Saturday, March 03, 2007


No I don't know him.
You should tell the guy that I consulted with structural engineers, including Ron Hamburger, one of the leading structural engineers in the nation. Hamburger wrote one of the chapters in the FEMA report on the WTC collapse. I also consulted with engineers at the international code council (ICC), one of whom read over a key part of my report -- dealing with factor of safety -- and found no mistakes. I also consulted with staff at the NIST. In short, I did my homework.


On Mar 3, 2007, at 9:49 PM, albert champion wrote:

Is Mark H. Gaffney a structural engineer?

No. Of course he isn't. There isn't a single structural engineer who has challanged the NIST analysis of the collapse of the towers.

And of course, there's not a single shread of physical evidence of controlled demolition.


his nom de guerre is al coa. know of him?


Blogger Al Coa said...

With all due respect to Mr. Gaffney his paper does not present a single piece of positive evidence for controlled demolition.

Any person thinking rationally about the events of that day dismisses outright the possibility that some persons unknown placed thermite cutting charges on multiple structural columns in several occupied office towers without anyone noticing. That they did this in exactly the locations where some other persons managed to fly airliners into the buildings. Talk about coordination. That those same persons also planted explosives to facilitate the total collapse throughout multiple occupied office towers and not a single occupant noticed that being done. The buildings, when they began to collapse did not do so from the bottom as in a traditional demolition. The bottoms of the buildings were intact as the tops began to crash down. Falling debris clearly falls faster than the progrssion of the collaping mass of the buildings. They clearly did not fall at free fall speed. Much material was ejected. Does Mr. Gaffney maintain that the secret persons who destroyed the buildings committed overkill with the explosives? Which would of course mean that even more explosives would have been needed. Yet not a single person saw any of this being done? And if one notes the extensive scattering of massive pieces of debris hundreds of meters away why is it accepted as gospel truth that 7 WTC sustained only minor exterior damage when no one actually got inside of it to see how badly it was damaged? Those who got close to WTC 7 after the collapses reported a massive gaping hole in the south side of the building. No one knows what the extent the structural damage to the building was. You guys want to have it both ways because it suits your desire to pin this on the big bad government.

There is no evidence of a controlled demolition. These were extreemly complex structures unlike most other office buildings in their design. They were immense. The exact damage done to the internal structure is not known and will never be known. Reconstruction and simulation can only tell you so much. What is clear is that the buildings collapsed. To believe what you would have people believe requires such an immense conspiracy that it is beyond belief. And you have not a single shread of evidence. There is no evidence of controlled demolition! That is why the NIST did not even entertain the possibility.

7:41 AM  
Blogger Al Coa said...

You should tell the guy that I consulted with structural engineers, including Ron Hamburger...

I went back and reviewed the Gaffney paper. I see that Ron Hamburger is credited in note #74 with being the source for the standard safety factor of 1.75-2.00 typically used for steel columns. And that's the only citation he gets. I wonder if Mr. Hamburger would consider himself a consultant on this particular piece of work? I wonder if he's even read it?

7:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home