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.

 

AE911T to Display Evidence at National AIA Convention w/multimedia presentation to 20,000 architects

page: 9
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 
I have to ask you pteridine, is this all your “opinion” or do you have any sources for your claims


. 6. Underground fires or office fires can melt steel? Your ignoring the science behind the fact."
.........The only way to keep things hot for weeks is by adding heat continuously. Molten steel would solidify fairly quickly no matter how it was melted unless heat were added. Underground fires can get exceptionally hot. There were large amounts of wood, plastic, and paper in the rubble which could have provided the heat.


Your sources to your alleged claims please, or are you just giving us your opinions.


There were large amounts of wood, plastic, and paper in the rubble which could have provided the heat.


However, there is “no proof” that’s what kept the fires burning for several months.


"7. There has been no peer-reviewed rebuttal published in a scientific journal. Until one is forth coming, the science stands."


You are right about the peer- review rebuttal, however, the OS science does “not stand” it has already been proven false


Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST
via Electronic Mail: wtc@nist.gov
WTC Technical Information Repository
Attention: Mr. Stephen Cauffman
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Stop 8610
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8610
September 15, 2008
Re: Public Comments on WTC 7 Draft Reports
Dear Mr. Cauffman,
in NIST’s "Questions and Answers" page (www.nist.gov...), NIST has attempted to refute many of the points that members of our group and others have made regarding the WTC 7 destruction. However, NIST did not provide any references to sections of the Report that support its alleged refutations. How is a member of the public, then, able to verify NIST’s refutation without reading through the entire 1000+ page Report? Our comments are directed to many of the areas addressed in the "Questions and Answers" page, and without citations directly to the Report itself, it was extremely difficult and time consuming for us see whether our main criticisms of the NIST theory of collapse have been adequately addressed in the Report. This is especially true in light of the fact that this latest draft Report is the third different story NIST has come up with.

Your response to our request was dismissive, based primarily on your belief that a six-week comment period on the 10,000 page report NIST issued for the Twin Towers was reasonable. You also saw no problem with NIST’s failure to provide any references in its Questions and Answers page to the 1000 page Report itself, apparently satisfied with NIST committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. As things stand right now, your position in this matter can be seen as nothing less than a deliberate attempt to hamstring the public’s ability to review and comment on NIST’s work in this extremely important area of research.

Nevertheless, we have been able to spend some time reading and analyzing the report, and have already found numerous problems that severely undermine its veracity and usefulness. Our comments on the Report are detailed below. Note that we declined NIST’s invitation to comment only on the summary report, NCSTAR 1A. These comments are all regarding the more detailed NCSTAR 1-9 document. Of course, once NCSTAR 1-9 is revised according to these comments, the summary report NCSTAR 1A will need to be revised as well.

Why hasn't the "future research" been done, and the results from it published, especially when FEMA itself suggested that this melting and erosion may have started “prior to collapse”? NIST was charged with investigating the conditions that led to the collapse of WTC 7, and clearly something that possibly occurred prior to collapse and “accelerated the weakening of the steel structure” is something NIST should have investigated. NIST should revise the Report accordingly after it has performed the needed metallurgical analysis.


www.911blogger.com...


Rebuttals are not peer reviewed. In this case there is no science to stand. This "science" is laying down and unconscious. It only convinces web browser scientists of its veracity and rigor because their understanding of it is superficial.


WRONG! Do you want to tell that to these scientists?

James R. Gourley, Esq.
Chemical Engineer
International Center for 9/11 Studies
jrpatent@gmail.com
Tony Szamboti
Mechanical Engineer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Richard Gage
AIA Architect
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Graeme MacQueen, Ph.D.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice
Dr. Steven Jones
Ph.D. Physicist
S&J Scientific Co.
Kevin Ryan
Chemist
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice
Dr. Niels Harrit
Ph.D. Chemistry
University of Copenhagen
Ron Brookman
Structural Engineer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Chris Sarns
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Kamal Obeid, SE PE
Structural Engineer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Scott Grainger, PE
Forensic Engineer
Civil Engineer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Frank Legge
Logistical Systems Consulting
Bob Fischer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Justin Keogh
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
David Chandler
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Gregg Roberts

I supposed these educated people are web browser scientists, because their understanding of the collapsed of the WTC is superficial.


8. You ignore the science again. Normal office fires are not hot enough to melt steel,let alone turn steel into swiss cheese and then be ignored by NIST. That's why it was the greatest mystery of all according to NYTimes."
....This was not a normal office fire. It was an underground fire insulated by concrete rubble that burned for weeks. Slow burning, insulated fires can get very hot.



How long does it take to burn wood, plastic, and paper underground? I know for a fact it only takes minutes, “not weeks.”


9. Please source public comments about WTC 7 from other Controlled Demolition Companies to help further my knowledge base. TYVM."
..........I think it was Loizeaux from Controlled Demolition who made the comments.

With regards to 7:

11. ...........They apparently wanted to ignore this point. Maybe they have no real explanation. I doubt that the steel "evaporated." Maybe corroded or eroded but not evaporated.
"Dr. Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute:
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.




What demolition experts say about 9/11: is there evidence that explosives caused the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings as many conspiracy theorists claim?

Blanchard and his experts at Protec are uniquely positioned to address concerns that explosives may have been used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings. They have worked with all major American demolition companies and many foreign ones to study the controlled demolition of over 1000 of some of the largest and tallest buildings around the world. Their duties include engineering studies, structural analysis, vibration/air overpressure monitoring and photographic services.

findarticles.com...

Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 controlled demolition

www.youtube.com...


Eyewitness Reports Persist Of
Bombs At WTC Collapse
By Christopher Bollyn
Exclusive to American Free Press
Van Romero, an explosives expert and former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at New Mexico Tech, said on Sept. 11, "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse."


www.rense.com...


Evaporation of steel takes very high temperatures. I haven't bothered to look up vapor pressure curves but if Dr. Barnett said "evaporated" and you back him, who am I to quibble.
Note also that there may be two distinct events. Eroded/evaporated steel may have occurred after the collapse and not caused the collapse..which the engineers stated "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said."


Nothing but Dr. Barnett “opinion” where is his sciences to substintiante his claims.




posted on May, 15 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Imp,
you said: "How long does it take to burn wood, plastic, and paper underground? I know for a fact it only takes minutes, “not weeks.” "

.........Your definition of "fact" is very imaginative. How do you know this about underground fires? How did the steel stay hot for months? I would be interested in your answer.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 

Imp,
I said "Rebuttals are not peer reviewed. In this case there is no science to stand. This "science" is laying down and unconscious. It only convinces web browser scientists of its veracity and rigor because their understanding of it is superficial."

You replied, "WRONG! Do you want to tell that to these scientists?"

.......You have no basis for your exclamation and do not understand the issues surrounding the Jones paper.
I can and will tell that to anyone who thinks Jones' paper is good science, regardless of their position in the world. My comments on the paper stand. Jones has not proven thermitic materials because his protocols were faulty and he either doesn't realize it or is ignoring it. Incompetence or fraud, your choice.
Edit to add: Perhaps you are confused about the Barret quote you may have attributed to me. SwingDangler provided that as an opinion that the steel "evaporated." I would have said corroded or eroded, but Barret said evaporated.

[edit on 5/15/2009 by pteridine]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Seventh
 


Simulations do not offer "raw facts;" they offer calculations based on a model.



Bad wording on my behalf, my apologies. My point was centred around the laws of physics etc and energy whilst gaining momentum, this guy explains it a whole lot better than I ever will
.....




Introduction

The Model

The structure of each tower can be visualised with 3 basic elements:

* The Exterior Walls - A square tube forming the outside of the building, running from the bedrock base to the roof.
* The Central Core - A rectangular tube in the centre of the exterior wall 'tube', also running from the bedrock base to the roof.
* The Floors - A thin horizontal slab forming each floor of the towers, attached to the Exterior Walls and Central Core.

The Twin Towers were each 110 storeys high, above ground, plus a further 6 underground storeys.

The Exterior Walls were constructed from 236 vertical steel box columns around the perimeter of the 'tube', with each column being attached to the next by massive horizontal spandrel plates at each floor level forming a dense 'mesh', and with windows filling the space between each column.

The Central Core was constructed from 47 massive vertical steel box columns, with the space inside the core area housing building facilities such as lifts, staircases and tenant storage.

The Floors were constructed as trussed steel meshes bonded with a 4 inch thick layer of lightweight concrete, forming large open-plan tenant space between the Central Core and the Exterior Walls.

The WTC Collapse Simulator Model (The Model) simplifies these basic elements even further.

The Model can be visualised simply as 110 stacked 'Storeys'.

Each Storey comprises the whole of the Exterior Walls, Central Core, Floor and contents for the entire tower structure between one Floor and the next above, including the Floor Slab itself and the physical contents of each floor.

The Model essentially calculates the energy required and expended by the destruction of each subsequent Storey within the progression of any modelled collapse.

The calculations are performed Storey by Storey taking account of the dynamic nature of the collapse, and includes many adjustable Parameters.

Specific attention is focussed on the determination of the effect each Parameter and data change has upon the time that the collapse progresses in.

Each Parameter and all calculations are detailed in full, and the provided source data fully explained.

All data within the model can be changed by the user, enabling open and interactive experimentation.

The Simulator

The Simulator is comprised of two components: * The Calculations - A spreadsheet containing all data, calculations and parameters required to calculate a simple Storey by Storey collapse timing, along with detailed calculation of the energetics involved.
* The Visualiser - An OpenGL based application which allows the user to visualise the collapse in real-time, at any point in time, and from any viewpoint, using the data calculated in The Calculations.

This allows the user to quickly see the effect that changing various parameters has upon the collapse time.

These Parameters include:

* Whether the Central Core and Exterior Walls pose any resistance to the collapse.
* Whether crushing the concrete in The Floors requires any energy.
* How much mass is ejected from the sides of the Tower.

By understanding the effect of these parameters upon the collapse time and energetics, and experimenting with multiple options, the user should be able to reach an informed personal opinion.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
Simulations do not offer "raw facts;" they offer calculations based on a model.


I wish more people would be so candid when discussing NIST's reports. They did temperature modeling, and some kind of limited structural modeling of an "initiation sequence," but admitted to playing with "elevated" parameters until achieving the desired result, and then not even publishing their actual data or parameters so no one could reproduce their work. Maybe I digress, but I like to keep in mind all these little bits and pieces every time somebody vaguely references the apparently infinite supply of evidence supporting the "official story." It comes right back to models like these, which really aren't evidence of anything but NIST's determination to finally prove what the government set out to prove in 2001.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


My comments on the paper stand. Jones has not proven thermitic materials because his protocols were faulty and he either doesn't realize it or is ignoring it.


pteridine, Its find to disagree over Jones science, but please give us some creditable proof to support your “opinion”. I will be waiting to read your sources.


Incompetence or fraud, your choice.


If you have no creditable sources to show incompetence or fraud directly affecting his actual work then this is you just expressing your “opinions.”


Perhaps you are confused about the Barret quote you may have attributed to me.


No confusing here, why is it you do not questions any of the experts that have gone on record that refute your claims eh?



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

This whole entire post is based on your opinion only.



Originally posted by pteridine
As I have seen it, the foundation of this entire thing rests on "We saw something outside of our experience envelope and we don't understand it, so there must be a conspiracy."

I'm glad that's just your uneducated opinion again. Uneducated so much that either you don't understand or can't comprehend that architects and engineers who build these buildings know full well that 3 WTC buildings could not have fallen due to some simple fires with minor damage. It's architects' and engineers' jobs to design buildings and to know what will and will not cause them to fail. So don't sit there and say that "somebody saw something outside of our experience envelope" when in fact it's architects and engineers direct jobs to know what they are seeing. That is just completely false and purposeful deception on your part.

In the case of the twin towers, they were purposely designed to withstand "fully loaded" jetliner impacts from a 707. "Fully loaded" meaning fuel, passengers, luggage, etc. In otherwords, maximum weight.

The Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.

Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling faster on take-off and on landing.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494.

In all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC, the Boeing 707 would be traveling faster. In terms of impact damage, this higher speed would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707.

In conclusion we can say that if the twin towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.



Originally posted by pteridine
The impact pressurizes it and the jets are formed as the fuel tanks fail.

The only definition of "pressurize" that I can find that even relates to what you're trying to say is:


to produce or maintain raised pressure artificially in a gas or its container


A liquid does not become pressurized when it impacts something. If you take a cup of water and throw the water against a wall, it is not becoming pressurized. That is just simply your misunderstanding of what pressurizing something is, and/or you're making things up to explain away the facts so that you don't have to believe in the "conspiracy".



Originally posted by pteridine
I think it was Loizeaux from Controlled Demolition who made the comments.

I don't know what "experts" you're saying said "no demolition", but Mark Loizeaux, who is the CEO of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) and son to the owner, was quoted as saying:


"If the 110-story Twin Towers had fallen over, they would have caused an enormous amount of damage to buildings covering many city blocks. But the towers came straight down. Accordingly, the official theory, by implying that fire-produced collapses that perfectly mimicked the collapses that have otherwise been produced only by precisely placed explosives, requires a miracle."


Source:
Newscientist.com

Article: Baltimore blasters
* 24 July 2004
* Liz Else
* Magazine issue 2457

On-line reading requires a subscription.


He was quoted as saying what the 9/11 truth movement has been saying for years. A building cannot completely and globally collapse from fires. A building cannot come straight down into the path of most resistance in a manner that only precisely placed explosives have ever been able to achieve. And even if you took the fire equation out and used explosives to blow up the 4 floors damaged by the planes, the buildings still wouldn't completely and globally collapse because demo companies wire buildings from top to bottom. Demo companies would be rich beyond belief if they could set some fires and watch an entire building fall straight down. That doesn't happen in the real world.

And for those that continue to say the "noises" weren't there for demolition, there are many witnesses that heard the "boom...boom...boom" from the detonations going off as the towers fell, but one of CDI's blasters had this to say:


"With the use of delays, we can control pretty much where the debris lands; we can control vibration; we can control noise levels. Timing and delays are the keys to just about everything in our business."


Underlining and bolding above are my emphasis.



Originally posted by pteridine
Jones has not proven thermitic materials because his protocols were faulty and he either doesn't realize it or is ignoring it. Incompetence or fraud, your choice.

I'd like to see your paper or a source showing how Dr. Jones' protocols are faulty. Until then, you're above attack only makes you look like an opinionated and biased fool.

Now, because you didn't provide a source, for reasons we'll probably never know, you are either incompetent for not taking a few seconds to provide one, or a fraud because a source doesn't exist. Your choice.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by pteridine
 

"This whole entire post is based on your opinion only."
........but it is a highly educated opinion. Apparently, you have no opinions of your own and no skills to generate them. Do webonauts check blogs each morning to find out what they are to think for the "whole entire" day?

"Uneducated so much that either you don't understand or can't comprehend that architects and engineers who build these buildings know full well that 3 WTC buildings could not have fallen due to some simple fires with minor damage. That is just completely false and purposeful deception on your part."

...............They KNOW nothing of the sort. They designed the buildings to be safe but that doesn't mean that the failure is proof of sabotage. It could mean that the design wasn't what they thought it was or that they had not allowed for the extreme conditions that occurred. Cars are designed so that people survive in collisions. Did everyone in a collision last week survive?

"In all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC, the Boeing 707 would be traveling faster. In terms of impact damage, this higher speed would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707.
In conclusion we can say that if the twin towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767."

....But that doesn't mean that they would in either case. Theory and experiment are not the same thing, are they? The "likely variations" were with fuel tanks nearly empty and at approach speed, not suicidal maniacs with full fuel tanks going as fast as possible. Maybe that omission is a completely false and purposeful deception on your part.


"A liquid does not become pressurized when it impacts something. If you take a cup of water and throw the water against a wall, it is not becoming pressurized. That is just simply your misunderstanding of what pressurizing something is, and/or you're making things up to explain away the facts so that you don't have to believe in the "conspiracy"."
..........A liquid in a closed container does. As the container collapses, there is less volume and more internal pressure until the container fails. Think about it.

.....Did Lozieux happen to mention what else had to be done to demolish a building and how long it took to prepare even the smallest building? His statement also says no thermite, which is what Jones says was the culprit. How will we reconcile that?


"I'd like to see your paper or a source showing how Dr. Jones' protocols are faulty. Until then, you're above attack only makes you look like an opinionated and biased fool."
.....People in Hell would like icewater, too. You still don't understand the simple explanations I have given many times over. Of course, not being technically trained, you demand references from other websites that you think are necessary for me to make such statements. My source is my education and experience. Jones is either incompetent or a fraud. I believe that he desires public vindication after his university canned him and he sees this as one way to get it. That said, I think he believes what he claims but doesn't know enough to realize that by running the DSC in air, he hasn't shown anything except that some things burn. You did get that part, didn't you?
My statements are there for anyone to debate. You are welcome to comment, technically, if you wish. Is it possible that because you insist on a conspiracy with absolutely no evidence to back it up, perhaps it is you who looks like an opinionated and biased fool?



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by CameronFox
Any serious architect will laugh hysterically at this joke.

So the 640 architects and engineers that are already signed up at his site are all not serious and just idiots? Once again, look in the mirror.

Also, keep an eye on that number. It's about to go up significantly after this conference. Then we'll all laugh hysterically at YOUR joke.



LOL 640 over 8 YEARS compaired with how MANY architects /engineers out there , I speak to engineers all the time I have yet to speak to one who believes this demolition theory!



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
They designed the buildings to be safe but that doesn't mean that the failure is proof of sabotage.

You are correct, failure doesn't mean proof of sabotage. But architects and engineers have a good understanding of what does and does not cause buildings to fail. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to have buildings built to withstand earthquakes, for instance. Architects and engineers know how buildings fail in earthquakes and we now have earthquake-resistant buildings. They also know how fire reacts to buildings and hundreds of them are saying they don't think fire brought down 3 WTC buildings on 9/11.



Originally posted by pteridine
The "likely variations" were with fuel tanks nearly empty and at approach speed, not suicidal maniacs with full fuel tanks going as fast as possible. Maybe that omission is a completely false and purposeful deception on your part.

The fuel tanks on the planes that hit the towers were not anywhere near full. The FEMA report estimates that about 10,000 gallons of fuel was onboard the jets. That's less than half of what the 767-200's can carry.

Frank DeMartini, WTC construction manager said the buildings were designed to have a "fully loaded" jetliner crash into them. "Fully loaded" means fuel, passengers, luggage, etc. I said this in my last post that you quoted from. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.

Either way, your comment about "suicidal maniacs with full fuel tanks" is absolutely false either from lack of research or purposeful deception.



Originally posted by pteridine
Did Lozieux happen to mention what else had to be done to demolish a building and how long it took to prepare even the smallest building? His statement also says no thermite, which is what Jones says was the culprit. How will we reconcile that?

I don't know where you're getting Loizeaux saying no thermite, especially when you once again provide no source. And you're obviously not understanding Dr. Jones' work or the work of AE911T. Thermite may have been used to aid in collapse initiation, but the collapses themselves were of mostly conventional demolition explosives. In otherwords, whoever says that only thermite was used, doesn't know what they're talking about.



Originally posted by pteridine
Jones is either incompetent or a fraud. I believe that he desires public vindication after his university canned him and he sees this as one way to get it.

You yet again use blatantly false information to try to make your point. This isn't the first time you've said that Jones was fired from BYU. Since I corrected you before with a source and you still are saying he was fired, then you are showing yourself to be a true disinfo artist that does not care about truth at all.

Dr. Jones elected to retire effective January 1, 2007:
en.wikipedia.org...

You have no credibility. Not one single person is going to take you seriously if you can't be honest and truthful.



Originally posted by pteridine
My source is my education and experience.

Since I've shown that you don't have an ounce of honesty in you, your opinions based on your education and experience mean absolutely zilch. Therefore, we require sources from someone that is not you. So once again, please provide sources for your claims.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
LOL 640 over 8 YEARS compaired with how MANY architects /engineers out there

LOL, try less than 2 years.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
"You are correct, failure doesn't mean proof of sabotage. But architects and engineers have a good understanding of what does and does not cause buildings to fail. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to have buildings built to withstand earthquakes, for instance. Architects and engineers know how buildings fail in earthquakes and we now have earthquake-resistant buildings. They also know how fire reacts to buildings and hundreds of them are saying they don't think fire brought down 3 WTC buildings on 9/11."
............And thousands think the aircraft and fires did. Architects and engineers designed those buildings almost 40 years ago and did what they could with what they had. They NOW know why buildings fail in earthquakes and TRY to make them as resistant as possible.


"The fuel tanks on the planes that hit the towers were not anywhere near full. The FEMA report estimates that about 10,000 gallons of fuel was onboard the jets. That's less than half of what the 767-200's can carry.
Frank DeMartini, WTC construction manager said the buildings were designed to have a "full loaded" jetliner crash into them. "Fully loaded" means fuel, passengers, luggage, etc. I said this in my last post that you quoted from. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand."

Either way, your comment about "suicidal maniacs with full fuel tanks" is absolutely false either from lack of research or purposeful deception.
..........Are you saying that the buildings were designed for suicide attempts in aircraft travelling at top speed? Are you saying that in the 1970's this was anticipated and that the designs of the time were sufficient to survive the impact of a 767 despite the fact that there was absolutely no precedent for such a design? I'm sure the intent of the design was to survive an aircraft impact but apparently it wasn't able to. Firemen were unable to get above the impact floors and people were unable to get below. Water was not available to extinguish the fires. Does that sound like a successsful design to you?

"I don't know where you're getting Loizeaux saying no thermite, especially when you once again provide no source. And you're obviously not understanding Dr. Jones' work or the work of AE911T. Thermite may have been used to aid in collapse initiation, but the collapses themselves were of mostly conventional demolition explosives. In otherwords, whoever says that only thermite was used, doesn't know what they're talking about."
........You are fixated on web sources, aren't you. They are all trustworthy, of course. Step away from the mouse and activate your brain.
Thermite cannot be timed for a demolition. Heat flows relatively slowly and failure is less predictable that a cutter charge. If you had super silent explosives that you would set off in a top down mode, why would you even need thermite? If thermite would do what you think, why do people use explosive charges at all? Timing is the Lozieux bread and butter. Of course, setting such charges and precutting structural members while no one noticed is a bit of a problem for this theory. Knowing what floor the aircraft would hit is another little problem for the demolishers. This coupled with the unfortunate lack of ANY evidence of demolition leads one to believe that there was no demolition, as much as some souls really crave one.



"You yet again use blatantly false information to try to make your point. This isn't the first time you've said that Jones was fired from BYU. Since I corrected you before with a source and you still are saying he was fired, then you are showing yourself to be a true disinfo artist that does not care about truth at all.

Dr. Jones elected to retire effective January 1, 2007:
en.wikipedia.org...

You have no credibility. Not one single person is going to take you seriously if you can't be honest and truthful."

.........I amend my statement. Jones retired. I believe he retired under significant pressure from the University, but I will accept "retirement."

"Since I've shown that you don't have an ounce of honesty in you, your opinions based on your education and experience mean absolutely zilch. Therefore, we require sources from someone that is not you. So once again, please provide sources for your claims."

.........I do not believe that you've shown any such thing. What I said is correct and can be verified by any chemist. I must first ask who is "we." Mark Twain said that the only people who should use first person plural are heads of state, royalty, and people with tapeworms.

My claims of bad science may be argued by any competent chemist. There is no paper out there that says "when proving an exothermic reaction that doesn't use air, don't be dumb enough to run it in air." Do you actually think that there is a youtube video explaining all of this?
Find a competent chemist. Ask them what happens to carbonaceous material when it is a DSC sample in a flow of air. Ask them if those conditions would prove or mask thermitic materials. You don't even need to be a chemist to understand how Jones blew this analysis. This is really basic stuff and any competent chemist can tell you that the combustion hides any possible thermitic reaction and all it means is that carbon burns.

Of course, the conclusions in the paper are invalid because of this error. Jones proved nothing other than the carbonaceous matrix burns.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Correction to my above post. I meant 3, not 2.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
And thousands think the aircraft and fires did.

Okay, I would love for you to produce a list of "thousands" of architects and engineers that think the aircraft impact and fires caused the buildings to collapse. I've asked for this many times before to no avail. I'm pretty sure you won't be able to produce the list either. Especially with your history of not being truthful or supplying sources to support your claims.



Originally posted by pteridine
I'm sure the intent of the design was to survive an aircraft impact but apparently it wasn't able to.

Only apparent to those of you who don't understand the physics involved and just take the governments word at face value.



Originally posted by pteridine
Firemen were unable to get above the impact floors and people were unable to get below.

Well, once again you show your lack of research. Brian Clark, Bobby Call and Stanley Praimnath are just some of the names of people that were above the impact zone in the south tower and made it below the impact zone and out safely.



Originally posted by pteridine
Thermite cannot be timed for a demolition.

The thermite would only have been used to weaken the structure near the impact zones and initiate collapse only. Once the collapse initiated, whoever was at the controls could then start the demolition process below so that the building would collapse all the way to the ground.

You absolutely cannot start a few fires in the upper floors of steel-structured building, or even blow up a few floors in the upper floors of a steel-structured building to cause it to collapse straight down through the greatest resistance all the way to the ground. If you think that is possible, you should start touring around the world teaching demo companies how to do this because I'm sure they'd love to know how you'd accomplish this magical feat.



Originally posted by pteridine
Knowing what floor the aircraft would hit is another little problem for the demolishers.

If the buildings were wired from top to bottom, it wouldn't matter where the aircraft hit. The aircraft could also have been remote controlled and target specific locations on the towers as some suggest. So, your lack of understanding about your little problem isn't a real problem with todays technology.



Originally posted by pteridine
the unfortunate lack of ANY evidence of demolition leads one to believe that there was no demolition

Leads people like you to believe there was no demolition. The only single thing that proves demolition beyond any reasonable doubt to the researched person is this:



You and other debunkers like you will make things up out of thin air to explain away those jets of dust/debris so that you don't have to believe in the "conspiracy". However, the cold hard facts are, you will never, ever find those jets of dust/debris coming out of any other building collapse other than one's brought down from controlled demolitions and I challenge you to try.



Originally posted by pteridine
You don't even need to be a chemist to understand how Jones blew this analysis. This is really basic stuff and any competent chemist can tell you that the combustion hides any possible thermitic reaction and all it means is that carbon burns.

If you were that interested in finding the truth, you'd stop your armchair debunking and get out of that chair and try to contact Dr. Jones, and/or write a paper showing how he is wrong. Posting word after word of text in a forum get's nothing accomplished if you think he is wrong. Actions speak louder than words.

Get up, get out, and do something.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Okay, I would love for you to produce a list of "thousands" of architects and engineers that think the aircraft impact and fires caused the buildings to collapse. I've asked for this many times before to no avail. I'm pretty sure you won't be able to produce the list either. Especially with your history of not being truthful or supplying sources to support your claims.


Allow me to answer.

The following are over 50 peer reviewed papers and conferences etc. that deal with the WTC collapses.

What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Authors Bazant, Le, Greening & Benson. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 134 (2008).

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions Co-author Verdure. PDF. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 133 (2007): pp. 308–319
Discussion and replies to June 2006 Bazant & Verdure paper: James Gourley, G. Szuladinski

Bazant & Zhou, 2001-2002: Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis J. Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Sept. 28, 2001, addendum March, 2002.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation. Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C., JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Dissecting the Collapses Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. By: Quintiere, J.G.; di Marzo, M.; Becker, R.. Fire Safety Journal, Oct2002, Vol. 37 Issue 7, p707, 10p.

S. W. Banovic, T. Foecke, W.E. Luecke, et al. “The role of metallurgy in the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center towers collapse”, JOM, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 22-29, November 2007.

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. By: Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct2005, Vol. 131 Issue 10, p1066-1072.

Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse?; Newland, D. E.; Cebon, D. Journal of Engineering Mechanics; 2002 Vol. 128 Issue 7, p795-800, 6p.

"Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers" Clifton, Charles G., HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center; Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2003 Vol. 28, p601-625, 25p

Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires. By: Usmani, A. S.. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Jun2005, Vol. 131 Issue 6, p654-657.

Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks. Omika, Yukihiro.; Fukuzawa, Eiji.; Koshika, Norihide. Journal of Structural Engineering v. 131 no1 (January 2005) p. 6-15

The Structural Steel of the World Trade Center Towers. Gayle, Frank W.; Banovic, Stephen W.; Foecke, Tim. Advanced Materials & Processes v. 162 no10 (October 2004) p. 37-9

WTC Findings Uphold Structural Design. Post, Nadine M. ENR v. 253 no17 (November 1 2004) p. 10-11

"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations" Monahan, B., Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, and Andre Marshall "Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1" Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities Volume 21, Issue 6, pp. 414-421


Engineering Conference Papers
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering" Marechaux, T.G. JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Abboud, N., M. Levy, D. Tennant, J. Mould, H. Levine, S. King, C. Ekwueme, A. Jain, G. Hart. (2003) Anatomy of a Disaster: A Structural Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapses. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 360-370

Beyler, C., D. White, M. Peatross, J. Trellis, S. Li, A. Luers, D. Hopkins. (2003) Analysis of the Thermal Exposure in the Impact Areas of the World Trade Center Terrorist Attacks. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 371-382

Thater, G. G.; Panariello, G. F.; Cuoco, D. A. (2003) World Trade Center Disaster: Damage/Debris Assessment In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 383-392



Fire Protection and Fire Modeling Papers
How did the WTC towers collapse? A new theory; Usmani, A. S.; Chung, Y. C.; Torero, J. L. Fire Safety Journal; 2003 Vol. 38, p501-533, 33p.

Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses. Fire and Materials, 29:4, July/August 2005. pp. 181 - 194. Chang, Jeremy; Buchanan, Andrew H.; Moss, Peter J.

"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings" Brannigan, F.L. Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

"Construction and Collapse Factors" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Corbett, G.P. "Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Collapse Lessons" Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Burgess, I.W., 'Fire Resistance of Framed Buildings', Physics Education, 37 (5), (2002) pp390-399.

G. Flint, A.S. Usmani, S. Lamont, J. Torero and B. Lane, Effect of fire on composite long span truss floor systems, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (4) (2006), pp. 303–315.



Fire Protection Conference Papers
"Coupled fire dynamics and thermal response of complex building structures" Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, Volume 30, Issue 2, January 2005, Pages 2255-2262 Kuldeep Prasad and Howard R. Baum

Choi, S.K., Burgess, I.W. and Plank, R.J., 'The Behaviour of Lightweight Composite Floor Trusses in Fire', ASCE Specialty Conference: Designing Structures for Fire, Baltimore, (Oct 2003) pp 24-32.

Jowsey et all, Determination of Fire Induced Collapse Mechanisms in Steel Framed Structures, 4th European Conference on Steel and Composite Structures, 10 June 05, 69-76

Usmani et all, Collapse scenarios of WTC 1 & 2 with extension to generic tall buildings, Oct-2006 Proceedings of the International Congress on Fire Safety in Tall Buildings



Related Papers
Interactive Failure of Two Impacting Beams Xiaoqing. Teng and Tomasz Wierzbicki. J. Engrg. Mech., Volume 129, Issue 8, pp. 918-926 (August 2003)

Use of High-Efficiency Energy Absorbing Device to Arrest Progressive Collapse of Tall Building Qing Zhou and T. X. Yu Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130, 1177 (2004)

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30:2, January, 2005. pp. 2247-2254. Baum, Howard R.; Rehm, Ronald G.

Reconnaissance and preliminary assessment of a damaged high-rise building near Ground Zero. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings. 12 :5, 15 December 2003. pp. 371 - 391. Warn, Gordon; Berman, Jeffrey; Whittaker, Andrew; Bruneau, Michel

"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center" Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A., The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48

John K. McGee et al, “Chemical Analysis of World Trade Center Fine Particulate Matter for Use in
Toxicologic Assessment”, Environmental Health Perspective (June 2003)

UC Davis Aerosol Study: Cahill et al., “Analysis of Aerosols from the World Trade Center
Collapse Site, New York, October 2 to October 30, 2001”, Aerosol Science and Technology,

Lioy et al, “Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center
(WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001”, Environmental Health
Perspectives, Volume 110 #7

Count the authors above. Then figure the ones that were peer reviewed required even more professionals to read them. Then add to that all the members of NIST, FEMA, etc.

While we are at it... lets look at some of the "personal 9/11 statements" from the "professionals" at A&E 4 911 truth:


Amir A. Rana Mechanical Engineer Engineering Staff:


Another interesting fact is how empty the 4 planes were. I have never been on a plane that is 75% empty!! So many inconsistencies!!



Dr.Amy J. O'Brien:


It doesn't make sense that fires from jet fuel could melt structural steel, let alone in sufficient quantity to collapse both towers.



Arman P. Arashvand - BSEE, Univ of TX Dallas


Columns cut with clean distinctive angle by what plane wing, god?



Brad S. Epperson - Test Engineer


The evidence proves that there is no way that ANYONE could have used cell phones to call people from those planes.




Christopher Wilder
Mechanical Design Engineer
B.S.M.E., Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
Cloverdale, CA



2) the free fall of the Towers in less than 10 seconds.



Fernando Morales
B. Comp. S.
Rancho Viejo, TX


The towers asbestos related non-compliance problem should be sufficient reason alone to investigate the event as towers owners’ criminal act as well as an insurance fraud, due to the billion dollar cost to make the twin towers to comply.


LOOK...A NO-Planer!

Henry Rozumski
Aerospace Engineer/ Analyst
M. Sc
Aiea, HI


After performing some in-depth research on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that no commercial airplanes impacted the two WTC Towers.



Karl Joerger
Mechanical Design Engineer
BSME, UT Austin
Austin, TX

1. WTC 1 & 2 collapse at or above free fall speed.


Plenty more laughs here:

www.ae911truth.org...






[edit on 17-5-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
LOOK...A NO-Planer!

Nowhere in his statement does it say no planes were used. He says no "commercial" planes, i.e. the planes could've been military and/or remote controlled drones.



Originally posted by CameronFox
Plenty more laughs here:
www.ae911truth.org...

9/11 is not funny. It's not humorous and none of us are laughing. If you think anything about 9/11 is humorous, you need to see a psychiatrist. You need help. You disgust me with your lack of compassion and respect.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Nowhere in his statement does it say no planes were used. He says no "commercial" planes, i.e. the planes could've been military and/or remote controlled drones.


What? Here is his statement... what do you think he is alluding to ?


• Personal 9/11 Statement:

After performing some in-depth research on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that no commercial airplanes impacted the two WTC Towers. No commercial plane impacted the Pentagon. No commercial aircraft buried itself in Pennsylvania terra firma. The utter public silence from observing the many clips of high energy materials being ejected from the other side of WTC #2, from most probably a projectile with DU-hardening nose characteristics is deafening. Further, The two WTC Towers were explosive demolitions, without any doubts. WTC #7 crumbled under a classic demolition. Lastly, a 0.1 inch aluminum skinned airframe travelling at its max. velocity for its flight regime and angle of attack, would NOT slice through high tensile steel like butter with this steel having a thickness between 0.25 and 0.75 inch and a length of about 13 inches. Calculations from other sources reveal that the airframe would lose its forward momentum when impacting steel of only 0.8 inches. If these projectiles were commercial aircraft, we should have seen the entire impact explosion of the airframe only at the impact wall with discernable debris landing at the base of each Tower.



So it was a craft made out of what bonez? Please.



9/11 is not funny. It's not humorous and none of us are laughing. If you think anything about 9/11 is humorous, you need to see a psychiatrist. You need help. You disgust me with your lack of compassion and respect.


Did I say 911 was funny? SMARTEN UP! I said that website is. AND IT IS. It is a joke. Now knock off the B.S. accusing me of not being compassionate. 911 hit me and my family a LOT closer than you will know.

Have you been there lately BONEZ? Being a sustainable member, have you had to give more to his NEW money raising scheme where he is NOW looking for...

$115,000.00 in donations by New Years.

This is on top of the $6,750.00 he is still trying to get.

Gage is a charlatan and has suckered a few into buying his snake oil.



[edit on 17-5-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
What? Here is his statement... what do you think he is alluding to ?

Everyone is entitled to their opinions as long as AE stays away from the disinfo.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by wmd_2008
LOL 640 over 8 YEARS compaired with how MANY architects /engineers out there

LOL, try less than 2 years.



Correct me if I am wrong but it all happened 2001 thats when the demolition theories started S0 640 in 8 years OUT OFF a possible how many in the USA alone!



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Correct me if I am wrong but it all happened 2001 thats when the demolition theories started S0 640 in 8 years OUT OFF a possible how many in the USA alone!
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has only been around for close to 3 years. You can't say 8 years if AE911T hasn't even been around that long. If AE911T had been around since the beginning, that number would be significantly higher.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join