AE911Truth.org - Richard Gage on The Standard (pt. 1/3)

sbcaliking22 Says:

Jul 3, 2008 - More people need to see this, 1616 isn't enough.

123dool Says:

Aug 18, 2008 - AE911truth web-site is working fine for me and by the way thanks for the video!

jpbalkenende Says:

Aug 21, 2008 - Now some 'debunkers'/reptilians have claimed that Gage is a clown who hasn't done any original research on 9/11 and has no expertise whatsoever with high rises. However this is a lie, he has done some quite impressive original research:watch?v=supBPWOYm78After this he dropped some ants from his model to prove that humans could not have possibly been harmed by jumping from that height!

KimmoKuopio Says:

Sep 20, 2008 - Ha, board box dude

lorax2013 Says:

Sep 22, 2008 - Building 7 is suspicious and the anthrax case certainly is. But anyone who can't see that the twin towers failed at the point of impact should have their arch license revoked. No one has explained how you place thermite at the exact location of a random impact and cause the failure at that point. Just an illogical theory. 99.9% of engineers with a structural background know this guy is talking nonsense.

ar5281ar Says:

Sep 26, 2008 - lorax2013,how in the name of science did the towers take the greatest path of resistance? impossible! first three steel framed buildings to fall from "FIRE" in the history of the world? and yes the offical account is that all 3 buildings fell from "FIRE weakening the structures" and not the plane impacts! do more research!

ar5281ar Says:

Sep 26, 2008 - i've been having problems with ae911 too! but when their not being shut down it is one of the best sites for information! peace, check out the evidence area when it's working!

trycoun Says:

Sep 29, 2008 - poor Randall Mark is still fighting it...but at least respect to him for inviting Richard Gage and announcing his Lectures

chilled99 Says:

Oct 21, 2008 - What makes you think it was a random impact? Also, if the building failed at the point of impact, the top of the building would have rotated into the gap toppling mostly in one piece. However, the top of the buildings 'melted' into the impact point. The video is pretty clear.Remember also that demolitions can be executed in any pattern the demolition company wants. So even a totally random impact point still only means changing a few digits on a laptop to set the charges off to compensate.

chilled99 Says:

Oct 21, 2008 - Can that reptilian crap unless you have some proof of literal reptiles. A photo, a scale, anything, otherwise .....

chessdawgz Says:

Nov 1, 2008 - what is this, a Tom Clancy novel?

Yulisag Says:

Nov 2, 2008 - Even Clancy's novels have basis in reality - but no, this is not fiction - ask a demolition expert.

chessdawgz Says:

Nov 2, 2008 - of course there's logic behind it, but it's false...steel loses half it's strenth at approximately 1100 degrees, and the combustable fuel mixed with other ignitable/flamable substances far exceeded this, and for ten minutes no doubt...anyone who took a strengths of materials class can recall thisplus, the melted steel was very minimal and found in close proximity to the plane...these are facts as well

Yulisag Says:

Nov 5, 2008 - Would this be the same combustible fuel that also brought down WTC 7, which wasn't hit by a plane? Thats another story.Steel losing half its strength isn't steel collapsing/melting and breaking into 30 ft lengths. Steel melts at 2500+ degrees, the fires inside never exceeded 1700 degrees - a fossil fuel fire cannot produce 2500+ degree heat even in ideal conditions. What are these other ignitable/flammable substances contained within high-rise office space that could have produced this heat?

chessdawgz Says:

Nov 5, 2008 - you've got to consider the heavy debris flying from each floor as the higher level crashed into it (aka "pancaking"), and the damage taken by the WTC 7 building didn't even fit that of a plane crash...again, this "melted" steel was found in close proximity to the plane parts, andmatched the steel framework where the second plane actually struck

JSSTyger Says:

Nov 9, 2008 - Son...pancaking is simply BS and was a made up theory just to explain the events of 911. Pancake theory will never be inserted into any structural design book. Besides...if all this pancaking was happening one would assume pieces of smashed floor slabs could be identified. As shown in Gage's video...not one piece of floor slab (or even steel decking) was found...it was all pulverized...not cracked and smashed.

JSSTyger Says:

Nov 9, 2008 - This post has zero credibility. OF COURSE THE IMPACTED AREA FAILED. This is known as a local failure and is not sufficient to cause the collapse of the rest of the structure.Actually 90% of engineers probably haven't given a second thought about what happened to the wtc towers as they don't care. But I'd be willing to bet the rest of them, who have done research, absolutely know 100% (like me) the buildings were demo'ed

JSSTyger Says:

Nov 9, 2008 - OH BS where the hell do you get the fact that steel loses half its strength at 1100°? And it doesn't matter anyways as other buildings have gone ablaze for almost a day for over 20 floors and not collapsed.And if steel lost half its strength that is still not grounds for catastrophic failure. Also it takes time under that extreme heat to weaken the steel...more than an hour.

chessdawgz Says:

Nov 9, 2008 - I've taken a strength of materials class...thought I made that clear earlierand yes, steel does lose half of it's strength at 1100 degrees, I was using this to illustrate how a moderately tall building fully collapses after being heated nearly twice that for about 10 minutes...also,the combined force of the plane's impact in between two floors (NOT on the roof, understand this)...

chessdawgz Says:

Nov 9, 2008 - cont......and the force of gravity is more than enough to cause the very real and very legitimate effect known as the 'pancake effect'. also known as a 'chain reaction'm it's only given that name because of how it looks...fancy that, something even paranoid fools can understand.

chilled99 Says:

Nov 11, 2008 - Can you provide evidence of a pankcake collapse happening to a steel and concrete building after being ablaze in less than 20% of its structure for approximately 1 hour? You won't find this evidence anywhere because it is a fantasy. Are you also suggesting the massive vertical core columns pancaked too? Gravity must have gotten stronger for the 10 seconds it took for the entire building to 'pancake' into dust and rubble.Where are these 'pancakes'? I can't see stacks of floors anywhere.

chessdawgz Says:

Nov 11, 2008 - if there were explosions within the building, it couldn't have fallen in such uniform fashion...gravity obviously doesn't get "stronger", the force of gravity is nearly constant, it's the mass of what's above compared to the mass of whats below that increased...if you can't see the floors collapsing into one another like 'pancakes', even in the vids doctored by conspiracy nuts, you need to do a little more research

cvpringle Says:

Dec 8, 2008 - If someone has any actual proof - one piece of scientifically proven piece of evidence - they have not to date produced anything. Let us move on from these mean spirited attacks against what historians will no doubt call a hero of the state. Mr. Rove and the President need our Support in these trying times. Huddling together in prayer will go a long way to healing Amerika.