View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Richard Gage and the AIA

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby ProfWag » 06 Oct 2012, 23:39

SydneyPSIder wrote:There's quite a few high rise architects on Richard Gage's doco material who question it, yes. You would have to view the material to consider what they're saying, something any self-respecing PS artist would be loathe to do, of course.

There is? Great! Then you should have no trouble naming one of them to support your statement...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby Misha » 07 Oct 2012, 05:36

Misha wrote:SydneyPSIder wrote:
There's a difference between believing a collapse was unlikely on the physics and being too shit-scared to rock the boat in case they come after you next, and believing the official story. Architects have to work for a living too, and their next customer could be some compromised mob-run outfit, who knows. We don't know what the majority of architects think, because we haven't asked them.


In my humblest opinion this hits the very crux of what I call the "invisible electrified fence." Unfortunately at this moment I have to head to work and cannot post something which might shed a little light on this social phenomena. Perhaps tomorrow, I would like to quote an example which illustrates exactly what SydneyPSIder has generally pointed out. The passage is in Valerie Plame's book - "Fair Game."

My apologies for the teaser.


Now that I have a little time I thought I would try and find a couple of examples that best illustrate what SydneyPSIder recognizes and what I call the "invisible electrified fence." It is this fence which I believe keeps honest individuals from coming forward for fear of retribution:

From the book - "Fair Game" by Valerie Plame. Page 195 and 196:

In the new Orwellian world that we inhabited, however, Joe's experience, his good standing throughout the African community, and his commendations from George H. W. Bush had little currency. Over the course of 2004, Joe's domestic and international clients left one by one, uncomfortable with his notoriety. His enemies learned who some of his clients were and publicized their names in their right-wing blogs, bringing them unwanted attention. New business dwindled to nothing. A nonpartisan Washington think tank that dealt with Middle Eastern policy did not renew Joe's unpaid position as an "adjunct scholar"---implying that a connection with Joe wouldn't be good for fundraising. At one point, a close business partner of Joe's was contacted by a powerful Republican operative and told in no uncertain terms that his continued association with Joe might cost him a valuable international contract. Fortunately, he was not intimidated by these Mafia-style tactics and responded with strong profanity. A longtime friend who ran an international consulting firm listed Joe on her Web site as a senior adviser. During a meeting with a potential client who happened to be a Republican with ties to the administration, she was questioned closely and skeptically about Joe and his involvement in her business. Joes's speaking engagements, upon which we had begun to rely more heavily for family income, all but dried up. Republican benefactors threatened to withdraw their support for universities if Joe were permitted to speak on campus. The few places that asked for Joe wanted him to speak for free, usually giving him a coffee mug or a plaque as a thank-you. The concerted attacks ultimately began to affect the sales of Joe's book.


Another example of the "invisible electrified fence," albeit the Fourth Estate and Power. Same book, page. 285:

Various reporters who took the stand exposed an ugly detail; the symbiotic relationship between the Washington press corps and the administration. Each feeds off the other to advance its particular agenda. The media relies heavily on access to unnamed "senior administration officials" to break, build, and corroborate stories, and the administration manipulates the media to promote its point of view. If reporters want to enjoy continued access to top White House decision makers, they have to toe the line.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby SydneyPSIder » 07 Oct 2012, 06:10

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:There's quite a few high rise architects on Richard Gage's doco material who question it, yes. You would have to view the material to consider what they're saying, something any self-respecing PS artist would be loathe to do, of course.

There is? Great! Then you should have no trouble naming one of them to support your statement...

OK, I spent 5 seconds on what you are supposed to do, you lazy duplicitious waste of space -- try 'Stephen Barasch'. Typical PS artist lack of interest in research or looking for evidence -- or just outright bloody-minded obstruction.



There are a number of structural engineers also in the main AE911 movement who are eminently qualified to comment on steel structures:



ProfWag's laziness noted and baiting tactics duly reported to site admin.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 07 Oct 2012, 06:37, edited 5 times in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby Arouet » 07 Oct 2012, 06:26

Post reported. Sydney - if you get banned please note that it would not be because you bring contrary views - Winston probably agrees with you. It's that you are rude and insulting. Most of your posts simply approach the line but this one really crossed it. I actually hope you don't get banned, since you've woken up the forum and I think there is some good discussion to be had (I still want to come back to the vaccine issue, hope to have time this week) but if you continue like this you will be gone soon. No one wants to have discusses and take abuse like that.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby SydneyPSIder » 07 Oct 2012, 06:31

Arouet wrote:Post reported. Sydney - if you get banned please note that it would not be because you bring contrary views - Winston probably agrees with you. It's that you are rude and insulting. Most of your posts simply approach the line but this one really crossed it. I actually hope you don't get banned, since you've woken up the forum and I think there is some good discussion to be had (I still want to come back to the vaccine issue, hope to have time this week) but if you continue like this you will be gone soon. No one wants to have discusses and take abuse like that.

No, the baiting and windups and laziness are what cross the line. Edited to take out my original views of the laziness of the trolls here, and to amend the youtube link which took 5 seconds to find. I know you trolls will try to drive off new members who have something to say and thus neutralise the forum, but I'm not buying it. I'm an admin on another forum, and we send trolls like you packing every day, and I hope Winston wakes up soon and does the same.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby NinjaPuppy » 07 Oct 2012, 06:35

OK boys, problem noted. I'll be in touch via PM shortly.

Until then, EVERYBODY OUT OF THE POOL. I will be locking this topic until further notice. If this trickles over to any other area of this forum, then there will be an immediate 3 day "time out" for whoever starts it.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby NinjaPuppy » 07 Oct 2012, 21:05

Thank you gentlemen, I do believe that we have cleared up the murky water to a satisfactory level. Feel free to jump back in the pool. The topic is unlocked.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby ProfWag » 07 Oct 2012, 21:33

Then I'm diving in head first.
Steven Barasch claims to be an architect who designs high rises and he states that buildings over 50 feet are high rises. That's 5 stories. He claims to have built a building that was 100 feet. That's 10 stories. High rises are actually genenrally considered by architects to be between 12-40 stories and above 40 are skyscrapers.
He has also claimed to have helped design the TransAmerica Building in San Francisco which is a high rise. The only problem with that is the building was built between 1969 and 1972 and the referenced author didn't even graduate college until 1971.
Sydney, I did do my research before posting and I was previously aware that Mr. Barasch lays claim to being a high rise architect (in fact, I actually anticipated that he would be your reference if you actually posted one). However, his credentials when looked at a little more closely, don't stand up to scrutiny. As such, I will continue to stick by my orignal statement and will continue to wait for a reference from someone who has the credentials for a building similar to the WTCs construction.
Ninja, thanks for re-opening the thread so I could comment on the substance of Sydney's statement. The name calling speaks for itself...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby NinjaPuppy » 07 Oct 2012, 21:42

ProfWag wrote:Then I'm diving in head first.

Don't hit your head.

ProfWag wrote:Ninja, thanks for re-opening the thread so I could comment on the substance of Sydney's statement. The name calling speaks for itself...

Can we not keep bringing up the past problem and enjoy the contents of your findings so as not to "go there" again???? Please??????
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby ProfWag » 07 Oct 2012, 22:07

NinjaPuppy wrote:Can we not keep bringing up the past problem and enjoy the contents of your findings so as not to "go there" again???? Please??????


yes ma'am. sorry. :oops:
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby NinjaPuppy » 07 Oct 2012, 22:15

ProfWag wrote:Sydney, I did do my research before posting and I was previously aware that Mr. Barasch lays claim to being a high rise architect (in fact, I actually anticipated that he would be your reference if you actually posted one).

Now see, you can read minds. ;)

ProfWag wrote:However, his credentials when looked at a little more closely, don't stand up to scrutiny. As such, I will continue to stick by my orignal statement and will continue to wait for a reference from someone who has the credentials for a building similar to the WTCs construction.

Care to share with us why his credentials don't stand up to scrutiny? I think I know why but I'll let you tell us.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby ProfWag » 07 Oct 2012, 22:56

NinjaPuppy wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Sydney, I did do my research before posting and I was previously aware that Mr. Barasch lays claim to being a high rise architect (in fact, I actually anticipated that he would be your reference if you actually posted one).

Now see, you can read minds. ;)

ProfWag wrote:However, his credentials when looked at a little more closely, don't stand up to scrutiny. As such, I will continue to stick by my orignal statement and will continue to wait for a reference from someone who has the credentials for a building similar to the WTCs construction.

Care to share with us why his credentials don't stand up to scrutiny? I think I know why but I'll let you tell us.

Off the cuff, I'd say his exageration of the TransAmerica Building for one. The other being that he claims to be a high-rise expert when a 100' building is the tallest he's designed (if he actually did that). The WTC's were 10 times that height so I would not consider him an expert in WTC type buildings. The WTCs were built with a tube-frame design that is used primarily in buildings that are 40+ stories in height.
Perhaps I wasn't clear in my original request for an A&E supporter who was an expert in high-rises, so I guess I'll retract my statement and resubmit this: I would like to know of an A&E supporter who is an expert in tube-frame designed buildings that are over 40+ stories in height. I guess I had thought originally that my comment and point was clear, but perhaps it wasn't...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby NinjaPuppy » 08 Oct 2012, 02:14

ProfWag wrote:Off the cuff, I'd say his exageration of the TransAmerica Building for one. The other being that he claims to be a high-rise expert when a 100' building is the tallest he's designed (if he actually did that). The WTC's were 10 times that height so I would not consider him an expert in WTC type buildings. The WTCs were built with a tube-frame design that is used primarily in buildings that are 40+ stories in height.
Perhaps I wasn't clear in my original request for an A&E supporter who was an expert in high-rises, so I guess I'll retract my statement and resubmit this: I would like to know of an A&E supporter who is an expert in tube-frame designed buildings that are over 40+ stories in height. I guess I had thought originally that my comment and point was clear, but perhaps it wasn't...

So then we need to find someone who worked on a skyscraper built after 1972 that is of the same tube-frame design. May I ask why you don't feel that other architects are qualified to sign that petition? Or am I totally off track with that question?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby SydneyPSIder » 08 Oct 2012, 06:20

ProfWag wrote:Then I'm diving in head first.
Steven Barasch claims to be an architect who designs high rises and he states that buildings over 50 feet are high rises. That's 5 stories. He claims to have built a building that was 100 feet. That's 10 stories. High rises are actually genenrally considered by architects to be between 12-40 stories and above 40 are skyscrapers.
He has also claimed to have helped design the TransAmerica Building in San Francisco which is a high rise. The only problem with that is the building was built between 1969 and 1972 and the referenced author didn't even graduate college until 1971.
Sydney, I did do my research before posting and I was previously aware that Mr. Barasch lays claim to being a high rise architect (in fact, I actually anticipated that he would be your reference if you actually posted one). However, his credentials when looked at a little more closely, don't stand up to scrutiny. As such, I will continue to stick by my orignal statement and will continue to wait for a reference from someone who has the credentials for a building similar to the WTCs construction.
Ninja, thanks for re-opening the thread so I could comment on the substance of Sydney's statement. The name calling speaks for itself...

The irony of ProfWag's supposed 'argument' is that when it comes to structural and civil engineering, the 'architects' don't even really matter -- this entire argument of ProfWag's is a red herring. While architects have an appreciation of civil engineering requirements, they are notoriously weak on the numbers and strong on design and aesthetics. They delegate working out all the difficult stressing stuff to the engineers -- who are usually pretty hopeless at aesthetics and design -- to realise their designs and hence the two have to work together. Far, far more important to the AE911 group are the large number of civil and structural engineers in the group all saying the same thing, and also the chemical engineers and metallurgists who have examined the small amount of evidence that was not cleared and destroyed prematurely by the US authorities. e.g. evidence of cuts in beams in photos, microspheres of iron, molten steel, girders with sharpened edges and blowholes, evidence of explosive activity, and so on. So I would recommend ProfWag go back AGAIN to the AE911 docos and information and consider what the civil and structural and chemical engineers are saying, not the 'architects'.

Apart from the many severe real world skyscraper fires and impacts that have occurred that have never resulted in a controlled demolition-style collapse in history, here's some 'laboratory' studies performed in the 1990s, luckily predating 2001, showing why steel framed buildings don't fall down:

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/projec ... fault2.htm

No fallee downee.

These observations emphasised the fact that steel frameworks exhibit a significantly greater fire resistance than their individual steel elements. This work completed the experimental programme of the joint BSC/DoE contract concerned with the structural stability of steel frames in natural fires.


I would, of course, be highly mistrustful of any supposed 'engineering' studies emanating from the US since 2001 examining collapse of steel framed buildings in fire -- much as some geologists unfortunately hypothesised chunks of an early moon mass must have made up the land mass of WA because the same rock types were found there, rather than the US nicking rock samples from WA in 1968 and pretending they were returned from the moon. Shows how US deceptions can corrupt ensuing attempts at doing science.

For someone who avowedly doesn't believe in psychic phemonena, ProfWag seems to rely extremely heavily on telepathy in constructing his posts????

Further, ProfWag claims:

ProfWag wrote:In addition to the AIA, I do know the following organizations also do not support Mr. Gage: CTBUH, RIBA, KBF (NY's largest architectural firm), ASCE, and the SEAoNY. I'm sure there are more...
Note for clarity, the referenced acronyms spelled out:
CTBUH - Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
RIBA - Royal Institute of British Architects
ASCE - American Society of Civil Engineers
SEAoNY - Structural Engineer Association of New York

without providing links or textual evidence, and as another 'appeal to authority' rather than as an appeal to science. I would first of all need to see the text of all these claims, particularly their scientific take on the matter. There is no reason to believe they have not been co-opted by the Bush-Blair authorities from the 9/11 period, of course. But I will wait for the links and references from ProfWag to be produced first to make his case.

ProfWag wrote:High rises are actually genenrally considered by architects to be between 12-40 stories and above 40 are skyscrapers.

That's another fabrication from ProfWharrgarbl. When he's not being psychic he just makes stuff up! And bluntly accuses others of lying. That would be the definition of a hypocrite, I suppose, not a good quality in a genuine scientific researcher engaged in genuine scientific enquiry.

'High rise' is not a technical architectural term but a largely colloquial one. It actually, by definition, refers largely to any building requiring elevators, which by law in most places is anything over about 3 storeys. Hence a 5 or 10 storey building would easily qualify as a 'high rise', and in many regional towns and cities a 5-10 storey building would dominate the skyline. Any building that does not require elevators, i.e. is around 3 storeys or under, would qualify, colloquially, as 'low rise'.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby ProfWag » 09 Oct 2012, 06:14

NinjaPuppy wrote:So then we need to find someone who worked on a skyscraper built after 1972 that is of the same tube-frame design. May I ask why you don't feel that other architects are qualified to sign that petition? Or am I totally off track with that question?

Not that they aren't qualified to sign that petition. Mr. Gage can allow anyone he wants to sign the petition. What Gage is asking for are people who are specifically architects and engineers. My argument is that unless they know how skyscrapers built with a tube frame design should collapse when hit with an airplane 80 stories up, he could have Mickey Mouse sign the petition and it would have the same impact. Just because one is certified cook doesn't mean they know anything about Thai food.
Technically, Sydney is right in that engineers would be in a better position than architects to understand how the building fell which leaves Gage even more out in the dark on his theories.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest