WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

Tell them how delighted you are on how the Bush Administration handled the 911 investigation.

Debunked: AE911Truth's WTC7 Explosive Demolition Hypothesis

AE911Truth is an organization founded by Richard Gage where people with some Architectural and Engineering background discuss the events of 9/11, and generally promote the idea that the destruction of the two towers and WTC Building 7 were controlled demolitions.

They are a big budget organization, spending nearly half a million dollars a year (and with $85,000 just on Gage's salary).

www.metabunk.org...

Tell all these WTC survivors that they are the enemy of truth by going on the written Record.

Debunking WTC Controlled Demolition Theories

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations, and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting that the report expressed similar views to those held by its group of professionals.

Regarding Jones' theory that nanothermite was used to bring down the towers, and the assertion that thermite and nanothermite composites were found in the dust and debris were found following the collapse of the three buildings, which was concluded to be proof that explosives brought down the buildings, Brent Blanchard, author of "A History of Explosive Demolition in America", states that questions about the viability of Jones' theories remain unanswered, such as the fact that no demolition personnel noticed any telltale signs of thermite during the eight months of debris removal following the towers' collapse.

Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer-reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives".

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion.

en.wikipedia.org...

In a previous post, you suggested that you were somehow involved with my critique of the Jones paper. This must have been in a previous life as you registered in 2013 and turbofan and I discussed this in 2010. Are you a reincarnation?

They are a big budget organization, spending nearly half a million dollars a year (and with $85,000 just on Gage's salary).

Where is your science disproving A&E. You have none.

Where is your science disproving A&E. You have none.

AE 911 Truth says:

We know that the falling section of Building 7 did not crush the lower section of the building because the top section of Building 7 fell at freefall. It didn't just fall at something close to freefall. It fell for about 2.5 seconds at a rate that was indistinguishable from freefall.

www1.ae911truth.org...