A Call To Action By Richard Gage , Founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

[Stanchetalarooni]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zENYdo_ZE3Y

[Theobald]

1. Fail

Gage highlights the testimony of Danny Jowenko, a controlled demolition expert, who said with regards to Building 7 "a team of experts did that" meaning that building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. Danny Jowenko is the same man who said it would be impossible for WTC 1 and 2 to have been brought down by controlled demolition on 9/11. Richard believes that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were all brought down by controlled demolition and yet his expert that he uses to support one scenario thinks that his scenarios on 1 and 2 are impossible.

Pretty pathetic.

[Stanchetalarooni]

2. "Experts" can and do sometimes contradict each other as well as themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2oZpXVOvdE
Dutch TV looks into World Trade Center 7 anamolies with Danny Jowenko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2oZpXVOvdE

[Theobald]

3. So if your expert says one thing is possible

and the other thing is impossible, you believe him on the testimony that agrees with you and you disregard his testimony that disagrees with you? Sounds like science in action to me.

[Ezlivin]

6. Tell NIST to release their computer models

They can shut up Gage, et al, if they agree to release the computer models they used.

It shouldn't be a problem; the tower is long gone and releasing the computer model would only help their case.

They released a statement saying, in part: "The disclosure of the information ... in conjunction with NIST's investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001, might jeopardize public safety."

Really? Somehow, some way a person could use the "technical causes" in the data to do exactly what? Since we've been repeatedly told that these buildings were uniquely constructed the information could not be applicable to any other building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-QkftUPsBk

[Theobald]

7. How about addressing the question

Jowenko says WTC 1 and 2 could not have come down by CD and yet Gage still uses his expert testimony to bolster his claim that WTC 7 came down by controlled demolition even though Gage believes WTC 1 and 2 were brought down by controlled demolition.

Gage can't have it both ways, either he is an expert or he is not.

[Theobald]

8. The computer models for WTC 1 and 2 were released,

actually published in Peer reviewed journals, and that hasn't shut Gage up, therefor your claim is a fallacy.

[Theobald]

4. BTW

Based upon the video, Jowenko was presented with limited evidence. They only showed him one video, form one perspective and did not provide him with any other information; for instance that the building was damaged by falling debris.

At least with WTC 7 the collapse from the limited angle looks like it could have been controlled demolition, while WTC 1 and 2, no matter which way you look at it, does not look like controlled demolition.

[Ezlivin]

5. From every angle WTC 7 looks like CD

Can you provide the video clip YOU would have shown Jowenko?

Jowenko was well-acquainted with WTC 1 and 2; those towers were iconic. Even if he had personal reservations about their collapse, he still would have recognized them and would have been familiar with the "official story."

On the other hand, he was completely unaware of WTC 7 and its collapse. When shown a video of this building he viewed it as an isolated incident, not as part of 9/11. He then gave an honest appraisal of what he saw.

If you show 100 people videos of WTC 7 (and none of these people know it was on 9/11) they will all say it looks like a building being demolished. Why? Because we've all seen buildings demolished and are familiar with seeing them drop straight down. WTC 7 looks like a demolition. Now you may say that there are complicated engineering and mathematical equations that prove that it was the result of fire and/or damage, but it still fell in a way that most people would identify with demolition.

Now if the general public had seen buildings collapse before due to fires and/or damage and they had collapsed like a demolition, no one would pay WTC 7 a second thought. If YouTube was choked with videos showing all types of structures failing due to fire and/or damage and then collapsing straight down there would be no controversy over WTC 7.

[Theobald]

9. You are losing me here

I know WTC 7 came down on 9/11 and looking at the video I agree it looks like controlled demolition, so why do you spout all this shit about knowing this or knowing that when it is irrelevant. In any context the video of WTC 7 looks like controlled demolition. Just because it looks like CD doesn't mean it is CD.

The building was heavily damaged by falling debris and the interviewer did not tell Jowenko this relevant fact. There is video of the penthouse collapsing before the rest of the building and this was not shown to Jowenko. The penthouse collapsing first does not look like controlled demolition.