AE911Truth Action at Univ. of Minnesota, Mech. Engineering

9/11 Truth Action w/ Richard Gage, AIA
University of Minnesota (Minneapolis)
August 1, 2008

-- The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly -- (3 minutes)

-- The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly -- (3 minutes)

Thanks Richard Gage et al!

To honest people with integrity around this country and the world you and the members of your organization are true heroes and patriots! Thanks again!

RE: Correct data.

I am quite excited about Richard Gage's involvement and his efforts, however he makes gross miscalculations about the lower-bound of the collapse, e.g., the fall times. Simply watching the videos and using a stop watch, the South Tower takes about 12 seconds for the final plunge of the majority of the building to hit and the North Tower, about 15 seconds (not counting the spires remaining). It's been said for the last couple years by many people, that the "free-fall" collapse notion is simply not true, including Jim Hoffman. I'm afraid the misnomer of "free-fall collapse" will further marginalize us as crackpots.

The fact that the collapses were not "free-fall" does not disprove demolition, any more than a progressive collapse model showing 12-15 second lower-bound theoretical velocity proves Bazant, et al, correct. It is still a very rapid destruction, but WE HAVE TO STOP USING THE TERM "FREE-FALL".


Near free fall

Near free fall speed is fine with me

he say virtually freefall

he say virtually freefall speed. what's the problem?

Du vergisst NIST!

That's what NIST says about it:

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down

essentially in free fall,

as seen in videos.

If NIST calls it "essentially in free fall", that's good enough for me. It's not that NIST has a history of making stupid claims, is it?

But honestly: If somebody ridicules us for using the term "free-fall", he's ridiculing NIST as well. And ridiculing NIST is always a good thing, so I keep on saying "free-fall", just for the sake of it.

LTD Hangout

NIST could revise that statement, give some excuse (incompetence?) and fall back on a more accurate framing.

But until they do that, we

But until they do that, we should use their own words against them. And when they once again start contradicting themselves, use their contradictions against them.

If NIST acknowledges that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall", that's quite powerful to use in discussions.

Near and Like

The official stance of AE911Truth is to use "near free fall acceleration" and "pyroclastic-like clouds" and similar qualifiers.

During off-the-cuff comments, sometimes people misspeak. "Virtually" is close enough.

We are continually re-evaluating our comments and viewpoints and make changes as we find them appropriate and necessary.

It is the written text on our website, on our hardcopy resource material, in the slide show presentation, and in our DVD's that should be looked to for our latest stance on these issues. (with an appropriate real-world understanding that those age over time and newer versions replace older versions, etc.)

Exposing the truth about the 3 WTC "Collapses" on 9/11 to every architect and engineer and others

Wonderful Idea. Great Job Mr. Gage.

I like that Mr. Gage presents it as a problem in need of a solution from the engineering department. It is a flattering approach that will challenge the engineers without polarizing them. Great job.

I believe Mr. Gage actually said virtual, or virtually free fall speed.

From Merriam-Webster


Main Entry:
\ˈvər-chə-wə-lē, -chə-lē; ˈvərch-wə-lē\
15th century
1 : almost entirely : nearly
2 : for all practical purposes

If Webster is correct, then Gage was correct.

Watch it again...

He says, "Free-fall speed". No "virtual", no "nearly" about it.

If we want truth, we have to speak truth. Period.

DarthKazi, As you email engineers and architects & recruit ...

As you recruit engineers and architects by personal contact and email, you could mention the times of collapse for each building. Glad that you have been emailing a bunch and actively recruiting more members.

I've taxed my emailing...

...I've emailed, emailed and emailed some more. I've included frame-by-frames... I've included several angles and empirical tests. Then I realized that people with advanced degrees in engineering/architecture should be fully capable of using a stop watch for themselves.

The 9-10 second collapse disinformation was propagated in the 911 Omission Report. Those times reflected the seismic readings, which would not even register a signal until the first debris hit the ground. The South Tower, begins tipping slowly for a couple seconds. The free-fall decent of the first ejected debris would have taken 9 seconds as of it's release from the 78th floor, after the building began to tip, as per the official 9:59 collapse time. The North Tower, after telescoping into itself with no amplified "thud" from (which would be required to produce the crazy Bazant nonsense theory) and crushed itself (from an amazing loss of strain energy from the remaining 80% of in-service columns) in about 15 seconds; however the first free-falling debris would hit around 10 seconds later and rumble for another several seconds.... perhaps pre-explosions were felt, who knows. The Bazant theory is further disproved by the "spires" which would not be possible in a "crush down/crush up" scenario.

I don't buy the official story or Bazant/NIST's wild assumptions. However, as a serious researcher, we have to start being ACCURATE, if we want Congress or any engineering dept. to pay attention to us. Here, we have Mr. Gage asking an engineering department to review the case for controlled demolition. This is all well and good, but making inaccurate assertions about "free-fall speed", will turn off any serious science dept. The upper block of the North Tower DID require a free-fall release of the upper block, in order to create the forces to produce a progressive collapse (which, in reality IS a demolition mechanic) for which we are supposed to assume. The INITIATION of collapse is what we should be questioning, not the out-of-control collapse scenario: How DID the upper blocks break free and release such force? Why did 80% of the still in-service columns suddenly fail with no apparent strain? How could the opposite side of the ST fail to allow the block to tip? If you had a chair with 100 legs underneath the seat, if you remove 20 of them ANYWHERE, would it fall over with normal loads?

I've also heard this nonsense about "the collapse SHOULD have taken 45-50 seconds". But ductile steel structures will increase their 'hardening' when they slowly creep or buckle, so such a collapse would not be possible. The only way it COULD collapse, if it did with no help, would be to ALLOW the 33,000 ton upper block (NT) to fall freely upon the static floor. This COULD initiate a collapse and, if so, is WOULD only take a matter of seconds. This is backed up by looking at the columns on GZ. They are not buckled, bent badly or broken anywhere but at the welds/bolted ends. This means sudden momentary failure from high-velocity energy source. These criminals who did 9/11 KNEW the achilles heel of these structures and rigged heat-weakening to make it happen. A controlled demolition does NOT need tons of explosives.

These are the questions we should be asking.

Cool! Let's keep recruiting more members! That is the target!

DarthKazi, That is great that you have been recruiting lots and lots of potential members by emailing firms and engineers and architects. For now, that is our most pressing target : "Getting people signed up to". Keep up the good work. Keep signing up more engineers and architects. Thanks for all the professionals that you have emailed so far in the recruitment drive for more members.

Agree 100% Re. Accuracy

Would it be possible for DarthKazi and AE911Truth to set out concise, precise points in a short article which activists can use? Ideally, something which can reach at least a proportion of the non-engineering population, as well as the experts.

I stand corrected. He actually says it both ways.

At 1:07 In his outdoor speech, Mr. Gage does say free-fall speed without the qualifier "virtually." I stand corrected.

However, at 5:08 speaking in reference to Building 7, he says "virtually at free-fall speed."

I think to be accurate we should always say virtually or nearly or compare the rate of collapse with free-fall speed.

Once again, I apologize for overlooking the first instance where Mr. Gage didn't use the qualifier.

I still think, even when he leaves out the qualifier, the essence of what Mr. Gage is saying is truthful.

I also think he is a doing a terrific job of getting the Truth out to the people.

I think he was actually on a

I think he was actually on a WBZ program in Boston too. Right before the Tea Party.

Nice job

Nice job, Minnesota. Looks like a well thought out truth action, using Richard Gage to his maximum potential and supporting the effort with highway blogs and such. Thanks for capturing it on video. Let us know how it turned out.

Did anybody follow up w/

the U of Minnesota guy?

A Heartening Observation

Do a google search on "architects and engineers" and see what's right at the top. :)