Asked FEMA Architect Friend to Look Over 9/11 Truth Information and this is what he says...

I have a close friend who's an Architect who started working for FEMA a couple of years after 9/11 who I asked to look over the Architect's and Engineer's for 9/11 Truth website specifically about WTC 7
and tell me if he thinks it came down by CD or not. Below is the email message from him that I just found this morning in my inbox:

"Well gee, that's a lot of information to absorb. I didn't know anything about building 7. It does look suspicious, a very clean demolition. I need to study it further.

My knee-jerk reaction is that it's certainly not impossible. If something took-out the concrete core (elevator shafts) then the rest would tumble as it did.

The World Trade Center buildings had a unique tubular steel outer wall and a concrete core. The sprayed-on fireproofing (for the steel) was also only good for a limited time. This may have been damaged.

So what is this whole thing suggesting?

I can say that if I had been with FEMA a couple years earlier I would have been there, and from what I've heard from people that were there, I'm glad I wasn't there."

I should add that he's a highly esteemed FEMA Architect who's been working hard over the past few years to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.



[edit on 12-9-2007 by Palasheea]

Originally posted by Palasheea
I didn't know anything about building 7. It does look suspicious, a very clean demolition. I need to study it further.

This is most people's reaction when confronted with WTC 7. I didn't know about it until I started around here also.

But, people say that the world engineering and architectural body agree with the official report. How can they when most don't even know that 3 buildings came down that day from structural damage and fire?

Thanks for passing on that site to him. I'd like to hear more of what he has to say.

My thoughts on the site are that they need to get more going in discussions for one thing. Also, they need to focus more on the science and physics and not the wild theories of no-planes at the pentagon etc. No offense to our no-planers here.

My knee-jerk reaction is that it's certainly not impossible. If something took-out the concrete core (elevator shafts) then the rest would tumble as it did.

I'm assumming he's talking about the towers? I don't believe WTC 7 had a concrete core. Anyway, it's nice to see another architect/engineer agree with my theory.

The Architect and Engineer's for 9/11 Truth is sided with Steven Jones who broke off from Scholars for 9/11 Truth that's headed by Dr. Fletcher. Dr. Jones broke off and formed another org. called Scholar's 9/11 Truth for Peace and Justice because he does not believe in those no-plane theories or any of those other more radical theories that Dr. Fletcher is promoting.

So my friend did not even see any of Fletcher's stuff because that's not on the A&E for 9/11 Truth website.

Also, I will write back to my friend for some more clarifications on what he wrote in that email message to me. As you know, it takes hours just to view all of the information on WTC 7 and many more hours to view over the information on the towers... he's a busy man so I don't know if he's got the time to view over all of it but I'm sure he will answer a few more questions. He's an old boyfriend of mine from way back when but we still keep in touch by email. I usually hear from him a few times a week.

[edit on 12-9-2007 by Palasheea]

Ive had the same Griff, people soon shut up when I ask them how many buildings went down that day or if they heard about building 7. Its like their world is rocked slightly - all their ideas about what happened that day is thrown into question. I was the same, I didnt know about building 7 until I researched the event (probably read about it here, deffo online).

Palasheea, any chance you can quiz him more on why he was glad he wasnt in FEMA at that time? (Just seen your post, cool, glad youre going to ask him to clarify his thoughts)

I would love to see computer simulations of that day, "We ran the simulation 1000 times and not once did we see either tower free fall into their footprint."

We can only hope!

Originally posted by Palasheea
So my friend did not even see any of Fletcher's stuff because that's not on the A&E for 9/11 Truth website.

It's been awhile since I've been on their site. Too busy actually. Thanks.

Originally posted by Dae


Palasheea, any chance you can quiz him more on why he was glad he wasnt in FEMA at that time? (Just seen your post, cool, glad youre going to ask him to clarify his thoughts)

We can only hope!

Hi Dae... I plan on asking him about that. I would love to know what those guys were saying about it.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Palasheea
So my friend did not even see any of Fletcher's stuff because that's not on the A&E for 9/11 Truth website.

It's been awhile since I've been on their site. Too busy actually. Thanks.

Your welcome. I didn't mean to imply that you weren't up to date on those changes but it sounds like you probably are... but Gage who heads up the A&E for 9/11 Truth website believes the same as Jones and not Fletcher.

This said, it's certainly confusing when you've got Fletcher and Jones using very similar names for their orgs. and as a newcomer to all of this 9/11 Truth information it's very confusing. It took me quite a while to finally pin down who's who and which orgs they head up or belong to.

Originally posted by Palasheea
Your welcome. I didn't mean to imply that you weren't up to date on those changes but it sounds like you probably are... but Gage who heads up the A&E for 9/11 Truth website believes the same as Jones and not Fletcher.

I actually belong to the A&E for 9/11 truth website (so, I guess I can't complain about the lack of talking since I could start up some things). I just thought I saw a section about other theories in there. Must have been another site I saw.

Originally posted by Griff

I actually belong to the A&E for 9/11 truth website (so, I guess I can't complain about the lack of talking since I could start up some things). I just thought I saw a section about other theories in there. Must have been another site I saw.

I'll check out that site again. So far I haven't seen anything there about Fletchers stuff but I have seen information that Gage, the head of A&E 9/11 Truth is on Jones' side -- and there really are sides to these issues so that's important... IMHO. But you know more than I do but will look to see what Gage about the Pentagon hit. So far I've only looked at what he's saying about the WTC towers and building 7. There's just so much information on his site and am really glad I've got an architect friend who can help me decipher it.

Boy it's been awhile since I visited that site. I think you're correct. They do focus more on the collapses and not much else.

[edit on 9/12/2007 by Griff]

That's what I thought.
I'm only interested in finding out more about Bldg. 7 because I think it's the smoking gun for what happened on that day. If others out there become aware of the details of how that building came down, then it's a given they will then read up on how the towers came down. It's one step at a time.

But to show a newbie all of those other more radical theories is definitely not the thing to do.... most people would automatically reject such information as wild off the wall conspiracy theory and then not bother to look at the more plausible 'revisionist' theories about how those buildings came down.

[edit on 12-9-2007 by Palasheea]

I asked my FEMA architect friend what were some of the things his co-workers said about Ground Zero when they got there on 9/11 and here's what he said:

I'm glad I wasn't there because of all the asbestos flying around.

From what I heard, the biggest logistical problem for FEMA was managing all of the donated food, clothing, medical supplies, and other items. All of this stuff was unsolicited and it was coming in by the truck load, donated by well-intentioned entities. They were making piles of it on the streets, and it just kept coming. Piles of food were rotting and causing health hazards. In the end, most of it went to landfills.

Unbelievable isn't it? I can only imagine how chaotic Ground Zero was in its immediate aftermath...

Anyway, he's focused at work now on that big storm along the Texas and Lousiana coast now -- have to wait to see what that turns into so might have to wait till this blows over before getting back to this topic.


[edit on 12-9-2007 by Palasheea]

I don't believe WTC1 and 2 had a concrete core.They were steel cores.











I find it astounding that are people who have no idea about WTC7.Was it left out of the U.S. news entirely???
I'm Canadian so I don't have the American perspective on it (from this site).

This site has many more diagrams:

911 Research

Originally posted by citizen truth
I don't believe WTC1 and 2 had a concrete core.They were steel cores.

That has been debated and would stop if we were able to view the construction documents (as-built drawings). Everything pre-9/11 I have seen says that the core is concrete reinforced steel. Everything after 9/11 just says steel. Which was it? Someone's gotta still be alive who worked on the towers to tell us the truth. Right?

Griff, (or anyone else here who's familiar with the 9/11 Truth information and support's that point of view)

I got the following reply from my friend today asking him to clarify that first message I got from him about where we were confused about his comments about the concrete center and so on... if he was referring to the towers or to WTC 7. Anyway, this was his reply:

"I assume WTC7 was built the same way as the big towers, i.e. concrete core and tubular steel columns on the outer walls.

The cause of failure on the big towers was different, they just pancaked all the way down.

On WTC7 the bottom ground floor failed first."

As you can see, he really didn't take the time to read over all of the information on the A&E 9/11 Truth page... he just skimmed it over. He's busy now with the hurricane in Texas but still is able to send me short answers to my questions.
I'm just wondering if you could comment on his latest message to me and I'll send it to him. I think this is the biggest problem when presenting alternative views on what happened on 9/11 because most people won't take the time to read over everything... you know what I mean? In fact, I was the same way too but something about all of this caught my attention a couple of weeks ago -- not sure what it was -- might have been a video I view on 9/11 but whatever the case may be, I became obsessed with this topic because the information that those buildings were brought down by CD seemed so convincing to me. Then I read Griffin's book and am still in the process of researching on all of this...
But for me to come up with a relatively short answer to my friends comments is something I can't do right now without writing an essay as long as a book. Wanna give it a try? That would be great if you could!

PS -- But did send him a link to this video for him to look over after I got the above email message from him. I told him it was only a few minutes long -- so hoping he will watch it. The only problem with it though is that it does not include all of the information about how that building came down. Additional information was shown in those video's that followed this on in this series. But weren't there reports of explosions going off in this building before it went down? I know there were many reports from firefighters about explosions going off in the basements of the towers but is this also the case for Bldg. 7? I need to look that up again...
www.youtube.com...


[edit on 13-9-2007 by Palasheea]

Originally posted by Palasheea
"I assume WTC7 was built the same way as the big towers, i.e. concrete core and tubular steel columns on the outer walls.

His assumption is wrong I believe.

The cause of failure on the big towers was different, they just pancaked all the way down.

He seems pretty sure of this. Maybe you could show him that NIST doesn't support the "pancake" theory anymore.

On WTC7 the bottom ground floor failed first."

How does this happen when the damage and fires were reported from the 7-8th floor and up?

I would suggest to him to look over the AE site some more when he gets a chance.

Thanks Griff! I'll mention that NIST doesn't support the pancake theory anymore but need to look up information on that on the AE site.

I'll see what he has to say about that video I gave him a link to and take it from there...

I just want to say that I'm glad he's willing to talk with you. Most A & E's won't even discuss it. I try not to publicly, but sometimes my mouth gets the better of me. I have actually lost friends due to the 9/11 conspiracies. Imagine that. People won't talk to me anymore because of this crap. Geez.

And I know what some of you are thinking. It's not because they think I'm a tin foiler. It's because they couldn't come to terms with what I was saying. Denial is not just a river.

In regards to NIST, is this the information you were referring to?
www.ae911truth.org...

.. I know what you mean but somebody's gotta do it. These pro's need to be exposed to this information regardless if they like it or not. Granted it's a painful process to even read over this stuff but it's clear that they need to know because when it comes down to it, it's going to be the pro's who will eventually be the 'voice of reason' in all of this to bring about some serious investigations on 9/11. That's already happening, thank God -- but it's got to go faster. IMHO

[edit on 13-9-2007 by Palasheea]

Originally posted by Palasheea


In regards to NIST, is this the information you were referring to?
www.ae911truth.org...

No. I was actually talking about this.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

From here: wtc.nist.gov...