A TV-program from 2010 (hit-piece) made by Swedish
TV4 about The 9/11 Truth movement in Sweden and also in other parts of
the world. TV4:s approach and agenda was to demonize all 9/11-truthers
and slandering all interested in 9/11 by portraying them in this
TV-program as ”anti-semitic” and ”a threat to democracy”. People
watching this program will instantly recognize this unethical approach
towards investigating a very serious issue like the 9/11 attacks.
Vaken.se strives to bring forth information that
regular mainstream media usually neglects or minimizes its importance.
We long for a more transparent news coverage with a broader view, which
in its turn leads to a more open and free society. Vaken.se has been
active for 10+ years and is now one of Swedens largest alternative media
outlets with 70.000–100.000 unique visitors per month and about 10.000.00+ page hits.
Richard Gage 2014 “Our Best Worldwide TV Coverage”
Architects and
Engineers for 9/11 Truth brings you non-stop news coverage from around
the world. Richard Gage, AIA, and other Truthers expose the official
conspiracy theory of 9/11 as a huge fraud on U.S. national television
and abroad. The demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC7 is shown to
millions of viewers worldwide!
Russia Today – “The Truth Seeker” (7:38)
Russia Today’s Daniel Bushnell covers the ReThink911 campaign, and talk with 9/11 experts.
Ben Swann – Swann TV (12:19)
Ben Swann covers ReThink911 and interviews Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer and AE911Truth petition signer.
Geraldo At Large – FOX News (8:10)
Geraldo Rivera interviews AE911Truth’s Tony Szamboti and 9/11 victim family member Bob McIlvaine.
FOX 2 News – Detroit (4:01)
Richard Gage, AIA, explains the scientific forensic evidence for the explosive destruction of the 3 WTC skyscrapers.
TVNZ – “Close Up” New Zealand (6:02)
Richard Gage, AIA, lays out the case for WTC Building 7’s controlled demolition in this interview.
CBC Canada – “The Fifth Estate” (12:03)
A Speech by Richard Gage, AIA, at a “We Are Change” event, and the origins of AE911Truth are featured.
KMPH FOX – Fresno, California (7:12)
Richard Gage, AIA, discusses the 9/11 WTC evidence and wakes up the hosts of this popular morning how.
--
Tags:
Richard Gage, Russia Today, Daniel Bushnell, ReThink911, Ben Swann,
Tony Szamboti, AE911Truth, Geraldo Rivera, Bob McIlvaine, scientific
forensic evidence, WTC Building 7, controlled demolition, TVNZ – “Close
Up” New Zealand, CBC Canada – “The Fifth Estate”, KMPH FOX – Fresno,
California, We Are Change
--
Produced: 2014, Episode: RG-OBTV, 58:00:, Category: Education
--
View This Show On YouTube: http://youtu.be/DpEpP4e3g1Q
--
More 911TV Films On YouTube: http://youtube.com/911TVorg
--
Phone
your local public access TV station and ask them to broadcast this film
to your local community. Your station can download the film in TV
broadcast format from PEGMedia.org .
Originally this video was uploaded in 11 segments on YouTube. See: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... I am uploading it now as one single video for reasons discussed below.
On March 6th, 2011, Mr. Mohr debated with architect Richard Gage on the WTC collapses. (See: http://tinyurl.com/78kzsj6)
Although the audio of the debate has been released, the group
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has decided not to release the
video of the debate. As a result, Mr. Mohr has recently uploaded a
series of videos to YouTube which aim to rebut the claims made by
Richard Gage in his video presentation 9/11 Blueprint for Truth. (See: http://www.youtube.com/user/chrismohr911)
Mr.
Mohr refers to these videos as “respectful rebuttals” and not
“debunking.” Indeed, after reviewing Mr. Mohr’s videos myself, I find
that he is very sincere about his concerns regarding the WTC demolition
theory, and truly wants there to be a civil and respectful debate of the
topic. However, I do not believe that Mr. Mohr’s rebuttals offer solid
refutations of the points made in 911BT. In this paper, I will
demonstrate why Mr. Mohr’s videos, while presenting some legitimate
concerns of the controlled demolition theory, do not ultimately disprove
the theory and do not support the theory of “natural collapse.”
There is a new Home page article on the Scientists for 9/11 Truth website at
www.scientistsfor911truth.org.
The article, “Researchers Find Flaws in NIST’s WTC7
Theory,” describes the recent research and activity concerning
NIST’s theory of WTC7 by engineers and others affiliated with Architects and
Engineers for 9/11 Truth, http://www.ae911truth.org/. This
research recently led noted attorney William F. Pepper to write a letter to Todd
J. Zinser, Office of the Inspector General (OIG), U.S. Department of Commerce to
seek resolution.
In addition on the Home page are two new letters on the Pentagon:
"Science, Activism, and the Pentagon Debate" by Frank Legge,
and a "Letter to Massimo Mazzucco" by David Chandler, Frank
Legge, and John D. Wyndham. Also, the Papers section on the
Scientists’ website has been augmented with several recent papers on the
Pentagon.
Regards,
John D. Wyndham
Coordinator forAnnouncement:
There is a new Home page article on the Scientists for 9/11 Truth website at
www.scientistsfor911truth.org.
The article, “Researchers Find Flaws in NIST’s WTC7
Theory,” describes the recent research and activity concerning
NIST’s theory of WTC7 by engineers and others affiliated with Architects and
Engineers for 9/11 Truth, http://www.ae911truth.org/. This
research recently led noted attorney William F. Pepper to write a letter to Todd
J. Zinser, Office of the Inspector General (OIG), U.S. Department of Commerce to
seek resolution.
In addition on the Home page are two new letters on the Pentagon:
"Science, Activism, and the Pentagon Debate" by Frank Legge,
and a "Letter to Massimo Mazzucco" by David Chandler, Frank
Legge, and John D. Wyndham. Also, the Papers section on the
Scientists’ website has been augmented with several recent papers on the
Pentagon.
Regards,
John D. Wyndham
Coordinator for Scientists for 9/11 Truth
My name is Adam
Taylor. I am a 9/11 activist and a contributing writer and researcher for
several 9/11 truth websites, includingDebunking the Debunkers,AE911Truth,
andScientificMethod911. Having read yourrecent Philly Post article,
I'm very disappointed to see that you have offered an unfair and misinformed
criticism of Paul Kurtz'scoverageof
AE911Truth'sReThink911 campaign. It's obvious that,
contrary to what you claim of Mr. Kurtz, it is in fact you that
has provided an uncritical assessment of the issues surrounding the events of
September 11th. Allow me to enlighten you to a few of your errors that is quite
unbecoming of someone who claims to be a journalist.
For starters, your
entire criticism of Mr. Kurtz's article as failing to provide
"counterarguments" to AE911Truth's position is entirely unfounded.
True enough, the article does only discuss the group's position on the collapse
of the WTC buildings. But why is that such a bad thing? Is Mr. Kurtz required
to present every viewpoint on the collapse of these buildings? While Mr. Kurtz
provides no criticisms of AE911Truth's work, nothing in the article necessarily endorses their
position either. It could be that Mr. Kurtz agrees 100% with them. But nowhere
does he say that in his article. He does not state his own opinion, but merely
reports on the event in an unbiased manner, which is exactly what a
professional journalist should do. Perhaps you believe that the mere mention of
the group is uncritical endorsement, and that Mr. Kurtz should not have done
so. If this were the standard practice of all journalists, they would likely
have very little to comment on.
But ironically, your
article provides us with a perfect example of what uncritical journalism
actually looks like. You provide two examples of supposed "debunking"
of the truth movement's claims. Your first example is Popular Mechanics,
and it seems that along withRachel Maddowyou've
placed a disturbing blind faith in their analysis of the movement's arguments.
Popular Mechanics has long been responded to by many people within the 9/11
truth movement, includingJim Hoffman,David Ray Griffin, andAE911Truth
founderRichard Gage. I
myself have written an extensive multi-part response to
Popular Mechanics' latest version of their bookDebunking 9/11 Myths.
By your own standards, shouldn't you have mentioned these
"counterarguments" in order for your article to be considered an
"honest report"? And just how honest is this source of yours to begin
with?
It's unlikely that
Popular Mechanics has much to say about the group Architects & Engineers
for 9/11 Truth, given that they've largely ignored them. In their previously
mentioned Debunking 9/11 Myths book, there is not one mention of AE911Truth or
its founder Richard Gage. Now it's one thing to give no mention of this group,
but it's another thing to deny its existence completely. And that is
essentially what Popular Mechanics has done. In their book they actually claim
that "not one of the leading conspiracy
theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields."
Keep in mind that this book was published in 2011, and by this time AE911Truth
was comprised of around 1600 professional architects and engineers. Does
Popular Mechanics sound like it's presenting an honest assessment of the truth
movement? I provide a summary of other omissions and distortions in their bookhere.
Your second example,Rational Wiki, fairs
no better. While no critique of their entire 9/11 conspiracy page exists to my
knowledge, much of what they discuss has already been addressed by the movement
as well. Simply type in any subject they bring up into the search engine
atDebunking the Debunkersand you'll
find answers to their arguments. But the specific section of their page you
link to shows just how uncritical the writers of that site are. They fail to
note that NIST's WTC7 report has been exposed as extremelyerroneous, and contains
a multitude ofdeceptions and misrepresentations.
Did you bother to critically analyze either of these sources? And if not, then
what justifies your criticism of Mr. Kurtz supposedly doing the same
thing?
As I said at
the beginning, it's very disappointing to see the position you've taken on
this issue. You criticize Paul Kurtz for giving the movement an
"unchallenged platform" (which, by the way, it's really not;
that's what the comments section is for), whilst all that he has done is
provide an unbiased coverage of the group's efforts to get a new investigation
into the collapse of the three WTC buildings. Rather than show that Mr.
Kurtz was wrong for giving them uncritical coverage, your article gives
off the impression that he was wrong for giving them any coverage at all. You
conclude your article by saying that:
It’s one thing to
raise questions: That’s the job of journalists. When there are people who offer
different, credible answers on those questions, it’s also the job of
journalists to present those.
The media has for many
years presented the government's scientific assertions about the collapse of
the WTC. Now it's AE911Truth's turn. The group presents exactly the kind of
"different, credible answers [to] questions" that you talk about. And
it's no one else's fault except yours if you fail to see that. I recommend that
you issue a formal apology to Mr. Kurtz for your unfounded criticism of his
reporting and journalism methods. I hope you will take my comments into
consideration, and do exactly what AE911Truth's campaign is encouraging people
to do: re-think 9/11.
In order to understand what nanothermite is, we first must understand what ordinary commercial thermite is. Thermite is a mixture of a metal and the oxide of another metal, usually aluminum (Al) and iron oxide (Fe2O3), in a granular or powder form. When ignited, the energetic Al-Fe thermite reaction produces molten iron and aluminum oxide, with the molten iron reaching temperatures well in excess of 4000° F. These temperatures are certainly high enough to allow cuts through structural steel, which generally has a melting point of around 2750° F.
There is also a variant of thermite known as thermate, which is a combination of thermite and sulfur, and is more efficient at cutting through steel. This form of thermite is believed to have been used in the demolition of World Trade Center Building 7. Although conventional thermite has the capability to cut through structural steel, it is technically an incendiary and not an explosive.
Nanothermite (also known as superthermite), simply put, is an ultra-fine-grained (UFG) variant of thermite that can be formulated to be explosive by adding gas-releasing substances. A general rule in chemistry is that the smaller the particles of the reactants, the faster the reaction. Nanothermite, as the name suggests, is thermite in which the particles are so small that they are measured in nanometers (one billionth of a meter). The authors of the peer-reviewed Active Thermitic Materials paper, which documents the discovery of these materials in the WTC dust, explain:
Available papers [by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and others] describe this material as an intimate mixture of UFG aluminum and iron oxide in nano-thermite composites to form pyrotechnics or explosives. The thermite reaction involves aluminum and a metal oxide, as in this typical reaction with iron oxide:
The public announcements of the development of nanothermite composite materials as explosives date back several years before 9/11. As Dr. Frank Legge points out , “ researchers were describing methods of preparing nano-sized particles, using them in superthermite, and calling such material ‘explosive’ in 1997. It would therefore not be correct to assert that by 2001, four years later, they would be unable to utilize the material in demolition.”
In additon, 911research.wtc7.net notes the following:
One of the critiques of theories that thermite was used to destroy the World Trade Center skyscrapers asserts that thermite preparations don’t have sufficient explosive power to account for the observed features of the buildings’ destruction. This criticism seems to be uninformed by knowledge of some of the aluminothermic preparations known to exist – particularly those being researched for military applications.
Indeed, as 9/11 researcher Kevin Ryan has shown, there is substantial documentation detailing how nanothermite has been formulated to be explosive. For example, a summary report released at the 2008 AIChE conference by chemists at the University of Houston describes how nano-thermite composites can be engineered to create explosives:
Nanoenergetic thermite materials release energy much faster than conventional energetic materials and have various potential military applications, such as rocket propellants, aircraft fuel and explosives. They are likely to become the next-generation explosive materials, as they enable flexibility in energy density and power release through control of particle size distribution, stoichiometry and choice of fuel and oxidizer.
Some critics have also claimed that neither thermite nor nanothermite has ever been used to demolish steel structures. Even if this assertion were true, it would not be proof in and of itself that these materials could not be used in demolition. As Dr. Legge notes:
It could be true, and probably is true, that the three buildings which came down on 9/11 were the first in which some variation of the thermite reaction was used in demolition. It is however not logical to say something cannot have happened merely because it had not happened before: there has to be a first time for everything. It is certainly true that thermite had been used many times in arson attacks prior to 9/11.
However, we find that thermite has in fact been used to demolish steel structures in the past. For example, Popular Mechanics itself documents that thermite was used in the demolition of structures such as the Skyride Tower in Chicago and the dome of the German Reichstag. Furthermore, experiments conducted by civil engineer Jonathan Cole have shown that ordinary thermate can be used to effectively cut through steel columns. And as described earlier, the effectiveness of nanothermite is much higher than that of ordinary thermate.
To read more about the thermitic materials that were involved in the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers, see the AE911Truth Evidence webpage and our original article about the discovery of these composites in the WTC dust.
The latest action alert from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth asks that you "Put AE911Truth DVDs in the Hands of Every A/E in Your Community." But they point out that they, "...Are very grateful for any effort that you might wish to engage in. The important thing is that all of us do our part." So for those who cannot afford to distribute DVDs right now please send this letter I have put together out to any architectural and engineering firms you can find. As AE911Truth has stated before, "Its easy! Just look them up in the phone book or on the Internet and send them an email (like the one below)." Just type "architectural firms" or "engineering firms" followed by any state or country and you will find plenty of results. Make sure to check their site for the latest number as it is perpetually growing much to the chagrin of the so-called debunkers.
Subject:
1,450 architectural and engineering professionals calling for a new 9/11 investigation
Letter:
Hello,
As a credentialed building professional you can assist in putting an end to the War on Terror by signing a petition that calls for a new investigation into the attacks of September 11. Already the war has killed many thousands of innocent civilians and US military personnel. With no end in sight it is imperative that people with expertise stand up and question the physics defying official explanation into the collapse of the 3 World Trade Centre Buildings on 9/11. Please visit http//ae911truth.org, but first take a look at some of the individuals you will find amongst their ranks.
Dwain Deets appointed as NASA Dryden Aerospace Projects Director
February 28, 1996 Release: 96-10
...In 1986 Deets received the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics Award. Among his other awards are the NASA Exceptional Service Award, presented in 1988. He was included in "Who's Who in America" for 1990-91 and "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" from 1993 to the present.
He was the 1988-90 chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers. He has also been a member of the AIAA technical committee on Society and Aerospace Technology from 1990 to 1995. He is a 1961 graduate of Occidental College, Los Angeles. He earned a master of science degree in physics from San Diego State College in 1962 and then a master of science degree in engineering, as part of the Engineering Executive Program, at UCLA in 1978.
Worked for 30 years as a structural engineer in New Jersey, Colorado, and Nevada. Designed as project engineer a variety of structures including Bridges, High-rise office commercial buildings, parking structures, Project Manager Mirage hotel (Las Vegas) , Part of team on Bank One Ballpark Pheonix, Arizona, and many other structural related projects
Received his M.S. in Structural Engineering (1986) from the University of California at Davis, following a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the same school in 1984. He has over 23 years experience in structural analysis, design, evaluation and rehabilitation of buildings in northern California.
And although they are not signatories at AE911Truth "two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition."
Project Architect-Director for many high and low rise steel structures including the 34 story 1.7 Million SF Headquarters Building for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, 44 story Citicorp Building San Francisco, 44 story 575 Market street Building, San Francisco (A Standard Oil Company Headquarters Building), St. Mary's Hospital and Medical Center, San Francisco, and the 1 Million SF Tom Bradley International Terminal at LAX.
Mr. Nobles’ latest addition to his website is a page attempting to show how other skyscraper fires are not comparable to the Twin Towers and Building 7. He focuses on the skyscraper fires featured in the AE911Truth power point. Because Mr. Nobles uses similar arguments for more than one of the listed buildings, for this post I will list an argument, state which buildings it applies to, followed by my response.
A quick note: I will be citing NIST several times in this response to refute many of Mr. Nobles’ arguments. Some may criticize me, saying things like “but if you disagree with NIST, why do you cite them?” I cite them because there are parts of their investigation that do seem to be backed up by empirical data and common sense. And this is supposed to be the official explanation for what happened to those buildings, so if anyone disagrees with NIST, they should complain to NIST and not me. I will also be pointing out several things that NIST does get wrong. But if anyone thinks they’re right, then explain why I’m wrong.
-No structural damage: East Tower, First Interstate Bank, One Meridian Plaza, Mandarin Oriental
Response: This detail can be seen as least significant, as NIST mostly blames the collapse of the Twin Towers on fire and entirely blames the collapse of WTC 7 on fire. Although it can be argued that the plane impacts greatly damaged the buildings, NIST seems to have exaggerated the amount of damage the buildings actually took. And given the fact that the initial tilts of both Towers were not in the direction of where most of the structural damage was, the loads the buildings had to take as they collapsed would not have been a major factor.
-Lower floors were not on fire: East Tower, One Meridian Plaza, One New York Plaza
Response: This argument obviously applies more to Building 7 than the Twin Towers, as the fires were on the upper floors of Towers. While there were fires on the lower floors of WTC 7, the question is if these fires were severe enough to cause collapse in the first place. More on this will be discussed below.
-Fires were fought by firefighters and/or sprinklers: East Tower, First Interstate Bank, One Meridian Plaza, One New York Plaza, Mandarin Oriental
Response: To some, the severity of the fires has been based on how much they were being fought. This, however, did not appear to be an important factor to NIST. NIST, in reference to the First Interstate Bank Building, One Meridian Plaza, One New York Plaza, and WTC 5, stated that:
“[I]n each of the other referenced buildings, the fires burned out several floors, even with available water and fire fighting activities (except for WTC 5). Thus, whether the fire fighters fought the WTC 7 fires or not is not a meaningful point of dissimilarity from the other cited fires.”
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.
Debunkers also point to the firefighters' testimony. That is addressed here and here.
-Fire was always in “one place”: East Tower, First Interstate Bank, One Meridian Plaza, One New York Plaza
Response: Again, NIST doesn’t seem to feel the floor locations of the fires were a huge point of dissimilarity to fires in other buildings, stating that:
“The differences in the fires were not meaningful for the following reasons. By the time that WTC 7 collapsed, the fires in WTC 7 had advanced well beyond the likely points of origin on multiple floors (i.e., south and west faces) and originating points of fire origin had no bearing on the fire conditions when the building collapsed (i.e., in the northeast quadrant).”
It is often claimed by debunkers that these photos show that Building 7 was almost totally engulfed with fire.
But as others have pointed out, the large amount of smoke on Building 7’s south face was most likely caused by a negative low air pressure, which caused smoke from the burning WTC complex to cling to Building 7. Multiple photographs show that the same thing happened to WTC 1.
NIST itself states that there were 10 fires in Building 7, with only 6 of them being out of control. Also, although the Mandarin Oriental did not burn as long as Building 7, the building was completely engulfed in flames, which meant it would have had an extremely low amount of thermal conductivity. Dr. Vytenis Babrauskas, an expert on fire temperatures, has written that:
“It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with an object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size. Small, low-density, low-conductivity objects will heat up much faster than massive, heavy-weight ones.”
Although steel has somewhat lower heat conductivity than that of other metals, compared to non-metallic materials its conductivity is extremely high. If a fire does not consume the entire structure, the structure will conduct the heat away from the main source of the fire. This would not have applied to the Mandarin Oriental, as its entire structure was almost totally engulfed by massive flames. NIST did not even include thermal conductivity as a factor in the collapse of WTC 7. In any case, NIST accepts that fires in other buildings were, at the very least, just as severe as the fires in WTC 7, stating in their FAQ page on Building 7 that:
“There are more similarities than differences between the uncontrolled fires that burned in WTC 7 and those that occurred in the following buildings: First Interstate Bank Building (1988), One Meridian Plaza Building (1981), One New York Plaza (1970), and WTC 5 (2001).”
And even in their report, they state that:
“NIST therefore concluded that the fires in First Interstate Bank and One Meridian Plaza were at least as severe, and probably more severe, than the fires in WTC 7.” (Page 341)
It should also be pointed out that the characteristics of the fires in other buildings were quite different than the fires in the WTC. In the other building fires listed, the fires produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.
Ultimately, while blaming the fires in WTC 7 on the collapse, NIST claims that the significant difference between Building 7 and other building fires has more to do with the differences in design than the severity of the fires. This is discussed below.
-Different design and construction: East Tower, One Meridian Plaza, One New York Plaza, Mandarin Oriental
Response: Admittedly, these buildings were designed and built quite differently than the Twin Towers and Building 7. However, this does not necessarily mean that they were stronger buildings. In particular, the East Tower and the Mandarin Oriental had the hollowness that the 9/11 Commission deceptively attempted to attribute to the Twin Towers. One of the main differences between the Towers and Building 7 and these other buildings is that many of these buildings had a concrete structure. But again, this does not necessarily mean the buildings were better. As 911research.wtc7.net points out:
•Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of heat. Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the hotspots into the larger structure. As long as the fire does not consume the larger structure, this heat conductivity will keep the temperatures of the frame well below the fire temperatures. The same is not true of steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not a good thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar inside the concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding matrix of concrete. •Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel. This is because concrete has a small percentage of latent moisture, which is converted to steam by heat. Thus, a large fire can gradually erode a concrete structure to the point of collapse, whereas a fire can only threaten a steel-framed structure if it elevates steel temperatures to such an extent that it causes failures.
NIST discusses the differences in design of WTC 7 and other building fires. One of the most crucial differences they claimed was the fact that Building 7 had no shear studs. According to NIST, shear studs would have provided lateral restraint to the girders in WTC 7. In discussing the differences between Building 7 and three other buildings-- the First Interstate Bank, One Meridian Plaza, and the Cardington Test Building-- NIST stated that:
“Non-composite girders in WTC 7 rather than composite girders (presence or absence of shear studs) in the other three buildings.” (Page 341, August 2008)
At first, this argument seems justifiable. The three buildings listed by NIST all had shear studs and none of them collapsed. Building 7 had no shear studs and it did collapse. It sounds like a good correlation. However, in NIST’s Final Report released in November of 2008, this passage was altered. It now states:
“Non-composite girders in WTC 7 rather than composite girders (presence or absence of shear studs) in two of the other three buildings.” (Page 341, November 2008)
So, NIST now admits that one of the three listed buildings also did not have shear studs, but it did not collapse. This greatly decreases the credibility of NIST’s arguments.
But there are even more problems with NIST’s shear stud argument. In 2004-- before NIST had developed a theory around the idea of girder failures-- it stated that shear studs did connect girders to the floor slabs. In its 2004 Interim Report on WTC 7, NIST stated:
“Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 inches in diameter by 5 inches long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders.” (Interim Report on WTC 7, L-6-7)
As this passage points out, many of the core girders in WTC 7 did not have shear studs. But the critical girder NIST claims failed-- the one connecting column 44 to column 79-- was not a core girder. It was in the building’s eastern region. Therefore, according to NIST’s Interim Report, this girder would have been anchored to the floor slab with shear studs. And because NIST stated that the studs were placed from one to two feet apart, and the girder was 45 feet long, there would have been at least 22 shear studs connecting the girder to the floor. However, NIST rewrote this passage for their Final Report, now stating that:
“Most of the beams were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 inches in diameter by 5 inches long, spaced 2 ft on center. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for the girders.” (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, page 15)
It appears, therefore, that NIST, having developed a theory that would seem plausible only if the girders were not connected to the floors with shear studs, simply made those studs vanish. Any significant differences in the design of WTC 7 and other fire engulfed buildings that NIST and Mr. Nobles claim would seem to exist because of NIST’s falsifying of data.
Mr. Nobles offers three arguments for why the Towers were doomed to fail (my comments in red, some links).
The fires were never fought by any means in either building. The task of simply arriving at the floors proved to be too much for first responders to accomplish before the towers had fallen. Perhaps, but given the fact that neither of the Towers burned for even two hours, it is questionable how significant this would have been.
The fires were started over several floors simultaneously. Office buildings are designed to resist a slow-moving fire in one location. Fires were started in the WTC Towers simultaneously over several floors and over immense areas of these floors. And the floors, by the way, were the size of city blocks. Pictures show these fires burning entire lengths of the building in places. While this may have been true for the North Tower, the fires in the South Tower appeared to be going out shortly before its collapse. The fires did not even spread to the other side of the South Tower.
Strong fires tend to spread.
The fires were ignited with jet fuel as an accelerant. A large portion of jet fuel was consumed in the initial fireball on impact, but hundreds of gallons were left to help feed the fires in their first few minutes. In fact, the amount of fuel that remained in the Towers would have fit into a mid size U-Haul truck. The pictures you might have seen of weak or non-existent fires in these buildings were taken in the first few moments, when the fireball had robbed the fires of much oxygen. Again, very few flames were visible in the minutes before the South Tower’s collapse. The heat energy remained, however, and as oxygen returned through the immense holes left by the airplanes, the fires found plenty of jet fuel to reignite and start the massive office fires that resulted. But unfortunately, NIST has no evidence for high temperatures in either building.
World Trade Center 7′s (Alleged) Unrecognized Design Flaw
To show that WTC 7 was also doomed to fail, Mr. Nobles refers to a series of computer simulations NIST did of WTC 7.
Mr. Nobles believes there is no comparison between the WTC and other building fires. This is obviously ridiculous. When one looks at things in perspective, it becomes obvious that the Twin Towers and Building 7 should never have collapsed because of the fires in them.
Stewart Bradley is an artist, documentary journalist, and political activist living in Lancaster Pennsylvania who runs an independent mulit-media studio. Stewart was already investigating covert government operations before 9/11 and since 9/11 has re-dedicated himself to exposing the public misconceptions behind the attack. In 2004 he wrote and produced a 9/11 docudrama titled "The Proof" and has been actively promoting 9/11 research through his website, blogs, videos, and internet debates. More at: http://bradleyinfotainment.com
The MO and possible motives of defenders of the official story is also spoke of and put into a larger historical context. Mentioned is a declassified CIA memo from April 1967 entitled, "Countering Criticism of the Warren Report." which states that one way to achieve this goal is to:
Employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passage to assets. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories.
I misspoke when speaking of the gentleman from the American Physical Society who was involved in the recent paper, he was a reviewer, not an author. Related Info:
This initiative is formed around a petition asking President Obama "to authorize a new, truly independent, investigation to determine what happened on 9/11."
Independent researchers from these professions have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that the official investigations have been cover-up operations.
Senator Yukihisa Fujita explains the new initiative: "Thus far there has been no response from political leaders in Washington or in other capitals around the world. Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth has been formed to encourage such a response."
The organization is being launched with 20 charter members, including a former US governor, a former US senator, former US representatives, and former and present members of the British, German, Japanese, Norwegian, and European parliaments.
Charter member Robert Bowman, former head of the "Star Wars" program, explains the continuing relevance of the issue: "The 9/11 Tragedy has been used as the excuse for two deadly wars of aggression, for taking away our rights, and for committing war crimes that have undermined America’s reputation. Only by exposing the truth about 9/11 can we end this madness."
Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth invites other people who hold, or have held, a political office---whether elected or appointed, whether municipal, state, provincial, national, or international--- to sign the petition at pl911truth.com.
Senator Johnson sums it up: "The organization believes that the truth about 9/11 needs to be exposed now---not in 50 years as a footnote in the history books---so the policies that have been based on the Bush-Cheney administration’s interpretation of the 9/11 attacks can be changed."
"They don't investigate themselves in this country - it would be a whitewash, it would be like the Kennedy thing, it would be like everything."
While this statement may turn out to be true, it doesn't have to be a self-fulfilling prophecy either. This brings me to another thing I often hear from people on the other side of this issue, it usually goes something like this...
"There is no way they could get away with such a thing, it's just too big, blah, blah, blah, etc. etc."...
So, let's do an equation...
Cynicism = apathy, (This isn't always the case, but there is another old adage about cynicism breeding apathy, so I rest my case.) and cognitive dissonance = denial, which in the end is the same sum total of apathy, nothing changing! So, cynicism + cognitive dissonance = status quo.
So, I suggest to you that if there was government complicity in 9/11, rogue, or otherwise, they did a similar equation to this and knew that no matter what you thought, their bases were covered. Throw in the 4th branch of the government, AKA the media, and the only thing that could make them lose any sleep is old Jiminy Cricket, but they would have killed that little green bastard years ago!
Now consider this, if you asked a cynic about this issue whether they thought that a letter to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller would yield any positive results, what would they tell you? I'm guessing the common consensus would be that such a letter would result in a form letter response. I must admit, I can't say I'd be much more hopeful myself, but true cynicism would never allow the letter to be sent in the first place.
So, ask yourself, why didn't Michael J. Heimbach send a form letter back in response? Well, I may be going out on a limb here, but I think it just might be that "Mr. Gage presents an interesting theory, backed by thorough research and analysis!"Of course the "debunkers" disagee, they think that "Gage really is no different from David Ray Griffin, a popularizer of other people's "work" who contributes little (beyond that "AIA" after his name)".
I'm actually gonna have to go with the FBI on this one.
So, in conclusion, don't give into cynicism, use the resources below and get involved!
Obama as president is a good sign, and is a good thing, as far as progress from racism goes. For those racist dinosaurs that still roam America, this is a clear message that their ideas are no longer mainstream in the slightest, judging a man or woman by the color of his/her skin is extremely ignorant, and the mindset is gratefully being evolved out of human consciousness. That being said, I'm afraid this is not as "historic" a moment for "change" as the media has been portraying it.
Remember the Constitution? Remember our RIGHTS that were taken away by the Patriot Act and similar legislation?! Remember that over a million civilians have died (and are still being killed) in occupations based on complete lies?! Remember that the official 9/11 story doesn't hold up to science or common sense? Remember that the past two elections were clearly rigged, and that corporations control the election process? Why did the corporate media completely ignore Green Party Candidate Cynthia Mckinney, who along with Congressman Dennis Kucinich and others, were talking about 9/11 Truth, The Federal Reserve, and Election Truth? Is Obama winning really a "miracle"? Or is it just the move needed by the people that really run the show, to get the support they need for their"esoteric"agenda (i.e. more centralized power, less personal freedom)?
Maybe I'm wrong, but if there's another act of "terror", as Biden, Powell, Brzezinski, Albright and the Pentagon have"guaranteed"there will be, who better then the messianic Obama to talk the People into going along with a police state agenda? If you got Obama fever, I'm not trying to bring you down. McCain/Palin symbolized the ignorant minority that we need to leave behind. I'm trying to point out that a black president is great, but Constitutional Rights are greater. A black president is great, but the end of imperial occupations and "terrorist" acts based on lies is greater. A black president is great, but the end of the Federal Reserve and our central bank debt-based economy is greater. Lets get real people, anyone who isn't a moron isn't racist. Can we move on to the 21st century now? -------->http://progressivemanifesto.us
We need to focus on whats really important, and has always been whats most important: Truth, Peace, Freedom and Rights. Naomi Wolf's books "The End of America" & "Give Me Liberty" should be on every patriots bookshelf, if you haven't read them yet, I highly recommend you do so.
This is a transparent game their playing, despite what the corporate media presents to us as reality. The"Problem, Reaction, Solution"strategy of tyrants/fascists is something all Americans should be familiar with thanks to the 9/11 Truth Movement. We now have the Nazi inspired Dept. of Homeland Security, suppressing dissent throughout the nation (violating countless citizen's rights) while urging us to "be ready" (ready.gov) and to "prepare" for upcoming emergencies. And guess what the “solution” will be, just as it always has been throughout history? More centralized power, less personal freedoms. We must always consider "Who benefits"? Freedom must stay at the forefront of American consciousness as what is always most important.
'Those who would sacrifice freedomfor security deserve neither' - Benjamin Franklin.
And what is currently restricting our freedom above all else in America? Debt. This financial crisis is not caused simply by greed and uniformed consumers, as has become the Media's suggestion, it was manufactured, just like many previous financial emergencies of the past. See part 3 ofzeitgeistmovie.comfor a good overview of the Central Banking/Federal Reserve System and how it creates market crashes to further consolidate wealth and power in fewer hands. There are other excellent books and documentaries on the Federal Reserve listed on the "Sources" section of the website (and elsewhere) worth seeing, but that's basically the crux of it, and that's what Benjamin Franklin said was the main cause of the Revolution: the colonist's desire to disconnect from the Central Bank of England and the dependence and exploitation they caused. Unfortunately Americans forgot about that by 1913 and were duped into thinking the Fed would prevent a future financial crisis, but of course that was not the case. The Corporate Media has been talking a lot about the Fed in recent months, about how they are doing all they can to keep the economy afloat, by “bailing out” huge financial institutions. This is simply "Cover My Ass" maneuvering by the Fed (and corporate theft of our tax dollars), so that the current crisis, which may get worse, will not appear (to those uniformed) to be the fault of the Central/International banks behind it all along.
So along with continued financial tyranny, what else should we "be ready" for? I suggest you read some of these “Executive Orders” that support various dictatorial powers and FEMA police-state powers (mass illegal detentions of citizens, etc.), in the event of a “National Emergency”:http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm
Among the many "Anti-Terror" laws (Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, etc.) that were passed with little to no attention by the corporate media, were details such as allowing martial law and the suspension of elections altogether if another attack or major crisis emerges. You see, rigging them like they did in 2000 and 04 is much more difficult due to the strong activism that has occurred based on the vast amount of documented evidence showing how they did it, so now they wouldn't even bother with that, they'll just cancel the election, and institute martial law. We may be one step away from that now.
What will that step be? Here are possibilities:
1) Complete collapse of US Dollar followed by the "solution" of a North American Union and the Amero currency. 2) Avian Flu outbreak (state-sponsored). 3) Another "terrorist" attack, possibly blamed on Iran, N. Korea, or their old CIA standby “Al Queda”. (Illegal arrests and detention of activists, etc. who will be labeled “enemy combatants” is also likely in this scenario.)
There is a lot of evidence to suggest all of these are possible, and even likely, due to the amount of preparation that has already been done by the neo-con/fascists to carry out each of them. (Look into each are you not familiar with that evidence.) The reason why none of it is really far-fetched is because it has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt that 9/11 was an inside job, and therefore something similar happening while the same perpetrators are in power is actually probable. It's important for the public to be aware of these possibilities, so that if one actually occurs, they wont be fooled again.
If there is another trauma inducing event, please don't buy the line they feed you through their 4th Branch (aka the Media), like you may have bought the 9/11 Fairy Tale. Don't allow your Rights (and democracy) to be ignored in the name of their latest deception.
Over 1 million Iraqi and Afghani civilians (a fact the corporate media ignores), and thousands of our troops, have already been killed on an operation based on lies. The only thing that can probably stop their insane imperial/police-state agenda, bring our troops home and get our Rights back, is the same thing I and many others have been saying for years now:Impeachment(They're still in the White House people! We must have accountability for war crimes and abuse of power!) & expose the 9/11 Lie which is the foundation of their entire agenda, through quality sources of information, like these:
a) Books: 1."The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions", “Debunking 9/11 Debunking”, and "9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press", all by David Ray Griffin 2.“The Terror Timeline” by Paul Thompson 3.“Crossing the Rubicon” by Michael Ruppert 4.“The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism” by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed b) Documentaries: 1."9/11 Press For Truth" (http://www.911pressfortruth.com), 2."9/11 Mysteries" (http://www.911mysteries.com) 3."Martial Law: 9/11 and the Rise of the PoliceState" (http://www.martiallaw911.info) c) Groups: 1.Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice:http://stj911.org 2.Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth:http://www.ae911truth.org
It's an old game people and it's as simple as this: There have been a few that have always sought increased wealth and power no matter what harm that causes, and there have also always been the many that know there is much more to life than that and have no desire to harm anyone. The battle between good and evil, I'm sure you've heard of it. It's time to stop buying the lies of mass murderers and "strike at the root of evil" as Thoreau said, and in this time and this place, that means exposing the official 9/11 conspiracy theory for what is: pure bullshit.
