Monday, December 14, 2009

Sheeple Outvoted!

Like any self-respecting organized religion, the 9/11 Truth Movement has its schisms and its ex-communications and many of its bloodiest battles are internecine. Fortunately that also makes them effective debunkers of other sects. Jim Hoffman, for example, provides compelling photographic evidence for debunking the no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon theory (which is the majority group of the "no-planers" sect, a minority cult of which deny any planes hit any buildings on September 11th 2001) and he has, in turn, received abuse from No-planers. Still more exotic theories include the idea that the Twin Towers were destroyed with nuclear weapons or lasers from space.

However while there may be quibbles and theological disputes over doctrine there does remain one supreme tenet that is dogma across the spectrum: that 9/11 was an inside job! Here, again, there are disagreements over who, exactly conducted the attacks. Was it the Bush administration? Were the "mainstream media" involved? Perhaps the CIA? FBI? The New York Fire Department? The owners of the buildings? The Red Cross(!)? There are also suspicions about more shadowy groups about which we know nothing, the New World Order, the Illuminati or the Freemasons. Perhaps the blame can be laid, as so tiresomely often in the past, at the door of suspiciously rich Semites? Such a disparite movement with its various articles of faith is unfortunately bound to attract a few weird and nasty people. With such a schismatic and quarrelsome community of adherents a few newer groups have emerged to slough off their image of conspiracist cranks and to present a more sober and scholarly face with impeccable scientific credentials.

Richard Gage's AE9/11 Truth (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth) is one such organization. In his slideshow presentation in Osaka - which was similar to his presentation at Ritsumeikan which I've covered here he plays the Anglican vicar to Alex Jones' fire-and-brimstone preacher. His presentation is ecumenical in that it contains sections of Loose Change and Jones' 9/11 Mysteries as well as physicist Steven Jones' controlled demolition using thermite theory. Gage was influenced by reading the dean of 9/11ology, David Ray Griffin, who was himself influenced by Thierry Meyssan and the sinister Eric Hufschmid.

The Reverand Richard Gage in the pulpit

In the beginning, Gage informed us that the 9/11 Truth Movement is not a religion, which is what gave me the idea of adding a religious motif to this blogpost. Gage then went on to say that since 9/11 American freedoms are being trampled, the American media is becoming more "complicit", there are "ongoing injustices in the Middle East" and the US is at war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Only the Truth about 9/11 can roll these issues back. This seems to me to be making a literally fantastic claim almost likening the 9/11 to a kind of spell which needs to be broken. It might be why a number of anti-war activists have been dismayed by the Truth Movement as it has drained their reservoir.

The meat of Gage's presentation was to show that the collapse of both the Twin Towers and the Salomon Brothers Building (WTC7) had all the characteristics of a controlled demolition. First he showed a flowchart listing what those characteristics are.

Richard Gage's Flowchart

By far the largest part of the presentation was on WTC7, which is what Gage calls "the smoking gun" evidence of an inside job. This is perhaps because it more closely resembles the video of an actual controlled demolition that he plays it against. However, in this video the audio is turned off making it impossible to compare the sound of a controlled demolition with that of WTC7's collapse. This is important as we'll get to later. But also, looking at the characteristics, it seems clear that the collapse of the Twin Towers also don't follow that criteria. They didn't go straight down into their footprint as can clearly seen on photographs.



The towers didn't fall at free-fall speed either as is evidenced by the fact that debris fell faster than the collapse front on the buildings moved.

But, let's get back to the WTC7. The actual controlled demolition that Gage compares the collapse of WTC7 to is in fact very loud. Yet to demonstrate that this was the case with WTC7 also, Gage uses the testimony of Kevin McPadden which I've addressed here.

I decided to ask Mr Gage about that here:



Hmmm...so there are videos - which he can play - of WTC7 collapsing with the sounds of explosions audible on them and yet he decided not to play them but to have an eyewitness account of explosions retold? And which of these videos have been manipulated? We didn't find out because the next thing on the agenda was Steven Jones' theory that the buildings were brought down with thermite - or thermate...or possibly superthermite or nanothermite, I am not up to date with the latest theory. That's okay because the programme we received featured one of Steven Jones' "peer-reviewed" articles on "thermitic materials" and we can buy Jones' DVD on nanothermite straight from AE9/11 Truth's website (and in Jesse Ventura's recent faux-documentary on 9/11 conspiracies Jones suggests "liquid thermite" could have been painted on to the steel in the WTC buildings - swivel-eyed Jesse remarks darkly that it could be in any building in every city painted straight on to the buildings and the painters wouldn't even know!)

But how exactly is thermite supposed to work? Fellow commenter on the JREF forum, Nag P - an associate professor of chemistry at Osaka University - asked Richard Gage:



The objections are that thermite itself isn't explosive and that any form of highly reactive thermite with explosive capacity wouldn't be able to melt columns and beams continuously for weeks after the collapses and create the pools of molten metal cited by Gage as evidence for a controlled demolition. This raises two more objections and an observation.
1. As Nag P points out, thermite isn't even used in controlled demolitions. It seems to have been introduced almost as a deus ex machina to support the CD theory. 2. Molten metal isn't a characteristic of controlled demolitions. It seems to have been introduced (and oddly bumped "squibs" from the list of characteristics and replaced it) simply to undermine the "government story". I've remarked on this before that he uses a number of eyewitnesses to show that molten metal had been found - some of them indeed say steel - but he doesn't show any actual evidence of such pools of molten steel as were mentioned. One of the clips from 9/11 Mysteries disingenuously shows a report of finding molten steel in the rubble and yet it doesn't mention pools of metal. The rest of Gage's evidence is the discovery of tiny microspheres which Steven Jones contends were caused during the thermitic controlled demolition and also red and gray chips that Jones believes to be unreacted nano-thermite. I'd be interested to know what they are but so far the explanations I've heard are that the microspheres come from the cutting devices used to sever the remaining columns and beams during clean-up (in other words tools using similar materials to those cited by Jones for cutting beams were used to cut beams for having them shipped out - and there goes another characteristic) while the red and gray flecks are simply paint.

However, convinced of the existence of "chemical evidence for cutter charges", Gage then goes on to argue that the other characteristics were observable. At the end of Nag P's question, Gage says, "Let's see if there is any evidence of foreknowledge..." What? Foreknowledge of the destruction of WTC7, of course there was foreknowledge. Again, this seems like a dubious tactic, and I spoke directly to Gage after the presentation explaining that there had been many, many fire fighters who had said both before and after that the building's structural integrity had gone and that its collapse was imminent. He flatly dismissed it as I've described here.

He then moved on to the Twin Towers saying that the collapse of those was also by controlled demolition - just a very different controlled demolition. There then followed another barrage of odd and dubious claims which and ended up concluding that the characteristics of a controlled demolition were there also.

A show of hands revealed that Doubting Thomases, Nag P and I, were the only two sheep remaining while 90% of the rest of the audience now had their eyes wide open to the Truth.

14 comments:

psikeyhackr said...

Let’s just face some simple facts.

Skyscrapers MUST hold themselves up. They must also sway in the wind. The people who design skyscrapers MUST figure out how much steel and how much concrete they are going to put on every level before they even dig the hole for the foundation.

After EIGHT YEARS why don’t we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC? The NIST report does not even specify the TOTAL for the concrete. The total for the steel is in three places. So even if the planes did it that 10,000 page report is CRAP!

Conspiracies are irrelevant. The Truth Movement should be marching on all of the engineering schools in the country.

Watch that Purdue simulation. If a 150 ton airliner crashes near the top of a skyscraper at 440 mph isn’t the building going to sway? Didn’t the survivors report the building “moving like a wave”? So why do the core columns in the Purdue video remain perfectly still as the plane comes in?

That is the trouble with computer simulations. If they are good, they are very good. But if they have a defect either accidental or deliberate they can be REALLY STUPID once you figure out the flaws.

The distribution of steel and concrete is going to affect the sway of a skyscraper whether it is from the wind or an airliner.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

How much does a complete floor assembly weigh?

You know those square donut floor slabs? They were 205 ft square with a rectangular hole for the core. There was a steel rebar mesh embedded in the concrete which was poured onto corrugated steel pans which were supported by 35 and 60 foot trusses. There has been talk about those things pancaking on each other for years.

But has anyone ever said what the whole thing weighed? Why haven't we seen that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS? The concrete alone is easy to compute, about 600 tons. But the concrete could not be separated from the entire assembly, the knuckles of the trusses were embedded in the concrete. So what did the whole thing weigh and why haven't the EXPERTS mentioned that A LOT?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So why hasn't Richard Gage and his buddies produced a table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS fo CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC? How much computing power do they have compared to the early 1960s when the buildings were designed? I asked Gage about that in May of 2008 at Chicago Circle Campus and he got a surprised look on his face and gave me this LAME excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints. Gravity hasn't changed since the 1960s. They should be able to come up with some reasonable numbers.

angrysoba said...

After EIGHT YEARS why don’t we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC?

I'm sorry, I don't know.

Conspiracies are irrelevant. The Truth Movement should be marching on all of the engineering schools in the country.


Actually, I agree with this. Why are they always asking the government to be investigating things? Can't they find anyone else to do it given that they don't trust the government and the US government can't really stop foreign engineering departments from conducting tests?

So what did the whole thing weigh and why haven't the EXPERTS mentioned that A LOT?


Sorry, I don't know.

So why hasn't Richard Gage and his buddies produced a table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS fo CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC?

Again, I don't know.

I asked Gage about that in May of 2008 at Chicago Circle Campus and he got a surprised look on his face and gave me this LAME excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints.

Which is odd because he has the blueprints up on his site and asks all visitors to look over them.

What did you think of Gage's presentation?

Neighborhood Rationalist said...

I'm going to call shenanigans on the claim that you can't evaluate the physics of 9/11 without first knowing how much both of the towers weighed. The plane impacts were largely localized events, so modeling them as strains on local impact sites makes perfect sense.

But I think the point is apt: These guys don't actually have the data. They don't actually know what buildings they're dealing with. Hence the cheesy Powerpoint 2007 flowchart, I guess.

angrysoba said...

Yes, I didn't really understand the post by psikeyhacker. Hopefully he'll be back to clarify what he was saying. He does seem to have spammed a few sites with the same comment though and there I was thinking it had been specially written for me.

And while the flowchart was cheesy it was, unfortunately, inexplicably popular with the audience.

Anonymous said...

psikeyhackr has made some similarly bizarre comments on Counterknowledge. The best way of shutting him up is ask him to explain what - in his humble opinion - brought WTC1 and 2 down.

angrysoba said...

Thanks. It doesn't seem necessary as he hasn't returned since his intitial post.

I did notice, however, that here is not the only place he has posted exactly the same message.

How did you stumble upon my humble blog if you don't mind me asking.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David said...

It doesn't matter if the Bushies did 9-11 or simply knew about it in advance, which they most probably did. They certainly took full advantage of it to launch their crusade for a New American Century, a plan which had been on the shelf for years.

The important thing is not what brought down the towers. We know that airplanes played a role, and somebody had to pilot them, and the best person for that job is a suicidal Islamist. The real story is how the incident was misused, and we were all duped into going to war (yet again!) on the false pretext of "saving democracy" and "bringing liberty" to the unwashed. This isn't and hasn't really ever been the goal of American or British foreign policy.

I think they owe the terrorists a thank you. I would refer you to Adam Curtis's excellent documentary about the mquid pro quo that existed between Al Qaeda and the Neocons since at least teh 70's, "The Power of Nightmares" here: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727&ei=14p8S-GMMYTWqgK2ubnGCA&q=adam+curtis+the+power+of+nightmares&hl=en#

It shoudln't be hard to prove the buildings were brought down by explosives if they were, to the satisfaction of the scientific community. I'm not a civil engineer, so I refrain from commenting on the details.

angrysoba said...

I would refer you to Adam Curtis's excellent documentary about the mquid pro quo that existed between Al Qaeda and the Neocons since at least teh 70's, "The Power of Nightmares"

I think I saw that series a few years ago. I like the Prince of Darkness soundtrack.

Some of it is quite good and it was the first time I'd heard about Sayyid Qutb. But while the documentary rails against what Curtis calls "unquestioned" illusions, I'm a bit surprised that the "propaganda of fear" line is so often used and repeated without any apparent analysis. I remember watching Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" in which he tells his audiences that they're very afraid because the government makes them afraid and thinking, "What is he talking about?" Most people aren't scared about outside threats.

angrysoba said...

But Power of Nightmares is much better than Michael Moore and much mor nuanced.

Some of it is, I think, true.

Anonymous said...

I have spent a while reading over your blogs. It's quite obvious that you don't do very much if any research of your own, and pretty much rely on information that is being spoon fed to the masses.

You seem to be an intelligent person yet you let your fear guide your decision making. You are terrified that maybe you are completely wrong and your world would be turned upside down.

The Truth is that the world is run by terrible people who care nothing for you or I. Their goal is Power and Control. You are not only a traitor to your country, but a traitor to the entire Human race.

angrysoba said...

Thanks for your kind words.

Now, do actually have a point or are you content to parrot the same old tired and tedious obscurantist conspiracist bullshit that passes for thought on a million different conspiracy sites?