It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mechanical Engineers Destroy the Myths

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:13 AM
link   
www.scholarsfor911truth.org...



A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon
by Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer

www.scholarsfor911truth.org...




The Case for Controlled Demolition
by Judy Wood, Ph.D. (Mechanical Engineer)

How long should it take the WTC towers to collapse?

Pancaking would have taken 96 seconds!!!


janedoe0911.tripod.com...




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   
I find it interesting in NYC that the twin towers not only came down within minutes of each other but so neatly.

I do buy the argument that the fire started by the jet fuel would have weakened the steel since the twin towers were primarily a superstructure of asbestos coated steel (in anticipation of effects of fire the astestos was needed to prevent weakening).

But normally one would expect a red hot piece of steel rod to bend over and come down at a random angle and not come down as per a controlled demoliton.

I also have annother question: who is going to pay all the medical bills for 10s of thousands of New Yorker's that will die due to asbestos poisoning in the coming years?

Read an article once where the estimated cost of removing (abatement) the asbestos in both of the towers was about $1 Billion dollars. Guess the new lease holder didn't wanna pay for that nor for any potential ensuing lawsuits that may result. Just guessing.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
I do buy the argument that the fire started by the jet fuel would have weakened the steel since the twin towers were primarily a superstructure of asbestos coated steel (in anticipation of effects of fire the astestos was needed to prevent weakening).

But normally one would expect a red hot piece of steel rod to bend over and come down at a random angle and not come down as per a controlled demoliton.



I don't buy it. See the Kevin Ryan UL letter.

But even "weakened steel" is going to provide RESISTANCE.

Think of a big ol' thick RUBBER beam.

Resistance.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:30 AM
link   
denythestatusquo:

Did you ever see the movie Twelve Monkeys? That's the first thing that I thought of when I read your statement about the insurance costs!



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:43 AM
link   

The Case for Controlled Demolition
by Judy Wood, Ph.D. (Mechanical Engineer)

How long should it take the WTC towers to collapse?

Pancaking would have taken 96 seconds!!!


janedoe0911.tripod.com...


Omfg! I just now got that whole billiard balls thing! LOL

For whatever reason, the first time I saw it posted I didn't feel like reading into it or what the graphs represented, but now that I see it, that is a freaking DEAD-ON piece of evidence and totally owns the official story, no contest!

LMAO!


Originally posted by denythestatusquo
I do buy the argument that the fire started by the jet fuel would have weakened the steel since the twin towers were primarily a superstructure of asbestos coated steel (in anticipation of effects of fire the astestos was needed to prevent weakening).


Steel would have been glowing in broad daylight before losing even half its integrity.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
I also have annother question: who is going to pay all the medical bills for 10s of thousands of New Yorker's that will die due to asbestos poisoning in the coming years?


Didn't they just pass some Asbestos legislation to prevent people from suing for asbestos realted health problems?

www.citizen.org...

Perhaps they can use this to protect the city from paying any damages on this, eh?



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Merc, I pointed out the absurdities in this argument in the other thread, but since you want to go over this again:


We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete.


Where does he come up with the “9 feet of reinforced concrete?”

What specific walls? What information does he have to support this claim? It looks like from the following he is talking about the exterior ring walls.



The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see below) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.)


There are two problems with this analysis. One, only the outer wall of the building was blast proofed. The exterior walls of the inner rings were not. In addition, the plane did not travel through the exterior walls of the rings. The rings are actually light wells. The two outermost light wells start at the third floor forming the three outer rings. The third light well goes down to the ground floor and is the location of the A-E inner drive.

The airplane hit at the ground floor and traveled along that level before it punched out into the A-E drive. Thus the part where this so-called mechanical engineer talks about “9 feet of reinforced concrete” and “(If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.)” indicate to me that his understanding of the physical layout of the Pentagon building is wrong. Thus critically damaging his theory.

Going back to this statement:


The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see below) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall.


This statement makes no sense whatsoever.

He seems to be claiming that the exterior wall at the punchout is a reinforced concrete wall. This is simply not the case.





It is clear that we are looking at a brick wall here.

According to the Pentagon building performance report, the exterior wall at the location of the punchout was:


As described previously, the original exterior Ring E wall is mostly non-load-bearing masonry infilled in a concrete frame. The exterior surface is 5 in. thick limestone, which covers the frame, backed by 8 in. unreinforced brick that is infilled in the frame. In some areas the backing is a cast-in-place concrete wall.


That describes the above pictures perfectly. You can see the outer layer of limestone bricks and the inner layers of common bricks. This is not one of the areas backed by a cast-in-place concrete wall.

If you look carefully, on the left side of the hole, and on the top of the hole, you can see the original plaster on metal lath walls and ceilings along with their black iron support bars. This was a common method of construction in the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s. Anyone that has ever done any interior demolition of a building from this era can attest to that.

In addition, note that the common brick infill fills the concrete frame between the columns, the floor and the top beam. The limestone bricks cover both the frame and the infill, thus the limestone bricks broke outward in the same was as a window will break when hit by a pellet from a BB gun.


EXIT HOLE IN PENTAGON RING-C
American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is alleged to have punched through 6 blast-resistant concrete walls‹a total of nine feet of reinforced concrete‹before exiting through this hole.


Repeating something that is patently false, doesn’t make it any truer with repetition.


It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period.


Proof?



When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion.


The wall is not a homogenous structure. It is a reinforced concrete frame with simple masonry infill between the frame elements.


How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? with an explosive shaped charge. An explosive shaped charge, or cutting charge is used in various military war. devices. You design the geometry of the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of energy. You essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what is referred to as a jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on a tank, or the walls of a bunker. The signature is clear and unmistakable. In a missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow the payload behind the initial shaped charge to enter whatever has been penetrated.


One more time. IT WAS NOT A REINFORCED CONCRETE WALL



You can call me a "tin hat", crazy, conspiracy theory, etc, but I can say from my expertise that the damage at the Pentagon was not caused by a Boeing 757.
Sincerely,
Michael Meyer


I’ll call you someone who is pretending to be someone he is not.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Yes it certainly doesn't take a genius to figure out when aluminum hits concrete it folds up like a hot Hershey bar,I thought that was biggest bunch of crap I ever watched



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark, the Buildinator

If you look carefully, on the left side of the hole, and on the top of the hole, you can see the original plaster on metal lath walls and ceilings along with their black iron support bars. This was a common method of construction in the 30s, 40s and 50s. Anyone that has ever done any interior demolition of a building from this era can attest to that.


yet more evidence that howard is a professional demolitionist(not that nom de plume, 'howard roark' wasn't our first clue), and hazmat cleanup guy(as volunteered earlier in the roark canon).

howard roark, you are unacceptable as a witness due to potential motives, and are dismissed from the jury.




posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Go a., toss out anyone who has ever been on a construction site and might have a clue as to how buildings are built.

I't better to put your faith in conspiracy theorists that have never had a real job anyway.




posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Merc your find on the billiard ball papers cements my beliefs. The WTC was a demo job from start to finish. End of story.

Gets my Way Above award this month for providing the evidence we need to realise that this was an inside Job. Well done.






posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I just voted for Merc too!

Now back to business... I always find it difficult to seperate the intial incident at the world trade centre from what happened on 911. You remember those guys found with the truck of explosives by that security guard years before in the basement?? Related?? you betcha!! some overzealous security guard making minimum wage STOPPED THE INITIAL ATTEMPT AT 911 I bet!



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Go a., toss out anyone who has ever been on a construction site and might have a clue as to how buildings are built.

I't better to put your faith in conspiracy theorists that have never had a real job anyway.



i put my faith in me, howie, old boy. it's saved my life more than once, speaking of construction sites.
don't give the crazy guy the chainsaw was always a good rule. too bad government doesn't reflect this simple wisdom.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
The billiard ball analogy is certainly amusing. Too bad it has no basis in the reality of structural engineering (and a flawed analysis of the seismic data as well.)

Here is an interesting article

Since the page seems to not be coming up, I will copy out the google cached version:


Who would ever mistake me for "James Bond"?
By Jerry Russell
On March 31, 2002 (just in time for April Fool's Day) I posted an article to the Usenet entitled "Proof of controlled demolition at the WTC". In fact I indulged in some rather egregious cross-posting, in order to attract attention to my theory. I was sincerely convinced at the time that my arguments were correct, but as it turned out, the April Fool's joke was on me.
The central argument in my essay was that the process of collapse should have involved enough friction that the fall of the building should at least have been braked significantly compared to the acceleration of an object in free fall. The argument seemed perfectly reasonable if not obvious to me, and I managed to trick some pretty smart people with it. But the truth is that it is possible for a building to collapse in a process which concentrates high leverage at certain joints in the structure. The result is a nearly frictionless collapse. This was very counter-intuitive to me, but people who work with structures seem quite aware of it. This technical article by Bazant & Zhou explains this in some detail, and although I believe their presentation is oversimplified, the basic message seems to be correct.
My article also pointed out that it is historically unprecedented for airplane strikes and/or fires to destroy large steel-frame structures. My opinion is that this should be good reason to be suspicious about the official story (and I'm still suspicious at least to some extent), but many readers pointed out that there is always a first time for everything. They note that in many ways, the events of 9-11 were indeed historically unprecedented, so it was hardly fair of me to use precedent as if it were substantial evidence.
At any rate, I claimed to have proof of controlled demolition, and I certainly did not. In retrospect, I should not have posted the article without checking it with a structural engineer.
But after all, “it was only a Usenet post.” I bravely waded through all the flames and insults in the many responses, and found that there was a residual level of useful” feedback in the discussion.” As soon as I understood my mistake, I posted a retraction.
However, some people apparently liked my April Fool's article, exactly as it first appeared. It has developed a life of its own. It has been posted to Mark Elsis' Attack On America site. It appeared on Rense.com one day, but they were gracious enough to take it down at my request. It's gone out in private mailing lists, and been re-posted to the Usenet by others. I get a more or less continuous stream of e-mail about it. Every time I hear from someone, I explain and apologize for my mistakes in the article.
Now the article has appeared again, but I am no longer given credit (or blame) as the author of the piece. In its latest incarnation in the Delphi Associates Newsletter (vol. 4, issue #81), it was written by a mole from inside the MI6 British intelligence service, writing under the alias of "James Bond". Under its new authorship, the article has been posted again to the Usenet.
A reader of my web page alerted me to the situation, and he was also kind enough to send me a scan of the newsletter article, which appears here: page 1, page 2, page 3.
But the article as it is published in the Delphi Newsletter is not exactly in its original form. There are a few additions -- for example, a mystical reference to Nostradamus, and an approving discussion of the French "Hunt the Boeing" web page. I suppose I did a good enough job of discrediting myself and my ideas, but "James Bond" has been able to add to the general level of hilarity by bringing in these other questionable threads.
I've written to Sean David Morton of Delphi Associates to ask him how this could have happened and how he mistook my article for something by "James Bond". So far, I haven't heard from him...
Posted 5/21/2002
Update 6/9/2002: Mr. Morton did contact me, and we agreed that he would publish a follow-up letter from me, explaining the technical errors in the "James Bond" article.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
See, we haven't read the reply from the Mechanical Engineer on this.

And by the way, he is a mechanical engineer for the aerospace industry.

Chisel marks



Here's what happens when something crashes through a aggregate masonry wall:




See, and the wings break off:






Anyways back to the hole.

What made the exit hole anyways?



Mr. RUMSFELD: Yeah. And then came in about—between about the first and second floor over here. And it went in through three rings. I’m told the nose is—is still in there, very close to the inner courtyard, about one ring away.
(ABC News SHOW: Good Morning America (6:00 AM ET) - ABC September 13, 2001 Thursday)




FEMA Urban Search & Rescue: "The plane entered E ring at an angle and the force of the explosion punched through three of the five rings of the Pentagon. A nine foot diameter exit hole was created in the wall of C ring and the remainder of the debris from the impact ended up in the alley between C ring and B ring known as A & E Drive........is a photograph taken in A&E drive showing a 9 foot diameter "exit wound" where the plane debris exited the C ring. There were very few identifiable plane parts in the wreckage. Most of the plane disintegrated from the intense heat of the fireball. Other than some fire and smoke damage, there was a relatively small amount of damage in the A and B rings." Source PDF




Terry Mitchell (Chief, Audiovisual Division, Office of ASD PA): "It's more to the right of where we were at. This is the -- this is in a renovated section on the opposite side, if you were facing the opposite side. This is a hole in -- there was a punch-out. They suspect that this was where a part of the aircraft came through this hole, although I didn't see any evidence of the aircraft down there."
(News Briefing The Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia September 15, 2001, 11:00 A.M. EDT)


And four days later, when the official account of a "nose" of the plane took flight.


Mr. LEE EVEY (Program Manager Pentagon Renovation Project): The airplane traveled in a path about like this, and the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C ring into AE drive.
(World News Tonight Saturday (6:30 PM ET) - ABC September 15, 2001 Saturday)


The Nose:




SO WHAT MADE THE HOLE??? (ahem...Sledgehammers and chisels)

In Chronological order...

Fire/Smoke:



Firemen fighting fire inside C-Ring:



Planted Debris pushed out:



Second hose out, debris pushed up against the wall. Note the "smoke spot" on the other side of the B wall




I like how the bricks are in whole pieces, most uncharred, all resting at the top.


Over.:





So what it looks like is a fireball came barreling out of an ALREADY OPENED hole. They are so dumb, they actually thought the nose of the plane could pass off as the reason for making this hole. That's why the landing gear UNOFFICIALLY makes it's debut through the mysterious "Sarah Roberts"

Like the one that blew out the out the double door:






posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Here's what happens when something crashes through a aggregate masonry wall


Small plane travelling at relatively slow speed - it just skidded off the runway as I understand it. It was going at a fraction of the speed of the plane that hit the Pentagon......so of course the wings would just come off


[edit on 8-3-2006 by Curio]

[edit on 8-3-2006 by Curio]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Is it possible that all the explosions were pre-wired eg. with something like C-5? The plane comes in (or missle), on a guided course via robot control to the exact place where controlled explosions are to occur? Is this possible?

From my limited experience with aircraft, the nosecones are merely flimsy coverings for radar dishes or they used to be at least.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Chisel marks?


Btw, the outer wythe is not brick, but limestone blocks cut to the size of bricks, but 5 inches thick.

The “straight line” is just where the bricks are cut to fit inside the concrete columns.

(There may also be a control joint in that location, I can’t tell)

Hey Merc, Where is the evidence of the “reinforced concrete wall” that your “mechanical engineer,” Mike Meyers, went on and on about?



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Howard, your avatar there is really cool. Is that a replica of solomon's temple in Jerusalem? Is that the second temple or the proposed new temple?

Is your name from the NYC radical architect of Rand's book? Good story.

I didn't know that you were an expert on architecture, construction as well as aeronautics. You are a really smart guy.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The billiard ball analogy is certainly amusing. Too bad it has no basis in the reality of structural engineering


Structural engineering is based on physics, sorry.

Why don't you tell us in your own words what exactly is wrong with the physics presented in that example?

And "it has no basis in reality" does not count, because anyone can pull crap like that out of their arses and not have to back it up.

...and neither does posting a lengthy external quote that has nothing to do with the physics in the least anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join