It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Another Look at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

page: 4
11
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 01:57 PM
If you want to see just how little Gage really knows about demolition by thermite watch a minute or so from this presentation in Europe from last year.

He extrapolates there was 20 tons of thermite used.
But he admits he DOESN'T know how much it would take to burn through a beam.
Wouldn't you think that after selling his story for 8 years he would have the answer to that one simple question?

Update!
At 2:05:00 he states "Probably 10 tons of thermite."
But later at 2:11:30 he ups it to 20 tons.
Wouldn't you think he would have his facts down?
Especially since his whole theory rests on thermite!

edit on 27-1-2016 by samkent because: UPDATE!

posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 07:02 PM

He extrapolates there was 20 tons of thermite used. But he admits he DOESN'T know how much it would take to burn through a beam.

Your view could be percieved as clutching at straws.

At 2:05:00 he states "Probably 10 tons of thermite." But later at 2:11:30 he ups it to 20 tons.

1 building is 10 tonnes, 2 would be 20

You can pick holes in the truther arguments certainly, but you can also pick a ton of holes in the official line, which is the point. If it's the official line, there shouldn't be any holes. And in the meantime, that holey official line has cost a lot of lives, while a whole lot of people are still scratching thier heads (rightfully) at what happened on 9/11.

posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 10:02 PM

You can pick holes in the truther arguments certainly, but you can also pick a ton of holes in the official line, which is the point.

True but Gage picks the fact that suit him at the time and then does a 180 on the same point later.
Example:
In his debating he says they used thermite so there wouldn't be any sounds of detonation.
Later in the same debate he says the use of explosives is the reason steel was hurled 600 feet away.
He even compares it to being shot out of a cannon.
So which is it Mr Gage? You can't have it both ways.

posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 10:50 AM
Interesting to see some member catching this thread again.

I think my original points still stand although if there are any details anyone would wish to discuss more feel free to ask.

posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 12:40 PM
Gage has done over 400 of the speaking events.
That is plenty of practice to pull the right misdirections out of the air for the right question.

posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 01:31 PM

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapses of the World Trade Centre Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers and Building 7.

your thread sounds like an opposition to a real investigation, with real subpoena power. to debunk someone (a&e 911dot .domain) to me means that the dude ain't cool anymore, he is bunk- living as a fake? (due to anecdotal evidence-that is only evident of deceiving public; to a thinking man)

open an investigation and spank the perps already!

prove the organization ain't a bunch of cool people...

edit on (1/29/1616 by loveguy because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 11:56 PM

Gage is a fairground fighter, not an investigator. He's up there on show.

I told him about the reinforced concrete infill panels when he was in London. Other people have said similar things to him when he's appeared in their area. He has enough knowledge to crack it all open. Just bring attention to the the concrete wall panels sandwiched between the drywall in the core, and the average particle size of the debris at the Fresh Kills landfill, game over, no more T shirt sales.

pix11.com...

Still today, 1,100 families have never gotten anything of their loved ones.

"We consider to be a cemetery without tombstones," Abbate said. "It’s sad to think those peoples’ remains are just sitting on a landfill and not a place where they can be remembered."

The 'fines', that is the material under 1/4 inch, was thought to be the location of the lost 1,100 from within the towers. An agreement was made to move the two piles of fines, covering an area of approximately one acre, to a more respectful site. Instead the fines were suddenly bulldozed over the rest of the debris and covered. The debris altogether covers an area of around forty acres and is fifteen to twenty feet deep. This is the physical evidence that indicates extraordinary demolition.

If Gage wanted to end it he'd point out the panels have been the most denied part of the story, therefore key. And he'd tell everyone to lobby for examination of the physical evidence, with due respect to the bereaved.

Remember, they looked through the debris for evidence they didn't consider the debris as evidence. Simple misdirection.

edit on 29 1 2016 by Kester because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 04:40 PM
Yes, when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Life goes on....

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 02:32 PM

originally posted by: samkent
He extrapolates there was 20 tons of thermite used.
But he admits he DOESN'T know how much it would take to burn through a beam.
Wouldn't you think that after selling his story for 8 years he would have the answer to that one simple question?

Update!
At 2:05:00 he states "Probably 10 tons of thermite."
But later at 2:11:30 he ups it to 20 tons.
Wouldn't you think he would have his facts down?
Especially since his whole theory rests on thermite!

This is my entire beef with Gage, exactly. He is in a unique position to conduct his own independent investigation into exactly how demolitions supposedly brought the towers down and after FIFTEEN YEARS he has repeatedly refused to do so. All he does do, is repeat the exact same second and third hand stories that give the appearance of supporting his claims. In other words, cherry picking.

posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 09:34 AM

All he does do, is repeat the exact same second and third hand stories that give the appearance of supporting his claims.

That's how he keeps the cash cow producing milk.
IMO he has to keep this thing rolling for a few more years until he gets SSI.
Otherwise he's unemployable.

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:10 AM

Richard Gage has done a great service for ordinary americans with some measure of curiosity about what really happened that day at WTC. He has explained fairly technical events in language that regular people can understand.

The official story does not pass the smell test....

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 11:40 AM

He has explained fairly technical events in language that regular people can understand.

No he's teaching people it's ok to be stupid.

posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 08:34 AM

No, very much the opposite. For those willing to think for themselves, Gage provides a good explanation of the failures of the official story.

The government and the mainstream media are the parties teaching people to be unquestioning and stupid. It's pitiful how scientifically illiterate the American people have become.

posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 03:08 PM

For those willing to think for themselves, Gage provides a good explanation of the failures of the official story.

According to Gage himself:
They used thermite so there would not be the sounds of explosives.
But they used explosives to blow the steel beams out at 80 mph.
I watched him say both at the same 911 gathering.

posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 07:52 AM

I don't see your point, other than the demonization of Gage.

Yes they used explosives, no doubt. IMO they used thermite and nuclear devices, but I was not involved in the planning or execution, so I don't really know. The nuclear theory explains all of the strange things observed there.

posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 08:40 AM

The nuclear theory explains all of the strange things observed there.

Where was the nuke placed ?

posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 09:49 AM

originally posted by: Salander

I don't see your point, other than the demonization of Gage.

Yes they used explosives, no doubt. IMO they used thermite and nuclear devices, but I was not involved in the planning or execution, so I don't really know. The nuclear theory explains all of the strange things observed there.

Gage is in this for Gage, of course. His livelihood depends on keeping the suckers donating to A&E. His claims are not well thought out and play only to those with even less technical knowledge than he has, if you can imagine that.

Had there been nuclear explosives used, it would have been what is generally termed as "obvious." The buildings would not have collapsed from the impact points. There would have been a really bright flash, a very loud noise and the resulting shock wave would have killed many more people, damaged many more buildings, and left readily detectable residual radiation. It makes more sense to claim that death rays from space or Lord Voldemort did it.
edit on 2/10/2016 by pteridine because: spelling

posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:07 AM

originally posted by: pteridine

Had there been nuclear explosives used, it would have been what is generally termed as "obvious." The buildings would not have collapsed from the impact points. There would have been a really bright flash, a very loud noise and the resulting shock wave would have killed many more people, damaged many more buildings, and left readily detectable residual radiation. It makes more sense to claim that death rays from space or Lord Voldemort did it.

Your reasoning is false because it assumes that a conventional nuclear device was used. A micro-nuke placed in the basement would have generated a flash that was not visible because it was many feet below the surface. If it were small enough just to blow up core columns in the basement, it would not generate a big bang like conventional nuclear bombs and, being several floors down below street level, would not have killed people outside the tower and would not have damaged nearby buildings.
The North Tower did NOT collapse from the impact point. The communication mast started to drop a split second before the tower started to collapse:

This is because core columns upon which the mast rested directly had been vapourized, perhaps by a mini-nuke.

Of course, conventional nuclear devices do not make sense. But underground, sufficiently small mini-nukes make plenty of sense because their action would be too localised and hidden to be obvious to anyone at ground level.

posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 02:09 PM

The North Tower did NOT collapse from the impact point.

This shows you are wrong.

Now can you explain how a nuke can be silent?
Can you explain why the windows on the bottom floors were not blown out in all directions?
Can you explain why people outside did not feel the earth shake?

posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 02:21 PM

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. Don't expext the wall to actually listen. Who on Ceres cares about the truth movement anyway, truthers are conspiracy nuts and there never was a conspiracy in the first place. Never...

new topics

top topics

11