Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
-
@escapeartist said:
Digging up old bones, eh?
not necessarily.. a new (on topic) video was released.. see this post on the last page:
http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?p=393844#p393844.
-
@unknownuser said:
I don't mind resistance, when it comes to commenting presented videos. I cannot stand when someone doesn't check what the architects report say and send very primitive comments that doesn't bring something to discussion.
Sigh. On my foes list you go.
-
@unknownuser said:
Sigh. On my foes list you go.
I wasn't referring to your post, neither find your comment primitive.
-
@unknownuser said:
You are so attached to a vision of full of evil and ugly USA, that you immediately dismiss facts that do not correspond with the vision.
Tomasz, I fixed your quote to present another opinion with at least as much credibility as your original (which I consider beyond the realm of fact).
Edited to remove any implication of a direct quote. Although, I think it was clear from my original context that I was modifying a quote to make a point.
-
@david. said:
@unknownuser said:
You are so attached to a vision of full of .... and ..... USA, that you immediately dismiss facts that do not correspond with the vision.
I fixed your quote to present another opinion with at least as much credibility as your original (which I consider beyond the realm of fact).
David, please do not edit quotations, because this is against forum rules. I understand your intention though. You just pointed out that those two statements cannot and aren't true.
I have brought up the thread, because I have found the new document released by A&E. This a voice of architects and engineers, who as professionals, want to express their opinions and doubts regarding official NIST report. Please check, for example, Tom Sulivan's comments at 44:00, who is an explosives expert. The whole document is an expression of those doubts based on professional experience and their particular field of knowledge.
@unknownuser said:
@unknownuser said:
I am personally fed up with those of you who comment on the A&E movement without even watching the document. You are so attached to a vision of full of justice and beautiful USA, that you immediately dismiss facts that do not correspond with the vision.
You seem a little too willing to chalk up other people's 'resistance' (a telling choice of words, btw) to some perceived political bias. You might as well question our cognitive abilities outright.
I don't mind resistance, when it comes to commenting presented videos. I cannot stand when someone doesn't check what the architects report says and send very primitive comments that don't bring something to discussion.
@alan fraser said:
...and then how such circuitry would survive such an impact and inferno in order to fire the charges some considerable time later.
The thermite cutters can be radio controlled, as other explosives, I guess.
@alan fraser said:
However, I'm not overly impressed by the fact that gravity that day was demonstrated to act directly downwards. That's what it's supposed to do, isn't it?
What is the smoking gun is the symmetry of all three collapses. Have planes hit those buildings centrally? No. There would be an asymmetrical failure if there was no other means then fire involved.
Suprisingly the third building WTC 7, that was not hit by a plane, collapsed in a perfect demolition like manner. Please check already mentioned 44:00 at least. -
There are loopholes in that presentation large enough to drive a bus through; and that's before you get to all the stuff that is conveniently omitted. I couldn't find anything that stands up to unbiased scrutiny.
However, beyond all the detail remains the simple question of motive. Why? To justify going to war? When has the US ever needed an excuse of that magnitude to invade somewhere? And how on earth could you guarantee keeping it a secret..for all time...no deathbed confessions, or whistleblower books that would earn countless millions.
My own feeling is that any organisation that has the word 'Truth' as part of its name is probably using it as ironically as countries that have the word 'Democratic' in their title.
Rather more convincing arguments to be found here.
-
I think the whole issue is nothing to do with a mega-conspiracy - do your serious think the Bush administration was smart enough to organize this - it more to do with an incredibly shoddy security operation before the events, some patently unrealistic coincidences [like terrorist's passport found in the street???] which some intern dragged in to 'fix' the embarrassment, followed by a investigation that borders on the criminally inept - evidence was not preserved and large areas of possibilities went untested [like testing for explosives]. The FEMA/NIST reports are clearly incomplete - the computer simulation of Building 7 doesn't even look like the filmed collapse! Why won't they give details of the assumed conditions and calculations to professional engineers? Modern multistory steel-framed building do NOT collapse in even major fires - they sag/buckle and suffer localized damage - the WTC towers were designed to withstand plane impacts AND fires etc - so... since they DID collapse catastrophically [we saw them!] then probably something is wrong with the long established design ideas of engineers... if so it's the government's duty to ensure that new buildings are better built and old ones are made safer - they seem to have learnt nothing from the collapses. In the UK after the Ronan Point flats collapse where a deck of cards effect led to a catastrophic failure on one corner of a block of flats the public-enquiry that followed made many recommendations, including a complete change to Codes of Practice and Building Regulations: now building over a few storys tall must have additional structural precautions - floors and beams must be 'stitched' together and 'progressive collapse' rules - so for example if a column fails only the beams/floors connected to that column can be affected by its failure and there can be no 'domino' effect - the structure as a whole much remain intact and support the collapse elements - so removing a 'central core' column will only affect the four adjacent beams and immediate floor slab over and the floor-slab and beams/columns below must carry the debris as well as what they might normally carry; the column on the floor must remain in place and its beams continue to support their loads: the area around the damage will undoubtedly 'sag' and be badly damaged, but there should be no 'house of cards' 'progressive collapse' - all structural members must be rigidly connected together to ensure the integrity is preserved...
This a very interesting and balanced review of what might have happened http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
As a result of the manipulated hysteria the USA's civil-liberties have been eroded and their buildings are NOT any safer...
-
Claims that the buildings could not have collapsed due to 'merely' the aircraft fuel etc are completely forgetting the ChemTrail tanks installed on the planes. Goodness knows how hot that stuff burns. And of course since the flights were interrupted, the tanks would not have been activated and so would have been full. Think about it sheeple!
-
asspay the ongbay!
-
Aluminum melts at ~660C and zinc at ~419C
Steel actually melts into a liquid at ~1500C, buts starts to weaken at just ~450C.
'Carbon' burns at ~3000C, BUT in open air is unlikely to exceed a third of that ~1000C.
A typical confined 'furniture' fire is unlikely to exceed ~650C.
Jet fuel burns in open air at only ~315C, BUT it can burn when confined at up ~750C, so it is sufficient on its own to weaken the steel structure - combined with secondary fires this is therefore quite likely.
The poorly applied sprayed fire-resistant insulation was easily knocked off by the impact/explosions exacerbating the potential weaknesses.
The prolonged heating of exposed parts the 18m long beams could have caused localized weaknesses and uneven expansion, then distortion and excessive stresses, causing unexpected multiple joint failures.
Although the buildings were designed to withstand impacts and fires, the fires resulting from so much fuel etc could easily have weakened the buildings, leading to their collapse.Building 7 completely collapsed after having no major impacts [edit: I accept that parts of the main towers' collapse probably did damage WTC7 more than it appears from the 'back'] and several 'relatively minor' fires... is of the most concern. Localized damaged was to be expected, but a complete catastrophic collapse should not have happened had the building's design anticipated 'progressive collapse'. There seems to be no lessons learnt or definitive answers as to why this happened to this building, therefore engineers/architects cannot design new buildings with the certain knowledge that they can safely withstand relatively minor damage: occupants and firefighters should be very concerned about this...
-
[flash=640,390:36e2sn76]http://www.youtube.com/v/IwdD6ERutEI?version=3[/flash:36e2sn76]
Actually, Building 7 was quite badly damaged...just not on the North side (why would it be?) which is where all the conspiracy theorists like to select their photos and videos from. There were also fires reported on no fewer than 16 of its floors...again, not quite the minimal conflagration the the CTs would like you to believe.
I'm not saying lessons shouldn't be learned; and the building does appear to have had an Achilles heel...a single column that proved to be the final straw that broke its back...but it's a fallacy that it collapsed whilst relatively undamaged.The Solidworks reconstruction of the Pentagon attack, linked at the end of this video is also very impressive.
-
@tim said:
Claims that the buildings could not have collapsed due to 'merely' the aircraft fuel etc are completely forgetting the ChemTrail tanks installed on the planes. Goodness knows how hot that stuff burns. And of course since the flights were interrupted, the tanks would not have been activated and so would have been full. Think about it sheeple!
And don't forget about the effects of the highly acidic bodily fluids of the alien bodies which had been hidden in vaults, originally intended for gold bullion, in the towers for years and were dislodged from their protective containers by the plane impacts. Think about that. LOL
-
Knowledge from different sources gives a wider view. I haven't seen pictures of WTC 7 side facing WTC1 & 2. Quite large central piece of elevation and several floor adjacent to the perimeter walls were badly damaged. In my view this doesn't explain symmetrical and free-fall collapse of the building though.
A&E movement doesn't address pentagon case, because a structural failure there was adequate to the impact.
1600+ American architects and engineers demand a new investigation which would take their findings into account.
-
The URL shows a 70ft, 50-ton steel 3 story column to be installed as a reminder of 911
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1309923/Twin-Towers-column-raised-Ground-Zero-World-Trade-Center-site-again.htmlSome of these ground floor column were not subjected to the so called pancake collapse. All subsequent exterior 3 story columns were staggered during installation, bolted and welded into place as the building height increased. They supported each floor, consisting of metal decking and 5" concrete floor, the metal deck was supported on open web steel joists much like 2x10's floor joists support the floor in your home, these Open web steel joists spanned from the exterior steel columns to the massive interior steel structure, consisting of 4'x 4' square trusses running vertically around the interior elevator cores of each tower the entire height of both towers. Each of the diagonal and vertical steel members making up these massive trusses were 1.5" inch.
My attached composited pic, shows the so called pancake collapse, and one of the towers during construction.
Please ask yourself one question?Can a pancake collapse, generate horizontal forces capable of ejecting 3 story steel columns, hundreds of feet around the perimeter of the building?
All of these steel columns also disintegrate before they reached the ground. Not one piece of concrete from each of the 110 floor, survived this so called pancake collapse, which should have been slowed time wise due to gravity. Concrete contained on each floor, which consists of stone/gravel, sand cement, and water to initiate the hydration process, did not survive the collapse. Not one piece of stone or gravel, Not one chair, Not one cabinet, Not one table, Not one bathroom fixture, Not one computer. How is it possible to turn all of this stuff into instant dust in a simple pancake collapse which took less time than normally gravity would act upon?
-
"simple pancake collapse which took less time than normally gravity would act upon?"
Let me count the things that fall faster than gravity. Lets see...........................
OK, I got it, the collective IQ of pseudo engineers.
PSS! I have some free energy machines for sale.
-
@unknownuser said:
"simple pancake collapse which took less time than normally gravity would act upon?"
Let me count the things that fall faster than gravity. Lets see...........................
OK, I got it, the collective IQ of pseudo engineers.
PSS! I have some free energy machines for sale.
I think you might be misintrepring.
it took less time than a pancake collapse should take if the only things in play were gravity and the top of the building.
-
@unknownuser said:
Let me count the things that fall faster than gravity. Lets see...........................
OK, I got it, the collective IQ of pseudo engineers.
PSS! I have some free energy machines for sale.
+1. I'm going to have to remember that one for arguing with other 9/11 truthers. Not only did the US government orchestrate the whole event, it was able to defy the known laws of physics in the process of doing so. On top of that, the government is able to keep hundreds or thousands of conspirators from going public.
-
occam's razor anyone? What kind of rube goldberg setup of explosives and timers and etc. would be required to precisely mimic the obvious and largely accepted version of events?
-
There are many puzzling and unexplained matters with 9/11...
However, the "leap from abject ignorance to statements of absolute certainty", is with the 9/11 conspiracy supporters, very like the UFO-logists or supporters of other 'fringe' ideas...
You saw a UFO.
It must have been alien visitors in a flying saucer.The second conclusion does not follow from the first statement, at all.
It is one of many possible explanations... but there are very many more possibilities that are more likely - the clue is in the word 'UFO'; it was 'Unidentified', so then there is no certainty it was aliens at all !Humans don't like 'not knowing', so it's easy for any of us to fall into the trap of taking an explanation that fits the observations, when in fact there's little 'proof' that might lead to that conclusion, and of course many less far-fetched explanations that fit equally as well.
Back to 9/11...
I am amazed that the anomalies in many of the observed events and what we might have expected have not be investigated more fully. We don't understand exactly why the buildings collapsed how they did, but of course that doesn't mean they were 'demolished'! What it should mean is that we should still be seeking to understand what really happened during these catastrophes. It seems to me there are many important lessons to be learnt by architects, engineers, firefighters et al, about how such large structures really perform at these extremes for damage, and how we might then design/plan to avoid/mitigate such catastrophic outcomes... -
I don't understand the 'faster than freefall' stuff. Calculations demonstrate that (given the height of the towers) the roof should have reached the ground in approx. 9.7 seconds. It is, after all, only high school maths...standard gravitational acceleration for 10 seconds slightly exceeds the height of the towers. The unfortunate jumpers can be seen to travel the same route in a little less than that.
Given the debris cloud surrounding the collapsing buildings, it's impossible to determine exactly when the roof structure hit ground level, but realistic estimates put one tower at around 15 seconds and the other one nearer 20 seconds. How is this faster than freefall?It seems like the 9/11 truthers only count the time between the start of the collapse and the leading edge of the debris cloud hitting the ground. However, much of this debris can clearly be seen being pneumatically ejected from the structures far below the actual pancacking action...and this differential distance increases with time. It's reasonable to say (and is backed up by brief glimpses of the upper parts of the structure inside the cloud...like the masts) that when the cloud hits the ground there is something like 40 stories if intact tower, hidden inside, still awaiting its turn to get flattened...and quite a few stories of by-now nearly freefalling and still largely integrated upper tower above that.
In short, the top of the buildings hit the ground pretty much on schedule.
Advertisement