911 Architects & Engineers – New Investigation Now!

Engineer Werner Simbeck reads the press release of the ‘Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’ announcing that 1,000 members have signed the petition demanding a new, independent investigation into the events of 9/11. The announcement was made on February 19, 2009 simultaneously, and in conjunction with, 47 other cities around the world.

From YouTube – Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth – Press Conference – Victoria, BC.

Advertisements

29 responses to “911 Architects & Engineers – New Investigation Now!

  1. If they have over 1,000 so-called experts in the field of architecture, engineering, etc. then why are all their talking points just repeats of failed and debunked claims from years ago? Wouldn’t you think they would have original information? It just sounds to me that they found 1000 people that think it sounds like it could be true and have not lifted a finger to corroborate a single claim that Gage has tried to pass along.

    Who amongst the 1,000+ belongs to the research arm of the group? We know Gage has no experience, training, or understanding of anything bigger than a school gym. So how is he making up claims of explosives, collapse times, demolition techniques, and any other stories he needs to generate so he can get people to sign up?

    We also have this great explanation of Gage’s claims:

    http://bit.ly/bJdGJg

    Anyone care to explain how inept AE911T is?

    • Okay, tell us why we should take your word for anything? Can you please supply us with what degrees in engineering you have? Architecture? Science? Metallurgy?

      No?

      Oh, well, I guess I’ll have to go with the guys that have actually done something.

    • Check out his “ieaffiliates” .. He’s nothing but an advertising shill.. There’s your credentials.

      • Hi Jersey Girl.

        It looks like a sham website to me. There is nothing suggesting a legitimate business in my opinion. That would be consistent with my view that he is probably a shill. We will never see the pay stubs, so can only conjecture based on a number of criteria that various authors have documented. Carl Herman did write about this fairly recently for instance. I suspect that you know about the recent Cass Sunstein flap.

        My compatriot Peter Ewart has written on this:

        http://www.opinion250.com/blog/author/9/1/peter+ewart

        Part 3 – Conspiracy theories, government spooks, and Cass Sunstein
        By Peter Ewart Previous installments in…
        posted on Thursday, January 28, 2010 03:45 AM with 9 comments

        Part 2 – Conspiracy theories, online government spooks, and Cass Sunstein
        By Peter Ewart In the first article in…
        posted on Friday, January 22, 2010 03:46 AM with 26 comments

        Conspiracy theories, online government spooks, and Cass Sunstein – Part 1
        By Peter Ewart An increasingly…
        posted on Thursday, January 21, 2010 03:46 AM with 8 comments

        Regards

        • Hey Mike, long time no see 🙂 Yes, I’ve heard of Cass, the fascist, Sunstein. A despicable human being in my opinion.

          This ie person’s arguments are quite juvenile to say the least. Actually, all the arguments against controlled demo are because there is only one way to explain how those buildings fell down in that manner. Anyone who argues against it is, like M said, afraid to face the truth or cointelpro.

          I have to say though, his bit about the 100 eyewitnesses really made me laugh out loud. Ohhhhhhhh okie dokie there ie. What he doesn’t realize is that it doesn’t take a rocket scientist OR architectural engineer to put together the thousand pieces of evidence to come to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. One just has to use their own two eyes, their critical thinking brain and the common sense they were born with. But some of us have more of that than others…..

  2. ieaffiliates attempts to baffle us with bullshit. I suspect that the normal readership of COTO Report is not taken in by his nonsense. For for anyone casually strolling by, please go to the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth site at http://www.ae911truth.org/ . You can read the arguments, watch the videos, and make up your own minds. Just keep in mind that as of 11:31 am, PST, there were 1054 architects and engineers supporting a new investigation, including several dozen structural engineers.

    By the way, I know Werner Simbeck, the engineer in the video, and he has a sharp mind, and an evidence-based reasoning style. I cannot say the same for ieaffiliates, based on what he has written above.

    • So, based on such a “sharp mind”, how does he explain there are ZERO tell-tale signs of a real controlled demolition (CD)? No primary or secondary explosions, no specific timed concussions heard on ANY video of the collapse or eyewitness, many eyewitnesses claiming the tower was going to collapse at any time, etc.

      Mr Zimmer, here failed to refute a single point made. Why? He failed to show a single argument that was incorrect, not provable, or inaccurate in any manner. I think by just claiming that you guys are being “baffled”, this tells me that he really cannot argue any specific point or could answer any specific question asked.

      I suggest you look at the provided link and see for yourself why Gage and his merry band of fools are trying to make a living on the backs of the gullible and those willing to believe anything they read on the internet.

      http://bit.ly/bJdGJg

      Can anybody refute this?

      • You must really want your lunch eaten.

        I’m not even going to argue with you whether 9/11 was an inside job or not. If you don’t know that by now, you’re simply a waste of time, for most people are way beyond arguing this point by now. About the only ones left not convinced we were lied to are the completely ignorant and those in denial.

        The only other class would be those complicit in the cover-up, which outside of the people that planned and carried out the plot, have to be the most despicable.

        You know the ones I’m talking about, the ones that would get on sites such as these and waste peoples time with unfounded claims, petty personal assassination remarks, and out-right lies. To which you sir, I place in that category. A low-level COINPROTEL stooge.

        Well, read this and weep:

        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/?feat=article_top10_read

        http://www.puppetgov.com/2010/02/22/demolition-access-to-the-wtc-towers-part-four-cleanup/

        • COINTELPRO stooge? It seems quite probable.
          Low-level? Almost certainly, given the laughable nature of his attacks.

          The refutation of course has been done a thousand times. It is not hard to refute a claim that black is white. It is more fruitful for me to again refer those who really don’t know the issues to see the polished arguments at http://www.ae911truth.org/

          • Why is that you pretend to think that 1000 architects that parrot claims that have been already made are correct, but when you are given a different set of facts, you pretend to think they must be wrong since they do not agree with your desires?

            Can you tell me how you know the arguments of AE911T are “polished”? Why do you think Gage had to remove 15 slides from his presentation since the beginning? Was it polished then? Will it be polished next year when he makes 10 more changes?

            You still avoided the question of how did he make ANY claim about demolition or explosives when he has ZERO experience, training, or understanding of them? Why do you think everyone outside the 3.6% of truthers (according to Zogby) are laughing at him?

            I would stick to name-calling as your guessing at what is real is well beyond your grasp.

            I can see why you guys get upset when you find somebody that refuses to drink the Kool-Aid. This forces you to defend claims that you haven’t even validated. It means you have to work or try the above avoidance techniques.

            Try again, you have failed.

        • You can tell when you are being confronted by a person that has no experience of the topic.

          1. Try bully approach: “You must really want your lunch eaten. ”
          2. Try avoidance approach “I’m not even going to argue with you…”
          3. Attempt to claim common sense “If you don’t know that by now, you’re simply a waste of time”
          4. Throw out a mysterious statistic “…for most people are way beyond…”…are the completely ignorant and those in denial.”
          5. Pretend to understand outdated govt programs “COINPROTEL”
          6. Juvenile name-calling “stooge. ”
          7. try a blind accusation “…those complicit in the cover-up.”
          8. Throw out some articles that you found, but did not read, let alone corroborate any of the claims)

          So, can you tell me what Kevin Ryan’s expertise is in? Hint: it is water inspection. So, how does inspecting water make him an expert in demolition, collapse investigation, explosives, or anything involved with 9-11? It doesn’t. Remember, he was fired for lying. Now he is forced to make a living by lying about 9-11.

          I bet didn’t read the entire article he wrote in your link. I bet you didn’t research the links he provided to see if they match the information he was trying to convey. He falls flat on his face because he doesn’t know which questions to ask and is forced to rely on actions by those that have never had to inspect the debris of 6 skyscrapers.

          This is a common tactic for those pretending to be 9-11 experts. Since we have never had a situation like 9-112, they pretend to think we would act just like any other plane crash, skyscraper fire, building collapse. Well, we couldn’t.

          I suggest before you throw out lame tactics 1-9, you take a good look at the information you are pretending to understand and think there might be somebody out there that can see right through you.

          Try again, you just had your lunch handed to you.

          • ieaffiliates uses the same disinfo techniques he claims others are using..

            1. Rapid onset of “collapse”

            Actually, the collapse was seen by 100+ eyewitnesses as being imminent for over 2 hours. The buckling of the lower levels was clear and hardly rapid. The onset of collapse proves neither controlled or otherwise. Proof that architects cannot investigate such occurrences.

            [Using Mysterious statistic? 100+ eyewitnesses saying collapse is imminent, The NIST report states there was only 1 expert who expressed concern over the building’s stability. NIST does not report who this person. Daniel Nigro, NYC Fire Chief at the time states unequivocally, he and he alone made the determination that the building might fall and made plans accordingly such as colllapse perimeter. A video of a fire fighter who states the building was leaning and looked ready to collapse is the only other claim but makes no sense, every picture and video show no leaning building. If it was leaning, it would of fell in that direction. So this claim is highly suspect.]

            2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a full second prior to collapse

            The “sounds” of explosions proves there was an uncontrolled fire in the building. In none of the videos that contained audio, was there any tell-tale explosions that are present in EVERY controlled demolition. So, you are either trying to say explosives were placed just before impact or just after, yet cannot explain how. Also, this would rule out incendiary devices also claimed without proof.

            [Sounds of explosions are just that, sounds of explosions. What was exploding and why are the questions that should be asked and whether or not they contributed to the “collapse”. Tell-tale signs of explosion present in EVERY Controlled Demolition? You left a very important adjective here. In every CONVENTIONAL controlled demoliton. In the DVD “What a blast” Mark Loizeaux states they have the ability to control every aspect of the demolition. That includes, sound, ground vibrations, blast directions, and fall for every demolition need.]

            3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration

            Unless you have a lateral force, gravity will ALWAYS be the greatest force. Therefore, the collapse would always be symmetrical. Basic physics also proves that architects need to consult somebody other than themselves. By claiming the greatest path of resistance, tells me you cannot explain how there would be ANY other force to push the building any other direction than straight down. This proves ignorance in physics.

            [This a laffable statement and exposes just how little you actually know about the subject. If you are COINTELPRO, you’re not very good. How does gravity force the building through itself? The path of greatest resistence is all the structural support keeping the building up. If any part weakens to the point it cannot support the weight above the weight will shift to other connects. What does not shift continues to put pressure on the weakened point until it gives way. The weakened point being the least resistence until the local portion gives way. Redundancy prevents the rest of the structure from coming down. No one needs to be a demolition expert (as you claim) to understand the impossibilty of the entire structure coming straight down at free fall speed for over 100 feet as a natural event. Your reply here makes some generic reference to gravity and avoids the main point, free fall accelertation through tons and tons of structural support. By your claiming that gravity is only force involved and ignoring the strength of support resisting gravity only exposes YOUR ignorance in physics.]

            4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint

            See #3e. Basic physics tells us that unless you have a great lateral force, you will never overcome gravity. Seeing the extensive damage to surrounding buildings, it was hardly on its own footprint. Poor choice of words.

            [There was a great deal of upward force (the strenghth of steel) keeping the building up. Extensive damage to surrounding buildings? There is no support for that claim. Damage to surrounding buildings probably caused by the twin towers destruction. 2nd, considering a 47 story building just fell across the street, there was very, very, little damage to other buildings.]

            5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

            Since there was no presence of a volcano, the term “pyroclastic” is moot. When ANY building made of concrete collapses, the energy created would easily be great enough to pulverize concrete as it is very brittle. Drop a concrete block from a 2nd floor and see the dust cloud, now do it from the 43rd floor. There was no heat involved, so the “pyro” term is proof that parroting a outdated phrase from 2001 tells us of no original thought or research.

            [There is much evidence regarding heat. In fact, to say there was no heat contradicts the main aspect of the official collapse theory, that fires got hot enough to expand the steel to the point it becomes unseated. And this is extremely dubious. If you do the calculation (and I have) a 50 ft steel beam with no resistance at either end only expands about 4 inches at temps of 650C. And there was no evidence provided by NIST that any WTC steel reached these temps.]

            6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses

            Since there has NEVER been molten anything in any controlled demolition, this would prove that it couldn’t have been a controlled demolition. Unless you have ANY historical evidence of molten metal proving anything, it is also moot and proves ignorance in demolition.

            [Again, you leave an important word out. Conventional controlled demolition. Since there is no mechanism to create molten metal in the official account, where did so much of it come from then? Your attempts to support the NIST finding show your own ignorance in demolition.]

            7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

            It was not the “signature”, but the elements of incendiary products. Since the top 5 components of incendiary products are found in building construction, this proves nothing more than a poor guess and more poor science from a Professor fired for extensive history of poor science.

            [Using the “bulllying” technique here huh? Trying to discredit a long and tenured physics professor because your qualifications cannot even be mentioned in same breath. You do NOT find elmental aluminum in any building. There will other additives to it to temper its properties. Silicon and carbon added to it? The structure of red chips indicate they manufactured. Also, there were 8 scientists researching the paper. Would you like to take a shot at Niels Harrit’s credentials? Please.. There are other scientists with the same findings such as Mark Basile and a french scientist whose findings are in the process of being published. These red/grey chips are not happenstance, it is you who is using a tired old argument]

            8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

            The best point is the one that cannot be explained as how this proves anything. Here I suggest to you to explain to anybody how this proves anything other than an uncontrolled fire.

            [You are being extremely short-sighted here. The FEMA report proves there were temperatures in the building that cannot be explained by fire. Does this alone “prove” anything? It certainly disproves the NIST report. The 100+ feet of free-fall proves controlled demolition. NIST realizes the contradiction including the FEMA findings in the report Only your cognitive dissonance or your willingness to be complicit in the cover-up keep you from acknowledging it]

            9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional

            Hardly corroboration. Hardly the top CD professional in EU. He was given an edited video and no other information. Once he was told all the information,. he changed his story. I wonder why CTists are never informed of his final analysis of that it couldn’t have been a CD, since he thought it was days and weeks between the crash and collapse, not hours.

            [Are you talking about Danny Newenko? He has never changed his position. He was told it was the same day as 9/11 and he only mused that they must of worked very hard. If you don’t believe me, call him and ask him. A canadian pod-caster did just that and posted the interview on the internet. He still stands by that WTC7 is an obvious controlled demolition. You should do a little research first before making certain claims.]

            10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

            When you see a building with extensive damage and uncontrolled fires, it would be obvious to the event he most inexperienced of people. Those on scene were well aware that the tower would collapse as it was a matter of time when it would.

            When you give an architect canned talking points and no way of explaining how they fit into a wide array of stories, they fall flat on their face. This is why you need an expert in demolition and explosives and not an architect that needs 9-11 to pay his bills.

            Primary and secondary explosions would be MUCH more than an explosion on the ground floor. CD’s are done throughout the building. This is a big sign that it would have been impossible to be a CD, since CD’s just don’t occur randomly, but very precisely.

            Can you find any expert in the world that can say incendiary devices are ever used in CD’s? No and you never will

            [You are just making assumptions here, nothing based on concrete fact. Those on the scene were well aware that the building was going to fall because they were told it was. With no precedent other than the twin towers, what basis did he make that conclusion. How bad was the damage to the building? We don’t know. You claim the building was damaged, but you don’t know to what extent any better than we do. It obviously was not enough damage to cause the building to fall in that direction. NIST itself also states in their final report that the damage did not play a factor in the “collapse”.

            In conclusion, I am not a scientist, engineer, architect, or a control demolition expert. I am however college educated with a B+ in Calculus, A in physics, C- in chemistry, but it doesn’t stop me from educating myself in the necessary subjects to make a well informed decision. Architects aren’t CD experts, but they are building experts and everything they do is designed to prevent what happened. That includes adding redundancy and reinforcements. True, CD’s don’t happen randomly but very precisely, but collapse do happen randomly and never so precisely. So you can say all you want about their expertise, but you better start working on your own.]

      • Hey ie … explain why & how WTC 7 fell. No plane hit it, small fires put out before collapse. Also explain why it’s collapse by controlled demo was shown once on tv, the night it happened and NEVER again. The commission ignored it.. Silverstein said to “pull it.”

        Go ahead explain away.. we’re waiting..

        • 1. The remains of a 110 story skyscraper fell into the base of the tower causing massive damage and a 30 floor hole based on several eyewitness reports.

          2. The fires were hardly small and could not have been put out since there was no active fire fighting going on. Not quite sure how you determined they were put out.

          3. The number of times shown on TV show me you are somehow trying to involve the media into 9-11 with very weak circumstantial evidence. I see this often.

          4. The commission was never tasked to cover it or any event after the attack. Why did they not cover the collapse of WTC’s 3 and 4? Maybe I can invent some conspiracy the “media” never showed those as well.

          5. Never in the history of explosive demolition has the term “pull it” ever been used. The person that invented that talking point was confused by the demolition technician that said they were going to “pull” WTC 4 by literally attaching cables to the wall and pull it over to prevent more injuries.

          Yes, you are using old talking points that were debunked over 7 years ago. Not quite sure why you have nor researched anything new since then. But who am I to argue.

          Maybe you can tell me who told you “pull it” was a demo term and how many years in the industry he has. I’ll be waiting.

    • Refute this- How about: “The 9/11 Commission Rejects Own Report as Based on Government Lies”
      https://coto2.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/the-911-commission-rejects-own-report-as-based-on-government-lies/

      • The 9-11 commission was scraped together to keep the govt from looking bad as it failed to protect us from terrorist attack. the report was a joke from the start.

        • Yes- I guess they should have gotten together a group of Architects and Engineers?

          • laughnmatter

            Or for that matter simply performed a criminal investigation, which would have been SOP, but was immediately stopped and overtaken by FEMA, who just happened to be there the night BEFORE the event.

  3. It is worthwhile to see how a mainstream media outlet, in a mid-sized urban Canadian market, handled the press release and Werner Simbeck’s interview. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G1ub2caUNU&feature=player_embedded

    Thanks for putting this up Michael Collins.

  4. Just-Not-the-Government-Conspiracy-Theory

    Question: So, based on such a “sharp mind”, how does he explain there are ZERO tell-tale signs of a real controlled demolition (CD)?

    Answer: WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibits all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)

    1. Rapid onset of “collapse”

    2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a full second prior to collapse

    3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration

    4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint

    5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

    6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses

    7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

    8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

    9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional

    10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

    And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

    1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

    2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

    3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

    4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

    Assumption: No primary or secondary explosions…

    Observation: 2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a full second prior to collapse

    Assumption: …no specific timed concussions heard on ANY video of the collapse or eyewitness…

    Observation: Eyewitness video: http://www.ae911truth.net/wtc7/WTC7-eyewitness-2-PFC.wmv

    Assumption: …many eyewitnesses claiming the tower was going to collapse at any time, etc…

    Observation: “We were watching the building [WTC 7]…” Note here the word “we”, indicating “many” or more than one witness (testimony from above video link.)

    This is why we need an original and genuine investigation. Until then there is no way to know if ieaffiliates is correct nor if the observers are wrong. Persons who may think the government conspiracy theory is inadequate–that 19 Arab hijackers with box cutters perpetrated the very sad 9/11attack–will find these two videos revealing:

    “WTC Core” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ11i6fi7KQ

    and

    “General of All American Intelligence” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E

    • 1. Rapid onset of “collapse”

      Actually, the collapse was seen by 100+ eyewitnesses as being imminent for over 2 hours. The buckling of the lower levels was clear and hardly rapid. The onset of collapse proves neither controlled or otherwise. Proof that architects cannot investigate such occurrences.

      2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a full second prior to collapse

      The “sounds” of explosions proves there was an uncontrolled fire in the building. In none of the videos that contained audio, was there any tell-tale explosions that re present in EVERY controlled demolition. So, you are either trying to say explosives were placed just before impact or just after, yet cannot explain how. Also, this would rule out incendiary devices also claimed without proof.

      3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration

      Unless you have a lateral force, gravity will ALWAYS be the greatest force. Therefore, the collapse would always be symmetrical. Basic physics also proves that architects need to consult somebody other than themselves.

      By claiming the greatest path of resistance, tells me you cannot explain how there would be ANY other force to push the building any other direction than straight down. This proves ignorance in physics.

      4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint

      See #3e. Basic physics tells us that unless you have a great lateral force, you will never overcome gravity. Seeing the extensive damage to surrounding buildings, it was hardly on its own footprint. Poor choice of words.

      5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

      Since there was no presence of a volcano, the term “pyroclastic” is moot. When ANY building made of concrete collapses, the energy created would easily be great enough to pulverize concrete as it is very brittle. Drop a concrete block from a 2nd floor and see the dust cloud, now do it from the 43rd floor. There was no heat involved, so the “pyro” term is proof that parroting a outdated phrase from 2001 tells us of no original thought or research.

      6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses

      Since there has NEVER been molten anything in any controlled demolition, this would prove that it couldn’t have been a controlled demolition. Unless you have ANY historical evidence of molten metal proving anything, it is also moot and proves ignorance in demolition.

      7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

      It was not the “signature”, but the elements of incendiary products. Since the top 5 components of incendiary products are found in building construction, this proves nothing more than a poor guess and more poor science from a Professor fired for extensive history of poor science.

      8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

      The best point is the one that cannot be explained as how this proves anything. Here I suggest to you to explain to anybody how this proves anything other than an uncontrolled fire.

      9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional

      Hardly corroboration. Hardly the top CD professional in EU. He was given an edited video and no other information. Once he was told all the information,. he changed his story. I wonder why CTists are never informed of his final analysis of that it couldn’t have been a CD, since he thought it was days and weeks between the crash and collapse, not hours.

      10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

      When you see a building with extensive damage and uncontrolled fires, it would be obvious to the event he most inexperienced of people. Those on scene were well aware that the tower would collapse as it was a matter of time when it would.

      When you give an architect canned talking points and no way of explaining how they fit into a wide array of stories, they fall flat on their face. This is why you need an expert in demolition and explosives and not an architect that needs 9-11 to pay his bills.

      Primary and secondary explosions would be MUCH more than an explosion on the ground floor. CD’s are done throughout the building. This is a big sign that it would have been impossible to be a CD, since CD’s just don’t occur randomly, but very precisely.

      Can you find any expert in the world that can say incendiary devices are ever used in CD’s? No and you never will.

  5. Looks like they replaced the intern with a more polished team, but still the approach is to insist that black is white. I don’t think this is simple psuedo-skepticism, but it reeks of deliberate disinformation.

    Again readers, please go to http://www.ae911truth.org/ where the nonsense spouted by ieaffiliates is given the lie. Another very nice video is “This is an Orange” at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3898962504721899003# . It is short, and fun to watch.

    Suppose that the buildings were collapsing, just falling down, because of gravity and nothing more. Now, ask yourself this:

    How in the world could many, many multi-ton pieces of a building be shot out sideways at highway speeds? In at least one well reported case a large section crashed into, and stuck into, a fairly distant surrounding building, The photographic evidence for this is found in stills and videos.

    Please, go to the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth site.

  6. Hello ieaffiliates, You give a compelling response to a post above that links to a video called “WTC Core,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ11i6fi7KQ. Can you please give some feedback about the video? Thank you, Peter

    • I believe you are referring to the end of the video where they try ot convince you that a 45 degree cut is proof of a CD. Although a 45 degree cut is used, it is done by explosives. To do this, you need to cut a groove into the lateral beam to allow the shape charges to lie flat against the beam yo wish to be cut.

      It the picture of the fire fighter (somehow CT websites cut out the steel worker above and to the left of him for some reason), it shows a clean cut on that beam. Since it is a clean cut, it couldn’t have been from either explosives or incendiary devices as they leave a really jagged edge to them.

      Also, incendiary devices burn vertically. They cannot be put on a vertical beam as they would just burn off and not cut the beam. I have asked Prof Jones this many times and he never could answer that one.

  7. Just one question Ieaffiliates. Do you walk to work or carry your lunch?

    Is this Tom what’s his name from OEN Snooze? What was his last name?

    By the way Ieaffiliates, rumor has it the molten metal found at the base of the Trade Towers, which by the way burned for weeks was caused by the jet fuel? Yeah, it traveled all of the way down the elevator shafts. Better yet, I hear it actually got on the elevator and rode it to the sub-basement? Yeah, that’s the ticket! Right, Tom? Murphy!

    What’s most interesting, in both of the demolitions of the Trade Towers, many of the huge steel beams were hurled laterally, “over four hundred feet” imbedding themselves into adjacent buildings. However, Building Seven came straight down, with no lateral ejections. Nice and neat. Two different types of demolitions.

    Then the media whores went and blamed it on the poor I-Raqi’s and Afghan’s. Had ta blame someone, just so happens that someone has lots a oil, natural gas and opium.

    Middle East Hegemony, it’s what’s for breakfast.

    • The jet fuel burned off in less than a minute from impact. Not quite sure how that connects to molten metal from trapped heat.

      If you ever chopped wood, you would understand how a vertical force can create a lateral result.

      The media blamed 19 Saudis, not Iraq or Afghanistan,. How did Afghanistan’s resources enter the argument? Did we get any of them since 9-11?

  8. Hello Mr. ieaffiliates, In the video “WTC Core,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ11i6fi7KQ, it shows a severed piece of steel core with a clean diagonal cut. The so-called conspiracy theorists say that’s from the intentionally placed explosives. Can you please give me your feedback about this phenomenon?

  9. Just wish to say your article is as amazing. The clarity in your post is simply spectacular and i can assume you’re an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission let me to grab your RSS feed to keep up to date with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please keep up the gratifying work.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s