Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
-
[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.
-
That's the thing - the 'truthers' argue all these minutiae. There are certainly complex phsyical actions occurring and like TIG says, there is plenty to still understand since this is all happening at the extremes of forces. But the jump to seeing some huge rigged conspiracy beyond a couple airliners speeding and loaded with fuel slicing into very tall skyscrapers just seems far-fetched.
-
.
anyone that doesn't 100% believe the official story is labeled a 'truther' 'looney' 'conspiracy theorist' etc..
…when in fact, many of those tin foil hat wearing mofos simply want a more thorough investigation and/or access to certain informations in order to conduct private investigations..
a humongous crime took place.. the case was solved in 5 hours.. i call bullshit.. that doesn't make me a lunatic does it?
-
Jeff,
Yes, it was a crime. It was perpetrated by whoever was flying those airplanes. To say that somehow the building was demolished internally just on the face of it makes no sense. It would have had to be something unbelievably coordinated and also withstand two airplanes flying into the towers.
I am specifically labeling the conspiracy theorists as the truthers.
-
@andybot said:
Jeff,
Yes, it was a crime. It was perpetrated by whoever was flying those airplanes. To say that somehow the building was demolished internally just on the face of it makes no sense. It would have had to be something unbelievably coordinated and also withstand two airplanes flying into the towers.
I am specifically labeling the conspiracy theorists as the truthers.
well it was a conspiracy, right? or did one person act alone?
thing is, half of America thinks saddam Hussein did it. who are the crazies again?
the architects, the ones in the video, are full on legit and well educated people. and there are thousands of them.. to dismiss what they have to say or observations made by them is shortsighted if you ask me..
I also can't recall any of them outright accusing any person or group of people as being the perps.. they're pretty much saying there are holes in the story and would like a new investigation. -
@unknownuser said:
well it was a conspiracy, right? or did one person act alone?
no, it was a group of hijackers, what do you mean one person acting alone?
@unknownuser said:
thing is, half of America thinks saddam Hussein did it. who are the crazies again?
Well that was W. and crew conflating Iraq and al-Queda@unknownuser said:
the architects, the ones in the video, are full on legit and well educated people. and there are thousands of them.. to dismiss what they have to say or observations made by them is shortsighted if you ask me..
I also can't recall any of them outright accusing any person or group of people as being the perps.. they're pretty much saying there are holes in the story and would like a new investigation.I'm saying that blaming some Deux ex machina explosions for causing the towers to come down just seems pointless. Finding out more to understand how structures catastrophically fail in extreme conditions is plenty worthwhile.
-
@andybot said:
@unknownuser said:
well it was a conspiracy, right? or did one person act alone?
no, it was a group of hijackers, what do you mean one person acting alone?
[wiki]a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future. [/wiki]
just saying that it's highly highly (highly) probable that a conspiracy took place.. i'm sure you agree with that.. so are you a conspiracy theorist too? (point is, i think it's a bit of a misnomer)
@unknownuser said:
I'm saying that blaming some Deux ex machina explosions for causing the towers to come down just seems pointless. Finding out more to understand how structures catastrophically fail in extreme conditions is plenty worthwhile.
who's blaming anyone? (re: this thread & the subjects of the thread)
but yeah, regarding your second sentence, i agree and i hope most people can.. If those buildings (all 3) fell due to fire and a big amount of people that actually design/build those types of building think they should of fully withstood the planes/fire then.. well, we have a problem.
-
OK, plenty of semantics to get wrong here. What I mean is that there seems to be some underlying notion of a government (or alien...
) coverup. I think the various loose ends are generally attributable to run-of-the-mill incompetence in the original investigation. By "Conspiracy": I mean specifically the idea that some agents (government or otherwise) rigged the WTC buildings to explode and miraculously timed it to look like hijacked airplanes crashing into the building. I don't buy that. -
i don't believe it either (well, let me rephrase.. i don't know what happened but there is a possibility that it was someone(s) other than 19 egyptians and some rich saudi arabian)
i do think it's possible for the buildings to have been rigged with explosives of some sort prior to the plane hitting..
i mean really.. what would it take? a group of 4 or 5 guys with proper security clearance working for a month or two? it's not that farfetched.
not any more farfetched than 20 guys learning how to fly commercial jets over a period of 3-4 years then hijacking them with box cutters and driving them into a few buildings..
both stories, to me, are just as likely to occur.
-
Well, at least the slick thing about the guys with the box cutters and the flying lessons is that it was out of the realm of the imaginable before 9/11. Explosives in the building - that was already tried in WTC, and I would imagine a lot more attention would be paid to that sort of effort, especially considering the quantities of explosives required. Also, to be able to coordinate the two in a convincing fashion would take some serious engineering. Unless you're saying that there were no aircraft hitting the buildings on 9/11... in that case back to the tinfoil hat
-
@unknownuser said:
(...) 19 egyptians and some rich saudi arabian)
If memory serves, there were no Egyptians among the hijackers. Most were Saudis, I believe.
The Pentagon possibly mistook Iraq for Saudi Arabia.
@unknownuser said:
i do think it's possible for the buildings to have been rigged with explosives of some sort prior to the plane hitting..
Could very well be, but where's the proof? So far, no tangible evidence seems to have surfaced. Which would presuppose a giant cover-up. Did someone mention Occam's razor yet?
Advertisement