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.

 

29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

page: 1
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
...in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11

June 17, 2009

www.ae911truth.org...

More than 700 architects and engineers, who have joined call for new investigation, faulting official collapse reports

A most excellent read. And this time from people with direct experience in the field, and in a position to comment scientifically:


A Note About 9/11 “Debunkers”

It could be hoped that the comments from the structural engineers quoted in this article would silence the “debunkers” who dismissed our arguments first because, allegedly, no engineers agreed with us. That was never
true to begin with. After AE911Truth was formed and scores of engineers signed the petition, these debunkers predictably moved the goalposts, saying we didn't have any engineers who know anything about heavy steel
structures such as tall buildings.

Since the 28 engineers interviewed for this article do in fact possess that knowledge, the goalposts will no doubt just be moved again. This kind of behavior should make clear the nature of the game that is being played. One word for it is sophistry.


Other excerpts:


"Something is wrong with this picture," thought Nathan Lomba, as he watched replays of the Twin Tower collapses on television on September 11, 2001. A licensed structural engineer trained in buildings' responses to stress, Lomba saw more on the screen than you or I. He puzzled, "How did the structures collapse in near-symmetrical fashion when the damage was clearly not symmetrical?"...


In PDF format. Direct link to PDF:

www.ae911truth.org...


The engineers find it difficult to believe the government’s claim scattered fires brought about such an orderly collapse. Failure of heatweakened steel would show
“large deflection, asymmetric and local failure, and slow progress,” David Scott told colleagues at the Institution of Structural Engineers in the UK. It’s “a gradual process,” agrees Anders Björkman, and “cannot be simultaneous everywhere.”

A Swedish naval architect working in France, Björkman maintains that failures “will always be local and topple the mass above in the direction of the local collapse.”


Logical. Official fairy tale: Illogical.


Charles Pegelow: “How could all 47 core columns fail at the same instant?” Pegelow has performed design work on offshore oil rigs and tall buildings. His opinion: “Fires could not do that.”


How? Oh I guess the "hijackers" planned this so well that they calculated where every square inch of the resulting fireball and fires would go, precisely weakening all 47 perfectly at once?
NOT.


Impossible Collapse Acceleration

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) characterized the Twin Towers’ collapse as “essentially in free fall” (Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1).
Brookman wrote asking NIST investigators why debris fell “with little or no resistance from the intact structure below.” Rice questions how each tower “inexplicably collapsed upon itself, crushing all 287 massive columns on each
floor [while maintaining near-freefall speed] as if the 80,000 tons of supporting structural steel framework underneath didn’t exist.”

Falling objects should take “the path of least resistance,” notes Pasternack, while official explanations claim that Tower debris took the path of greatest resistance – through the strong, crossbraced core structure all the way to the ground.


Relatively simple arguments heard time and time again. It's too bad the debunkers just can't seem to take the same path of least resistance and get it through their resistant heads!


The rapid breakup of this robust structure appears to defy the laws of physics, engineers say. Forty-five years of structural design experience inform the view of Claude Briscoe, P.E., that the government’s collapse theories “seem to defy the laws
of mechanics, conservation of energy, and known structural failure behavior.” In the official story, the kinetic energy of the falling debris would have been largely absorbed by the energy required to dismember the structure, bending and twisting steel components, and pulverizing 220 acres of concrete floors. To accomplish all this while achieving a nearly free-fallspeed collapse is “simply not physically possible,” says Mason. “There is not sufficient energy available.... For this massively strong structure to just crumble away at near-free-fall speed would have required immense amounts of explosive energy.”


And immense amounts of explosive energy, or some exotic weapon, or both is exactly what did it. Not no fricken jet fuel fires weakening the spans. And that's quite a tall order for cavemen.


Please download PDF and read it. Highly recommended!

[edit on Thu Jun 18th 2009 by TrueAmerican]




posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
My brother-in-law who is a structural or civil engineer ridiculed my suggestion of 9/11 conspiracy some time back. This should open up his eyes a bit more.

Great post! Thanks. S&F



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
The evidence against the flawed 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY script just grows greater and greater, as the official fantasy self-destructs right before our eyes, and as the pleadings and incessant denials of the fanatical goverment loyalists grow more and more desperate.

29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11

An excellent article exposing the bad science of the NIST frauds.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


SPreston, you ever see that video of Mark Roberts debating Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas?







That host needs to do the same, except with some of these engineers in this OP, who are extremely familiar with the NIST reports, and can actually debate him.

[edit on Thu Jun 18th 2009 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
...in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11



"Something is wrong with this picture," thought Nathan Lomba, as he watched replays of the Twin Tower collapses on television on September 11, 2001. A licensed structural engineer trained in buildings' responses to stress, Lomba saw more on the screen than you or I. He puzzled, "How did the structures collapse in near-symmetrical fashion when the damage was clearly not symmetrical?"...



And this is yet the biggest argument I and many others have posed to the 'debunkers' of this subject. Their replies are "they didn't" or "are you an engineer? I am..." and on and on.

This is yet the most damning 'visual' evidence. The planes didn't hit directly center on both buildings. On the second impact the plane actually entered at an angle and went through the front and side (not back) of the building. In other words, the damage was focused on one side, not in the middle of the structure.

Yet this gets ignored by the debunkers. This would mean that when the structure gave out it would give to THAT SIDE not straight down. Period.

It's just how it is. But alas, we'll see the snide comments from the debunkers (well, not all because there are truly some good debunkers that are genuinely trying to present their case without belittling and misleading statements).

We'll keep fighting the fight but will anything ever come of it? I doubt it. The people involved are set too high and are walled off from the public.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 


Well, because fires are suddenly symmetrical! And resulting building damage is suddenly, too! Got to hand it to those guys at NIST though. While even they were scratching their heads thinking "Now how in the heck are we supposed to explain THIS," they did one hell of a job. Con job.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
SPreston, you ever see that video of Mark Roberts debating Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas?


Mark Roberts actually debated Richard Gage. Look to my avatar to see what and how Gage did.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


No, I will not check your cheap-shot, out of context avatar. Instead I will post the video, and let readers decide for themselves (if this is what you're talking about).



There was no way NANO-thermate could have ever been there. That is high tech stuff, not found in Afghan caves, or in stinking paint. Explosive paint. Yeah right.

Even BBC's lies are evident:



[edit on Thu Jun 18th 2009 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican


No, I will not check your cheap-shot, out of context avatar. Instead I will post the video, and let readers decide for themselves (if this is what you're talking about).


Well, since you know what it is... you did check it out.


Sorry that you didn't find it amusing.

Yes, that is the debate. Interesting how the title was changed to encourage truthers to jump on the Richard "box boy" Gage bandwagon.

I thought along with the debate, it would be of interest to post the shenanigans that the host and Gage pulled prior and up to the debate:

Mark Roberts Response to the Debate

more info here



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Sorry that you didn't find it amusing.

Nothing that relates to 9/11 is even remotely amusing.



Originally posted by CameronFox
I thought along with the debate, it would be of interest to post the shenanigans that the host and Gage pulled prior and up to the debate:

What about the shenanigans you're pulling in this thread right now? You come in this thread attacking others instead of refuting the evidence.

You can't refute any of it. The only thing your "young" mind can do is attack people and things you don't understand or can't comprehend. I'll leave you and other debunkers with something to think about for awhile:



denial disorder -
the refusal to acknowledge the existence or severity of unpleasant external realities or internal thoughts and feelings.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Nothing that relates to 9/11 is even remotely amusing.


Appeal to emotion noted. What is amusing? YOU Bonez, for funding Box Boy's vacations, paying for his press releases, buying into his b.s.



Originally posted by CameronFox

What about the shenanigans you're pulling in this thread right now? You come in this thread attacking others instead of refuting the evidence.


Pay attention. I was responding to a post regarding the Loose Change folks that Mark Roberts had for supper.


You can't refute any of it. The only thing your "young" mind can do is attack people and things you don't understand or can't comprehend. I'll leave you and other debunkers with something to think about for awhile:


Refute? Any of what? This thread states that a bunch of engineers want a new investigation.

Where are their papers? At least Jones goes out and writes papers. What has Gage done? What about these engineers? What have they submitted? (besides their opinions?)


Allow me to leave you with this:

Paranoia


Paranoia is a thought process characterized by excessive anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat towards oneself. In the original Greek, παράνοια (paranoia) simply means madness (para = outside; nous = mind). Historically, this characterization was used to describe any delusional state.


en.wikipedia.org...

Oh and

Gullible


1. Easily deceived or duped; naïve, easily cheated or fooled.

en.wiktionary.org...



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Appeal to emotion noted.

Ah yes, something you lack along with compassion and respect because you would rather attack other people instead of the evidence.



Originally posted by CameronFox
buying into his b.s.

You may want to read "denial disorder" again. In fact, I'll put it on context for you. The real evidence is only BS to you and other debunkers because you refuse to acknowledge the existance or severity of the unpleasant reality that three WTC buildings were brought down with explosives making 9/11 an inside job.

In essence, the only BS is the BS you have to keep feeding yourself day in and day out to help you sleep at night.



Originally posted by CameronFox
Allow me to leave you with this: Paranoia

Are you trying to tell us something? Is all this 9/11 inside job talk getting you paranoid? I don't have excessive anxiety, fear or perceived threats against me, so you must be telling us something you want us to know about you.



Originally posted by CameronFox
Oh and Gullible

Now I know you're trying to tell us something. You were easily deceived, duped and fooled into believing the Bush/Cheney regime's fairy tale of how 9/11 happened and too naive and stricken with denial disorder to see the reality that 9/11 was an inside job.

I got it now.


[edit on 18-6-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Ah yes, something you lack along with compassion and respect because you would rather attack other people instead of the evidence


I am not attacking anyone. You don't know me. I have compassion for people that deserve it. What I won't do is blow smoke up the a** of truther that funds charlatans. That's what Gage is.

He suckered you into his "sustaining member" cult and you give that man your hard earned money. Am I attacking Gage? Well, call it what you want. The man is a snake oil salesman. He lies, manipulates, and tells 1/2 truths to get folk like you to buy his garbage.



The real evidence is only BS to you and other debunkers because you refuse to acknowledge the existance or severity of the unpleasant reality that three WTC buildings were brought down with explosives making 9/11 an inside job.


Been 7 1/2 years... what are you doing with all this evidence? We already know what your doing with your money.






Are you trying to tell us something? Is all this 9/11 inside job talk getting you paranoid? I don't have excessive anxiety, fear or perceived threats against me, so you must be telling us something you want us to know about you.


Read it again... then take a long hard look at the way you spend some of your time on the internet... and where you spend your money.




I got it now.



What you "got" is a smaller bank account.

Gage LOVES spending your money as he is now traveling through southern California. Ordering room service, eating out every night, taking in the sights.... must be nice huh? Keep digging Bonez!


[edit on 19-6-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Hi everybody,

Starting off-topic, but in a recent post I said something along the lines that so called truthers need to develop a strategy to counter people who defend the official 9/11 2001 story. I suggested science but feared government defenders would ignore science.

To _BoneZ_, here you have fallen into the trap (imho). The person you are corresponding with, and I won't give it credibility by calling it a debate, uses lines in this thread like Richard "box boy" Gage, the shenanigans that the host... funding Box Boy's vacations, and dictionary quotes of gullible and paranoia. To all sides, please explain how this is related to the topic at hand.

On topic, when I first saw the towers fall, I thought 'strange' but I am not an engineer and believed that is how towers fall. Now many experts in the relevant fields say the towers fell in a non-conventional way. I am more likely to believe their opinion due to an appeal to authority and seemingly well thought out logic and evidence. It is worth noting that an appeal to authority is a justified means to form an opinion, e.g. as a child your parents might say don't play with matches. Where it fails could be when a person in power has inner motivation to mislead.

Nathan Lomba, a licensed structural engineer trained in buildings' responses to stress, puzzled, "How did the structures collapse in near-symmetrical fashion when the damage was clearly not symmetrical?"... I just explained this to my mum, she understands and believes me because in her world I am trustworthy and semi-well read (her own appeal to authority).

Power and Equality

edit to add from Cameron Fox 'Gage LOVES spending your money as he is now traveling through southern California. Ordering room service, eating out every night, taking in the sights' evidence would be nice for these claims, but even so, if I were touring America giving lectures, living out of a suitcase and staying in hotels, how could I not eat out (I cannot take my kitchen with me) or see the sights?!? Keep my eyes closed when I travel? Surely, these arguments are beneath you (sorry if I called you Surely (gotta love Naked Gun))

[edit on 19-6-2009 by yyyyyyyyyy]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Hi everyone,

Just noticed this from Cameron Fox, quote 'I am not attacking anyone. You don't know me. I have compassion for people that deserve it.'

Just been reading the Tao Te Ching, in it the very wise old man says 'I show compassion for people who deserve it, and I show compassion for people who do not deserve it, therefore I grow in compassion.'

Power and Equality



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
The common sense pictures.

A Pancake collapse, with the floors collapsing on top of one another? What would one expect to see, if that were case? Maybe something like this?



But this?



Umm no. Not only no but HELL no.

It doesn't take no architect. It doesn't take no engineer. It doesn't take anything but an itsy bitsy, tiny bit of common sense to see that the two are so far off, so incompatible, so absolutely incomparable, that someone is not telling the truth. Buildings don't just pulverize into dust, from the top down no less, without some acting force- whether that be from explosives, Directed Energy Weapons, Laser beams, or some secret weapon.

SOMETHING other than a pancake collapse HAS to be responsible. It's just simple common sense. That's all you need. Of course if you don't have any- or you are a government operative- then I can surely understand your point of view. Common sense 101 for dummies. There ya have it.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Truly, it doesn't matter what you say. Cameronfox is simply one of those that instigates without providing proof. You see, you make a great point here. One that is truly irrefutible. However, he will simply come back and say that you don't know because you are not an architect or engineer or anything of the type. That you have never seen a "SKYSCRAPER" collapse so how do you know how they fall down?

It's a fruitless argument of the debunker. Buildings would fall down in parts. Especially above the points of damage. Not disintigrate into dust and collapse straight down. It's the biggest joke of the whole 'official' story yet these mouth pieces for the administrations and government simply want to keep making a mess of the discussions. They do this so that people get turned off to the topic.

Won't work.

I am not irrational. I am sound of mind. I do not allow for my emotions to cloud my vision and understanding of this subject.

Buildings don't fall down like that from fires. Period. Even when the miraculous thermal expansion is involved.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I feel sorry for America for the whole world actually.
From first hand experience do not ever confront a Psycopath with evidence of his crime he would rather kill you and everyone involved than admit or be told he is wrong.
The Bush Cartel will diffuse justice with yet another act of terrorism big enough for everyone to shut the # up
and comply!



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


The photo of the tower you posted (and others like it) is one of the main things that got me to start thinking about 9/11. I used to be in the "nuke 'em all" school of thought which is popular in the highly military town I live in, until fall 2005.

What I eventually saw, without the need for any "truther" to explain it to me is this:
In the NIST report, the towers fell due to a gravitationally induced collapse (because of steel support being weakened by fire). I know the force of gravity only points one way on the Earth (towards the center). How do the plumes of ejected dust and large pieces of steel arc upward and outwards hundreds of feet from the edge of the tower? Other forces besides gravity are at work. It is as simple as that.



Another view shot within fractions of a second from another vantage point:


source:


[edit on 19-6-2009 by 1SawSomeThings]



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings
Other forces besides gravity are at work. It is as simple as that.


Yes, this is perhaps the simplest point that any layman CAN understand without the need to get technical. Nice!


And I see you uploaded those pics (excellent) on the ATS Media Portal. Use the new atsimg tags to show them in threads:





Those embed links are easy to copy if you just click on the picture while logged into the media portal. Scroll down underneath the pic and you will see the ready-to-go embed on ats links. Just copy the full link with the atsimg tags and you can make the pics show in any ats or bts thread.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join