Yahoo News reports story: "1,270 Architects/Engineers Reveal Hard Evidence of Explosive Demolition

reply to post by PookztA

ABE,
You are right on POINT - great post.
I was denied Posting on the Yahoo site about the "1,270 Architects/Engineers Reveal Hard Evidence of Explosive Demolition at World Trade Center on 9/11."

I listened to Richard Gage on Coast to Coast's recent interview of him thinking I would finally have the EVIDENCE presented on thermite, but it didn’t happen. Gage found the elements of thermite in the dust remembering that the structural components of the towers were comprised of these elements of thermite. When asked about how much thermite it would take to destroy the towers, his response was this is why we need a new investigation remembering that he stated on the air that the engineers had over 25,000 years of experience and not a one of them could make this calculation - unbelievable. When asked how the thermite was used in the building - same response--new investigation. When asked how to detonate this thermite, which has never been done --we need new investigation. When asked if thermite has ever been used for demolition in any building (which is hasn't as it can't) -- we need a new investigation - and on and on. Can anyone itemize specifically the "evidence" that gage purportedly has?

Can thermite make 800,000 tons of concrete and steel vanish --remembering 80% of the building materials WERE not on the ground?

Can thermite explain approximately 1,400 "toasted cars" up to over 1/4 mile away?

Was the "bathtub" (the underground part of the towers that is below sea level) damaged remembering that over 1 million tons of material would have shattered it causing MAJOR flooding? No, there on only very minor damage.

Has any whistle blower suit been filed into the federal courts by Gage where he could present the “real evidence” of thermite, wherein he would have to have real evidence? NO.

I suggest that you engage your thought processes and visit Dr. Judy Wood's website www.drjudywood.com or www.checktheevidence.co.uk. She has filed a Qui Tam suit with real "evidence" into the federal courts on 911.

Amazing that no one can specifically list out each individual piece of evidence of Gage's and that he would not answer the questions on Coast to Coast listing said evidence that is claimed to exist.

So the question that must be asked is, why is that?

Why is Richard Gage of the diverting those with questions away from the truth?

You figure it out considering that in reality he doesn’t have any REAL EVIDENCE!

Originally posted by rival
Let's suppose this goes mainstream without the usual slant of conspiracy/lunacy.
Let's suppose this gains momentum and we get a new investigation, and let's
suppose further that the investigation proves controlled implosions, proves collusion by
members of government or other factions/countries.

Let's suppose this coincides with another conspiracy going mainstream, like say
the "birther" conspiracy, and THAT gains momentum and an impeachment process
begins....

Careful what you wish for...the outcome could be disaster...

And the outcome COULD have been planned for...may have been planned all along...

Thats where I was kinda thinking, we might not like what results from getting the truth. Yes we get the truth, but the truth may be our undoing and it might just be by design? Again, that is probably a bigger issue than aliens landing or life on another planet; at least it has a potential to go really wrong but then again I guess it all can; who the hell knows?

reply to post by Andy O


Probably as hard a chance that the undermined White House would erupt as one sure hellfire within minutes after WTC collapse.... Or what about Capitol. These guys wouldn't leave a trace had they been under scrutiny or "attack"

Originally posted by Andy O
Hello ATS,

PREAMBLE:
This is my first post, so thanks for having me. With regard to the 9/11 debate, I do question the official story, but my research has been pedestrian at best: (YouTube, Google, etc.) I've read probably 30% of the 9/11 Commission Report, and I've visited ATS at least once a week since 2008, focusing most of my attention to the Top Member Picks.

So, with regard to 9/11, here's my FIRST QUESTION:

If there were controlled demolition charges planted within the North and South tower prior to the plane impacts, how easy could it have been to have accidentally triggered some or all of the charges prematurely, creating an absurd scenario that would be nearly impossible to deny foul play? For example: Planes crash into towers, and 30-seconds later, the towers start to collapse.

I'm not denying the controlled demolition theory, I'm just curious if this has been considered. I wonder what safeguards would have to have been implemented to have prevented such a spectacle. Or perhaps controlled demolition is a robust technique and impervious to early detonation.

I hope this makes sense, it being my first post.

Thank you for your consideration.

Hi Andy,
I'm only guessing. But if each "package" can be remotely detonated on each floor in a sequence without reference to any other" package" that would be one answer.

reply to post by Truthseekerofthefarnorth


Can you look at this video and point out where the laser drops the building? Can you? Have you lost your mind? Can you not see? There was no laser,theres a gaping hole where a plane flew into the building and thats where the building began to collapse,no laser,no explosives,a massive wound due to a plane flying into the building,period. The engineers were wrong, its happened before,will happen again. Anyone who looks at this 13 second video with an open mind and says anything other than the big huge wound on the building caused the collapse is blind,period.



To continue to speculate and postulate that something other than this huge gaping hole caused by a huge plane caused the collapse of this building is beyond the pale its that absurd,it really is.

Originally posted by Skellon
reply to post by PookztA

 

Thank you PookztA,

Hey Skellon,

One quick thing:

It is important that we do not refer to the conclusions of Dr. Wood as "lasers" or "space beams" or "laser beams" or anything of that sort, because she has never used such terms to refer to her conclusion. Just so you have an accurate understanding of her conclusions:

Dr. Judy Wood has collected an overwhelming amount of evidence which suggests that a Directed Energy Weapon of some kind was used to powderize (‘dustify’) the primary steel and concrete portions of the WTC buildings, while burning and bending aluminum, yet leaving paper and many other materials unharmed. These characteristics are matched by those of The Hutchison Effect, and are the result of field effects and energy interference. John Hutchison has filed an affidavit in Dr. Wood's court case, to legally testify to the numerous similarities between The Hutchison Effect and the 9/11 attacks.

People often mistakenly use the terms space beams or ray guns or lasers from space (etc.) to describe Dr. Wood's scientific conclusions, but this is not only inaccurate, it is also an insult to the amount of time and energy Dr. Wood has spent gathering the hoards of evidence found at her website, and the amount of time and energy Dr. Wood has spent on her Qui-Tam whistle-blower case which reached the U.S. Supreme Court in October of 2009. Thousands of pieces of photos, graphs, documents, and videos, all which must be explained by one cohesive scientific conclusion.

If anyone uses these terms to try and discredit Dr. Wood, I strongly encourage you to ask them why they are being so inaccurate, and why they think the 9/11 "truth" movement has spent so much effort ridiculing Dr. Wood and attempting to convince people to ignore the enormous amount of evidence found at her website, drjudywood.com....

Please don't be upset that I corrected you, I just want you to be as accurate as possible.

Thanks for looking into this,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

facebook.com...
youtube.com...

reply to post by PookztA


I am sorry if I have jumped the gun in my post there.

Directed Energy Weapon mostly refers to Lasers in my research and to my knowledge.

I am aware that they are not the only types of DEW and therefore apologise for making that link.

reply to post by PookztA


Your welcome to respond to the video with your prognosis????? Exotic weopon?? Really, I'm all ears,oh I know it was directed at exactly the point of impact,thats it isnt it? I'd love for your good doctor to come and refute the video wont you ask her to come join us?

reply to post by nickoli

Nickoli:
Who said anything about "laser drops" or even "lasers"?
Perhaps you haven't looked at the evidence yet.
If you would follow though with the thought process you started in the Video that you posted, the "material" "didn't" arrive at the bottom OFF to the SIDE of the towers as shown by the tilting in the video, but in reality it went "poof" and to use new term that is proffered by Dr. Wood, it was subject to dustification wherein John Hutchison has demonstrated this more than once.
Therefore I pose this Question to you - Have you considered the fact of following though that the top material was falling OFF to the SIDE of the TOWER, and then to proceed to look for the EVIDENCE as to where did it end up on the ground OFF to the SIDE of the TOWER - it didn't is the answer. Comments?

The video you posted actually supports the good Dr's findings. You saw the top part of WTC2 start falling over to the side. Then it is gone. Pulverized in to dust in mid-air before reaching the ground. Gravitational collapse causes things to fall down, not turn to dust. Where was the 1,000,000 tons of debris?

I read Dr. Woods evidence, and it appears she is on to something. I always wondered how a steel structured building turned to dust. I always assumed explosives, which is why I never bought the OS. But Dr. Wood really explains the physics of what the evidence shows.

I hope she gets her day in court, but seeing how the chain of courts up to the SC are mainly dismissing her case on procedural and technical grounds, I predict the SC will make a narrow decision on the same grounds upholding the dismissal of her case.

Nickoli,

You can review the 'live' 9/11 footage here, which clearly shows the faked impact footage of the second plane. One 'live' shot shows the plane rapidly descending from well above the impact zone, where as another 'live' shot from a side angle shows the 2nd plane flying perfectly horizontal before it strikes the second tower

Did Large Airliners Really Hit The Buildings on 9/11?: www.youtube.com...

Also, if you wish to review a statistical analysis of the 'eye-witnesses', which shows that 80% of eye-witnesses admit to not seeing and/or hearing an airliner, you can check out the analysis here in this free e-book by Andrew Johnson: www.lulu.com... )

I should also inform you that I do not believe that our government organized 9/11, because very little evidence suggests that they did. Far more evidence suggests that another group of terrorists organized 9/11, then blamed it on Osama Bin Laden using their corporate media connections to fool our government and our country into going to war in the Middle East. Who these true terrorists were, I cannot say, because there is not enough evidence to conclusively prove anyone as guilty. However, others feel that there is enough proof to convict one of the suspected groups, but I only consider such theories as possible or somewhat likely at best, because not enough evidence has been presented to convict these 'suspects' in a court of law. Here is more info on one such possibility, and one of the individuals who feels strongly about that possibility:

Dr. Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D., University of Michigan) is a writer and consultant specializing in national and international security affairs. In December 1988, he received the Superior Civilian Service Award after more than five years of service at the U.S. Army War College as Director of Studies, Strategic Studies Institute, and holder of the General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research. He is listed in WHO'S WHO IN THE EAST (23rd ed.). A Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and a 1986 graduate of the U.S. Army War College, Dr. Sabrosky's teaching and research appointments have included the United States Military Academy, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Middlebury College and Catholic University; while in government service, he held concurrent adjunct professorships at Georgetown University and the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Dr. Sabrosky has lectured widely on defense and foreign affairs in the United States and abroad. Dr. Sabrosky, along with many other military personel, have concluded that Israeli’s Mossad did 9/11, to send us to war against their enemies in the Middle East. Read more about his conclusions here: www.veteranstoday.com... and about the topic of Israel's attack on the USS Liberty: www.veteranstoday.com... and the related topic of the 'dancing Israelis' who were caught filming and celebrating the 9/11 attacks as they happened, and the testimony of one of the police officers who arrested them, here: www.youtube.com... )

Again, that is just one opinion. I consider his view possible, but certainly not proven. More evidence is needed before we accuse anyone of doing it, but if you look into Dr. Wood's Qui-Tam case, you will get a good idea of some of the corporations that were most likely involved. These corporations hired NIST to do the 'investigating' of 9/11, even though their relationship with NIST is an enormous conflict-of-interest.

Hope this helps you on your search for the truth.

Best wishes,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

facebook.com...
youtube.com...

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Hold the phone! First of all, have you seen his presentations? I have! Would you like me to start listing the garbage he spews?

Absolutely.

What "normal procedure" are you talking about?

Using a newsire?

I can assure you, most of them saw "YAHOO" and "NEWS" and got all excited without looking into the source.

You're also one of the minority here who opposes AE911's petition and what their organization is really doing, and the dozen or so others like it.

It's more about the person. I dislike liars. I dislike cheats, and I dislike follks that attempt to rewrite history.

So can you present evidence that Mr. Gage doesn't truly believe what he's saying?

If you say he's lying, you have to prove that he's promoting something he doesn't believe.

reply to post by xxcalbier


out of all the wonderful posts about this dreadful event that shocked the world, many of my friends in Australia agree that it is all a bit wierd especially building 7, and the twisted metal of the structures etc. The reason I replied to your post is your last comments... '...returning to la la land".., I love laughing and you get my love today for getting a chuckle out of me, and I wrote a poem just for you.

So as my mind drifts to the floating clouds above, I see the wings move on the flying dove. I feel the air as the breeze caresses my face and I watch the ant crawl up a wall defying gravity at its best, as I too return to the place my mind feels so at rest...la la land

I'm not going to spend the time right now looking at hours worth of links and videos,I've seen most of them already. What were discussing is explosives bringing down wtc1 and wtc2 and my video clearly without a doubt proves that entire theory false,completely.Mr. Gage can come here and answer it or stay home,he'll look like a fool otherwise. The video I posted CLEARLY shows wtc2 collapse initiated at the point of impact the fallout and the dispersant effects of the fallout are another subject entirely. In other words the effect of the top however many storys collapsing into the remaining stories and the destruction of the building materials is irrelevent,the collapse started at the point of impact,thats a fact,the effects of the collapse can be debated.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Paul Rubino
I am dying to see the so-called "hard evidence". I suspect it will just be more conspiracy theories.

What's makes the difference? And what kind of evidence are you looking for, first of all?

If you have a very high standard for evidence, that isn't hypocritical and a double-standard, then you should already have LOTS of problems with the official reports.

Any "hard evidence" 9/11 was an inside job. Such evidence doesn't exist, so i'm anxious to see what is presented.

I'd like to reiterate a few points also,I have a few degrees,I have a degree in mechanical engineering a degree in architecturial design and a few unrelated degrees in other subjects such as fiberoptic design and maintenence,degrees arent that special. As to how the building fell in relation to the video.The building was built with a strong core and a strong exoskeleton,as we can see when the upper floors collapsed and tilted left they met the resistance of the exoskeleton which pushed the mass inwards again,its plainly visable in the video. The design of the building kind of explains the contained debris field as the exoskeleton contained it to a degree. This website contends to deny ignorance,we should start to observe that creed.

Originally posted by Paul Rubino
Any "hard evidence" 9/11 was an inside job. Such evidence doesn't exist, so i'm anxious to see what is presented.

What I'm asking is, what kind of evidence are you looking for? Sounds of explosions? Residues? Memos the Joint Chiefs sent around to each talking openly about planning it and making jokes about it?

What exactly would you need to see, to convince you. Besides just saying "hard evidence," because I'm asking for something more specific.

Thems some strong allegations Bsbray,yes I'd like to see some of those emails,etc between partys involved.

Originally posted by nickoli
As to how the building fell in relation to the video.The building was built with a strong core and a strong exoskeleton,as we can see when the upper floors collapsed and tilted left they met the resistance of the exoskeleton which pushed the mass inwards again,its plainly visable in the video.

The mass of the building was pushed inwards? Can you explain what you mean?

When the upper floors of WTC2 tilted outward, the perimeter columns ("exoskeleton") tilted with the floors.

And I'm not sure exactly what failure mechanism this theory encompasses, as in, are you talking about pancaking? Or NIST's hypothesis?

Originally posted by nickoli
Chirp,chirp,chirp,13 seconds truthers hate.

Wheres the explosives? Wheres the exotic weopons,lasers pfft rediculous. Hmmmmm??????

Look at the top part of the building as it breaks off and leans to the side. It comes crashing down before the lower portion does. Explain to me how the lower portion can come down asymmetrical when the top portion's force and weight are off 20 degrees? This 13 seconds of evidence contradicts the entire ten thousand page official story.