Sunday, September 11, 2011

What You Really Need to Know about 9-11

American Institute of Architects member Richard Gage has studied the collapse of World Trade Center towers 1, 2 and 7 in detail. The video of a speech he gave in San Francisco is two hours long. If you don't have the time to watch the full two hours, you will get the idea after a 10 to 20 minutes. But, if you want to understand the full story watch the complete video. The video starts here.

49 comments:

  1. oh, god! I can't believe 911 truthers got to Wenzel!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, god! I can't believe government official story truthers got to anon!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can't believe I'm saying this but the video lays out a pretty strong case for demolition by explosive and not due to the planes...

    ReplyDelete
  4. @ Anon 6:31
    The truth always gets to those who search for it with an open and objective mindset. What's so disappointing is the massive number of people who refuse to see truth because it ruins their current paradigm, rather than altering their paradigm relative to what the truth actually is.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Support you 100% on this Robert. It's intellectual suicide not to be called a "truther," but instead to accept the official fable as it is told in the face of MOUNTAINS of evidence to the contrary. When people call me a "truther," between the two of us I know which has spent hours studying the issue and which is merely posturing. Keep spreading the word; help people wake up.

    Godspeed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you, Bob, for addressing this. It's so good to see prominent leaders in the libertarian community finally acknowledging the science based evidence of the collapse of the World Trade Centers.

    And yes anon 6:31, the truth about 9/11 got to Wenzel and hopefully will not stop there!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bob, welcome aboard the 'Question the Folks Who Brought You The Fed' bus!

    Now that you have your eyes opened about 9/11, a lot of other things will become suspect, too.

    For your follow-on explorations, I recommend:
    -- "JFK and the Unspeakable"
    -- http://davesweb.cnchost.com/, "Wagging the Moondoggie", essays 1-3 as an appetizer

    These things are indeed tightly tied to economics, as the behind-the-scenes activity of our government bears heavily on the everyday life of us serfs.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Robert, please tell me your assistant posted this nonsense. So we are to believe that the government coordinated a controlled demolition with terrorist. Say it aint so Joe. I'm a builder and I happened to catch why the Towers fell PBS TV show a while back. They were very logical in explaining why architects changed the original design and made all of the structural post on the perimeter and the surround of the elevator and stairwells. It created a opened space for easy office configuration.
    The impact of the plane obliterated the sprayed on foam fire protection for the steel beams. It also obliterated the fire proof "Sheetrock" (to save money and weight instead of masonry) protecting the stairwells. That's why all the witnesses talked about debris in the stairwell. Who knows what the outcome would have been if the stairwells were protected with masonry walls.
    The second building fell first because it had more weight above the impact zone.
    Robert I love this blog. Please keep telling me about the numbers, I can't get enough of the numbers......

    ReplyDelete
  9. Bravo. The ability to see clearly lends itself to many uses.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The truth is out there.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous@ 6:31 PM,

    For those of us who are still undecided can you do better than the genetic fallacy?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Forget the buildings, the plane that went down in Pennsylvania did it for me. I remember seeing the news reports on 9/11, and when they covered the Pennsylvania flight, I said to myself, "That is not a plane crash." No debris in sight, just a damn hole in the ground.

    ReplyDelete
  13. how long would it take to put in explosives in two towers like that? Someone would have noticed

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't think there's anything wrong with being skeptical of the official story. Assuming it was a terrorist attack, I still think most Americans didn't learn the lesson that we should stop intervening around the world. I would not be surprised by future terrorist attacks.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ed -- go back to sleep. We'll wake you up when we deem it necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see."
    – Ayn Rand

    I'm not a Randian, but this quote was sent to me by a friend a few days ago and is apt. The many, many unanswered questions about 9/11 should be enough to make anyone question the official story. The truth is out there!

    Until all of the evidence is released, and the participants thoroughly examined, the current story will continue to be dismissed.

    I wish Sibeli Edmonds could speak out without facing life in prison- she knows a lot of stuff about that terrible day.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anon @8:55 PM: There's a lot the owner of a skyscraper can do in his own building without anyone noticing. Here's something that happened in 1978 that was a more involved operation than rigging a building with explosives -- took 3 months, and no one found out for 20 years:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup_Center#Engineering_crisis_of_1978

    ReplyDelete
  18. In response to Anon (8:14PM) I too second 'Wagging the Moondoggie' by David McGowan. It's an out-of-this-world read (ignore the stupid pun).

    ReplyDelete
  19. I have to say this was much better than most 911 truth videos. He presented evidence I never knew about.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I don't believe the official story either but one question I have trouble answering is what happened to the passengers of the flights that (supposedly) crashed in PA and at the Pentagon?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Most of the pentagon passengers were top-secret security clearance/military people... at least those who are listed on the passenger manifest.

    ReplyDelete
  22. For the sake of the argument, let's accept the official version. Beside the buildings in New York City 10 years ago, can anybody point me to any other building that collapsed almost in free fall without controlled demolition?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hey Ed, what's the government telling you to think about building 7? Explain how the skyscraper that didn't get hit by a plane collapsed into it's own footprint in 6 seconds. I mean why take the time to review what Richard Gage has to say when you can just trust the government to tell us the truth?

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Ed
    Ok, so you have explained why buildings 1 and 2 fell. Planes hit them, blah blah.

    How about building 7? Unless there was a 3rd plane that they haven't been telling us about?

    ReplyDelete
  25. The plane over PA was shot down. That's a fact. Everything else, I have no clue.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It looked like a multi-part video presentation. I skimmed part 1 and it was all hot air and said NOTHING about the engineering evidence. Can someone tell us which of the 3 videos discusses the engineering evidence so we don't have to wade thru the posturing and BS?

    Thanks in advance.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Notice the "dissenting" comments here don't even attempt to address the subject matter. If there are issues with what the architects and engineers are saying in the presentation, enlighten us.

    Here is the 15-minute video on WTC 7 (also by Architects & Engineeers for 9/11 Truth) which is great for sharing.

    This is another good documentary based on the 9/11 timeline project and follows the families of 9/11 victims as they search for truth. As far as I know, it's the only way see the NBC interview of the 9/11 hijacker who got cold feet, turned himself in and confessed to the plot a year before 9/11 (it's at the 34 min 30 sec mark but watch the whole thing).

    ReplyDelete
  28. Chris Mohr has posted an 18-part rebuttal to Gage's "Blueprint For Truth" at http://www.youtube.com/user/chrismohr911#p/u. Admittedly 18 parts of a largely snoozer presentation is a lot to wade through, but Part 3 (large steel structure fires) and Part 4 (free fall collapse) address some of the points brought up. Of note, Mohr apparently did this in response to Gage electing to not release video of their debate on the subject earlier this year (according to his statement in the introduction, "Part 0" ... which I highly recommend starting out with so you understand his background, no matter what part you skip to).

    A more concise and watchable presentation of the "standard model" of the WTC 1 and 2 collapse is, as mentioned above, NOVA's "Why the Towers Fell" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-645400195311132956 ... it does not, however, address the objections brought up to the controlled demolition model.

    ReplyDelete
  29. <I'm up now... did any anything happen overnight?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ed, neither Robert nor the video asserted that the government actually perpetrated 9/11. But there is no question that the government is covering up...something.

    Also, I have no problem believing that those in government are capable of this. Any number of deaths are easily justified for a cause. Never forget, Madeleine Albright said 500k deaths were worth it. She didn't deny the deaths, or even contest the number. Government officials must have the presumption of being psychotic.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Believe me I wouldn't trust Government to tell me what the weather is going to be this afternoon. But we are to believe a conspiracy that killed all the people at ground zero, the pentagon, flight 93, Iraq, Afghanistan and Matt Lauer hasn't had even one of the conspirators on the Today show.

    ReplyDelete
  32. As someone who operated in the shadows for many years, there is no way our Government could maintain or safeguard a secret of this magnitute.Sometimes a cigar really is a cigar. It is the only thing Freud said that I agree with.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ed, well how else where they going to explain a costly foreign Jihad through the world and further expanding their power at home. Bush couldn't do that without something big as he was seen as an ape who could barely pick poop out of his butt.

    ReplyDelete
  34. When I was a doctoral student at an Ivy League university studying math and engineering, I applied to the NASA astronaut program.

    During this time I took flying lessons in a Cessna twin engine plane - just as many of the 19 guys who "hijacked" planes on 9/11.

    Now, I may be wrong, but I don't think it is possible to jump from being a student in a small Cessna to flying a jumbo jet and hitting your target without any prior practice runs. Do you?

    ReplyDelete
  35. To the "government would never lie to us" crowd. Jessica Lynch and Pat Tilman anyone?

    Go back to sleep.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I actually had just dozed off when a black unmarked helicopter woke me up . I grabbed my binoculars and to my surprise Dick Cheney and anonymous were flying the darn thing.
    I like to focus on real conspiracies such as Bennie and friends around the world running their printing presses. Hey , I just figured out why my spray oil went 30% since march. Thanks Guys

    ReplyDelete
  37. anon@10:10 ...and Oklahoma and Waco.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I questioned the official story of what happened on 9/11 and I'm 100% positive that there has been some type of cover up (at the very least, government ineptness). With that said, mainstream media has successfully made a wedge issue out of this and it's practically impossible to move this movement forward.

    Just look at these comments, there's no compromise between the believers and non believers, lets attack the low hanging fruit that's out in the open instead.

    Remember, our government can't do any of the crap it does now without it's enablers at the fed reserve and in congress.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous @9:40 AM said, "there is no way our Government could maintain or safeguard a secret of this magnitute."

    It appears you don't know anything about The Manhattan Project. It was kept secret for quite some time.

    Also, @Ed, the focus is on the facts of conspiracies, it does not matter if the conspiracies are "real" or not, only the facts matter.
    Many People are choosing to avoid the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @Anonymous (9/12 6:41 AM)...

    You said...

    "A more concise and watchable presentation of the "standard model" of the WTC 1 and 2 collapse is, as mentioned above, NOVA's "Why the Towers Fell" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-645400195311132956 ... it does not, however, address the objections brought up to the controlled demolition model."

    Are you being serious? The theory presented in the NOVA video was so easily eliminated as possible that even NIST (who wrote the official report) says it's wrong. Here is the relevant quote from NIST's report...

    "NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers... Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."

    To claim that the NOVA video offers an explanation for the collapses is a strange move as it means you're taking a position that no one else on either side of the argument is taking. It doesn't matter if it is "concise and watchable", the theory was eliminated as possible by both sides of the debate. You also apparently failed to notice that the NOVA film doesn't mention WTC7.

    Also, since you mentioned the Mohr debate, it doesn't bother you that Mohr acknowledged that the hot sulfur attack on steel mentioned in Appendix C of the FEMA report remains a mystery and admitted he has no explanation for the melted steel? While I commend Mohr (a journalist) for being the only person willing to publicly defend the NIST report, I don't see how ignoring the evidence of demolition (or just writing it off as unexplainable) is an acceptable way of dealing with it.

    By Mohr's logic, if an autopsy of a man who supposedly died of a heart attack showed he had bullet in his head, we don't need to investigate the origin of the bullet as long as we can concoct a scenario where he died of a heart attack.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @anon 10:07 AM

    I'm a private pilot, and I don't think it would be that difficult to fly a jumbo jet if your only purpose is to hit a large building. I once flew a C141 (now-retired military cargo jet) full-motion simulator with another guy who had zero time flying aircraft. I let him control the yoke while I controlled the throttle. We were able to successfully land the C141 on our second attempt -- a MUCH more difficult task than hitting a building.

    You can (and could in 2001 as well) get a lot useful knowledge of flight characteristics of aircraft just from flying simulators on your PC. With that and the ability to fly any airplane, it wouldn't be too difficult to hit a large, distinctive building.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Mr. Gage's presentation is compelling. I'm not an engineer and it is clear that engineers are not uniform in their assessment of the WTC collapses. Nobody should be attacked and ridiculed for doing this kind of work. What's truly ridiculous is taking every government press release at face value. When big things happen (9/11, Bin Laden assassination), the press should question and investigate every angle, not act as stenographers for the state.

    Back to the video. I don't think the attempts at identifying perpetrators and motives are nearly as compelling, since both Mr. Gage and David Ray Griffin come across as partisan Democrats, for almost all of whom Bush and Cheney are the bogeymen of our time. Yes, they are rotten. So was Clinton and so is Obama. I don't buy into the myth of the two-party system. Besides, if there was an insider conspiracy, I doubt Bush would be one of the insiders. My sense is that presidents are hapless dupes -- not innocent, but flattered and played for fools by the real powers-that-be.

    There is undeniably a coverup surrounding 9/11. We know this because the decidedly mainstream Fox News reported on the arrest and subsequent deportation of a bunch of Israeli spies in and around New York right after 9/11. One law enforcement source told Fox that he believed the Israelis had to have known about the intentions of the hijackers, whom the spies had been monitoring.

    This report was removed from Fox's website under pressure from the Israeli lobby and ADL, although it was never retracted. You can find it on YouTube. The events it describes were not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. The spies were sent back by then-U.S. Attorney Michael Chertoff, who would later go on to head DHS, and then make big bucks pimping the porno scanners as a lobbyist.

    That is a coverup. Maybe it's just the tip of an iceberg. Who knows?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Yesterday I posted the link to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth's new 2-hour presentation (released this week) but for some reason it didn't go through.

    ReplyDelete
  44. What most people fail to understand is that large things behave differently than small things. When a toy plane hits a toy building, impact is relevant. When a real airplane hits a WTC tower, impact can be neglected. This is because the weight of a body grows much faster with size than other physical properties. If you ever asked yourself why a water drop cannot grow beyond a certain size. This is the reason. The architect in the video clearly fails to understand this. Also, Hollywood normally gets it wrong, yet Hollywood is responsible from what we expect it to look like. The reason this looks like controlled demolition to most, is because they have never seen an uncontrolled demolition of a building of that size.

    ReplyDelete
  45. @Anonymous (9/12 1:24 PM)...

    Thanks for that detailed scientific explanation of toy planes, water droplets, hollywood and why 1500+ credentialed and licensed architects and engineers just don't "understand this". What does a toy plane (or real plane) impacting a toy building (or a real building) have to do with WTC7 (or are you under the impression that WTC7 was hit by a plane)?

    Forgive me if you were just trying to be funny by mocking the weakness of the NIST-defender's argument. It's pretty easy to miss subtle sarcasm these days.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @Anonymous (9/12 1:47PM)

    This issue is such a wedge now it's impossible to have any discussion anymore. Regardless of if 9/11 was planned or caused by government ineptness or something in between, the majority of Americans just tune out when this issue comes up. IMO, everyone's time is better served educating people on why our foreign policy is bad and why we shouldn't let the federal reserve control the value of our currency.

    ReplyDelete
  47. These comments were encouraging! Very few drones parroting the official government story.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Thanks for posting this Robert.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Vertical, free-fall. Enough said.

    ReplyDelete