It isn’t even clear what exactly those “thousands” he claims in his numbers really do support

LINKED COMMENT to 9/11: What You Don’t Know is Killing People

These videos expose Richard Gage as the fraud he is: You ask “are the rest of the board of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth, which consist of over 2,500 REGISTERED AIA also frauds” but I think that is a loaded question because I don’t see any proof that there are supposedly “2,500 REGISTERED AIA”  on “the board of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth.” Gage is manipulative and dishonest and has mislead many people. I laid out specific facts, can you dispute anything I said when I exposed Gage? All you are doing is making an “appeal to authority” but the thing is 1. the overwhelming amount of experts around the world DON’T support Gage’s claims. 2. It isn’t even clear what exactly those “thousands” he claims in his numbers really do support, didn’t they just sign a general statement asking for a new investigation? I don’t see many names supporting specific claims.

When they sat Gage down along with David Ray Griffin and Dylan Avery and showed they fires CAN weaken steel, Nat Geo sat those top gurus down and showed them an experiment where a steel beam failed and collapses due to being weakened by a fire, Richard Gage then declares it is “irrelevant” that fires can do that to steel.

Did you see how he points to the wrong computer model repeatedly?:

The fact is that the 2 two assumptions made by the first promoters of the “fires couldn’t do that theory” are erroneous. Contrary to what Eric Hufschmid assumed, fires CAN cause steel to fail. Eric Hufschmid thought he was being clever when he looked up the MELTING point of steel not realizing that the steel didn’t have to melt for it to weaken. Hufschmid’s ignorance is so wide spread that a site about the melting point of steel had to add this: “Addendum (8/26/2011): I answered this question many years ago and it has been referenced in many different web sites and reports. There has been one misrepresentation that has come from that. Many sites refer to the difference in the melting point of steel and the burning temperature of jet fuel as proof that the World Trade Center could not have fallen from the aircraft fires. What those authors fail to note is that while steel melts at around 1,370°C (2500°F) it begins to lose its strength at a much lower temperature. The steel structure of the World Trade Center would not have to melt in order for the buildings to lose their structural integrity. Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel.”

And contrary to what they assumed, there were signs of bowing and sagging in the towers well before the collapse of the towers. The very thing that Griffin points to as a feature of a fire caused collapse we can see in photos of the World Trade Center. Griffin writes, “in fire-induced collapses—if we had any examples of such—the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show, there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes.” But contrary to what Griffin claims, there were indeed signs of bending or sagging. Witnesses reported it and photos document it. Griffin is simply wrong.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s