Washington Times: "Explosive News" (2/22/10)

By Jennifer Harper
Washington Times


A lingering technical question about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks still haunts some, and it has political implications: How did 200,000 tons of steel disintegrate and drop in 11 seconds? A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center.

"In order to bring down this kind of mass in such a short period of time, the material must have been artificially, exploded outwards," says Richard Gage, a San Francisco architect and founder of the nonprofit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Mr. Gage, who is a member of the American Institute of Architects, managed to persuade more than 1,000 of his peers to sign a new petition requesting a formal inquiry.

Article continues at link :



Go to the site and comment

I love this one - the last line:

" johnscriv

friedolin wrote "... this weight fell and the building below was not strong enough to support the shock from the falling mass" ... sorry friedolin, but there was no "shock" from the falling mass, it did not impact the building below... if it had, there would have been a noticeable and quantifiable deceleration of the falling mass (since f=ma) and there was not, there was no deceleration of the falling mass, it continued to fall with constant acceleration of approx 0.64g all the way to the ground. This is beyond dispute, since all the video footage of the towers' destruction shows this to be so... friedolin's theory is clearly wrong, the falling mass met no resistance from the building below... the building below provided less resistance than custard and only slightly more than thin air... scurry back to sunstein now, friedolin, your crippled epistemology is not required here.

Inside the Beltway - Washington Times."

Great line about the "custard" ! I am laughing.

"...the building below provided less resistance than custard and only slightly more than thin air... "

Reminds me of "pancake mix"

Somebody here commented that he didn't see any pancakes-- just Pancake Mix flying everywhere! That one also got me laughing.. I mean you don't have to be a physicist to see the the difference.

Everybody print this WT article, please. And mail it along with introduction letters and media requests.

Explanation, please

Wait just one minute here. The Washington Times article gets TWO postings in the News section, while my blockbuster article on NORAD, Popular Mechanics magazine and the 9/11 Commission Report is consigned to Blogs oblivion!

Can someone at 9/11 Blogger explain the Blogging of my article on NORAD?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

This Makes No Sense

9/11 Blogger,

it's been over twenty-four hours now and no response to my question in the comment above. Why? Exactly what agenda are you promoting by not placing my current article on NORAD in the News section?

Am I to infer by your silence that ground breaking news items are placed in the Blogs section, while secondary/trivial articles are inserted in the News section?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC