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

29 Engineers Say Only Explosives Can Explain WTC Collapse

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.

29 Engineers Say Only Explosives Can Explain WTC Collapse

Postby Scepcop » 23 Aug 2009, 13:33

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20429

Full paper:

http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_ ... -06-17.pdf

Abstract:

29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11

More than 700 architects and engineers have joined call for new investigation.

For Some, the Doubts Began Early

“Something is wrong with this picture,” thought Nathan Lomba, as he watched replays of the Twin Tower collapses on television on September 11, 2001. A licensed structural engineer trained in buildings’ responses to stress, Lomba saw more on the screen than you or I. He puzzled, “How did the structures collapse in near-symmetrical fashion when the damage was clearly not symmetrical?”

Lomba was hardly alone in his discomfort. Most structural engineers were surprised when the towers fell. They mainly kept their misgivings to themselves, though, as Scientific American and the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, BBC, the History Channel and government agencies such as FEMA and NIST offered varying and often imaginative theories to explain how fires brought the towers down.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: 29 Engineers Say Only Explosives Can Explain WTC Collapse

Postby brett » 23 Aug 2009, 14:35

i think most people at the time accepted the "official" explanation ** - later there was a documentary aired in the UK called ( if i remember correctly ) "why buildings collapse " - focusing on the supposed reason for the towers collapsing - which at the time - sounded credible , but having now seen the 2 hour presentation and subsequent evidence - this was obviously all part of what is an orchestrated misinformation exercise to justify military action in iraq et al , and justify the so called "war on terror "

in fact i am NOW beginning to wonder about the subsequent events in London ( bus bombings etc ) - as IF governments can drop buildings killing thousands ............ well go figure :? - in fact i am beginning to wonder about a lot of things - like was the FIRST attack some years previously on the WTC a "test run " to gather data ??? - and just how long this whole thing was in the planning ?? and like wise other attacks on US buildings round the world - terrorists or tests for the "big event " ?? - these questions have to now be asked -IMO

call me paranoid if you want , but as someone once observed " if you think you are paranoid - then you are NOT paranoid enough " :?

** lets be fair the comprehension that a government or sections of it could do this to their own - was at the time, well , incomprehensible :shock:

edit later : - ah this is the one :http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecenter.shtml - must have been subtiteled what i said - or was that a seprate program ?? - memory fades with time - intresting to note if you visit the link the disclaimer on the top that they are "no longer updating this page " - i wonder why ?? :?
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

Re: 29 Engineers Say Only Explosives Can Explain WTC Collapse

Postby Scepcop » 25 Aug 2009, 03:07

Did you know that the London Bombing of 7/7 had something interesting in common with 9/11? In both events, simulated drills of the actual event were going on at the SAME TIME that the event occurred. I learned about this from a news clip shown on the Zeitgeist Movie.

Have a look at these for more info about that.

http://www.infowars.net/articles/april2 ... 9Power.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEhK_wn4W9A

Description:

Thanks to PerthCitizensTruth-----Clip from ITV News in the UK on the 7th of July 2005, the day the London Bombings occurred. Peter Power who works for Visor Consultants was involved in running a drill for an ANONYMOUS contractor. The drill involved terrorist attacks on the exact same bus and train stations, at the exact same time the attacks of 7/7 occurred. Coincidence, I guess....everything is wonderful, life is rosy....let's go back to sleep folks, nothing to see here....


According to Ted Gunderson, former FBI chief, the 1993 WTC bombing was orchestrated by rogue FBI agents, and so was the Oklahoma City Bombing. He has come out publicly with this after retiring from the FBI. So who knows?

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

Why did you reference that BBC page? It doesn't contain anything other than the official story.

There is also another film on YouTube called "Improbable Collapse" that's really good and features many clips from lectures by David Ray Griffin. It's also very scientific. Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nVEQuWpaCE

To ProfWag:

BTW, I'm watching "9/11 Blueprint for Truth" again, the best presentation on controlled demolition of the WTC, and I forgot to mention something. In it, Richard Gage uses your beloved "scientific method" to demonstrate that the controlled demolition hypothesis is the BEST one that fits ALL the data, whereas the fire induced hypothesis doesn't. So please, WATCH IT! It's two hours of him using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which YOU worship!

Here is the link to see it again:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... +for+truth
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: 29 Engineers Say Only Explosives Can Explain WTC Collapse

Postby Scepcop » 25 Aug 2009, 03:23

Brett,
BTW, have you seen the Zeitgeist Movie yet and its sequel? It is one of those films that inspires and awakens you to the big picture. Grab some popcorn and drink and watch it, and let me know what you think. It courageously exposes many lies, and in the middle of the film, a lot of the major 9/11 conspiracy arguments are run through in a very convincing manner. At the end, there is a beautiful spiritual message. I love this film and have seen it many times.

Here is the link to the first film.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7743189197

Here is the link to Zeitgeist Addendum, the second film, which leaves you with a beautiful vision of the future, very soul inspiring. You will thank me for it, guaranteed :)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7695921912
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: 29 Engineers Say Only Explosives Can Explain WTC Collapse

Postby ProfWag » 26 Aug 2009, 05:50

Scepcop wrote:
To ProfWag:

BTW, I'm watching "9/11 Blueprint for Truth" again, the best presentation on controlled demolition of the WTC, and I forgot to mention something. In it, Richard Gage uses your beloved "scientific method" to demonstrate that the controlled demolition hypothesis is the BEST one that fits ALL the data, whereas the fire induced hypothesis doesn't. So please, WATCH IT! It's two hours of him using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which YOU worship!


Ladies and Gentlemen! Children of all ages! I now present to you-- Richard Gage and his scientific method of demonstrating controlled demolitions!

http://911guide.googlepages.com/Gagebox ... ;init:.jpg

(BTW, this is only a picture, not a lengthy video to sleep with, but yes, that really is a Richard Gage and yes, that is his model of one of the Twin Towers, but sadly, I don't think it is the same model used in the aforementioned film)
ProfWag
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 29 Engineers Say Only Explosives Can Explain WTC Collapse

Postby ciscop » 26 Aug 2009, 05:54

Image
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: 29 Engineers Say Only Explosives Can Explain WTC Collapse

Postby ProfWag » 26 Aug 2009, 06:00

(I thought that was pretty good if I do say so myself... ) :-)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 29 Engineers Say Only Explosives Can Explain WTC Collapse

Postby Scepcop » 26 Aug 2009, 08:47

ProfWag wrote:
Scepcop wrote:
To ProfWag:

BTW, I'm watching "9/11 Blueprint for Truth" again, the best presentation on controlled demolition of the WTC, and I forgot to mention something. In it, Richard Gage uses your beloved "scientific method" to demonstrate that the controlled demolition hypothesis is the BEST one that fits ALL the data, whereas the fire induced hypothesis doesn't. So please, WATCH IT! It's two hours of him using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which YOU worship!


Ladies and Gentlemen! Children of all ages! I now present to you-- Richard Gage and his scientific method of demonstrating controlled demolitions!

http://911guide.googlepages.com/Gagebox ... ;init:.jpg

(BTW, this is only a picture, not a lengthy video to sleep with, but yes, that really is a Richard Gage and yes, that is his model of one of the Twin Towers, but sadly, I don't think it is the same model used in the aforementioned film)
ProfWag


The picture you refer to is from his debate with Mark Roberts on Hardfire, which you can watch on Google Video. He won that debate by the way. Mark Roberts was considered the "Obi Wan Kenobi of debate" by the host of Hardfire, but he lost cause the facts were not on his side, so he had to resort to ad hominem attacks.

Anyhow, Mr. Gage was demonstrating a simple concept there about zero resistance to a structure falling. He did the same demo on the "9/11 Blueprint for Truth" film.

Now stop joking around and watch it!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... +for+truth
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: 29 Engineers Say Only Explosives Can Explain WTC Collapse

Postby Nostradamus » 26 Aug 2009, 11:04

simulated drills of the actual event were going on at the SAME TIME that the event occurred. I learned about this from a news clip shown on the Zeitgeist Movie.


That's a false claim. Drills were run the day before the 9/11 attacks. Drills were not being run at the same time. Hundreds of drills are run during any given year. All sorts of drills are run in our area from plane crashes to car crashes to train crashes to fires int he taller buildings.

Close to the same time? Absolutely, within a day. At the same time? No.

I'd be stunned if there had no been a drill close to the time of the attacks. I'd be asking "Why weren't you preparing for a disaster?"

Sorry but Richard Gage is a fraud.

He won that debate by the way. Mark Roberts was considered the "Obi Wan Kenobi of debate" by the host of Hardfire, but he lost cause the facts were not on his side, so he had to resort to ad hominem attacks.


I watched that debate and Richard Gage was very poor because all of his claims were quickly squashed by a guy who makes it clear he is a tour guide, obviously a really smart one. He won the debate hands down because he showed Gage to misrepresent even basic facts.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: 29 Engineers Say Only Explosives Can Explain WTC Collapse

Postby Scepcop » 26 Aug 2009, 15:49

Nostradamus wrote:
simulated drills of the actual event were going on at the SAME TIME that the event occurred. I learned about this from a news clip shown on the Zeitgeist Movie.


That's a false claim. Drills were run the day before the 9/11 attacks. Drills were not being run at the same time. Hundreds of drills are run during any given year. All sorts of drills are run in our area from plane crashes to car crashes to train crashes to fires int he taller buildings.

Close to the same time? Absolutely, within a day. At the same time? No.

I'd be stunned if there had no been a drill close to the time of the attacks. I'd be asking "Why weren't you preparing for a disaster?"

Sorry but Richard Gage is a fraud.

He won that debate by the way. Mark Roberts was considered the "Obi Wan Kenobi of debate" by the host of Hardfire, but he lost cause the facts were not on his side, so he had to resort to ad hominem attacks.


I watched that debate and Richard Gage was very poor because all of his claims were quickly squashed by a guy who makes it clear he is a tour guide, obviously a really smart one. He won the debate hands down because he showed Gage to misrepresent even basic facts.


They were conducting war game exercises at the same time 9/11 happened, simulating hijacked planes. That's why they were too slow to respond, cause they were confused. It's on video and audio. Man, you are not well read. Look it up. Don't ask me to spoon feed you all the facts.

I gave you the link above to the video from the news where they said they were doing subway bombing drills at the SAME TIME that the London bombing happened. Did you see it?

Why is Richard Gage a fraud? 786 architects and engineers do not endorse frauds. Get real. You have no common sense. You don't care about facts or evidence. You just BS and deny and put your own conjecture above the facts.

Look in the google commentary. Most people believe that Gage won that debate. You are in a minority, but then again all you have are words, not facts. Gage had facts, Mark Roberts just denied and argued. He didn't have anything going for his side.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: 29 Engineers Say Only Explosives Can Explain WTC Collapse

Postby ProfWag » 26 Aug 2009, 22:15

Scepcop wrote:The picture you refer to is from his debate with Mark Roberts on Hardfire, which you can watch on Google Video. He won that debate by the way. Mark Roberts was considered the "Obi Wan Kenobi of debate" by the host of Hardfire, but he lost cause the facts were not on his side, so he had to resort to ad hominem attacks.

Anyhow, Mr. Gage was demonstrating a simple concept there about zero resistance to a structure falling. He did the same demo on the "9/11 Blueprint for Truth" film.

Now stop joking around and watch it!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... +for+truth

Oh for chrissake Winston, lighten up a little. You gotta admit that picture was funny...
But, since you mention it, from what I saw he was clearly out-debated.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54


Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest