Report comment

I see a lot of responses putting up "how can this be? how can he say? how could this happen?" "arguments. I can find those kind of responses from my 4 year old child. For the child they are natural and knowledge-seeking questions. From responders here they are covered "incredulous" statements. These statements, however, offer no scientific evidence for backup of an alternative explanation. Indeed, if any of the negative respondents whose name-calling, schoolyard style paragraphs I've seen so far would ever DARE to offer scientific evidence for the official theory, or their variation of it (basically the planes knocking the buildings down) I'd love to read it.

The article is a condemnation of free speech. RIBA is entitled to take that approach, at the risk of appearing to model itself after such organizations as the John Birch Society.

The article also "wisely" stays away from offering any legitimate scientific proof that what Gage says is incorrect. NIST tried its best to offer scientific evidence, and it failed miserably. The only place it succeeded was in helping the cover-up of the buildings' collapses to continue.

Remember, there was a third building, building 7, WHICH WAS NOT STRUCK BY A PLANE, and had only small office fires burning within.

This article, and some of the responses so far, give me the impression that RIBA is but a sad "joke" of an organization.

donilo