Another Look at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings that function well and withstand potentially destructive forces. However, the 3 high-rise buildings at the World Trade Center which "collapsed" on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body of evidence (i.e.controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience.

They actually admitted that the collapse of the buildings was out side their scope of expertise!

Not really. You just admitted that their statement was way outside your scope of expertise, with regards to text comprehension.

An object that is in motion will not change its velocity unless a force acts upon it.

That's what they meant with "clearly outside the scope". The collapse implies the use of a massive counterforce/ explosives. At least if you understand Newtons laws and if you're able to see the change of velocity.

Bummer, innit? Being in my head, I see a very good example of wrong assumptions due to the lack of knowledge. Kinda funny in a shilly way that you used this tiny piece of misunderstanding to discredit your love-hate. Just saying.

highly questionable science

Good thing is, they didn't use fictional evidence in their microstructural analysis of allegedly 'weakened steel due to office-fires'.
What exactly was questionable now? Success due to donations? Did they burn tax dollars like the military budgets did? Care to explain? Where the heck is your example for actual science you found to be questionable?

“We need to be here with the board members of the American Institute of Architects so that they cannot ignore this evidence any longer,” Gage said.

www.architectmagazine.com...

Well, I guess he's wrong. Who on Ceres cares about the truth movement anyway, truthers are conspiracy nuts and there never was a conspiracy in the first place. Never...

a reply to: pteridine

You are certainly entitled, just like Samkent, to belittle Richard Gage. When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Yes, I get it. However, slander only reveals the complete weakness of yours and Sam's chosen position, defending an indefensible lie.

Why on earth should anyone pay attention to your bad-mouthing Richard Gage? It's obvious what's going on.

As for the nuclear theory, it is obvious. Looking at any and all pictures, videos and otherwise from WTC that day, it looks like a nuclear bomb went off. No pun intended.

Radiation sicknesses in those who worked on the pile. Hot spots visible from space. Molten iron in the belly for 3 months.

None of those come from burning office fires, as was just demonstrated in Dubai, again, on New Years Day.

Take off your rose-colored glasses sir--the official story is but a fantasy.

a reply to: Salander

Radiation sicknesses in those who worked on the pile.

So now you are saying that doctors through out the country are hiding radiation sickness cases?
Because I have not heard one sick responder say it was due to radiation.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

You are certainly entitled, just like Samkent, to belittle Richard Gage. When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Yes, I get it. However, slander only reveals the complete weakness of yours and Sam's chosen position, defending an indefensible lie.

Why on earth should anyone pay attention to your bad-mouthing Richard Gage? It's obvious what's going on.

As for the nuclear theory, it is obvious. Looking at any and all pictures, videos and otherwise from WTC that day, it looks like a nuclear bomb went off. No pun intended.

Radiation sicknesses in those who worked on the pile. Hot spots visible from space. Molten iron in the belly for 3 months.

None of those come from burning office fires, as was just demonstrated in Dubai, again, on New Years Day.

Take off your rose-colored glasses sir--the official story is but a fantasy.

Richard Gage destroyed any credibility he had long ago. He is not taken seriously by anyone but his fan boys.

ANY sort of demolition capable of destroying the columns would have been obvious. Given your bent for conspiracy theories, why would a government with access to nuclear explosives take the risk of being discovered? Wouldn't they use conventional explosives so they could shift the blame. Why would a nuclear explosion keep things thermally hot for three months? Consider that the only way that would happen is with continual thermal input, i.e., underground fires. Can you show any evidence of radiation sickness among anyone near the site?

Do try to have consistent conspiracy theories.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Salander

Radiation sicknesses in those who worked on the pile.

So now you are saying that doctors through out the country are hiding radiation sickness cases?
Because I have not heard one sick responder say it was due to radiation.

No sir, I am not saying doctors through out the country are hiding anything at all, much less radiation sickness causes. You said that, not I. Your absurd statement there reveals how desperate your situation is, making up absurd statements and attributing them to me.

That said, the sicknesses present in that group of people who worked on the "pile" are very similar in type and incidence to the sicknesses displayed by the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Chernobyl. Those sicknesses are partially addressed by the Zadroga Bill, which Jon Stewart advocated for last year.

Office fires cannot blow huge pieces laterally for hundreds of feet. Office fires cannot cause the strangely burned vehicles on the street. Office fires cannot generate enough heat to leave molten iron for 3 months. Think Nuclear Meltdown.

The story you defend is a fraud, concocted by crooks and war profiteers.

a reply to: Salander

cannot generate enough heat to leave molten iron for 3 months. Think Nuclear Meltdown.

So now some one put a nuclear reactor in the towers ?
I thought you said a nuclear bomb ?

Office fires cannot blow huge pieces laterally for hundreds of feet.

Or did you mean the nuclear bomb was hustled up stairs to the impact points while some one in the basement set the reactor to overload ?
You are not being clear about your beliefs.
Please tell us what was placed where to achieve the results seen.

a reply to: samkent

Sam, I was not part of the planning or execution of what happened there, so I cannot really answer your questions.

I can speculate if you would like.

I suspect that several nuclear devices were employed. Modern devices, sort of "nano" if you know what I mean. As they were called back when I was in the service, "tactical" nuclear devices. As opposed to "strategic" nuclear devices.

a reply to: Salander

I suspect that several nuclear devices were employed. Modern devices, sort of "nano" if you know what I mean.

And no radiation.
Yea sure.

And no loud booms.
Ok yep.

It's theories like yours that brand all conspiracy believers.

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I wonder how many pro-OS'ers profit from material they publish and/or monetary donations they receive?

Their money comes from alphabet agencies under the table.
Nat Geo, Pop Mech, Pop Sci, History channel, Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow
Sean Hannity even good ol Agent Moyers at PBS.

The good news:
They've made their bed and are on record.
ALL investigations whether Press For Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth and AIA
have mountains of anomalies. Sleep well OS.

a reply to: samkent

There was radiation Sam, that's the point. Radiation made all those people sick. They had all the symptoms of those exposed to radiation.

There were explosions Sam. One can pretend there were none, but one would have to kid oneself.

And heat, a bunch of heat, for 90 days.

a reply to: Salander

What radiation was that?

Nobody was able to detect any radiation

The NYC Department of Health sent a health physicist with sensitive instruments - he was unable to find any radiation

Within minutes of the crash, McKinney sent a radiological health inspector to check the site for any radiation sources. He reached Richard Borri, a senior scientist in the department’s office of Radiological Health, who like most people from DOH, was on his way to work when the first tower was hit.
.
“While I was walking down Church Street, with all my instruments, I came within 1000 feet of the South Tower, and unfortunately the building came down,” says Borri, sounding every bit the unruffled scientist. “It’s a good thing I walked slowly.”

How does one continue on one’s mission without getting distracted by such details as a 110-story building comes down in front of you? “You concentrate on what you need to do,” says Borri, who simply walked amid the vehicles and victims covered with layers and layers of soot, “taking samples off the people coming out of the building.”

The high-tech gadget he carried, one of the few available in the United States, is far more precise than its century-old cousin, the Geiger Counter.

Borri checked the World Trade Center site for signs of radiation before and after the collapse of the buildings. Radiation could have originated in industrial radiology sources, such as the installing beams of the huge office buildings, which may have contained some radioactive elements from x-rays taken, and from depleted uranium used in ballasts in aircraft wing tips (such counterweights in airplane wing tips give the most weight for least volume, says Borri). It might also be left from any medical or dental offices.

The FDNY HAZMAT unit was unable to find any radiation as was the EPA

Only people able to find radiation are truthers on the Internet.......

a reply to: firerescue

The radiation that caused all the radiation sicknesses in those who worked "on the pile." The radiation that caused the sicknesses addressed by the Zadroga Bill.

The EPA and Ms. Wittman said the air was just fine, go ahead on with your normal business, nothing to see here. It turns out she had not even sampled the air when she presented that damn lie. The DELTA Group and Mr. Cahill brought their air sampling equipment to the site about 10 days after the fact and quickly discovered the air was poisoned, comparing it to the air that comes out of industrial incinerators smoke stacks.

Even she would make such an outrageous statement about air quality, it would be very easy for her and her agency to make similar statements about radioactive sampling too.

That said, USGS collected samples and found quite a few by products of the nuclear reaction.

What is important is that this information be suppressed.

a reply to: Salander

The radiation that caused all the radiation sicknesses in those who worked "on the pile." The radiation that caused the sicknesses addressed by the Zadroga Bill.

Show us where anyone was sickened by radiation.
They do say they were 'exposed' to toxic things in the after collapse burning.
But the term 'exposed' does not mean radiation.

a reply to: Salander

quickly discovered the air was poisoned, comparing it to the air that comes out of industrial incinerators smoke stacks.

Polluted air is not same as radiation - in case you didnt know......

Burning plastics created a toxic brew of some 2000 organic chemicals - some of which never seen before

Add to that the dust which contained pulverized cement and plaster - which was so alkaline compared to drain cleaner

Dust also contained glass and asbestos particles, toxic metals like lead and cadmium which inhaled caused lung
problems and in many cases cancers

No radiation - just toxic dust

a reply to: Salander

air sampling equipment to the site about 10 days after the fact and quickly discovered the air was poisoned, comparing it to the air that comes out of industrial incinerators smoke stacks.

That is not radiation.
You are unable to show us any evidence of radiation.
Only innuendo.

a reply to: samkent

No, only dot-connecting. Analysis of the facts and evidence, dot-connecting. The nuke theory is the only one that explains what was seen, and the government covered it up.

a reply to: Salander

No, only dot-connecting.

There is no nuclear dot to connect.
Show us one half way decent web document that shows the illnesses were caused by radiation.
Just one.

a reply to: samkent

Do you mean a government approved website?

Sorry, the government won't let that cat out of the bag, as I've already mentioned. EPA head proclaims the air is just fine to breathe, without even having sampled the air. 10 days later the air is sampled, and lo and behold, it is as toxic as the exhaust from an industrial incinerator with iron microspheres.

Office fires on 10 floors cannot generate iron microspheres.

Why would EPA and Wittman be any different in covering up radiation issues? If they didn't bother to check the air, why would EPA and Wittman bother to check radiation levels?

AVIRIS and other US satellites detected 3 major "hot spots" at WTC. What do you supposed caused that much heat?

a reply to: Salander

Basically you have zero proof of radiation.
Just a belief.

a reply to: Salander

A nuclear event would create a VAST amount of heat and an EMP but why let that get in the way of a good conspiracy !