beliefs by citing verifiable facts and verifiable experts. Yet, I notice you aren't challenging any of the falsehoods I pointed out on Gage's website. Nor are you attempting to counter the observations I made about the experts named on Gage's website. And if I've no technical expertise or any technical education of any kind, isn't it remarkable that I've had no trouble at all pointing out the lies and disinformation promoted by members of the so-called *truth* movement. ROTFLOL!
Well you are entitled to your opinion, but I believe that Iraq was involved in the first WTC bombing (which suggests no reticence in causing destruction that might have killed thousands), was involved in OKC, was involved in the anthrax attack (which suggests no reticence in supplying terrorists with biological weapons), and is continuing to deal with terrorist organizations who have used and are trying to acquire more WMDs. BeAChooser #11 posted on 2002-09-22 16:34:49 ET ROTFLOL! While BAC was too bashful to mention it, he also believes there was an Iraqi on the grassy knoll. ----- The link YOU PROVIDED tells us that the concept for the towers was just explained to Skilling in April of 2004. Yet he published his White Paper (where you claim he did a design analysis of the towers) in February 3, 1964. Impossible? Yes. BeAChooser #45 posted on 2007-04-21 It is not easy to get so many things wrong in so few words. The concept for the towers was explained in 1964, not 2004. The concept was explained by John Skilling to the New York Architectural League. It was not explained to John Skilling. The White Paper was published by the New York Port Authority, not John Skilling. City in the Sky, The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center, James Glanz and Eric Lipton, Times Books, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 2003, First paperback edition 2004, ISBN: 0-8050-7691-3, p. 131: ----- 3. To: NAFV (#0) Before withdrawing from Iraq in March, IAEA inspectors found Baghdad's nuclear program in disarray and unlikely to be able to support an active effort to build weapons, What about dirty bombs ... i.e., terrorist weapons? We know the Iraqis actually built and tested one. I wonder whether any of the material found so far relates to their design. If the Iraqis had no "nuclear weapons" program, why would they make overtures to Niger officials seeking more uranium? That IS what Wilson told the CIA Niger officials believe they were doing? BeAChooser posted on 2003-10-04 17:26:39 ET Reply Trace Joseph Wilson is BAC's verifiable source regarding yellowcake. ROTFLOL! ----- Title: ‘I found Saddam’s WMD bunkers’ ----- The Melanie Phillips article is just a repackaging of silly sewage from the New York Sun that BAC recycled on LP last November here. Ex-Officer Spurned on WMD Claim Dave Gaubatz, an investigator for the Dallas County Medical Examiner, is the verifiable expert for BAC's whacked WMD claims. My debunking of his recycled sewage here: ----- http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=164186&Disp=All#C400 The "former special investigator for the Pentagon" is a current investigator for the Dallas County Medical Examiner who self-admittedly stated that "he knew some people might call him a kook." [And.... he was right about something!] Seth Lipsky, the President and Editor-in-Chief of the New York Sun is on record as saying, on October 16, 2003, "I don't believe in journalists having 'responsibility.'" Ira Stoll, Vice-President and Managing Editor is a former editor for the Israeli newspaper, The Jerusalem Post. Richard Perle is a director of Hollinger International Inc., which is an investor in the New York Sun. See: http://www.davegaubatz.com/files/NY_TIMES_23_June_2006.htm For Diehards, Search for Iraq's W.M.D. Isn't Over By SCOTT SHANE Published: June 23, 2006 -----
All still true. Or would you like to try challenging one of those assertions? As to the rest of what you posted ... I just hope readers have enough sense to go to the links you provided (thank you) and read the entire thread. The links don't present a very flattering picture of your side and it's tactics. If they don't read the threads in their entirety ... well all I can say is they are being foolish. Because as I've demonstrated time and again, and on those threads, one should not take anything you post at face value because most of what you post is completely out of context, a distortion or an outright lie. And as I noted in post #480 of that last thread you linked: "What you are doing is throwing out fog, Nolu ... trying to make folks miss the point." But then that's all you've really got to defend your 9/11 *experts* isn't it. And say ... whatever happened to that warning you were going to post about me ... instead of trying to *debate* me? That didn't work? ROTFLOL!
All still true. Well that settles it. According to BAC, Iraq run by the U.S. Government "is continuing to deal with terrorist organizations who have used and are trying to acquire more WMDs." Darn, one would have thought that a Bush-imposed regime would have put an end to Iraq "continuing to deal with terrorist organizations who have used and are trying to acquire more WMDs." Apparently the Bush regime is no different than the Hussein regime. Well, except for a possible petroleum law.
I thought they were calling it the hydrocarbon law. Whatever, this is the nexus of the war in Iraq.
#13. To: Fred Mertz (#11)
As the nexus, it is about the only thing the Iraqi congress is being forced to, sort of, pursue, albeit without actually creating the law. The Iraqis do not seem to be in a hurry. The draft Iraqi law has been called by various names, including hydrocarbon law. Of course, it is in Arabic and we are getting it in translation. Below, it appears as the Oil and Gas Law. http://priceofoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/Iraqoillaw021507.pdf http://tinyurl.com/2ldq9r [html] DRAFT OIL AND GAS LAW
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth[Impressive List]
Haluk Akol, Architect & Structural Engineer, Lafayette, CA
James Brooks, B. Civil Eng, University of Texas, Engineering Consultant
Jason Griffin, BS, Civil Engineer Washington Dc
Ted Muga, BSCE, Civil Engineer, San Diego, CA
Left side and center hole damage 
Center hole and right side damage. Joseph Testa, P.E., Civil Engineer, Thousand Oaks, CA
Dr. Michael Voschine, PhD., Structural Engineer, Miami, Florida
Rob Tamaki, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., Civil Engineer, Vancouver, BC
#2. To: BeAChooser (#1)
Not all that impressive.
#4. To: honway, ALL (#2)
One thing is certain. Based on their education, every person on the list is more qualified to provide an expert opinion than you are concerning 9/11.
I have read your posts for years. Never have you demonstrated in your posts any technical expertise or any technical education of any kind, based on the content of your posts.
#8. To: BeAChooser, honway, ALL (#4)
(Edited)
I've been content to support my beliefs by citing verifiable facts and verifiable experts.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=3478&Disp=11#C11
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=50387&SC=41&EC=45#C45
"At the end of the three-page document was the notation "MPL.fg" above the date "2-3-64" - meaning that the white paper had been typed for Malcolm P. Levy by his secretary, Florence Grainger, on February 3,1964."
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=24428&Disp=13#C3
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=50569&Disp=0#C0
Source: [None]
URL Source: >http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/
Published: Apr 19, 2007
Author: melanie phillips
Post Date: 2007-04-19 23:09:11 by BeAChooser
Published: Feb 8, 2006
Author: ELI LAKE
BeAChooser posted on 2006-11-07 21:15:31 ET
#9. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#8)
"Well you are entitled to your opinion, but I believe that Iraq was involved in the first WTC bombing (which suggests no reticence in causing destruction that might have killed thousands), was involved in OKC, was involved in the anthrax attack (which suggests no reticence in supplying terrorists with biological weapons), and is continuing to deal with terrorist organizations who have used and are trying to acquire more WMDs."
#10. To: BeAChooser (#9)
"I believe that Iraq ... is continuing to deal with terrorist organizations who have used and are trying to acquire more WMDs."
-- BAC, 9/22/2002
-- BAC, 5/31/2007
#11. To: nolu_chan (#10)
Well, except for a possible petroleum law.
Replies to Comment # 11. I thought they were calling it the hydrocarbon law. Whatever, this is the nexus of the war in Iraq.
PREPARED BY THE COMMITTEE ON 15 FEBRUARY 2007
COUNCIL OF MINISTERS
OIL AND ENERGY COMMITTEE
REPUBLIC OF IRAQ
DRAFT IRAQ OIL AND GAS LAW
NO. _______ OF 2007
15 FEBRUARY 2007
End Trace Mode for Comment # 11.