Artvoice: Buffalo's #1 Newsweekly
Home Blogs Web Features Calendar Listings Artvoice TV Real Estate Classifieds Contact
Next story:
Previous story:

Was World Trade Center Building #7 Intentionally Imploded?

Whether or not you believe there was a conspiracy in New York City on September 11, 2001, you should watch this short video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

Richard Gage (AIA) is the founder of “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.” He is traveling from San Francisco to NYC to speak at events commemorating the 10th anniversary of 9/11. He will make one other stop—in Buffalo—to speak at Allen Hall on the UB south campus next Tuesday (9/9) at 3:30 and 7:30.

As the video shows, these are not the daydreams of whacko conspiracy theorists, but the conclusions of over 1,500 respected engineers and architects who are putting their reputations on the line to contradict the official story handed down by the government.

They all agree WTC #7 was brought down by a controlled demolition on the afternoon of 9/11. Such a demolition would have required months of planning.

What do you think?


  • Jim Holstun

    Not too impressed with this. See http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm, the NIS response to criticisms, which actually presents those criticisms fairly and responds to them clearly. For instance, the chorus of “free fall!” that you hear in this video. Here’s part of the response: “In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

    In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.” more follows.

  • Mike Whitman

    Here was Donald Rumsfied’s response on his book tour, 6 months ago:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwPoA-LlFtg

  • Arthur Scheuerman

    Architect Richard Gage has produced a masterful piece of propaganda that proves he is still in denial about his own lack of understanding of how the long-span floor systems in the WTC high-rise buildings caused the progressive collapses. The average architect in his group has never heard of, or is apparently unable to fathom the newly discovered failure mechanisms affecting long-span steel floors just coming to light after the NIST investigation which the A & E for 9/11 Truth people apparently believe is just a monstrous cover up. Because they never even heard of these new collapse mechanisms, they make the assumption that the buildings had to be taken down by pre-planted explosives than accuse any people who disagree with them of being in on the conspiracy.

    Such fire-caused failure mechanisms in long-span steel floors include differential expansion between the concrete slab and the steel beams causing failure of the shear studs breaking the composite bond, thermal bowing where the bottom chord of a bar-joist expands faster than the top causing pull-in tensions, restrained expansion in long-span floors causing compression buckling, torsional-buckling where the beam twists out, and significant cooling contraction tension in deflected beams as the fire dies down. All of these mechanisms produce tension on the connections that can tear out the shear connections1 not designed for these lateral forces or pull the columns into buckling. Mr. Gage’s lack of comprehension about how these long-span floors fail is why he comes up with such outlandish ideas that explosives had to be placed on practically all the columns to sever them simultaneously. He has to face up to what actually happened in these buildings and drop his delusional ideas about a vast conspiracy of people from within our own society who would have to have been complicit in such a dastardly deed.

    1 Shear connections are designed to transfer only vertical gravity loads, whereas moment connections are designed ito transfer loads and moments (forces resulting from bending of a beam) induced by both (vertical) gravity and (horizontal) wind loads.

  • RaChaCha

    I’m naturally agnostic about conspiracy theories — but I owe Richard Gage a debt of gratitude for the fact that I’ve just seen my lifetime first FOOTNOTE in a blog comment.

  • Jill Rickard

    The problem here is a lack of media literacy. Most Americans soak in everything they are told from mass media news outlets. If it’s on the news it must be true. No need to ask tough questions. No need for the watchdog function.
    Fix the media in this country if you want the truth from Uncle Sam and big business. Oh wait they own the media. I guess we’ll never know what really went down on 9/11.

  • Yarlon

    “Such fire-caused failure mechanisms in long-span steel floors include differential expansion between the concrete slab and the steel beams causing failure of the shear studs breaking the composite bond, thermal bowing where the bottom chord of a bar-joist expands faster than the top causing pull-in tensions, restrained expansion in long-span floors causing compression buckling, torsional-buckling where the beam twists out, and significant cooling contraction tension in deflected beams as the fire dies down.”

    Obviously…

    Arthur you make a lot less sense than that video.

  • Jim Holstun

    As we should expect, a discussion of structural engineering gets technical pretty quickly, but anybody who wants to talk about WTC7 should get familiar with the details. Unfortunately, the Gage video “makes sense” in ways that also deserve critical reading–i.e., scarey minor chords on the soundtrack, eliminated evidence and arguments, etc. It would be very helpful for the advancement of knowledge on the topic if Truthers would start addressing the best counter-arguments rather than the worst ones–i.e, by saying, again and again, “And WTC7 wasn’t even hit by a plane!” as if somebody out there were saying “Then a third plane took out WTC7!”

    Scheuerman’s full piece is at http://www.nistreview.org/WTC7-COLLAPSE-SCHEUERMAN.pdf. It’s technical, but not impenetrable.

  • Mike Whitman

    Here’s what Joe Lieberman had to say about Building 7:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVyONHWuH7A

  • Dan

    I can’t trust videos that show only one side of the story, while choosing quotes from the opposite side of the story. What are the other engineers saying? The ones who do NOT think it was a controlled demolition?

  • Bruce Beyer

    A bunch of wacky crap sponsored by WNY Peace Center board members determined to reach into the deep pockets of the upper middle class.

  • John

    “Whether or not you believe there was a conspiracy in New York City on September 11 … ”

    What an absurd way to begin this article, of course there was a conspiracy in New York on 9/11, unless you think the whole operation was carried out by a lone nut.

  • Good point, John. Obviously there was a conspiracy. The video just suggests a different, larger conspiracy than is typically accepted.

  • Jim

    Authur you need to understand the Normalcy bias, that is your problem.

  • Jeff

    The event starting at 330pm is on North Campus in Norton Hall Room 112, the later event is on the South Campus in Allen Hall. Thank you!

  • Excellent video, that points out many aspects of what happened on that terrible day. All of the speculation in the world is not going to change what really happened. As much as the NIST would like to ignore this evidence, they did a lengthy treatise involving theories and models in an attempt to produce a believable explanation. They spent many years and millions of dollars to produce a 10,000 report with disclaimers explaining that it could not be used in a court of law.

    If I might address Arthur Scheuerman, I would like to ask what, exactly, these temperature differentials are and if they agree with James Quintiere’s estimates that were made in 2005…G: