1200 Architects And Engineers

reply to post by impressme


Sorry, but A&E have produced nothing. As for website longevity - well I just assume you're kidding about that. Keeping a website going aint all that hard now is it?

Face it, its going on 10 years now, there are literally millions of architects and engineers worldwide with access to the internet and you've got half a handful on board and still have produced nothing. Its basically a movement that started at the bottom and is moving downhill.

Originally posted by NightVision
Here comes the wave of ATSr's who are smarter than 1200 Degreed Architects and Engineers. S&F.

1200 out of what, exactly?

reply to post by hooper

Sorry, but A&E have produced nothing.

As my last post to you stated:

You are wrong but what would one expect from people who refuses to read their rebuttals or any of their scientific reports, because one is in total denial and does not want to know the truth.

I rest my case.

reply to post by DClairvoyant


I don't know what a mechanical / electrical engineer is. I know what a mechanical engineer is and what an electrical engineer is. I know that there is a common part to the licensing exam, then there are distinct second exams after experience to qualify as one or the other. I also know that anyone certified as an engineer, in any specialty, is a PE and is generally able to sign off on any engineering project, at least by the state laws I've seen. So someone who has achieved a license as a mechanical engineer has little reason to take an additional test to be licensed as an electrical engineer or a civil engineer.

This, and the total strangeness of your point of view, leads me to wonder what sort of "engineer" you are. Most of what I learned as an undergrad, in a very well respected engineering program, was known before the year 1900. The stuff does not change. The exceptions would be a bit of semiconductor theory, some analog and digital circuit design, some statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics and special relativity, but except for the semiconductor and circuit stuff they were not required for my degree in electrical engineering.

I believe you could take a good engineer from the year 1900 and, with some brief orientation and self study, he would be a good engineer today in many areas requiring supervision by licensed engineers. Hi-tech would require more updating but still most of the core knowledge, skills and abilities would be already in place.

reply to post by oniongrass


Indeed. As seen by my lack of "forum moderater" title, I am not a mod. And I have not matured enough on this site to be one. Though I would love the honer indeed. But I highly doubt I will receive said honer anytime soon, if ever.

That aside, you are falsely claiming what you are saying. because the original topic about the failure of pilots to replicate the 9/11 flight path also included many who did. Please read the whole story. The fact that most could not does not dismiss the minority that could.

That said, space, being a three dimensional plane of existence, is inheritable difficult to replicate in motions and tracks of items. Get a free physics simulator like phun or something. Make a gravity generator and shoot a ball pass it. Now do it again and try to replicate it perfectly. Chances are you are not going to succeed for a long time. Apply it to 3d. Now you're flat out of luck.

reply to post by Gorman91

Oh, I didn't know what an HL2 Mod was. I thought probably this site wouldn't want people saying they were some sort of "Mod" unless they were moderators here. Silly me.

If you think some guys can train on Cessnas, then hop in the left seat of a 767 and do what many pilots say is difficult, and that their plan would require and expect them to do that right the first time, be my guest. In fact, by my HL2 Mod, whatever that is.

Originally posted by oniongrass


From Gorman91's turn into a strange dimension where towelheads from the caves of Afghanistan became master pilots of 767s without anyone noticing.

Nasty epithets aside, you do realise that even the least proficient pilot, Hani Hanjour, had over 600 hours of flying time?

Sometimes I wonder whether you lot are prejudiced because you're truthers or truthers because your prejudiced. "Farmers"? "Cavemen?" If you have a worldview like that - indeed if your reading of events is so selective - I'm not surprised you swallow some of the Truth Movement's more ridiculous offerings.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


"Farmers" was Gorman91's term. And he, with apparent credulity, says they did do it.!

I don't know about these pilots, I remember learning they didn't want to learn to land. That was one of the terribly terribly suspicious things about them. Did he get 600 hours without learning to land?

[edit on 26-8-2010 by oniongrass]

reply to post by oniongrass


Well to say that means you really are not with the times. A mod is a modification of a game. But that's unrelated. Guess our age is generations apart.

in fact you would only need to know the throttle and the steering wheel. That's all. Speed and direction. It is not difficult to fly any plane. Landing and emergency situations are another thing. But then again, they weren't worried about those things now were they. For them, it was direction and speed. And for that, yes, you could train on a Cessna for. The throttle is the big slider, the steering wheel is in front of your face. What's more to know?

reply to post by oniongrass


Sorry you quoted

"I don't know what a mechanical / electrical engineer is. I know what a mechanical engineer is and what an electrical engineer is."

I was referring to being trained at 'Multi-skill' level. Basically doing the work of 2-3 engineer's which I would be required instead of them which mean's they would be laid off, not very nice.

When I said change in curriculum, the college's in the UK tend to do this every 2 to 3 year's, I didn't make myself clear enough as I was taught these subject's;

* Business Systems For Technicians
* Mechanical Technology
* Communications For Technicians
* Fluid Mechanics
* Science For Technicians
* Thermodynamics
* Mathematics For Technicians
* Process Measurement
* Project - Mechanical
* Engineering Materials
* Drawing And CAD For Technicians
* Mechanical Principles
* Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC)

And I learnt more subject's on welding and basic electrical eng.



Though what I was referring to is that they change the syllabus every few year's so that it's the same ground knowledge but taught differently so what I have learnt will be understood by a different means of measure and a different way of solutions. I hope that best explains my point of view.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by DClairvoyant]

reply to post by neformore


Seriously have you watched wtc 7 fall? Not even a huh? thats odd, it was hardly on fire and abracadabra gone (oh but wait I've heard it argued that it was an inferno and oh the debri OH THE DEBRI!!!). I don't know why we waste each others time on these topics, I did buy into the official explanation ... until I looked at it and thought about it, I ain't goin back. I'm sure there are reasons why intelligent people like yourself and others attempt to convince yourselves that 'theres nothin to see here' just a fine set of miraculous circumstances all happened to occur on one day each with a wonderously elaborate and laborious structural explanation that can let us ignore everything that points to what the eyes saw, and thats a controlled demolition.

I reiterate you saw 3 miracles of physics and engineering that day, I saw 3 buildings demolished quite professionaly by murderous terrorists. Both our theories have supporters. Yours call mine crazy, mine call yours deluded.

Peace

reply to post by Gorman91


WTC 7? No plane, you can argue the towers all day and sure they were hit and the top bits could have been the factor that collapsed the rest. But WTC 7? Have you watched it fall? And you still argue away controlled demo? Thats like seeing a car crash and theorising that there was no crash cause under certain conditions and due to the structural defects of that make and model the atmosphere compressed the metals and fatigued the frame causing buckling. Like I said I'm sure you have your reasons for convincing yourself that, contrary to what was seen that day, a controlled demo must be ruled out at all costs. Perhaps you just like arguing in forums like these and have sense enough to look at WTC 7 drop like a sack of potatoes and realise that the simplest explanation is controlled demo so why not KISS.

reply to post by oniongrass


Thank you for your kind words.

reply to post by Gorman91

gravity at 1 second. The momentum of the top of the towers against the lower parts.

I'm sorry Gorman, the velocity of an object accelerating at free fall after 1 second will not be 9.81 miles/hour. Acceleration due to gravity =9.81m/s/s where the m stands for meters.

Perhaps a bit of physical foreknowledge is needed here?

Oh the irony.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Well I guess that says something about what some people claim to UNDERSTAND about engineering.

That is the trouble witha lot of people with degrees. They just memorized the equations.

Why do you have such a resentment of people who hold engineering degrees? In my structural exams we took the design codes in with us. Remembering pages of equations was not required, understanding how to use them was.

Every level of the WTC had to be strong enough to support all of the weight above. That meant progressively increasing the amount of steel all of the way down. But more steel means more mass which becomes a factor in the conservation of momentum in a supposed top down gravitational collapse.

I know how a structure works. I stand by my comment that I can't see what knowing the exact mass of each level would prove. The live load would still only be an estimate. The mass of material ejected during collapse (and thus no longer contributing) would still only be an estimate.

When the plane hit the south tower it deflected 15 inches. How much of the plane's kinetic energy went into that deflection and subsequent four minute oscillation? How can the damage to the core be computed withou knowing the energy lost in the deflection? How can that be computed without knowing the distribution of mass?

Believe it or not 15 inches is not a large deflection for a structure that height. Some can deflect up to 40 inches under high winds alone. That it oscillated for 4 minutes demonstrates that it was ductile enough to elastically absorb the impact (as it was designed to do). If it was brittle the oscillations would not have lasted long at all. Energy lost in the deflection does not translate to damage to the core. Unless the core yielded there was no damage to the core. 15 inches of lateral deflection is not enough to yield the core columns. The plane impacts caused localized damage only.

The degreed EXPERTS seem to be not raising obvious issues for a NINE YEAR OLD event.

What may be an "obvious" issue to someone who is uneducated in structural engineering is a non-issue to an educated and informed degree holder.

reply to post by neformore

it is absolute folly to say either that the collapse as it happened is possible, or not.

Surely you are not saying a structure undergoing gravitational progressive collapse can maintain extremely high accelerations for almost the entire collapse? Do you disagree with this post?

reply to post by GenRadek

Did you forget the 10+ floors above the impact zone that were intact? What happens when 10 intact floors move downward as one unit, when the damaged/destroyed sections give way to the damage and fires? What is going to stop the top floors from moving down?

The link to the post in the paragraph above deals with this. It seems many people model what they think should have happened in their head and come to the conclusion that the OS is plausible.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by neformore

Q - What is heavier - a tonne of feathers or a tonne of lead?
A - They both weigh a tonne.

But which would you rather have dropped from 200 feet directly above you?

psik

A very good point Sir. The majority of concrete (which what once contributed a great deal to the overall mass) was pulverized into dust, most of which no longer contributed to the weight of the building.

reply to post by Gorman91

The throttle is the big slider, the steering wheel is in front of your face. What's more to know?

Navigation? Not to mention the complexity of the pentagon approach supposedly performed.




[edit on 26-8-2010 by Azp420]

reply to post by Titan Uranus


WTC started collapsing for some time before its main collapse. First the item fell into it from the wtc, then the fires burned, much like the wtc. At some point one of the main side structures collapsed and some sort of heating or something exploded in the basement. I forget what, but it was an explosion from a flammable source. After all this, the structure was pretty poor. The internal structure collapsed, bringing down the penthouse, and without core support, the outer structure went down with it.

Photography shows both wide spread fires and that demos could not have been used. The outer structure was mostly preserved. In fact it looked exactly like it should if the inner structure fell and the outer structure was pulled down with it. You have entire 7 stories worth of outer structure unaffected, seemingly held together. If there was demos used, you would see obliteration, not dragging. It looks like what one would expect to see from the above description. pancaked inside, dragged down outside.

reply to post by Azp420


my bad about miles per hour. doh! But a unit error does not change the fact I am right on the momentum issue. I just used the wrong units on a constant I mentioned. I did not use it for anything else. In fact where I actually did the math I used meters. It does not mean I did not have physical foreknowledge, it means I simply was writing about mph in another thread about light speed and got switched around in my brain.

Please, no ad hominem.

Why do you need navigation. Look out the window. Complicated approach? Not really. Pull down, keep level.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Gorman91]

reply to post by DClairvoyant

Well then I would say you're a technician or a technologist, different from an engineer but an important team member in many settings. Thanks.

reply to post by Gorman91

Photography shows both wide spread fires and that demos could not have been used.

I'm interested in photos that disprove demo. Do you have a link?

The internal structure collapsed, bringing down the penthouse, and without core support, the outer structure went down with it.

How do you explain the massive accelerations of both the internal and external structure?

If there was demos used, you would see obliteration, not dragging.

If demos were used I would expect it to look exactly how it did look.

But a unit error does not change the fact I am right on the momentum issue.

I've gone back and reread the posts but I'm not sure what you mean in regards to the momentum issue. Could you please elaborate on it?

Why do you need navigation. Look out the window. Complicated approach? Not really. Pull down, keep level.

Let's say you have just hijacked a plane with your deadly box cutter. You are somewhere over a foreign countryside, you have a very rough idea where. You look out the window and see paddocks and possibly some unidentifiable highways. Which direction do you decide to head?

You made no mention of the tight descending banking maneuvers. Pull down, keep level sounds so simple. Flying an aircraft of that size at less than 20ft over a distance of about a mile is anything but simple, especially for a pilot who was described as incompetent in a Cessna.



[edit on 26-8-2010 by Azp420]

Heck, when I mentioned aerobatics, I wasn't even thinking of the alleged 757 that allegedly hit the Pentagon.

I was thinking of the actual 767's, one of which made a turn described as being at the edge of the plane's performance abilities on "final approach" just before hitting the building.

reply to post by Azp420

I'm interested in photos that disprove demo. Do you have a link?

911research.wtc7.net...

How do you explain the massive accelerations of both the internal and external structure?

They weren't exactly massive. The internal structure lost its footing and began to fall. This is marked by the collapsing penthouse. a few seconds later, the rest falls like a house of cards. That's because there's nothing left inside to support it. It seemed hollow when it went down because it basically was. The outer structure therefore collapsed at a speed it should.

If demos were used I would expect it to look exactly how it did look.

How could demos strong enough to bring down the building not reveal any sign of light nor explosive decompression? All we get are these rumored poofs that in no way could come from powerful explosives.

I've gone back and reread the posts but I'm not sure what you mean in regards to the momentum issue. Could you please elaborate on it?

Heavy thing falls. Heavy thing puts more weight onto something due to the increased force due to velocity. Building is not designed to support a falling meteorite. Building fails.

Let's say you have just hijacked a plane with your deadly box cutter. You are somewhere over a foreign countryside, you have a very rough idea where. You look out the window and see paddocks and possibly some unidentifiable highways. Which direction do you decide to head? You made no mention of the tight descending banking maneuvers. Pull down, keep level sounds so simple. Flying an aircraft of that size at less than 20ft over a distance of about a mile is anything but simple, especially for a pilot who was described as incompetent in a Cessna.

I've done it pretty well in simulators without any training. incompetence depends a lot on belief. If you believe you are doing something for a purpose that is right and you know how its going to end, you'd be surprised how drastically your skills rise. In war it's called the blood rage. Fight or flight. no flight, fight.

these are not exactly difficult.

As to finding out, you see the towers from many miles away. You don't exactly need navigations. Not to mention they were here for 10 years. Kind of enough time to get ready and learn some maps. Maybe it was foreign to them for 2 years. But 10?

Again to incompetence, that really does not matter to what I see in modern aviation. Most pilots were incompetent then. That's kind of why we had that whole drunk pilot scandal a ways back.

reply to post by Gorman91


Photos of a collapsed building sitting neatly in its own footprint do not disprove demo. If anything it helps prove it.

They weren't exactly massive. The internal structure lost its footing and began to fall. This is marked by the collapsing penthouse. a few seconds later, the rest falls like a house of cards. That's because there's nothing left inside to support it. It seemed hollow when it went down because it basically was. The outer structure therefore collapsed at a speed it should.

If free fall is not massive then I don't know what is. Are you saying the internal structure detached from the external structure and fell a few seconds before it?

How could demos strong enough to bring down the building not reveal any sign of light nor explosive decompression? All we get are these rumored poofs that in no way could come from powerful explosives.

I stand by my comment that if demos were used I would expect it to look exactly how it did look.

Heavy thing falls. Heavy thing puts more weight onto something due to the increased force due to velocity. Building is not designed to support a falling meteorite. Building fails.

Ah, you are confusing momentum with force. Momentum is not a force. Increasing the velocity does not directly increase the force, it just increases the amount of potential deceleration. It is the deceleration of a mass which produces a force, not the velocity of a mass.

F=ma

Velocity is not part of that equation. This is where many people make the mistake of assuming huge forces were applied by the falling top section. The ONLY way the falling top section could have applied a force greater than when it was at rest would be if it had decelerated. It is counter-intuitive so many people don't get it.

As to finding out, you see the towers from many miles away. You don't exactly need navigations.

Unless I'm mistaken they couldn't see the towers at the time of hijacking. They most certainly could not see the pentagon. So how did they know which heading to set? Navigation was a huge feat.

Not to mention they were here for 10 years. Kind of enough time to get ready and learn some maps. Maybe it was foreign to them for 2 years. But 10?

Touché.

I don't think maps would have helped a great deal though.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Azp420]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Once you look beyond the "Architect" label, most of them are as qualifed
as Brick-Layers to make such a Informed Decision about it being a Demolition.
And they are not saying the Possibilty of a Demolition, but it was a Demolition.
Big Difference.

Perhaps, they can explain how they can derive to a Informed Decision from
watching a few Frames of Video Footage, and I doubt not one of them has
even seen or touched any component from the wreck. It would be like the
FAA looking at CNN footage to find the reason for a Plane Crash.