[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
9/11 See other 9/11 Articles Title: More Than 600 Architects Say 9/11 an Inside Job By Mark Anderson IRVINE, Calif.—Noted San Francisco architect Richard Gage told the audience at Freedom Law School’s annual health and freedom conference recently that his organization, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, is growing quickly and now has more than 600 structural experts who have grave doubts about the official story of what happened to the three World Trade Center buildings that were destroyed in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001. More Than 600 Architects Say 9/11 an Inside Job By Mark Anderson IRVINE, Calif.—Noted San Francisco architect Richard Gage told the audience at Freedom Law School’s annual health and freedom conference recently that his organization, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, is growing quickly and now has more than 600 structural experts who have grave doubts about the official story of what happened to the three World Trade Center buildings that were destroyed in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001. ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER VIDEO AFP INTERVIEWS RICHARD GAGE OF ARCHITECTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH “We hope to have 1,000 members by September and have over 600 now,” said Gage, a successful architect whose projects dot the California landscape. The audience heard Gage describe the many problems with the official version, not the least of which is that fire is an “organic process” that could not have caused the symmetrical (uniform) destruction of the 110-story Twin Towers that morning, and the fall of the 47-story Soloman Brothers Building (Building 7) more than six hours later. These three buildings were part of the Rockefeller-inspired WTC complex, consisting of seven buildings on 16 acres. Gage noted that the vaunted National Institute for Safety and Technology (NIST) study of the WTC buildings did not even look at the voluminous evidence of a controlled demolition of the three structures on 9-11, so it’s not as if the evidence was examined by NIST and declared inconclusive. NIST instead only examined the event “up to the point of collapse” and went no further. Thus, there is no way the government can objectively assess the entire catastrophic event. “How can you find what you are not looking for?” Gage asked, adding that various forces that can destroy buildings—including fire and earthquakes—have obvious characteristics. Fire does not devour a structure uniformly because it randomly branches out wherever there is, say, furniture and other “fuel” to consume. The melting point of structural steel is around 2,300 degrees Fahrenheit. The short-duration Twin Tower fires reached no more than 1,400 degrees (and that is very generous). So for the government to say that burning jet fuel within the Twin Towers not only uniformly melted structural steel to the point of collapse—but brought the huge buildings down at near freefall speed—is the height of absurdity, not to mention that it is categorically impossible for fire to pulverize concrete. More than 90,000 tons of concrete was pulverized mid-air, along with metal decking. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away. That third building that many Americans still are only dimly aware of, Building 7, really drives this issue home, in Gage’s view. “Well, the 600 architects I represent are most concerned about the freefall collapse of Building 7, the third skyscraper [that was] not hit by an airplane to fall on the afternoon of 9/11. This is a 47-story skyscraper that in the first hundred feet of its fall is falling at freefall speed. This is acknowledged by NIST. That can’t happen unless the structure [underneath] is removed. There is no resistance from the structure to that fall in the first 2.25 seconds. So this of great concern. Of course it falls symmetrically almost at freefall speed and collapses thereafter—the whole building is destroyed in 6.5 seconds,” as he told AFP in an exclusive interview. He added: “NIST . . . claims that we have 10 fires [in Building 7], one of which was ‘roaring’ . . . and [the fires] ‘expanded the beams,’ knocking a girder off its seat and causing ‘an internal cascading collapse’—which is ludicrous because we would have seen all kinds of deformation on the perimeter structure. Anyway, they claim fires brought this building down, but fire is an organic process that doesn’t bring buildings down symmetrically at freefall speed, in the manner of a classic controlled demolition. So that’s the No. 1 key point of evidence.” As for the Twin Towers, he said there are “many similar features of controlled demolition, but very different as well. It’s explosive. Everything is being ejected outside of the footprint – 95 percent of the debris. Four-ton perimeter wall units are being hurled laterally 600 feet, which takes 55 miles per hour instant acceleration out of the sides of the tower. Now underneath all three buildings we have several tons of molten metal [at 2,700 F or hotter, which stayed hot for 3-4 months] which is not created by jet fuel or office fires or anything else. Where does all this come from? We have video evidence, photographic evidence. The official government reports don’t even talk about it; nor do they talk about the dozens of explosions heard by 118 witnesses recorded orally by the chief fire commissioner of the City of New York.” Gage continued: “It’s extraordinary what we don’t have in the [NIST] report, and that’s what we focus on in Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. In addition in the towers we have 110 floors of four-inch thick concrete; they are an acre in size each. We’re looking for some of those floors at the bottom of the pile. The photographs don’t reveal any of them—just a pile of debris two or three stories high.” “Where did the ‘pancakes’ go?” AFP then asked Gage, referring to the government’s “pancake” theory, wherein the heavy collapsing floors from the top overwhelmed the structure below and “pancaked” down to the bottom. Counting both towers, 220 floors were missing on that “Black Tuesday.” “That’s what we’re looking for is pancakes,” he replied. “We’ve got the ‘syrup,’ we have no pancakes. The ‘syrup’ is the molten metal.” He went on to say: “Also we are looking at explosions that occurred 20, 40 and 60 stories down—below the collapsing building! Where are they coming from? NIST says they are ‘puffs of air’ because there are piledrivers pushing down the building and that air has to come out somewhere, right? They are not puffs of air; they are pulverized building materials and they occur at 160 to 200 feet per second. These are propelled by explosive speeds.” As determined by former Brigham Young physicist Steven Jones—and reiterated by Gage—the telltale signs of an ultra-hot incendiary known as thermite (which becomes thermate with sulfur added) were found in the dust at 4-5 distinct locations in New York. Thermite can reach temperatures of 4,500 F and can be explosive when it’s souped up. Microspheres formed from molten iron constitute some of the evidence, as well as red chips comprised of unignited thermite. Gage believes that nano-thermite is the most likely culprit, since it is a “quieter” but ultra-powerful explosive. “Al Qaeda probably did not have access to these buildings or to thermite (or thermate), which was not made in a cave in Afghanistan,” Gage commented, adding, however, that his organization [www.AE911truth.org] does not formally probe who the perpetrators were. But he fears whoever pulled it off could do it again because the truth has long been suppressed, leaving Americans vulnerable. Gage’s group supports a new, genuine investigation, whereas the official “investigation” did not even include establishing a crime scene at the WTC complex and ended with the official 9/11 Commission report that does even mention Building 7. Mark Anderson is corresponding editor for American Free Press.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
#5. To: Itistoolate (#0)
Nobody believes it odd that the guy who engineered the thing doesn't share their "fears"?
You are a very dull knife. The dullest in the drawer. Take the welding glasses off.
#10. To: Old Friend (#8)
Yip...yip...yip... Isn't it time for your nap?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||