Controversial 9/11 conspiracy theorist to give speech in Bristol

[redred]

A CONTROVERSIAL architect who has called into the question the official reports of what happened on September 11, 2001, is due to give a speech at Bristol's Colston Hall this week.

American Richard Gage claims he is not a conspiracy theorist, but he insists the "evidence" suggests the collapsing of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers has all the hallmarks of a series of controlled explosions.

As the founder of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth organisation, Mr Gage questions whether the attacks on Manhattan were somehow staged by America ahead of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 9/11 attacks killed almost 3,000 victims, most of them in New York where emotions are still just as raw as the day the towers collapsed.

Since 2005, Mr Gage has travelled the world presenting his version of the evidence and has so far gathered 13,000 supporters' signatures, including prominent architects and engineers.

Mr Gage will air his views in Bristol just three months ahead of the ten-year anniversary of the disaster in America.

His speech is expected to attract supporters and opponents, but his mere presence in Bristol is likely to cause its own controversy within the city.

[redred]

me and sertes are going out for a few ciders after :tinfoil: :lol:

[Deepsepia]

A CONTROVERSIAL architect who has called into the question the official reports of what happened on September 11, 2001, is due to give a speech at Bristol's Colston Hall this week.

American Richard Gage

I have never been able to find out just what his actual experience is. He makes great claims about being an architect -- but of course architecture is neither fire science, nor failure analysis, nor metallurgy, nor chemistry.

Back when I actually cared about this, I watched some of his videos where he talks about his experience, and I recall that he'd say things like that he worked at a firm that designed tall buildings or steel framed structures -- my impression was that his language carefully tiptoed around the question of "just what is it that you're professionally qualified to comment on"?

My other impression is that he's not actually a working architect, he's a working conspiracy theorist, making a ton of money off of books and appearances.

[Softdreamer]

I agree with this man, I've read some of his publications.

Whilst not agreeing with most of the crackpots, there is a case that we were not told the full story by the 9/11 report.
Building 7. Explain that, and I will accept the story we were told.

[DemonGeminiX]

me and sertes are going out for a few ciders after :tinfoil: :lol:

:slap:

Don't say his name!!! Saying his name is like staring in your own eyes in the mirror at midnight and chanting "Bloody Mary" three times. Only in this case, he will come!!!

:x

[redred]

:lol:

[beowulf]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p68/beowulf04844/theory.jpg

[Teh One Who Knocks]

A CONTROVERSIAL architect who has called into the question the official reports of what happened on September 11, 2001, is due to give a speech at Bristol's Colston Hall this week.

American Richard Gage claims he is not a conspiracy theorist, but he insists the "evidence" suggests the collapsing of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers has all the hallmarks of a series of controlled explosions.

As the founder of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth organisation, Mr Gage questions whether the attacks on Manhattan were somehow staged by America ahead of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 9/11 attacks killed almost 3,000 victims, most of them in New York where emotions are still just as raw as the day the towers collapsed.

Since 2005, Mr Gage has travelled the world presenting his version of the evidence and has so far gathered 13,000 supporters' signatures, including prominent architects and engineers.

Mr Gage will air his views in Bristol just three months ahead of the ten-year anniversary of the disaster in America.

His speech is expected to attract supporters and opponents, but his mere presence in Bristol is likely to cause its own controversy within the city.

:ffs:

[Arkady Renko]

I'm sure we'll be hearing that crap until the last day of our lives.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Unfortunately I think you're right about that :|

[AntZ]

he worked at a firm that designed tall buildings or steel framed structures -- my impression was that his language carefully tiptoed around the question of "just what is it that you're professionally qualified to comment on"?


By his standard, a janitor or mail room delivery boy at Boeing can say that they worked at the biggest aircraft factory and will challenge a NTSB aircraft crash report because of their experience! :roll:

I'll never forget the nonsense Sertes would come up with to explain his, and the crackpots at that websites, experience and expertise. :lol:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

My favorite part always is how they have 'evidence'.....this is how they present their evidence: "I say they blew the buildings up, now prove me wrong."


:roll:

[Softdreamer]

Can anyone tell me of any other steel frame buildings that have collapsed due to small fires?

Then we could compare the two scenarios??

[AntZ]

Can anyone tell me of any other steel frame buildings that have collapsed due to small fires?



I certainly don't want to rehash the same stuff that was covered in several multi-page threads at AS., but your statement about "small fires" needed to be challenged. I posted a very large multi-post report discussing fires and it's effect in steel structures that included a tanker fire that melted the steel supports of a near by a California freeway exchange and saw it come crashing down. An example of a 4 floor fire at the UCB/First Interstate Bank tower in down town L.A. The fire raged for several hours before being brought under control, after the fire, it was found that the building had had excellent construction insulation and only the speed of the fire dept. putting out the fire saved the building because the fire had almost burned away that insulation and would have brought it down.

You ask the question the conspiracy theorists always ask, "when has it happened before"? IT HASN'T! Because fires are attacked and put out! There is clear record that after the fall of the twin towers and the rescue efforts at the pile, NO ONE FOUGHT THE FIRE!!!!!! I have it recorded from live news broadcasts on 911. That bottom multi-floor fire burned out of control for almost 8 hours! It was no "small fire"!

B.T.W., Sertes was unable to challenge anything I posted and quickly went on to other issues! :rolleyes:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

My favorite part always is how they have 'evidence'.....this is how they present their evidence: "I say they blew the buildings up, now prove me wrong."


:roll:

is this a conversation on religion again

[Joebob034]

SERTES!

[AntZ]

SERTES!

If you say it three times, he'll appear like Beatlejuice! :hills:

[Goofy]

Can anyone tell me of any other steel frame buildings that have collapsed due to small fires?

Then we could compare the two scenarios??

Can you tell me any other time you've seen a huge skyscraper hit directly by an aeroplane? :-k

[redred]

and it's started:twisted:

[Softdreamer]

That bottom multi-floor fire burned out of control for almost 8 hours! It was no "small fire"!



this summarises (with reference links)

http://skeptosis.blogspot.com/2007/02/fire-vs-steel-facts.html

That steel frame buildings DO NOT collapse because of fires, small or large.

Again, Building 7. Which suffered very little damage, explain that and I will never comment on that day ever again.

[AntZ]

this summarises (with reference links)

http://skeptosis.blogspot.com/2007/02/fire-vs-steel-facts.html

That steel frame buildings DO NOT collapse because of fires, small or large.

Again, Building 7. Which suffered very little damage, explain that and I will never comment on that day ever again.


I just finished looking it over, I found questions asked over and over with the most simplistic self answering! :roll:

"There have never been any buildings that have collapsed due to fire"!! Like this and this and this.... All burned for 2 hours, 3.5 hours, 4 hours!!!!! Yeah, and weren't they put out by crews fighting the fires? Ahhhhhhh....Yeah! How about that?? Oh. Fire can't cause a steel building to collapse! Because fire can't melt steel?? Really?

I laughed out loed that they even included: First Interstate Bank - 62 floors, no sprinklers, 3.5-hour fire, no collapse. That's what I mentioned above! Now if you read the report on that fire, you'll see the the credit given to the steel frame insulation (which in fact EVERY GODDAMNED STEEL FRAMED BUILDING HAS) that did it's job in the face of the raging fire. And the quick response by the L.A. Fire Department in battling the fire. But you won't see that information on that simplistic blog, just slily questions that can be answered by some simple research. Sertes tried to counter with questions off those sites, after long detailed explanations proving the nonsense of these questions, he had no more angles to keep driving his arguments. If there was a way, he would find it!

As said above, the ground floors of the building were burning for up to 8 hours out of control. There was no firefighting going on, and the weight of a tall building on melting steel will cause a collapse. The same people have insisted that the fires in the twin towers couldn't have collapse from fire either. After being proved wrong, they eventually backed away from that and now only focus on #7. Look at the picture provided at the top of that site! What is it? Another small WTC building next to the WTC 7 collapse, it's scorched! But how? If the fire in the next building was in a waste basket? And if fire does no damage to steel frames, WHY DOES EVERY BUILDING AROUND THE WORLD GET A MANDATED THICK COATING OF FIRE INSULATION?

[Leefro]

Did this bloke work as stunt co-ordinator on The towering inferno ??

[Southern Belle]

Can you tell me any other time you've seen a huge skyscraper hit directly by an aeroplane? :-k

cha ching!

[Softdreamer]

There have been several recorded air crashes into steel frame buildings, not jumbos from what I remember. But I also remember that the aviation fuel would have burnt off completely within the first 30 minutes of the fire, and that the impact damage was not sufficient to bring down the building.

I think you have defeated your own argument there regarding WTC7.. that building had insulation around its steel frame. if the building were to collapse, it would do in stages, not in freefall.

We've all played Jenga before now.. if you take up the pieces of the base, it falls over.. not in upon itself. The heat residues found weeks after the attacks show that molten metal was present at the site. You dont get molten metal through a 'collapse'.

[FBD]

I may be wrong, but I vaguely recall hearing about them removing a lot of the fire protectant from most of the WTC buildings - because it had asbestos!

[Softdreamer]

If it was, building regulations would have meant replacing it.

[AntZ]

There have been several recorded air crashes into steel frame buildings, not jumbos from what I remember. But I also remember that the aviation fuel would have burnt off completely within the first 30 minutes of the fire, and that the impact damage was not sufficient to bring down the building.

I think you have defeated your own argument there regarding WTC7.. that building had insulation around its steel frame. if the building were to collapse, it would do in stages, not in freefall.

We've all played Jenga before now.. if you take up the pieces of the base, it falls over.. not in upon itself. The heat residues found weeks after the attacks show that molten metal was present at the site. You dont get molten metal through a 'collapse'.

What?? :lol:

First off, there have been many small private planes that have hit buildings, that's true. They are most all prop planes that carry a small amount of high octane aviation fuel. One of the largest I can think of was a B-17 that hit the Empire State building and caused quite a bit of damage and a large fire that was knocked down by the fire crews.


But I also remember that the aviation fuel would have burnt off completely within the first 30 minutes of the fire

Means nothing! You pour lighter fluid on your BBQ, the fuel will burn off in a few minutes! It's job is to ignite the charcoal/wood, once lit, you can cook your food. You can start a fire in a building with a single match, what ever the source, the building will burn!


I think you have defeated your own argument there regarding WTC7.. that building had insulation around its steel frame.

Yes it did, no one said it didn't! If a building catches fire, it must be able to protect the steel for a set amount of time, after that the insulation will burn away and they will lose the building.


We've all played Jenga before now.. if you take up the pieces of the base, it falls over.. not in upon itself.

First of all, you can't compare a large steel frame office building to solid rectangle wood blocks! :roll: When your little Jenga tower falls over, it's because you've removed a block on one side. No different that cutting a wedge out of the side of a tall tree!


The heat residues found weeks after the attacks show that molten metal was present at the site. You dont get molten metal through a 'collapse'.

You're right! You get molten metal from a uncontrolled fire that has burned for 8 hours. It first burns off the non-asbestos insulation (That would have stood up to the fire far better and longer) then it melted the support steel. The building not being made of large wood blocks, collapsed down into itself from it's immense weight.

[Softdreamer]

Yes, when the lighter fuel runs out, the coals cook the food on a LOW steady heat. not hot enough to melt the BBQ itself

If WTC7 did collapse due to the frame being melted, then portions unaffected by the fire would have remained intact, or would have fallen into the debris as large chunks much the same as buildings that have been destroyed by earthquakes.
WTC7 collapsed totally and synchronously at near the speed of acceleration due to gravity. As if all the internal supports instantly vaporized.

The jenga analogy was purely to point out that both the towers and building 7 fell in on themselves and not over. Its possible that that could happen.. but 3 times in a row on buildings with fires in different locations is highly unlikely. in fact, pretty much impossibly unlikely.

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a39ae149b0f6.gif

[AntZ]

Yes, when the lighter fuel runs out, the coals cook the food on a LOW steady heat. not hot enough to melt the BBQ itself

If WTC7 did collapse due to the frame being melted, then portions unaffected by the fire would have remained intact, or would have fallen into the debris as large chunks much the same as buildings that have been destroyed by earthquakes.
WTC7 collapsed totally and synchronously at near the speed of acceleration due to gravity. As if all the internal supports instantly vaporized.

The jenga analogy was purely to point out that both the towers and building 7 fell in on themselves and not over. Its possible that that could happen.. but 3 times in a row on buildings with fires in different locations is highly unlikely. in fact, pretty much impossibly unlikely.




Yes, when the lighter fuel runs out, the coals cook the food on a LOW steady heat. not hot enough to melt the BBQ itself

You're right again, but only the fuel in the BBQ is burning at a steady rate until it's finished. Take a fire place, house fire or forest fire, as fresh fuel continues to be fed into the flames, the fire will grow in size and temperature.



If WTC7 did collapse due to the frame being melted, then portions unaffected by the fire would have remained intact, or would have fallen into the debris as large chunks much the same as buildings that have been destroyed by earthquakes.

I don't know what pictures you've seen, but there was a debris pile that took months to chop up and haul away!


WTC7 collapsed totally and synchronously at near the speed of acceleration due to gravity. As if all the internal supports instantly vaporized.

And how exactly could that be achieved? Watch documentaries on building demolitions, they set angled shape charges on the sides of the lower floor main support beams, after the blasts the building turns into a heaping dusty pile.

[Softdreamer]

And how exactly could that be achieved? Watch documentaries on building demolitions, they set angled shape charges on the sides of the lower floor main support beams, after the blasts the building turns into a heaping dusty pile.

What, like the ones in the background here?
http://beyondpoliticsand911.com/photogallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Fireman_w_big_angle_cut_beam_close_up.jpg

[Softdreamer]

and here
http://www.debunking911.com/anglecut2.jpg

[AntZ]

What, like the ones in the background here?
http://beyondpoliticsand911.com/photogallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Fireman_w_big_angle_cut_beam_close_up.jpg

Those were the outer skin box beams from the WTC towers, they were shot long after the clean up had begun and were done to remove huge exterior skin pieces that still stood over a hundred feet in the air. Those photos have long been debunked, if shaped charge explosives had been attached to the exterior of the ground floor atrium, everyone would have noticed. And the collapse of the Twin towers started the the collision points, not the ground floors.

[Arkady Renko]

not again, please make it stop!