1,000 to go. A list of the less than 0.1 percent of all engineers who can't figure out 911, so they spread false information and silly lies.

13 years and this is the cream of the crop from 911 truth, all failing to do anything but talk.

> "Mr. Obeid, a 30-year structural engineer explains how NIST'S analysis actually disproves it's own theories on how WTC Building 7 collapsed, ..."

It's almost funny how close Obeid actually comes to explaining why the NIST analysis is quite plausible, then veers off at the last second to simply deny that it's possible. You can almost see it in his face that he knows he's talking himself into some deep holes by going into details, but then relies on naked assertion to save himself. Whereas the arguments from Gage's other "experts" amounts to "I don't understand this" (after demonstrating that they don't quite understand what "this" is), the detail that Obeid goes into but then ends with simple denial, without real explanation, seems to be shouting, "I refuse to understand this."

For example, look closely at this pseudo-explanation:

Note that Obeid starts off claiming that the column failure was the "next step in their theory" after the girder was pushed off its seat, but then goes on to reveal that he actually knows it wasn't the next step. Although he gets the number of floors wrong (the FEA simulation showed falling debris causing a progressive collapse of nine floors, not four, before the column buckled), he leaves that fact completely out of his assertion that other beams around column 79 would have prevented buckling after the girder was pushed off. He's likely right about that if only the one girder had been pushed off, but so what; that's not the NIST hypothesis, and Obeid knows that. Where do you see any "explanation" for why the progressive collapse for nine floors could not have left the column unbraced below where that happened? Maybe it was in one of the parts that were so obviously cut out? Lord only knows how irrational it sounded before the half-dozen edits in just this short section, but all we're left with is distortion and denial, not any sort of rational explanation.

For another example, note that Obeid talks about how rigid the exterior shell was (it was a "moment frame&quot , but then completely avoids the fact that the interior column connections were not; they were simple shear connections. He apparently hopes you won't notice that fact when he talks about how the NIST hypothesis says the interior structure suffered internal progressive failure across eight floors before the outer shell fell. It's truly bizarre that he even acknowledges that such an internal collapse would pull in on the exterior walls, but then just asserts, without even attempting any real explanation, that the exterior walls should have somehow resisted buckling. What would prevent buckling after lateral restraint was lost over multiple floors and, in fact, the very structure that had been restraining it was now pulling inward, Mr. Obeid? The mind boggles. In fact, here Obeid gives a perfectly reasonable explanation for what we see in the videos, but then just declares it to be "an extremely unlikely scenario" without anything remotely resembling a rational explanation for how he concluded that, much less any reason why we should swallow it.

> "... thereby confirming the use of controlled demolition."

Thereby confirming that "truthers" are incapable of logical thought. The NIST hypothesis could be completely wrong and that would still not imply, much less "confirm," that magical silent explosives are a better explanation.

Yes, wildbill, I will keep hitting on the "magical silent explosives" because not only does it expose the central stupidity of the CD theory, but also exposes the intellectual dishonesty and cowardice of "truthers" who simply run away from it. How many signatures do you think Gage would get for his petition if he engaged the issue honestly in his presentations? How many of these idiotic YouTube videos will you dump and kick before you find the intellectual courage to face up to it?