Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of World Trade Center Building 7

A must-watch - please share with everyone you know:



This is the link to send ... www.davidicke.com...





Posting video links - ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ
* Link
* Description
* Review/Opinion

reply to post by nedined


Same old same old. Got anything new? These are same professional con men that have been peddling the same crap for years.

Richard Gage - he's an architect. When was the last time (or first time) you heard of anyone hiring an architect to oversee a building demolition? There's a reason for that. They're not qualified.

reply to post by hooper


Wow, so your boldly saying that anyone that has the capability to build a structure such as a skyscraper doesn't have the know how on how one would fall or shouldn't fall?

You call them professional con men when they have nothing to gain. So why would they con?

Do you have anything new to bring to the table?

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by hooper

 

Wow, so your boldly saying that anyone that has the capability to build a structure such as a skyscraper doesn't have the know how on how one would fall or shouldn't fall?

You call them professional con men when they have nothing to gain. So why would they con?

Do you have anything new to bring to the table?

Correction, architects design aesthetics, it’s the licensed structural engineers who figure out how to make it work.

And yes, these guys are charlatans.

reply to post by hooper


worst arguement hoop. 1st, did u even watch? 2nd, wouldnt be beneficial to disect video and debunk it? Horrible arguement. If I wasnt informed on either side of the arguement, i'd say you lost, horribly. and being informed on the subject, I still say horrible arguement. You wont win. Ever.

reply to post by SirMike


So your using the generalized definition of the word "Architect". We aren't talking about software architects or even landscape architects. The architects we are talking about, by definition, means a person trained in the planning, design and oversight of the construction of buildings. So the destruction of a building would be that job in reverse. They would know the weak points of a structure wouldn't you think?

Wow hooper, your first post is really ignorant. An architect's job is to design a building able to withstand various different elements. Richard has designed several steel structure buildings in his 20+ years as a architect. He knows his area of expertise pretty damn well.

Definition of a conspiracy theorist appears to be: Anyone that disagrees with what the government or media says.

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by SirMike

 

So your using the generalized definition of the word "Architect". We aren't talking about software architects or even landscape architects. The architects we are talking about, by definition, means a person trained in the planning, design and oversight of the construction of buildings. So the destruction of a building would be that job in reverse. They would know the weak points of a structure wouldn't you think?

No, I am not using a "generalized definition" for architect. An architect lays out floor plans, determines what codes need to be used, get permits, write specifications and things like that. However, every piece of steel and reinforced concrete, every foundation, every gusset plate, weld and connection is designed by a structural engineer. Architects tell you what its going to look like and how the paperwork needs to flow, but engineers make it work.

Trust me on this, I do this for a living.

Originally posted by deadmessiah
Wow hooper, your first post is really ignorant. An architect's job is to design a building able to withstand various different elements. Richard has designed several steel structure buildings in his 20+ years as a architect.

Umm .... no he hasn’t. A licensed SE designed those buildings. Don’t believe me, look at the structural drawings labeled certified for construction and tell me whose stamp is on it.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by nedined

 

Same old same old. Got anything new?

Gravity and Physics is not new and never will be.

The only way for the roof line to remain straight during the fall was for all of the supports to give way simultaneously. That is what should reveal the obvious to 7th and 8th graders. Architects and engineers should not have been necessary to recognize that.

How long will the United States be laughed at once the stupidity of this business is generally acknowledged? The dummies that believed this nonsense for a decade will probably have to deal with their absurdity being publicized.

psik

reply to post by SirMike


Yep generalization, but just for you here's a structural engineer that believes wtc 7 was controlled demolition.

Architects and Engineers

Originally posted by Myendica
worst arguement hoop. 1st, did u even watch?

No he didn't watch the video. The video is 15 minutes and he posted only 4 minutes after the thread was created. People like "hooper" aren't here to debate the facts, or even debate at all. They're here to troll, demean, and attack. And this BS is still allowed here against all the rules of this forum and the T & C's.

"Richard Gage, AIA, is a San Francisco Bay Area architect and a member of the American Institute of Architects. He has been an architect for over 23 years and has worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fire-proofed, steel-framed buildings. Most recently, he worked on the construction documents for a $400M mixed-use urban project with 1.2 million square feet of retail, a parking structure, and 320,000 square feet of mid-rise office space—altogether with about 1,200 tons of steel framing."

I think he knows something about steel structures, wouldn't you say? I misspoke about him "designing" the buildings although, he would have to know the designs as he worked on them, but you're not concerned about that really. What about the other 1500+ architects and engineers? Are they're all crackpots too?

I suppose you prefer to believe the NIST report, you know, the ones that claimed there was no explosive residue in the rubble, but then later had to admit they never tested for it. lol

Originally posted by SirMike
it’s the licensed structural engineers who figure out how to make it work.
And yes, these guys are charlatans.

It's hilarious that you have the audacity to call people with BS, MS, and Ph.D's "charlatans" because of your denial and ignorance.

These are very educated, experienced, and credible people who are giving their professional analyses based on the facts. Just because their analyses don't align with your fantasies, does not make them charlatans, nor their analyses wrong.

You do realize that the "official" version of events is also a conspiracy theory, don't you? NIST's engineers used guesses, calculations, and made-up computer models to give their analysis of what happened. But it's only a theory and not provable.

reply to post by SirMike


Also, since you seem to be an expert in this area, explain to me at what temperature does steel melt? Don't bring the "it can weaken at lower temps" BS in. Tell me what temperature does steel melt at. (Hint: I already know, I just hope you do, seeings as how you claim to be an architect of some sort.)

Nope, nope.....hey men, it was all obviously planned well in advance. on many levels
it just takes common sense....quit your saying "an architect"....WTC7 was pulled.

Originally posted by SirMike
Correction, architects design aesthetics, it’s the licensed structural engineers who figure out how to make it work.

That is not true. An architect has to design every part of a building, including everything from materials used to the safety features. They have to know building design inside and out (no pun). So yes they had better know if a building can collapse, and how.

A structural engineer works from the plans provided by the architect. A SE can also design structures of course, but they usually design features that are incorporated into designs by the architect. Or the architect can consult an SE to see if something they want will work if it's not already established.

I have yet to debate one of you OSers who has any clue about construction, engineering, or physics. You are all arguing from assumptions, and misinformation you grasp at because it seems to your layman mind to make sense. Well there was a time when a lot of people thought the world being flat made sense.

Originally posted by deadmessiah
"Richard Gage, AIA, is a San Francisco Bay Area architect and a member of the American Institute of Architects. He has been an architect for over 23 years and has worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fire-proofed, steel-framed buildings. Most recently, he worked on the construction documents for a $400M mixed-use urban project with 1.2 million square feet of retail, a parking structure, and 320,000 square feet of mid-rise office space—altogether with about 1,200 tons of steel framing."

The problem with Richard Gage and his buddies is that this 9/11 business is an ALL OR NOTHING problem. There is no middle ground. But if it is all or nothing nearly all of the engineers should be on one side.

How is it that they are not after TEN YEARS? How can Gage and his buddies be a minority if he is correct? But what does it say about all of the other architects and engineers if Gage is right? Gage looked at me like I had grown a second head when I asked him about the steel distribution in 2008.

His presentation is such that he wants people to BELIEVE because of his credential not UNDERSTAND because he did a decent job of explaining the simple physics. Because if he does the latter then he paints all professionals that do not agree as fools or liars.

How can a simple Newtonian Physics problem not be solved in TEN YEARS by the nation that put men on the Moon?

psik

reply to post by nedined


Great video, thanks for posting.

I recently made a thread about the collapse of WTC7, and I included many interviews done by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth as well as their explanations. The Impossible Collapse Of WTC7.

When hundreds of experts publically say "This was a controlled demolition, the official story isn't possible", how the hell can people still tell themselves that the official story is true?

Then we have people like hooper who don't even look at the evidence and just blindly defend the flawed official story. Hooper, if you can watch this video with credible experts who are fully knowledgeable in this subject telling us that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, but maintain the belief that some scattered fires caused the building to symmetrically collapse and free-fall, I think you're either a government shill, or you are hopelessly in denial.

reply to post by ANOK


Then there is the use of throwaway words like 'Charlatan' to all, what? 1400 of 'em, I wonder how that would stand in a court of law, god, there are some funny people about, no wonder people are crying out for an independent 9/11 enquiry, it's the bitchiness of those in high places that make people suspicious to begin with, then you get data-less guys like sir smirke, and hooping cough, to clog up the airways.
Just think about it, two years ago a french jet disappeared over the Atlantic with speculation on the suspicious, and near $50 million was spent on a possible recovery, and analysis of evidence by the French authorities.

No pokey $10 million cartoon money there to get at the truth, but a dedication, and this the French who everyone likes to deride?