Architect to Discuss WTC Destruction in Seattle Saturday 3/22

[petgoat]

What: Multimedia presentation:
"9/11: Blueprint for Truth – The Architecture of Destruction"
Examining the collapse of the 3 World Trade Center buildings

When: Sat, Mar 22, 2008 7:00 PM

Where: Museum of History and Industry
McCurdy Park
2700 24th Ave E
Seattle, WA 98112

Who: Richard Gage, AIA, a San Francisco Bay Area architect, founded
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of nearly 300
engineering and architectural professionals.


The program examines evidence contradicting the official reports on the
destruction of the three skyscrapers on 9/11/2001:

o The discovery in the World Trade Center beams and dust of the
chemical signature associated with thermate, an incendiary used to cut
through steel like a hot knife through butter.

o Molten iron "flowing like lava" found under the rubble of all three
highrise buildings.

o Explosions and flashes of light witnessed by 118 first responders.

o The collapse of Building 7 and the iconic twin towers at near free
fall speed -- still unexplained by the government.


In his twenty years of architectural practice, Mr. Gage has designed
many fire-protected steel-framed buildings. A video of the presentation
he gave at the University of Manitoba last May can be viewed online at
www.ae911truth.org

Nearly 300 architects & engineers of Architects and Engineers for
9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org) are calling for new investigations of the
catastrophic destruction of the World Trade Center complex. Mr. Gage was
most recently interviewed on ABC radio KGO-810 on March 7 on the Christine
Craft program.


For more information: http://wearechangeseattle.org/
www.seattle911visibilityproject.org

Contact: Rodger Herbst [phone]
[e-mail]

###

[petgoat]

1. kikikikikik nt

[petgoat]

2. ...nt

[maxsolomon]

3. i went to a presentation by the WTC's engineers

skillings ward magnusson, who are based right here in good old seattle.

how a fire fueled by exploding jet fuel could collapse the towers was detailed ad nauseum. the WTC used an innovative system where the exterior face of the building WAS the steel structure. its integrity was shattered by the impact, and then the fire melted the remaining steel structure to the point of collapse.

did they engineer lie? was he ignorant? or complicit? richard gage was NOT the architect or engineer of the WTC.

[eridani]

4. The steel did not "melt"--that would have been impossible

However, steel does lose its structural integrity when heated. Isn't that more like what the engineer said?

[maxsolomon]

5. yes.

i am paraphrasing.

i am not an engineer.

the entire idea of the attack was to a. shear through a large part of the exterior frame, & b. start a fire hot enough to affect the structural integrity of the steel.

it worked.

[petgoat]

6. The engineer John Skilling told the Seattle Times in 1993 that the building was designed

to take a hit from a four-engine 707, and took into account
the effects of the fires.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227

The $20 million NIST study presents not one piece of core steel showing
heating above 480 degrees F--no physical evidence to support the claim that
fire weakened the steel. The structural steel was in fact cleaned up and
shipped to asia so fast that the firemen rioted, protesting the desecration
of the dead. No proper samples were taken.

A white paper prepared by the Skilling firm in the design phase claimed that
you could cut all the columns on one side, take out the two corners, and
take some of the columns from the adjacent sides, and the building would
still take 100 mph winds.