Home › content

Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Tony Szamboti discuss 9/11 on Richard Greene's CLOUT 5.8.2008

Fri, 2008-05-09 05:20 — ABN

LINK TO AUDIO

Comments

Fri, 2008-05-09 07:53 — Robyn

9/11 - The Twin Towers and Common Sense

In this debate, John Brown goes back to the "unknown damage" argument over and over again in his attempt to debunk proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis. He basically says that we can't make any claims that the airplane/fire damage was insufficient to bring those buildings down because we have no way of knowing the true extent of the damage, i.e. how many core columns might have been severed, etc.

But I'm thinking...even if all the core columns and all the floor trusses in the vicinity of impact zone had been severed clean by the airplanes (this is quite impossible but let's just say if) and the entire top section of the building came crashing down on the lower part and this somehow initiated a collapse...would it matter? I say no, you still wouldn't be able to account for the incredible speed and symmetry of the collapse.

As a visualization aid, check out the illustration included in the link below. It's just a very simple computer image but I think it gets the idea across pretty well.

LINK TO ORIGINAL

Sat, 2008-05-10 10:54 — Josef Princiotta

Pleased to meet you.

Hello Robyn and YES right on.

To you and to all who read this.
Here is my attempt to stay on point and point to the truth 'bout 9/11

www.CSI911.info

Pleased to hear what you think I will be. <(^:E

"To identify the perpetrator, first know the crime"
Josef

for
Vincent
and
Sal J.

Sun, 2008-07-13 13:13 — psikeyhackr

Mass Distribution and Collapse Analysis

{{{ I say no, you still wouldn't be able to account for the incredible speed and symmetry of the collapse. }}}

So why isn't Gage demanding information about the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE one every level of the towers? Is it possible to design and build a 110 story skyscraper without determining and documenting that? He is an architect!

So why don't we have a gravitational collapse analysis showing it is impossible for the top to crush the bottom in less than 18 seconds? The mass at the top must move the mass below and destroy the supporting material. Why is there so much silence from our engineering schools? If this could happen it should be simple to explain with all of the computing power we have 39 years after the moon landing.

psik