Architect Richard Gage on C-Span

originally posted by: GenRadek
a reply to: biffcartright

Also, in regards to the construction of skyscrapers, please show me another building that was built in the EXACT same manner as the WTC Towers, with light floor trusses suspended between exterior and interior columns.......... That would be great, thanks! The only other one I can think of is the Aon Building in Chicago. Built roughly the same time as the WTC.

That is the big pointless argument all truthers seem to love.

"show me another building that has collapsed like this"

utterly pointless argument unless they can present one that has the exact same design and has been exposed to the exact same stresses.

a reply to: biffcartright

I was wondering when you'd reincarnate!

Well seeing as all of those points I have already addressed in a previous thread, why dont you go back to it and read it and learn it.

Also, Please stop quoting the initial report. That is like quoting the FEMA preliminary investigation report. Yeah some points were good, but a lot of it required a thorough investigation like NIST's. The FINAL NIST REPORT is what we are interested in and that is what should be looked at. And if you didnt understand this last time: The NIST FAQ section on the 9/11 WTC reports is based solely and directly from the 10,000+ page reports. The FINAL reports. I think I have to make this a little clearer for you since you obviously still are having trouble seeing it or comprehending it:
The FAQ from the NIST website is based off the FINAL Report, which was completed in 2008. 2005 is three years earlier, hence older, hence less reliable.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Low temperature thermal expansion.

please.

then tell me all about that OFFICIAL claim that fell WTC7 equal to g. for 105 vertical feet.

they are on video saying it.....Shyam Sunder.

their own 2008 WTC7 tech briefing....

and none of you people can tell anything about it but the attempt to hush it up....little too late for that.

want me to post the link here, or can ya use one of the other posting linking to it.....and if any of ya can read, there's a PDF transcript there also.

the reason I ask about reading is because none of the papers you guy present, show anything related to the reason WHY...so I just wondered if you even read them. and if ya did, how bout supplying a direct link to a specific page and chapter....ya can start with this official claim that a new never before seen phenomenon where thermal expansion works at low temps to REMOVE structural mass globally in a building.

a reply to: biffcartright

Dude, nobody cares any more like is said to you before, you are just becoming annoying.

We have debated this whole thermal expansion thing for weeks, if not months with you and its getting really boring I, like everyone else, disagrees with you on it so lets just move on. lets agree to disagree.

you have been banned now twice just take the hint, go away.

originally posted by: biffcartright
a reply to: GenRadek

It was proven that the floor trusses DID in fact pull in on the exterior columns.

lol...oh please don't reference that RKOwens video of the cartoon of the trusses pulling in the quickly panning to a close- up of the collapse in progress to fraudulently claim a bow occurred......

point to your supporting evidence within the NIST report to show this occurred....

point to the reason

oh yea...new physics!!!

What you havent read the report?? I did! I know a few of us did. I posted it for you! Find it yourself!



This is a great comedy sketch! I'm loving this gag!

a reply to: GenRadek

based off the FINAL Report

and the final report is based on an official claim that a never before physics phenomenon occurs where low temp thermal expansion REMOVES structural mass in order to continually accelerate equal to g.

they refuse to prove outside the authors.

oh, BTW, the tech briefing was held 2 month BEFORE the final report was released.

I don't know what's more unbelivable. The official lies, or the people
that just refuse to see 'em. Their hopeless abandonment of reality
to believe a bunch of narcissistic born liars still feeding off of us today.
There seems to be no limit to what they'll believe. Very sad mostly.

a reply to: biffcartright

If it was so "scandalous" and could unravel the whole thing, then why would they even bother mentioning it? Ever thought that far ahead?

Its been explained to you, shown to you, and even given where to look numerous times, and you ignored it all. So no, you dont care, you dont want any other explanation unless it includes "ZOMG!!11!! It was BOMBS!!!! BOMBS BOMBS BOMBS!!!!1!!!1!!

a reply to: GenRadek

What you havent read the report?? I did! I know a few of us did. I posted it for you! Find it yourself!

cause ya just can't post "no".

as I said, there is NO mention in your so-called reports of this new phenomenon that fell 7 claimed by the 2008 NIST crew..."low temp thermal expansion" removing structural mass to allow global unified continuous acceleration to occur

so if you prefer to make fun of the situation instead of supporting, I'll take this as there is NOTHING there to begin with.

thanks for playing!

a reply to: biffcartright

Who said its never happened before? And who exactly said that low temp thermal expansion removed structural mass? Who who who??? The only person that said anything like that was you!

originally posted by: biffcartright
a reply to: GenRadek

What you havent read the report?? I did! I know a few of us did. I posted it for you! Find it yourself!

cause ya just can't post "no".

as I said, there is NO mention in your so-called reports of this new phenomenon that fell 7 claimed by the 2008 NIST crew..."low temp thermal expansion" removing structural mass to allow global unified continuous acceleration to occur

so if you prefer to make fun of the situation instead of supporting, I'll take this as there is NOTHING there to begin with.

thanks for playing!

Ummm, actually they talk about thermal expansion and creep A LOT in the final report on WTC7. Im surprised you havent found it yet.

But hey I play fair, here is the link to the paper:
www.nist.gov...

First one to find it wins!

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Quite a interesting video but nothing new.

Just the same stuff that's been debunked over and over again, its 40 minutes of Gage saying it was a contorted demolition because 2200 other architects and engineers agree with me.

I find it amazing how he tries to argue that the rest of the world knows nothing about WTC-7 he makes claims that other engineers don't know about it and he goes on and on babbling about the same stuff that so far has not stood up or even been presented in a court of law.

That's the problem there is nothing of substance its just more of the same.

If they 9/11 truth movement wants to really change minds and seriously challenge the official narrative they need to come up with something more than this.

so...what your saying is that none of the other 2200 did any research on their own. they all were in lockstep without any second thoughts as to the validity of what he said.....in other words, they are all idiots, who are incapable of thinking for themselves.
you do realize these people can do the calculations in their heads, they've worked with these materials and structures all their lives.....and somehow....we are suppose to take the word of the debunkers?.......yeah, ok, right.

a reply to: biffcartright

Right stop this.

The 2005 initial report, take it , chuck it out the window just like the FEMA report that hypothesised wrongly that fuel fires caused the collapse.

Ok done that, good.

Next read what the FINAL 2008 NIST report had to say.

look just for you I will make it super easy because you seem to be struggling and post it for you.

The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, primarily at or below 400 ºC (750 ºF), damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. The initiating local failure that began the probable WTC 7 collapse sequence was the buckling of Column 79. This buckling arose from a process that occurred at temperatures at or below approximately 400 ° C (750 ° F), which are well below the temperatures considered in current practice for determining fire resistance ratings associated with significant loss of steel strength. When steel (or any other metal) is heated, it expands. If thermal expansion in steel beam s is resisted by columns or other steel members, forces develop in the structural members that can result in buckling of beams or failures of connections.

Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning between Columns 79 and 44 to the weston the 13th floor. (See Figure 1–5 for column numbering and the locations of girders and beams.) This movement was enough for the girder to walk off of its support at Column 79.

The unsupported girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor (which, as noted in Section 1.2.3, was much thicker and stronger). Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This left Column 79 with insufficient lateral support, and as a consequence, the columnbuckled eastward, becoming the initial local failure for collapse initiation.

NIST

Would you look at that, so basically the temperatures got hot enough for the steel to become weak which in turn lead to the collapse.

hmmm

a reply to: jimmyx

what your saying is that none of the other 2200 did any research on their own.

No but let me put this into perspective for you.

of those 2200 some include, architect and engineering students, electrical engineers, IT engineers and even maritime engineers from a whole load of countries

Yet there are over 140000 members of the American society of Civil Engineers alone.

think about that, if Gage really was onto something how come he only has a tiny fraction of Engineers on board.

Could it be because they all know he is full of it.

a reply to: biffcartright

OOps! I win! I found it first!

WTC7 Final Report:
Chapter 8 Section 2 (8.2)
Initiating Event Hypothesis

Also found mentioned on 8.7.2 page 343
Also found on page 345
Oh WAIT!!! Page 346!!!!
Get the title of the figure quick!
Thermal Expansion of floor beams

You also might want to read on page 363. It goes into detail about the interior collapses of floors that occured prior to the entire collapse. Guess what the collapses were caused by? Come on! Guess! Thermal Expansion!

So there you go, I have you all the materials with plenty of support. I can lead a horse to water.................

a reply to: jimmyx

so...what your saying is that none of the other 2200 did any research on their own.

You might want to read some of the bio's of these 2200.
Very few have any credentials that would stand up in court.

MS. Engineering-Economics,
BE Civil Engineering
Ph.D., Electrical Engineering
Expert for Concrete Materials for N
B.S. Mining Engineering
B.S. Chem., Certified Quality
Lic: Electrical Engineering
Ph.D., Electrical Engineer
B.S., Engineering, Colo. School of Mines
Electrical/Controls Engineer and Designer
BS Ceramic Eng (Material Science)
Chemical Operator Paper Science and Engineering
BS Computer Engineering,
BA and AAS Geography and Arch. Tech.
Mine Electrical Engineer

Every single page is filled with degrees that no lawyer would dream of using as an 'expert'' pertaining anything 911.

a reply to: biffcartright

Welcome back soundstyle or Bob what do you prefer how long do you think you will last this time!!!!

How does that sound to ya!!!!

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Also, those "engineers", have completely different backgrounds than what would be required to understand the magnitude of what happened on 9/11.

What AE9/11 is, is just a bunch of guys with loosely related fields, but sound more impressive than they really are because they have engineer somewhere written in their biography.

Ok, by that account, who would you want more to do heart surgery on you? A brain surgeon, a gastrointestinal specialist, a cardiac specialist, a foot doctor, or a veterinarian? I mean, they all are doctors. They all hold doctorates in medicine. They all have high standards and are certainly qualified in their fields. But which one do you want to perform the open heart surgery? The answer should be, the cardiac specialist. A Heart Doctor! Heart dr. for problems of the heart. I mean really, do you want a foot doctor working on your heart?

That is the problem with AE9/11.

a reply to: GenRadek

Exactly out of the 2200 members there are very few of them who actually have a direct expertise in high rise demolition/construction.

In fact i think i even recall Gage saying he had 11 high rise structural engineers in his group during the video in the OP (I may be wrong).

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Quite a interesting video but nothing new.

Just the same stuff that's been debunked over and over again, its 40 minutes of Gage saying it was a contorted demolition because 2200 other architects and engineers agree with me.

I find it amazing how he tries to argue that the rest of the world knows nothing about WTC-7 he makes claims that other engineers don't know about it and he goes on and on babbling about the same stuff that so far has not stood up or even been presented in a court of law.

That's the problem there is nothing of substance its just more of the same.

If they 9/11 truth movement wants to really change minds and seriously challenge the official narrative they need to come up with something more than this.

so...what your saying is that none of the other 2200 did any research on their own. they all were in lockstep without any second thoughts as to the validity of what he said.....in other words, they are all idiots, who are incapable of thinking for themselves.
you do realize these people can do the calculations in their heads, they've worked with these materials and structures all their lives.....and somehow....we are suppose to take the word of the debunkers?.......yeah, ok, right.

Well I have worked in the construction industry for 35+ years first job the design/drawing office for a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company the last nearly 20 years now on a technical basis at site and office level advising people on structural components (INCLUDING ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS), also testing those components sometimes to destruction, CAN I understand why the towers collapsed YES can I see why the normal man on the street thinks it's a demo YES, is the normal man on the street right NO, are architects for the truths idiots YES.