.

Did Explosives Bring the Twin Towers Down?

Loma Linda/Redlands residents will be presented with evidence controlled explosions brought the buildings down at a presentation moderated by a Redlands engineer.

The Sept. 11 attacks are such a delicate topic, that a small Loma Linda Patch brief announcing the screening of a film charging a report on the collapse of the towers is full of falsehoods has stirred passions.

Stephen Kemp, BSME, a local engineer and educator, who will moderate the presentation, said he expected skeptics.

“I think it’s important for the public to really understand that we’ve never really had anything like an (independent) investigation into 9/11,”  Kemp said. “So what goes as an official story is really fairytale.”

The presentation, titled 9/11: Blueprint for Truth, The Architecture of Destruction Re-examining the Destruction of the Three World Trade Center High-Rises will be held at 7 p.m. Jan. 10 at A.K. Smiley Public Library, 125 W. Vine St.

The film centers around the theory that New York’s Twin Towers and a third World Trade Center Seven Building - that was a block away from the towers - were not brought down by the large jets that were flown into them.

Instead the film and its creator Richard Gage, AIA, suggest a controlled explosion similar to the ones seen in demolitions brought them down. Gage and a group of about 1,600 supporters are demanding there be a new independent investigation into the collapse.

Several people who were were associated with the official investigation's  final report have since disowned it, Kemp said.

“We need to revisit this,” he said. “We need a new investigation.”

The film questions a lot of the evidence presented by the report and claims many things were omitted including the existence of molten steel. Rescuers and architects at Ground Zero reported seeing it, Gage said. The liquafied steele is a classic effect of a controlled demolition, he said.

“For me the key condition is that they never called key witnesses,” Kemp said of the investigators. “Much of the evidence that was presented to them was repressed in the final report.”

But the film has many shaking their heads.

“I doubt whether any voices of reason will even attend, since these dreary events are usually 90 percent self-professed ‘truthers,’ and the other 10 percent only claim to be skeptics - who see the light after the "presentation.’ ” Patch commenter Albury Smith responded in frustration in a comment stream. “I'd suggest reviewing the to see how interested the 9/11 ‘truth movement’ is in honest debate. The ‘engineer and educator’ who's running the Redlands, CA dog-and-pony show addressed none of my comments or questions and then skipped, and getting anything substantive out of the other true believer here is like nailing Jello to a tree.”

m January 14, 2012 at 04:24 AM
200+ NIST Engineers… I just looked up that AE911Truther group and they have over 1600 architects and engrs. Doesn’t that mean your losing by ~1400 engineers? You said ultra quiet explosives set off for “no plausible reason”. I hope everyone reading this chain catches that one… So you cannot think of a plausible reason? You remind me of the mainstream media who also cannot seem to piece anything together. So lets see, can anyone think of a reason that someone might have planted explosives in a building to be triggered on September 11, 2001? Hmmm… gee I seem to remember there was some sort of attack that day in that same trade center wasn’t there? I do not agree with the secrecy in the NSTCA and I want transparency from my government for this investigation. Your assurances are worthless to me and your support of this secrecy is disturbing if your supposed to be a scientist as you imply. People making their own new models is stupid idea on its face, and I see you took the opportunity to distort the facts again. You say the Truthers have had 10 years to make their own models. However, you know that the “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7” did not come out til 2008. The notification from NIST for withholding the data was not released until 7-9-2009. That’s two years ago you pompous, exaggerating, unreasonable, deceptive supporter of the government’s whacky, unsupported theory which provided zero accountability.
Albury Smith January 14, 2012 at 04:37 PM
WTC 7 collapsed more than 10 years ago, "m," and since you claim to have such a keen interest in learning why, that's how long you and Gage's "over 1600 architects and engrs." have had to investigate it yourselves, so why haven't you even STARTED? The fact that you haven't countered NIST (which actually has people with qualifications and experience-not just claims of them) with any scientific findings of your own in the ample time you've had since the reports were released speaks for itself. There was "some sort of attack" by al Qaeda suicide terrorists on 9/11, so once again, what plausible reason was there for the (totally impossible) secret planting and detonating of explosives, especially in WTC 7, on top of all of the other death and destruction that day, and who's your imaginary perpetrator? I don't know what "the NSTCA" is, nor do I care what you think of the NCST Act, but NIST was required by law to adhere to it and did. If you understood this topic-which you don't-you'd realize that 1600 real engineers, etc. wouldn't need to see all of someone else's input and results files in order to check their conclusions, which are clearly stated in NCSTAR 1A, and would simply model with the readily available data and LS-DYNA and ANSYS programs, just as NIST did. How do you suppose that "scientific scrutiny" works? The information is almost all in NCSTAR 1A and 1-9, and RFIs to NIST would get the rest. By your tortured reasoning, a blind study "is stupid idea on its face" too.
m January 14, 2012 at 06:06 PM
The first question in your reply is dumb. I believed in our government and gave them the benefit of the doubt that they were going to investigate what happened on 9/11 is the short answer. I do not know all about the truthers like you do (your obsessing) but I’m pretty sure there was no AE911Truthers in 2001 and do not think they came around til a few years ago. I see you still cannot cope with the plausible reason and would only say your complete lack of imagination is no reason to not investigate. Generally investigations begin when there is a crime without knowing who did it or why they did it. Police do not show up to a crime scene where a murder has clearly taken place and then say “well we do not know who the perpetrators could be or why’d they’d do this so lets just not investigate”. For someone who speaks so much of the educated you sure do act stupid. I think there is a clear reason WTC7 was destroyed that day as the goal seemed to be the destruction of the World Trade Center it was apart of (although it was across the street). Strange how it’s the only building to collapse across the street! National Safety Team Construction Act passed by Congress authorizing NIST to investigate… I see your still straining to hold onto the government’s secrecy and at the same moment try to call the resulting model science. Obviously this conversation has run out of gas… I would say something nice in parting but I do not like you so I’ll pass.
Albury Smith January 14, 2012 at 09:26 PM
Your ignorance of the thorough investigations already conducted by extremely competent people is no reason for more of them, and you still have suggested no plausible motive or perps for your secret, imaginary explosives scenario, nor have you answered my "dumb" question about not doing your own modeling, despite having more than enough data for it. The crime was hijacking and crashing airliners, and the death and destruction without the NYC collapses was considerable, so who do you think(?) wanted more of it and why? Your pathetic whining about the NCST Act has "run out of gas," so please explain what input data you don't have, and why you haven't even begun your own ANSYS and LS-DYNA modeling of WTC 7's collapse by now, since you've had plenty of time. The entire 7-building WTC complex was destroyed, some on 9/11 and some later razed, along with the 40-story Deutsche Bank Building and 15-story Fiterman Hall, and the Verizon Building and One WFC were among other buildings with major damage, so which ones were part of this plot you've dreamed up? btw, two thumbs up for finally figuring out what the NCST Act is. Try reading NCSTAR 1A and 1-9 now, since you obviously haven't. You twoofers are priceless...
Albury Smith January 15, 2012 at 02:19 PM
note: The NCST Act is not the "National Safety Team Construction Act," but at least you have the right idea, "m," so that's refreshing. The "two thumbs up" was a bit premature. note also: 40 revisions to the 2009 and 2012 editions of the I-Codes were made because of NIST recommendations derived from their WTC collapse investigations: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/about.cfm so how many code revisions have your "over 1600 architects and engrs." gotten with their "research"? Are they even MENTIONED on the ASCE, RIBA, and AIA web sites, or do they just have huge fans like you who aren't engineers or scientists, have never even looked at the NIST reports, yet somehow "know" they're wrong anyway? btw, please find another hobby; structural engineering's definitely not your thing. If you're truly interested in building collapses, NIST might hire you to fetch coffee for their investigators, however.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »