9/11 Truth Movement Gaining Scientific Credibility

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by vicen
They don't go public because they don't care. It's that simple.

Would you care to provide the list of names of all the architects and engineers in the world that haven't gone public that you've talked to and told you they don't care and that's the reason why they haven't gone public? Didn't think so.

You have no idea why they haven't gone public with an opinion. It could be because they don't care, it could be because they fear for their jobs, it could be any number of reasons.

And since you don't speak for them, the only other option is that you're trolling like a couple other characters in this thread. So, unless you have something of importance to contribute, move along. Thanks.

BoneZ, if a professional association, such as the American Society of Civil Engineers with 110,000 or so members, thought that NIST's findings were perverse would they not have a duty to speak out ?

I think your suggestion that they might be afraid to is absurd and totally unsubstantiated. There is a new administration in the US now. How come for truthers there is no difference ? Why would a Democrat president threaten people to cover up Republican crimes ?

There is in fact considerable debate going on in civil engineering and architectural circles, consequent to 9/11, but it is about fire-proofing , evacuation etc. Nothing about cd which doesn't get given a moment's thought.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Molten metal, yes, some; Steel? Not much proof of that.

Whooooaaa.

Sorry guys I'm not debunking anything....I was trying to be funny. Anybody that thinks the official version is the truth obviously hasn't investigated on their own behalf. What I was "giving" seethelight was about the aluminum. Sorry, I should have been more specific with my humour. (go Canada, eh)

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by Sean48

 

6 hours of unconstrained fire.

There's a whole report though you've already shown you don't understand the big words.

So in other words .

You have no evidence of to de-bunk Molten metal

Originally posted by Sean48

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by Sean48

 

No it doesn't. And you know that.

Phenomena doesn't mena "unexplained". It means novel.

Actually it can also mean:

"A fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable: to study the phenomena of nature. ."


So not sure why you think it mean, "unexplained"...?

Than explain It .

I'll wait.

What made WTC7 collapse.

Tick, Tock.

Please Sir.

This is the Post that made you RUN AWAY .

Want to answer it now ?

Tick Tock.
EDIT to ADD , HE RAN AWAY AGAIN FROM MY QUESTION

[edit on 28-2-2010 by Sean48]

Originally posted by seethelight
There's a whole report though you've already shown you don't understand the big words.

If anything you've shown you don't understand it because you can't post where they actually prove anything in the report. Is it really that hard? It wouldn't be, if (a) you really understood the report and (b) understood what constitutes proof. I don't think you understand what the word "proof" even means. If you did, and you understood then report, then it would logically follow that you would be able to SHOW WHERE they proved anything in the report. But it's not forthcoming from you. Because I'm right, you have no idea what you are really talking about, and all you are posting is immature rants. Read over your own posts and ask yourself what is in them that an elementary schooler couldn't come up with just to taunt someone and with no real understanding of what they're talking about. There is absolutely no difference.

I notice "seethelight" ignored this question:

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Maybe "seethelight" can explain what caused 1500 degree fires to burn for months under the World Trade Center rubble (the WTC sub-levels.) Remember, the black smoke, oxygen-starved fires 80 floors higher had almost burned themselves out when the towers collapsed.

One FDNY firefighter is quoted as saying, "we poured a lake's worth of water on these fires."

Originally posted by Alfie1
BoneZ, if a professional association, such as the American Society of Civil Engineers with 110,000 or so members, thought that NIST's findings were perverse would they not have a duty to speak out ?

The member "Griff" here used to rail against NIST all the time, and he was a licensed SE and member of the ASCE.

Why doesn't the ASCE release something to the press on behalf of the entire organization? Well consider these two facts for a clue. First of all, they were the ones who first said all 3 collapses must have been resultant of the 2 impacts and resulting fires, before ANY investigation was even underway. So first of all why are they mandating how scientific investigations should turn out before they are even began? Secondly this mandate went first to FEMA and later to NIST, often with the very same engineers moving from agency to agency to work on these reports.

And for final consideration, the SE professor that led the FEMA BPAT, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, went to the Associated Press a few years ago saying he'd been trying to replicate the ASCE's original findings for years, ever since they were first released, and was only able to debunk them over and over through the years. The ASCE's response? None.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Now, what's indisputable is that you cannot come up with a list of names that comes close to the numbers above that support the official version.

Here is a start....

The following people and/or companies disagree with you and the Richard Gage popycock:

Applied Research Associates

Hughes Associates, Inc. (HAI)

Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc. (SGH)

Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP (GMS)

Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. (RJA)

Underwriters Laboratory, Inc.

Teng & Associates, Inc.

Dr. Daniele Veneziano and Dr. Jozef Van Dyck

Dr. David M. Parks

Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP

Dr. Kaspar Willam

Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

Leslie E. Robertson Associates (LERA)

Mr. Harold Nelson

Dr. Norman Groner

Dr. Guylene Proulx

Dr. Dennis Mileti

Shyam Sunder

William Grosshandler

H.S. Lew

Richard Bukowski

Fahim Sadek

Frank Gayle (MSEL)

Richard Gann

John Gross

Therese McAllister

Jason Averill

Randy Lawson

Harold E. Nelson

Stephen Cauffman

Valentine Junker

US Army Corps of Engineers

J.R. Harris & Company

Donald Dansberry, P.E.

Gerald Haynes P.E.

Long T Phan PHD P.E.

Mete A. Sozen, S.E.

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.

I can keep going on if you would like Bonez. Please let me know.

reply to post by ImAPepper


All of those names and papers and yet you still can't prove what was causing all of the explosions people were hearing all morning, or even show us how anyone has demonstrated how any of the 3 skyscrapers totally collapsed that day. Kind of sucks for you doesn't it? Nah, because you still think you know it all.

You know we're laughing at you just as hard as you're laughing at us.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Alfie1
BoneZ, if a professional association, such as the American Society of Civil Engineers with 110,000 or so members, thought that NIST's findings were perverse would they not have a duty to speak out ?

I think your suggestion that they might be afraid to is absurd and totally unsubstantiated.

With all due respect, I don't care what you think. I don't deal with other peoples' thoughts. I deal with facts. And it's a fact that of the architects and engineers that have gone public, the majority are against the official fairy tale, period.

Until you or anyone else can provide a list of verifiable architects and engineers that exceeds the list of names at AE911T, then that's the end of that discussion.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Why would a Democrat president threaten people to cover up Republican crimes ?

Because the two-party system is just a front. The presidents are puppets being controlled by whatever criminals are in the background truly running the government. The same criminals that concocted 9/11, Operation Northwoods, and many other atrocities.

reply to post by Sean48


I like how you guys are all saying "metal" now instead of steel.

Yeah, there could easily have been molten ALUMINUM.

That's metal.

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Now, what's indisputable is that you cannot come up with a list of names that comes close to the numbers above that support the official version.

Here is a start....

The following people and/or companies disagree with you and the Richard Gage popycock:

Awesome. Thanks for that list. So, for someone too stupid to read like myself. How about you tell us what you learned from all those names. Why did the buildings collapse? Cannot just say fire and hope that works. Your sources did better than that, right? What was the actual mechanism of collapse for all 3 buildings. Please explain.

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE

 

By your logic, FOX NEWS is trustworthy.

Dont patronize me man! your ilk are becoming the minority very fast...

Originally posted by ImAPepper
I can keep going on if you would like Bonez. Please let me know.

Sorry, but anyone can copy/paste a list of names from any engineering site. I want to see those names with links to their statements just as AE911T does. Oh, and that list is barely a fraction of the 1000 A&E's at AE911T, so yes: keep going.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


You only deal in facts and yet you call 1/10th of 1% of engineers, the majority.

And the organization you've put your faith in also believing in mind control.

Do you believe in mind control?

Wouldn't that be closer to holographic planes than hard fact?

And didn't publicly state that anyone who believed in weird stuff like that wasn't a real truther?

So the head of the organization that you're pimping isn't a real truther?



Ever hear of cognitive dissonance?

Or maybe you're more of a doublethink kinda guy.

Originally posted by seethelight
I like how you guys are all saying "metal" now instead of steel.

Yeah, there could easily have been molten ALUMINUM.

I'm not saying metal. I'm saying STEEL! Go to this thread and try to debunk it:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Maybe that's why you haven't posted in that thread yet because you can't debunk it?

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


Absolutely not true.

And btw., it was you that decided to claim that RT was trustworthy because the number of viewers it receives, not me.

If you can't live with the outcome of your flawed logic then think about what you say before you say it.

reply to post by ImAPepper


Have you started getting the hate mail yet..?

It's coming!

Wait until they start saying that their going to ignore you because they are tired of being questioned.

I call them Faithers for good reason.

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by ImAPepper

 

Have you started getting the hate mail yet..?

It's coming!

Wait until they start saying that their going to ignore you because they are tired of being questioned.

I call them Faithers for good reason.

You have being ignoreing my repeated attempts to answer my

questions, why are you running away.

BTW , your a minor irratant in the Faither Party , Gentlemen like
Swampfox, Goodolddave, Genradek, those guys are good debaters for the

OS , you are funny seethelight