To clarify, these people were not invited guests of the National Press Club but rather simply rented a room there to give a press conference that nobody of any note attended.

The misleading way they present their implied association with the National Press Club is absolutely par for the truther course. It reminds me of the time creationists tried to rent a room in the Smithsonian Institute to show one of their crap movies, just so they could say it had been shown at the Smithsonian and must therefore have real merit.

When confronted by fact...an easy quip is not distracting enough. So try the " totally unrelated and poor anicdote "....nope still not distracted from reading about the probable truth from thousands of qualified professionals.

Picture one,

the supposed thermite,

In gage's own paper, the samples gave off a variation in results of the amount of energy contained within. This is in complete contradiction with highly engineered sophisticated nano thermite. If this is in fact the thermite they used, they would have no way of controlling the results, because each batch of thermite would be different in strength. Engineered nano thermite would require the particles to all be the same size... Have a look at the picture again.

Not thermite.

Picture two,

the molten steel

Please show me a digger that is able to extract molten steel with out heat transference disabling the hydraulics, and setting the combustable parts on fire. You do realise though, that there steel isn't the only thing in WTC1 and 2 that can be molten?


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSkrg6tlW_M
 http://sites.google.com/site/911guide/evidence

The second link offers firm proof that Gage has used faked evidence.

How you guys fall for this, and prop up Gage's career, is beyond me.

...claim for the collapse of WTC7 is a load of bollocks as well, it took at least 13 seconds, no where near freefall speed. 'Truthers' simply ignore the collapse of the penthouse structures on the top. Even arch-truther and thermite fantasist, Steven Jones, has admitted as much:

 http://911booger.blogspot.com/2007/05/steven-jones-on-wtc-7-collapse-we.html

Yet it does not stop Gage from trotting out this same pack of lies ad infinitum.

There always seems to be a lot of 'one liner' comments on any 911 truth stories.
The first comment says that the report is misleading cos it tries to make out that they are associated with the National Press Club. really ? It simply states that they presented this as a press release at a press conference that they had organized at the National Press Club in Washington. I mean if your organize a gig you are obviously gonna put the venue on the flyer. Maybe the poster of this comment thinks they should have held the press conference at Joes Cafe, in the back of beyond.
This comment seems to be really scraping the bottom of the barrel, or perhaps sewer would be more precise.

These 911 articles can often seriously long and complicated if your not an expert it's hard to really verify and you either take their word for it or not.
But this one is a reasonable length and well laid out. Bit of an intro and then they lay out their case and then make a series of points which they obviously consider to be crucial to proving that the official version of 911 is seriously flawed.
These are laid out in two sections of points from 1) to 6).
They are pretty brief, clear and to the point. max three or four lines.

I wonder why none of the anti truth movement, or people that believe the official version, or whatever,
can't seem to give a point by point reply and therefore banish the 911 movement once and for all.

They pick on individual selected points in this case the 6.5 seconds.

All this one liner quips are not part of an organized and concerted effort to discredit the 911 truth movement. In some ways it kinda proves that some has an interest in trying to stop serious discussion of the events of 911.

Well you're entitled to have your own opinions of course.

I think you are neglecting over evidence such as videos made by the terrorists saying "I did it" beforehand - you know, those silly pre-martyre videos they like to make?

When there is so much evidence + videos saying "I did it." its hard to not believe it all beyond reasonable doubt.


1. Both Twin Towers were completely dismembered and destroyed in just 10 to 14 seconds - which occurs at near free-fall acceleration. For this to happen, all 47 of their massive core columns as well as a large fraction of their external columns would have to be compromised with explosives beforehand.
No they weren't. Get your stopwatch out and don't re-quote lies.
Since the towers are mostly air, its hardly surprising they came down fast.
Where is it written that a falling building comes down slowly? No where.

2. More than 100 first responders reported hearing explosions and seeing flashes of light at the onset of destruction. Light flashes indicate explosive detonations. These witnesses are documented in NYC’s “Oral Histories” by City Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen
Lots of people say they see UFOs every year.
Lots of people say they see ghosts.
Doesn't mean its true.

3. Multi-ton steel perimeter wall sections were ejected laterally at 60 mph to a distance of 600 ft. That speed and distance indicates that a high-pressure explosion initiated the ejection.
Maybe thats to do with a big plane hitting the tower at many hundred of miles per hour.

4. 90,000 tons of concrete and metal decking was pulverized in mid-air, again indicating explosions.
ALL buildings that collapse have pulverized concrete. I can pulverised concrete by hitting two pieces together. Did you know that concrete also melts like a liquid?
Shock / horror. If it didnt pulverise it would be very weird.

5. World Trade Center 7, a 47-story building which was not hit by an aircraft, fell at free-fall acceleration for more than 100 feet – a significant fact that NIST’s Shyam Sunder was forced to admit after being presented with our research. Yet NIST has failed to review or acknowledge the obvious implications of this fact, which is that the columns must have been explosively severed within fractions of a second of each other.
No. The buildings are mostly full of nothing / empty space. Thats how buildings collapse. They don't collapse any other way.

6. The complete destruction and dismemberment of Building 7, collapsing in just 6 ½ seconds—which is near freefall acceleration—through the path of what was greatest resistance, symmetrically vertical, including 2 ½ seconds of pure free-fall (zero resistance), is an occurrence only possible with expertly-placed explosives.
Not 6.5 seconds. Watch the video and time it


The points are mostly pointless to answer because they are factually incorrect in the first place.

Look I hope we can approach this without turning to mud slinging and insults, but I do have a question:

What is it exactly you hope to acheive? I really don't mean this in the usual context this phrase is used (condescending), but genuinely, now this can be you personally, your organisation, or the whole movement. or all three or two, I don't mind, I do find it puzzling, and why I ask will become apparent.

I hope we can keep this cordial, you certainly won't get any insults from me.

Quote:
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth the Evidence to the Media:
Press Conference - National Press Club – Washington DC, 9 September 2010


Good afternoon, my name is Richard Gage, AIA. I’m a member of the American Institute of Architects; I’ve been a licensed architect for 22 years; And I’m the founder of the non-profit organization, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth).

As a group, we now have more than 1,270 architect and engineer petition signers. Collectively, we have more than 25,000 years of building and technical experience. This press conference is being given by our petition signers and supporters today in 65 [it turned out to be 67] locations around the world, including 30 states and 4 countries.

Fair enough, but without a scientific paper providing a theory, and proof their of, or at least some real science and math to back up your claims, the qualifications and education of you or your members is irrelevant.


Quote:
Today, we’re here to inform you that we have uncovered evidence that the official investigations into what happened to the World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11 were deeply flawed, or worse. The scientific forensic facts we have discovered have very troubling implications.

uh huh....prove it.


Quote:
For example, a technologically advanced, highly energetic material has been discovered in World Trade Center dust from the 9/11 catastrophe.
Wrong. A flawed, both in terms of the methodology and interpretation of results, study done by a number of scientists showed a number of chips that were somewhat exothermic, but which would require 100's of layers of such to raise steel to a temp where it would lose strength.

The limited results of the paper (A) have not been verified by an independent lab, (B) are in opposition to every other analysis of WTC dust, none of which found thermite in the samples. Many other studies of the WTC dust did find paint as a common constiuent of the dust...not mentioned in the Jones/Harrit Paper.

The one person, a fellow truther named Henry-Couannier, could not find these alleged thermite chips, when he tested/checked a sample of the same dust that Jones tested.

Jones himself, in an email debate with Dr. Frank Greening, Chemist, was forced to admit that in all likelihood the thermite was that weak exothermically, that it must have been used ONLY AS FUSES for more TRADITIONAL EXPLOSIVES in the collapses.

The same paper DID NOT rule out as a possible source of these chips, paint and primer used at the WTC, or any other possible sources for that matter.


Quote:
This follows the discovery, by the United States Geological Survey and others, of high concentrations of unusual previously molten iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust. These microspheres can only have been formed during the destruction of the World Trade Center at temperatures far higher than can be explained by the jet fuel and office fires. Those fires, we are told by engineers employed by NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, were allegedly the cause of the World Trade Center’s destruction. The discovery of this advanced energetic material, in the form of red/gray chips distributed throughout the dust, both explains the iron-rich microspheres and confirms the inadequacy of the official account of what happened that tragic day.
flyash, friction, welding, all possible sources. No VERIFIED proof that the iron microspheres found in their samples HAD TO COME from the chips.


Quote:
Even before the microspheres and red/gray chips had been identified and brought to our attention, we were deeply concerned about other aspects of the destruction of these iconic buildings, and how they were investigated. More than two dozen firefighters, engineers, and other witnesses reported seeing substantial quantities of molten iron or steel, flowing like lava in the debris under all three World Trade Center high-rises. Office fires and jet fuel cannot possibly reach the temperatures necessary to liquefy iron or steel. A mixture called thermite, consisting of pulverized iron oxide and aluminum, CAN generate temperatures above 4000°F -- far more than is needed to melt iron or steel, which melts at about 2750°F.
WRONG. Provide us with the tesimonies that the number of witnesses mentioned SAW MOLTEN STEEL or IRON. In reality, what it amounts to, are a half-dozen or so people witnessed molten or previously molten METAL. This metal could have been Aluminum (the entire WTC outer facade was covered in aluminum) or other metals.


Quote:
The energetic material that was found in the WTC dust by an international team of scientists (led by Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark) was reported in the peer-reviewed Bentham Open Journal of Chemical Physics. It consists of nano-engineered iron oxide and aluminum particles 1000th the size of a human hair, embedded in another substance consisting of carbon, oxygen, and silicon. The sizes of the iron oxide particles are extremely uniform, and neither they nor the ultra-fine-grain aluminum platelets could possibly have been created by a natural process such as a gravitational collapse or the impact of jetliners. The red/gray chips in which these particles were found exhibit the same characteristics as advanced energetic materials developed in US national laboratories in the years leading up to 9/11. They have no reason to be in this dust. Given all the horrific costs in human lives, lost civil liberties, and trillions of tax dollars spent in response to the official account of 9/11, there can be no more urgent need than for our country and the world to find out who put those materials in the World Trade Center – and why.
1. Bentham is a sham journal. It solicits UNQUALIFIED people to be editors and reviewers of articles. It solicits people with NO EXPERIENCE in the given field to do so. It is a "Pay to Publish" journal which will publish ANYTHING as long as you pay the $600 fee.

2. See my above comments for the rest of the gibberish above.


Quote:
This need makes it all the more disturbing that top engineers in charge of the government’s investigation would avoid dealing straightforwardly with ALL the evidence that AE911Truth and others have repeatedly brought to their attention, much of which has been available in the public record since the beginning. John Gross, NIST co-project leader, has denied the existence of – or even any reports of – molten iron or steel at the World Trade Center.
The so called EVIDENCE is from a horrible flawed study, has not been verified or reproduced NOT ONLY by an INDEPENDENT LAB, but NOT EVEN by a FELLOW TRUTHER. All other analysis of dust samples from the collapses DO NOT find thermite, but they DO FIND PAINT.


Quote:
They stopped their analysis of the towers’ complete and highly energetic destruction at the very point when the destruction began. And they have dismissed or avoided serious analysis of the additional evidence with which we are concerned, such as:
They did not analyze the collapse beyond initiation for one very simple and practical reason...once the collapse began, there was not halting it, and hence no need to look at everything from initiation onward.


Quote:
1. Both Twin Towers were completely dismembered and destroyed in just 10 to 14 seconds - which occurs at near free-fall acceleration. For this to happen, all 47 of their massive core columns as well as a large fraction of their external columns would have to be compromised with explosives beforehand.
Not true. Gage and his cohorts have provided NO PROOF that (A) the towers fell at free fall. They have carefully now said "near" free fall, which is an unscientific, vague, subjective term, which has no value because it can not be tested. (B) They have provided no proof, no scientific calculations to prove that a collapse at the speed of those of the WTCs could only occur from preplanted predetonated explosives.


Quote:
2. More than 100 first responders reported hearing explosions and seeing flashes of light at the onset of destruction. Light flashes indicate explosive detonations. These witnesses are documented in NYC’s “Oral Histories” by City Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen
He is grouping together the full list of first responders who heard EITHER explosions OR saw flashes. The latter group consists of just a couple of witnesses. 90% or more of the witnesses heard "explosions". We all know many things (aeresol Cans, Oxygen tanks, electrical transformers, cars) can all cause explosion like noises when they are exposed to heat or trauma. Most of the testimony refers to the things that sounded LIKE explosions, which of course is the use of SIMILE to describe the character of the sound, not the source.


Quote:
3. Multi-ton steel perimeter wall sections were ejected laterally at 60 mph to a distance of 600 ft. That speed and distance indicates that a high-pressure explosion initiated the ejection.
Wrong. Yes there was ejection of steel from the buildings. The forces acting both downward, and upward, would have forced large sections of the tower out laterally, the path of least resistance in those cases.


Quote:
4. 90,000 tons of concrete and metal decking was pulverized in mid-air, again indicating explosions.
Where did that number come from? A good portion of the concrete was pulverized, but no where close to most or all of it. There is plenty of photo evidence of large chunks of concrete, as well as loads of Macrosized concrete. I have seen NO EVIDENCE OF PULVERIZED METAL DECKING. Most of the cloud of dust was GYPSUM WALLBOARD.


Quote:
5. World Trade Center 7, a 47-story building which was not hit by an aircraft, fell at free-fall acceleration for more than 100 feet – a significant fact that NIST’s Shyam Sunder was forced to admit after being presented with our research. Yet NIST has failed to review or acknowledge the obvious implications of this fact, which is that the columns must have been explosively severed within fractions of a second of each other.
1. Misleading. What has been shown, and explained by NIST (generously explained after requests from Gage et al, not forced to admit or any similar suggestion), is that part of the building, part of the NORTH FACE of the building, during the entire building collapse, had a 2.25 second interval that was timed at that of Free fall.

2. No proof has been provided, no calculations or otherwise, to prove that this 2.25 seconds of North Face Free fall, at the time it occurred, REQUIRED the use of explosives to occur.


Quote:
6. The complete destruction and dismemberment of Building 7, collapsing in just 6 ½ seconds—which is near freefall acceleration—through the path of what was greatest resistance, symmetrically vertical, including 2 ½ seconds of pure free-fall (zero resistance), is an occurrence only possible with expertly-placed explosives.
1. It was not the path of most resistance. No proof that it was has been given by Gage et al.

2. Once again, their use of the nonscientific, vague, general term "near freefall" makes all discussion of it irrelevant, as it cannot be contested scientifically.


Quote:
There are other falsehoods and omissions in NIST’s official report:

1. NIST overstated the severity and duration of the fires in all three skyscrapers, apparently in order to more credibly attribute the destruction to the fires, yet without exaggerating them enough to account for molten iron or steel.
(A) Gage has provided NO PROOF that NIST OVERSTATED the duration or severity of the fires.
(B) the rest of his comment is subjective and unfounded OPINION.
(C) Once again, no evidence of molten STEEL or IRON.


Quote:
2. NIST and FEMA did not follow the National Fire Protection Association’s standard procedures for fire and explosion investigations and test building debris for explosive residues.
I am not sure as to the validity of this claim. I have not read any direct words from NIST stating that the FBI (The forensic investigators) or FEMA or NIST did not test for explosive residue. It is possible.


Quote:
3. NIST did not test for explosives when explosive demolition was the most likely hypothesis.
What???? What??? "Explosive Demolition was the most likely hypothesis"? Saying it does not make it so Mr. Gage. WRONG!!!!!!


Quote:
4. NIST’s animated computer model of Building 7’s destruction, showing the outer walls crumpling inward like a piece of foil, bears no resemblance to the actual collapse as seen in the videos.
The publicly available videos (all Gage has to work with) allow limited viewing of the collapse because, (A) almost all of them show the collapse only from one side, (B) are obstructed by smoke after a second or two into the main collapse. I will plead ignorance on this particular point beyond this.


Quote:
5. NIST claims that the falling section of each of the Twin Towers, above the jetliner impact zones, crushed the much larger and more massive intact lower section. But [in the case of the North tower,] video analysis reveals clearly that the upper [section] disintegrated in waves of explosions prior to any crushing of the lower [section]. This indicates that the top sections could not have been the cause of the destruction of the lower [section].
popicock! (A) The entire section is not seen to disintigrate. It is obstructed from view when much of it is still intact. (B) the crushing of it, does not reduce its mass, and hence its momentum, which is the overwhelming factor that caused the collapse to progress unstoppably.


Quote:
6. NIST’s technical analysis into the twin towers’ collapses stops at the “initiation of collapse.” There is no technical analysis of the structural behavior of the building during the collapse itself. In response to our Request for Correction on this matter, NIST acknowledged that they were “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”
they were unable to provide an explanation, because unlike truthers, they do not want to make wild speculations without proper analysis, which they already admitted they did not do, as there was no need (see above).