Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
-
I'd agree with Jeff...there is very little to an aircraft beyond the solid bits. I've seen quite a few programmes in which archaelogists have disinterred fighter aircraft that went down in WWII. One in particular in which a spitfire buried itself 30ft deep in a peat bog. This didn't even have a chance to burn, it went straight underground. nevertheless there was little left beyond the engine block, landing gear and the wing guns.
Quite apart from the fact that tens of thousands of people actually saw those planes fly into the towers. What were they...papier mache?
That said, I'm sure the full truth hasn't been revealed...too much ass-covering involved. -
Damn
The unintended consequence of the "information age" is that the conspiracy advocates have free an uninhibited access to multiple information outlets. This is the same type of BS that the prestigious Dr. Rosie O'Donnel, steel fire expert has parroted for some time. I guess Dr. O'Donnel has never seen a blacksmith.
I put these theories up there with " witches, zombies, and free energy". Now if we could just direct their "hot air" to a wind mill, maybe we would have a wind mill that would have an efficiency better than 15%.
-
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.
I don't know why you Alan comment on the plane debris, while the E&A movement concentrates of unnatural way all THREE WTC buildings collapsed on that day. The planes are not relevant here. The document refers to the reasons of the collapse and how a structure of a building naturally resists its destruction.
Ken, this information wouldn't have a chance of reaching you, if there were no alternative ways to get it to you. People who support E&A request for a new investigation are not conspiracy theorists. Those are professional, structural engineers, people who perform controled demolitions and who know well how a building works.
I am amazed, how many resist a thought that there is something wrong with the way the buildings collapsed. The official explanation is simply misleading.
-
The planes are entirely relevant, Tomasz...given that both the main towers collapsed at precisely those floors which were impacted by the planes. That is, everything above the impact point dropped en masse onto what was below.
Anyone claiming that the buildings were somehow wired for demolition would need to demonstrate how you manage to syncronise the demolition circuitry with the exact point of entry of those planes...and then how such circuitry would survive such an impact and inferno in order to fire the charges some considerable time later.I'm neither as gullible nor dismissive as you suggest. There are a whole load of questions surrounding 9/11 that stink to high heaven; not least the fortuitous discovery of the passports of some of the supposed hijackers. 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?
-
hey wait.. wasn't this case already solved by noon or so on 9-11-01?
by that time, I already knew who did it, why they did it, and how they did it.. no need for further investigation.
-
Digging up old bones, eh?
-
@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.
-
@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.
Advertisement