Home / Conspiracy / A C-SPAN Interview on 9/11 Architecture/Physics
Print Friendly and PDF

A C-SPAN Interview on 9/11 Architecture/Physics

Written by Gary North on August 2, 2014

The debate goes on.

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

32 thoughts on “A C-SPAN Interview on 9/11 Architecture/Physics

  1. No doubt there was some fowl play at work here but an interesting event happened at the same time that also effected the area in question. We had a series of solar events on the 10th, 11th and the 12th that were strong enough to effect gravity, similar to what happened during the Japanese quake…we can see a gravity scar even today. I would check out the NASA sites to verify. This is something that no one has even investigated, reported or considered.
    Also see; suspiciousObservers.org for an understanding of how these solar events effect climate and other conditions on earth.

  2. P.S. HAARP was not operating that day.

  3. Kim Costanzo says:

    On 9/11, I saw, on tv, the Fire Chief and the owner of Building 7 discussing the damage to the building. The Fire Chief said the building was severely damaged and they could either try to save it or bring it down in a controlled way and he recommended the latter. The owner agreed to bring it down. As far as the other two buildings go, we saw the planes hit. Truther engineers and architects might be two thousand in number, but there are 1.2 million who do not agree with their assessment of how those buildings came down. The tests done by popular mechanics proved more than once that the intense fires, and knocked off fire treatments on the metal structure caused the collapse. With numerous tests, these engineers stay with their conspiracy synopsis due more to idealology than fact. I would love a poll on these architects and engineers political leanings. Something tells me I would not be surprised and would explain a lot.

  4. But don’t you understand, the laws of physics were suspended on 9-11?!? Steel-framed structures (built to stricter building codes because they housed government offices) collapsed into their own footprints at free-fall speed due to 19 Arabs with boxcutters!

    Are you going to trust your lyin’ eyes and ears when seeing/hearing the “squiffs” from the detonations of controlled demolitions as the WTC floors “pancake” on top of each other in textbook formation, or continue to believe government spokesmen?

    My personal favorite is the BBC bimbo reporterette announcing the collapse of WTC Building 7 before it actually took place, while Building 7 is still clearly visible over her left shoulder on the Manhattan skyline. The BBC feed mysteriously “broke up” 5 minutes before the detonation started, which would have been truly laughable if the world had been able to witness the collapse on-air, 26 minutes after the bimbo said it happened!

    The BBC has since purged that historic raw footage from its archives (tantamount to news organizations deleting footage of the crash of the Hindenburg) and the bimbo has said her jumping-the-gun was just “a mistake”. Oh rly?

  5. Like Rosie said, steel doesn't melt. And she should know! Shouldn't she? …

  6. So the laws of architecture and physics are subject to how many Tweets and Facebook “likes” they get? “All my friends say gravity is just in your mind!”

    Building 7 was not hit by any plane. Do you even know how long it takes to set the charges to control-demolish a 47-story steel-reinforced skyscraper?

    What government agency do you work for?

  7. redmeatstate says:

    It's quite clear now that the entire event was planned and a controlled demolition, with the terrorists flying the planes into the buildings as a smoke screen, although I doubt if they knew anything beyond their own plans.
    I would say the owners of the buildings would be the first people that need to be interrogated on this as none of the controlled demolitions would have happened without their knowledge.

  8. Elizabeth says:

    Nice try. I would love a poll on how many deniers are out there, you included.

  9. Jeff Larson says:

    It's painfully obvious that it was not a controlled demolition. There are multiple audio recordings of the WTC 7 collapse. There is zero record of the explosions that would be necessary to collapse the building. It is not a matter of "the microphones were turned the wrong way" (they were omnidirectional mikes) or "you couldn't hear it from that distance" (the explosion of a single stick of dynamite inside the building would have been picked up by a mike that was only a half mile away). Because there is zero evidence of explosive demolition, Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth have had to fabricate an elaborate theory that employs thermite as a "silent explosive" to account for their findings. Yet, it is practically impossible to time multiple thermite ignitions in such a way as to bring down a building like WTC 7 in a somewhat controlled manner.

  10. steel doesn't melt? Ever played with an oxyacetylene torch? Even a propane torch can make the stuff melt. I've done it. And trust me, steel loses its strength LONG before it actually melts. Ever taken a half inch thick andfour inch wide steel leaf spring from a big truck, plied it with heat to make it red (only about 800 degrees F) then bent it? I have…. and burning Jet A burns a LOT hotter than 800 F.

  11. There are also videos of police and fire guys being interviewed and speaking of the explosions prior to any buildings coming down and also video of live interviews where the explosions are heard on camera just seconds before the collapses occur ? I have no idea what actually happened in totality ? But I do know we do NOT have the truth of the matter or anything close ? There are far too many anomalies and acts that defy physics ? and there is a reason all is covered up and lied about ?

  12. Sure, the building was brought down on command, but it had to be wired well in advance with thermite in order to do it. One does not command the demolition of a building, then lo and behold it happens unless preparations have been completed in advance. This just proves it was a conspiracy, and not a conspiracy theory.

  13. redmeatstate says:

    they're not investigating because the CIA and hundreds of other US government agency personnel are directly involved. Same reason Obama wasn't vetted.

  14. There was a very long delay between impact and the subsequent collapse which was blamed on the “raging inferno” of jet fuel.

    We all saw the big orange flash, which was the jet fuel. There was no raging inferno on the floors involved in the impact site for two reasons: one, after firefighters arrived they radioed that the fire had “simmered down. Two hoses will deal with this.”

    We also have photos and videos of people in the opening — that giant hole where the plane went in — looking out and waving! So we know there was no raging inferno.

    Final point: jet fuel does not burn hot enough to soften or melt steel. That’s why every steel framed building that has ever caught fire and burned down to the girders has remained standing.

    Combustible materials inside the building do not burn hot enough to bring down the steel frame. Same thing with jet fuel: it’s designed to burn as cool as possible so that aluminum-bodied plane carrying 100’s of passengers doesn’t melt! (I’m sure anyone who’s ever flown on a commercial jetliner will be relieved to know this.)

    There’s really no point in debating these government spooks who are paid to flog the official story (itself the most far-fetched “conspiracy theory” of all).

  15. Yes, Liz, truth is just a popularity contest.

  16. ncbill12 says:

    "But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

    'The jet fuel was the ignition source,' Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

  17. Rattlerjake says:

    I find it hilarious that, you, a misinformed individual, as well as the millions of other sheeple in this country who believe the government's rendition of 9/11, all of whom have ZERO architectural or demolition experience can even comment on this subject. The architects and engineers that Richard Gage is referring to are not only experts in their fields, but are also NOT being paid, and possibly threatened, by the government to LIE! I have 35(+) years experience in demolitions as an 18C, Special Forces Engineer, with experience in both commercial and field expedient explosives, and can say without a doubt that only an idiot could believe that these buildings were not taken down with controlled charges. This is as obvious as the fake birth certificate that Ovomit presented!

  18. Holy Shirt says:

    Would your valuable expertise be useful to our nation the Tuesday following the first Monday of November 2016? Just how hilarious would a Hillary Clinton presidency be?

  19. Holy Shirt says:

    The absence of remarks that PANYNJ's Chief of Security had headed a joint task force seeking Osama Bin Laden (Obama Sin Laden came later) only months before, until his FBI retirement, is spooky (if you'll pardon the pun)!

  20. Holy Shirt says:

    Public reaction to the the events of 11 September 2001 provided U.S. Intelligence agencies an excellent barometer of how 38 consecutive years of ever-lower S.A.T. scores affected reasoning ability among America's unwashed masses.

  21. Rattlin-Jake says:

    "Special Forces Engineer" does NOT make you a real engineer, whether that's chemical, civil, mechanical or architectural. You're not professionally licensed nor university trained, and I could not care less how much C-4, ANFO or any other cocktail you've created and popped; you're no engineer. You're a technical trained enlisted troop…and you don't have the credentials to back up what you're saying. You're using that MOS as a ruse to give credence to your "experience". That fools only the unenlightened. Just because you can make a big bang in no way qualifies you as an expert in this matter, any more than you commenting on nano-thermite conjecture or nuclear weapons detonation. The last two are just more of the asinine theories postulated by the loonies.

  22. Those 'fire treatments' which were knocked off in the event were mere lip service to what they were supposed to be preventing. Nobody probably seriously considered that there could be any bigger fire in those buildings than an overheated coffee maker. The spray on asbestos was about as flimsy and half-hearted of a safety item as you could have done the job with. Hence the fires weakened the support structures and the buildings collapsed.

    One of those planes hitting an older conventional steel girder skyscraper would never have had the same result.

  23. Your oversimplification of 9/11 to '19 Arabs with boxcutters' causing skyscraper collapses only proves your desperation and lack of logic. Three or four Americans with one airplane destroyed both Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killed hundreds of thousands – by your standards of logic, that would be wholly improbable or even impossible.

  24. I've seen tons of controlled collapse videos but not a single one that didn't show external evidence from the outside of the building as the charges were detonated. Not one.

  25. John Steam says:

    You point out a great mistake in our belief system: the practice of voting on the truth. Einstein was one man who had true scientific understanding. Billions of others didn't see what he saw. I guess the General Relativity must be a fraudulent theory. Do you see how foolish you sound? The word of just one highly qualified, trained, experienced expert is worth 10,000 lay people and that includes magazine writers. But we don't have 1 architect saying 911 was controlled demo. We have a couple thousand of them. These are professionals who have given their names publicly to this cause, not faceless, uneducated, untrained ignorant arm chair quarterback sheeple who can't see the truth when it punches their lights out.

    I'm sorry Kim, but one of the biggest problems in the world today is people who think like you do and I use the word "think" with some measure of generosity. Please start thinking for yourself if you ever want to be taken seriously.

  26. Mike in Mendon says:

    The problem with countering those who say "This cant be" they are powered by their political beliefs. The democrats will hire any stupid ass and they claim thats their base and they support the whole notion that the govt is right.
    The Republicans have the same stellar group.
    The 1.2 billion per day Iraq/Afghan war lasted 13 years so far. The question is who in this govt has stock in those companies that provide the war materials. John Deere, Gator, food suppliers, containerized moving systems, things that an investigator will have to dig up.
    If a truck part for say an armored vehicle needs a 27,000 dollar engine how much would it cost to get it into theater, and then a remote station. All diesel engines run on JP-8 trucked flowen over there, So what. If costs were added the $10.00 gallon of this fuel now costs $404.00.
    This is linked to the United States govt and with the security systems everyday people have now adays we wont see the JFK conspiracy B/S.
    I visited the Shanksville crash site, after witnessing military crash sites and even the crash site on TV from Ukraine there were no miles of debries field.
    Its all a lie.

  27. Random Person says:

    What are your credentials? What do you know about how a diffuse, lapping flame on a pool of jet fuel combusts and how much heat would be released? We're not talking about controlled torches heating the structure, we're talking about a dirty, uncontrolled burn of an alleged pool of fuel. I can, and will tell you that an uncontrolled diffuse flame on a pool of fuel will not heat the fire even close to the fuel's maximum heat release rate. Also, building 7 was not hit by a plane and had no jet fuel to burn. The official explanation is that office fires (paper, wood desks, etc) caused the collapse of a steel and concrete (noncombustible) frame. Give me a break.

  28. JohnBMyers says:

    Yes. Building 7 was blown up. We were told that, that day. Funny they dont talk about buildings 3,4,5,6. This guy is half right and half wrong. This issue is unbelieveable and stupid ! You have to determin what is fact and what is hearsay. This guy can't do that. 90% of the people don't care any more.

  29. Ranchman says:

    Larry Silverstein, the lease holder for the towers (all 3 buildings) was quoted on an interview as saying they "decided to pull it (bldg 7) on account of the total loss of life that day." The truth is, it takes several weeks to set the demolition charges in a building that size, studied extensively by engineers, in order to bring it down in its own footprint. The towers, all 3 of them, were brought down by explosive charges that had been set previous to 9/11. Go to AE911Truth.org and check out the TRUTH of what happened on 9/11!

  30. And apparently some planetary alignment or something caused a massive magnitude increase in gravity right under those buildings, but which somehow missed the other buildings around there? I don't get it – what are you suggesting, Carl?

  31. Check out the resources, we do not know exactly, but increased gravity in a small area must of played a part and it was CME's from son spots, nasa has a record of these events. I do not doubt, however, that we were played by the global De-lite. It is just interesting that these events coincided.

  32. Wonderful beat ! I wish to apprentice at the same time as you amend your site, how can i
    subscribe for a blog site? The account aided me a applicable
    deal. I were a little bit acquainted of this your broadcast offered bright transparent concept