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.

 

1200 Architects And Engineers

page: 13
99
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Did you pick him at random?

Because when I randomly pulled out a few AE911 members most were kitchen designers or interior decorators. Several were unemployed, including one whose only building design had been a temporary shed made out of hay bales.


Sounds like we need you to investigate the list of "3500 scientists" who say that man made emissions are causing global warming.

Global Warming IS happening, but is largely caused by a large, hot ball of fire at the center of our solar system.




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 


Not really. As I posted earlier, you can simulate the behavior without explosives. You still get the footprint example.

You demo comparison is not to scale. The building is of a different material and a different size. Not to mention what they point out as signs of a demo are no where near the same comparison. a few pixels equals an explosion?

In a demo, the outside does not remain intact.

www.film.queensu.ca...


Actually, the faster you shoot something the more force it excerpts. That's why when you tap your computer screen it does not break, but if you shoot it, it breaks. F=ma. Does not matter if you alter mass or acceleration. Force changes for each.

Momentum is what I am talking about. It is the amount of force per seconds. In fact if we were to calculate it over time we get impulse. The force was constantly increasing as it fell.

I used to be able to see the WTC miles away en route to upstate NY. Today still I can see the tallest buildings. We aren't exactly talking about something unique. We're talking about the two tallest buildings in NYC. As to the pentagon, its the largest office building by floor size. Kind of hard to miss.



[edit on 26-8-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
wow this is a pretty heated thread...ok so if we say the government blew up these buildings why on earth would they do something like that...I have to admit the evidence of molten iron slag piles and thermite sound pretty convincing...but really look at all the united states goes through just to keep collateral damage at an ultimate low...why on earth would they want to kill all of their citizens like that....I can't possibly think of anything that would be worth something like that.....maybe we shouldn't be looking at the government...possibly some private group did this....everybody is so quick to throw the government under the buss....but if 1200 highly educated engineers have joined a group to oppose the investigation results....I have to say I'm going to agree with them...



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



Not really. As I posted earlier, you can simulate the behavior without explosives. You still get the footprint example.


Therefore those photos don't prove anything one way or the other, as they are equally valid for both theories.


You demo comparison is not to scale. The building is of a different material and a different size.


It was a similar enough size to be a valid comparison. What makes you say it is a different material?


In a demo, the outside does not remain intact.


Remained pretty intact in the example I posted.


Actually, the faster you shoot something the more force it excerpts.


The more force it POTENTIALLY CAN excerpt. Big difference.

If "object A" is traveling fast the amount of force it excerpts on another object it impacts ("object B") depends on the mass of the object A and its rate of deceleration.

If object A is moving at a certain velocity, v, then impacts object B and decelerates to a velocity of zero as a result of the impact, it applies a certain force, F, to object B.

If object A then moves at 2v (twice the above velocity) then impacts object B and decelerates to just 1v as a result of the impact, it applies an equal force (F) as the above situation, despite the large difference in velocities.
If instead in this scenario it did decelerate to zero, the force would have been 2F.

Edit: Forgot to add that it in the examples the contact time between the objects at impact is assumed equal.

This is why the velocity is largely irrelevant when determining forces. It is only the accelerations (or decelerations) we are interested in.

F=ma

Still no velocity in the equation.


Momentum is what I am talking about. It is the amount of force per seconds.


No it is not. Might I suggest you go and educate yourself on momentum and momentum principles.


The force was constantly increasing as it fell.


How did you reach that conclusion? Any physics to back it up?


As to the pentagon, its the largest office building by floor size. Kind of hard to miss.


You have to get to DC first. After taking over your well behaved plane with your threatening looking box cutter you are over some random countryside and moving fast. How do you know which heading to set for NY or DC?


reply to post by PPGrocks
 



ok so if we say the government blew up these buildings why on earth would they do something like that...


Welcome to the 9/11 conspiracy theory. A quick search should reveal the countless motives the US govt and others (including Mr Larry "Pull it") had. Who had the most to gain? The US govt. Not some guys in a cave who hate our freedoms.


but really look at all the united states goes through just to keep collateral damage at an ultimate low...


HAH!


maybe we shouldn't be looking at the government...


Lets put it this way, it wouldn't be the first false flag event the government has been responsible for.




[edit on 27-8-2010 by Azp420]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 


No. Because in a demo you have pieces. In pancaking, the structure fails and a lot is preserved. WTC was the later.



It was a similar enough size to be a valid comparison. What makes you say it is a different material?


The building on the right is a 15-17 story small brick-iron Le Corbusier styled apartment, WTC 7 was a 47 story tall building based on the mies van der rohe design made of glass and other modern materials, which isn't exactly good for what the structure went through. They aren't exactly the same at all. In fact if anything, it proves the WTC did not fall as fast as some claim. Because they make it seem they fall at the same rate due to the scaling of the image.

I mean, if you change the rate of time and the scale of image, you can make anything seem like its going at any speed.

And it did not remain very intact. It was clobbered into cinder-dust and Iron rods, as one would expect from explosives. There was no outer or inner structure in that building. It all went down in a mess. Building 7 had a whole process occur and the whole structure did not come down at once.

As to your physics, that's with closed unites in motion. Basically, pool balls. We are talking about foundation built and secured item A smashed by falling item B. Its velocity affects its force. F=ma. Increase the mass, you have increased force. Increase the velocity, you have increased force because velocity is a contributor to acceleration. Drop something on a scale and it weighs more than if you lay it on the scale. IE, drop a fifth of the tower on its lower half, and it can be nearly a multiplication to its weight. I may sound like I am confusing mass and weight by I am not. For in the WTC we have a defined constant mass, with increasing velocity every second. IE, Acceleration. IE, F=ma. More force. This increased force applied downward due to velocity. That is basic physics. Failure to recognize that is troubling.

Momentum is mass and velocity multiplied. forgive me for saying force per second. It's kind of late and I saw kg·m/s. But that still is not the issue. For like I said. More velocity, more momentum. More momentum, more newtons x seconds. That's more force.

How did I reach this conclusion? Meteorites make larger craters the faster they go. Pretty simple physics.

How do you know where to go? I know how to walk to anywhere on the east coast based on how things look. Only along the coast though. Guess where DC and NYC are. Take a look at the flight paths. It's pretty obvious the memorized the simply north south line code and just flew south to NYC. As to the DC plane, pretty simple that they just picked a plane going one direction and simply turned it around. Penn. planed seemed to take it up a notch. The memorized the angle perhaps to turn?

They all chose straight lines. Even a farmer couldn't be that bad at flying.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a = dv/dt

If speed goes from v to 0 in time t and deceleration is constant, that deceleration is v/t.

If speed goes from 2v to v in time t and deceleration is constant, that deceleration is v/t.

Exactly the same. Magic!



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by oniongrass
 


Perhaps I was using acceleration inappropriately. I've been ill and without sleep recently. doh on me. Sill however, as the mass of the falling collects from the inition collapse, their force increases. The constant mass of the initial falling top part collects more mass from that which it crushed.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



No. Because in a demo you have pieces. In pancaking, the structure fails and a lot is preserved. WTC was the later.


Are you saying there are no methods of controlled demolition that employ pancaking?


The building on the right is a 15-17 story small brick-iron Le Corbusier styled apartment


Ok thanks, I was curious and couldn't see anything on the video info. I didn't know what the material of the building was, I used it as an example of a demolition where bright flashes and what not were similar to WTC7 (none) and to show the basic idea of what I expected the collapse of a controlled demo to look. It was not intended as proof of demo, I grabbed the first vid that came up in a youtube search.


I mean, if you change the rate of time and the scale of image, you can make anything seem like its going at any speed.


NIST admitted free fall. There is no dispute over the rate of acceleration building 7 achieved.


And it did not remain very intact.


Oh I see what you mean now. I thought you meant on the way down. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

The intact wall sections of WTC7 in the photos you linked to appear to only be intact for about the height of the rubble pile, as one would expect.


As to your physics, that's with closed unites in motion. Basically, pool balls. We are talking about foundation built and secured item A smashed by falling item B. Its velocity affects its force.


LOL the physics do not change just because we are not talking about the textbook pool balls.


F=ma. Increase the mass, you have increased force.


No. That is assuming you have some sort of acceleration, and assuming that acceleration remains constant (or increases in magnitude).

The deceleration of the top section which was required to produce a larger force than when it was stationary was never present.


Increase the velocity, you have increased force because velocity is a contributor to acceleration.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say. My post covered it pretty clearly. Do you think I have made a mistake or missed something out?


Drop something on a scale and it weighs more than if you lay it on the scale.


Correct. This is a fantastic example. At rest on the scale the mass is exerting a downwards gravitational force on the scale equal to its weight, W. The scale is exerting an equal and opposite upwards force of 1.0W on the mass.

The mass is then dropped. At the moment of impact with the scale the scale decelerates the mass (what should have happened, but didn't, in the falling top section of the towers) by exerting a force on the mass equal to whatever rate it decelerated the mass at times the mass (of said mass). This force is obviously greater than 1.0W. If the force was somehow less than 1.0W (like someone was holding the scale and let go just before impact) then the mass would not be decelerated (it would continue to accelerate at a rate somewhere between zero and 9.81m/s/s).


This increased force applied downward due to velocity. That is basic physics. Failure to recognize that is troubling.


Why don't you believe me? Feel free to point out where you think I have gone wrong in my explanation of forces are related to velocities and accelerations. Are you not curious as to why there is no equation relating F to v, aside from the rate of change of v (acceleration)?

It most certainly is basic physics. Don't be too troubled, your educated professionals making sure your buildings don't collapse got these concepts down years ago.


More velocity, more momentum. More momentum, more newtons x seconds. That's more force.


It doesn't work like that. The seconds in the newtons times seconds are in reference to the rate of change of momentum. If an object has momentum that doesn't mean it is exerting force on anything. It is only when that momentum changes (ie it is decelerated) that a force is exerted. The conservation of momentum method to find forces is just an alternate method to the mass-acceleration method I've been rambling on about.


How did I reach this conclusion? Meteorites make larger craters the faster they go. Pretty simple physics.


Yes, again it is pretty simple physics. You however, have drawn the conclusion that meteorites make bigger craters the faster they go and assumed an incorrect relationship between force and velocity. I have pointed out for you the correct relationships but for some reason you refuse to believe me. Did you notice in this example too the meteorite was rapidly decelerated?


Penn. planed seemed to take it up a notch. The memorized the angle perhaps to turn?


If they are constantly moving there is not angle to memorize, it is constantly changing and dependent on how far into the flight they took over the controls.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 


Sure there are. But I don't recall them keeping the outside structure in large intact chunks. I recall them doing the job of what demos do. Making them into dust and ruble to conveniently remove.



NIST admitted free fall. There is no dispute over the rate of acceleration building 7 achieved.


Forgive my lack of confidence in government organizations. Their job is to reach consensus, not unanimous opinion. WTC7 was falling apart before the main collapse. From the collapse of parts of its outer structure to collapse of the inside before the outside. Again, I'm not the greatest fan of that style of architecture for that very reason. It is inheritably unstable if some of the parts are removed. Somebody got the supposedly smart idea that the parts of a building should equal the whole. That if any part is removed, the structure loses all value. From an artistic point of view it sounds beautiful. From an engineering point of view it's "stupid architects".



The intact wall sections of WTC7 in the photos you linked to appear to only be intact for about the height of the rubble pile, as one would expect.



They are intact for how they fell. Pulled down towards the center of the building. Without any support they fell into themselves but remained largely in tact. obviously a 47 floor side of a building is not going to remain intact if it has nothing supporting it. but when you have massive 7 floor chunks seemingly just resting gently on top of the core of the building, I really have to question a demo. A demo reduces a building to small pieces and large iron rods. Easily collected, minimum work, good for recycling. A structural failure without the air blast from an explosion gently falls down into itself as the WTC 7 did. It would be like removing a human's bones instantly versus blowing all the bones to dust. if you blew up all the bones, would you honestly expect the skin and flesh to remain in whole large pieces? Or would you expect to see a large pile of shreds that was once a man?



LOL the physics do not change just because we are not talking about the textbook pool balls.

Yes they do. Pool balls do not have a massive foundation holding them together. And if you drop a pool ball onto one, it bounces up. WTC is not going to bounce up.

The whole physics of the situation is basically reduced to this. Tower is made to support little people. Tower is not made to support falling tower onto itself. Big rock hits tower, tower falls down. The big rock is the part of the tower that falls. There's not much more to that. You can try the same with proper stimulated materials. Big things falling bang bigger. Towers are not made to support part of themselves falling on top of them. They are made to support people. And people are not massive 100 million kg chunks of steel falling down. Yes things do decelerate, but that does not remove the fact that it is a falling 100 million kg massive rock. I am not going to stand by my previous math because, again, I'm sick and it's 2 am. But I am going to stand by the basic concept. For the meteorite, for example. It could be traveling at 1000 mph. Doesn't matter if it is decelerating at a few miles per hour. That is still massive force hitting the ground. The same is true for a 100 million kg mass hitting a nearly 400 million kg mass. That 100million kg is going to smash the part under it to smithereens, sacrificing itself in doing so.

The pilots were not constantly moving. They were more or less heading in the same direction before the hijacking, the plane made a sharp turn, then went its merry way. You really only have to look down and see the cities to know where you are. I used to do that flying places as a kid. Only I didn't have cities, only farms. Had to guess using what I knew each zone farmed.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titan Uranus
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!!!).


Did I mention WTC 7? No. READ

I talked about the towers, not WTC 7



I don't know why we waste each others time on these topics


You know what - I don't either. The "Truth" side is so rabid in its acceptance of the fact that something "just can't happen" that way that any form of sensible discussion on the subject is dead.

And I do mean DEAD, because any time someone steps in and tries to discuss it, they get shouted down, ridiculed and - as is apparent here - their posts don't get read, a bucket load of assumptions get made instantly, and suddenly they have a whole host of scorn heaped on them that kills the conversation stone dead

So I'm going to persist a little here and hope that in the process, maybe - just maybe - a little part of what has become know as the "truth" movement might actually learn some truth?

The moment things are automatically discarded, is the moment that reason goes out of the window and is replaced with fanaticism.

I am not discussing WTC7. I am not discussing the Pentagon. I am not Dicussing Pennsylvania. I am talking here about WTC1 and WTC2, which people claim "cannot have fallen that way"



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.


What you are saying here is that you have no interest in learning anything, because you've just accepted your side of the story as gospel.

And again if you READ my posts, I have already stated that I looked at the collapse and thought it was unusual - why don't you read back my posts and actually try and comprehend them ? - maybe you'll even be good enough to actually apologise for not doing so?

"A wonderously elaborate structural explanation" - as you mockingly put it HAS to be considered before conclusions are jumped to. Do you describe things like Aircraft crash investigations as "wonderously elaborate explanations" before mocking them and making up your own mind?



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.


Again - go back and READ my posts, and tell me where I've said anything of the sort in this thread. Quote me. Give me specific examples. I have not called anyone, or any theory crazy at all. Nor have I said I saw three miracles of physics.

If you can't do that - and I know you can't, then how about an apology and maybe thinking about the things I've said?

And when you - and the people from BOTH sides of this polarised argument actually start thinking, instead of blindly castigating, maybe then some real progress can be made in a 9/11 investigation?



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Their Rabid acceptance of what they beleive is only matched with the rabid fervor debunkers employ to discount the possibility of controlled demo.

What I am saying is that I did some learning and it led me to my current conclusion which was a progression from the beleifs held by debunkers (which I once was).

Your frustration is mirrored by the demo advocates. You are right the thread is dead and has become like most others on the topic. As moderator I suggest you put it out of its misery.

If you seek an apology for not reading the rest of your posts 'I apologise'. I was responding to your reply.

You wrote 'Huge kinetic impact, then massive structural load transferance AND fire' in response to my comments on the THREE buildings that fell that day. So you may not be talking about 7 but you were responding to a post that included 7.

If it were only WTC 1&2 then sure I may still beleive the official view. It was WTC 7 which made me question and led me to my current conclusions. I beleive 7 was definately a demo and that being so I find it hard to ascribe the fate of 1 and 2 to anything but the same.

More than thinking needs to be done, I beleive what I beleive and you beleive what you beleive. If my mocking tone hit a nerve then I apologise I was not aware of your sensitivity. I never said you called anyone crazy I said that debunkers generally regard truthers as crazy and truthers generaly regard debunkers as deluded. You seem to take things personally and I will keep that in mind if we have further correspondance. I've apologised twice already and will leave it at that as far as thinking about your statements, they have been duly noted but I fear that they have not changed my stance on the matter. I am open to conclusions from a new and proper investigation but until then we must rely on whats out there and guage its validity.

Seriously, you shouldn't take things so personally though.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



Forgive my lack of confidence in government organizations.


Truthers believe WTC7 achieved free fall, OS believers believe WTC7 achieved free fall. Do you have any evidence at all proving free fall was not achieved? A description of how you believe collapse was initiated and progressed is not evidence.


It is inheritably unstable if some of the parts are removed. Somebody got the supposedly smart idea that the parts of a building should equal the whole. That if any part is removed, the structure loses all value.


This is incorrect. The towers, which were apparently of they same architectural style could take a 707 flying into them, severing numerous columns. WTC7 also had damage to one side and didn't lose all value.


They are intact for how they fell. Pulled down towards the center of the building.


In beautiful controlled demo fashion, as not to collapse onto neighboring buildings.


A demo reduces a building to small pieces and large iron rods.


I think the idea was to sell it to the public that it fell due to fire.


A structural failure without the air blast from an explosion gently falls down into itself as the WTC 7 did.


Sorry, I have never seen or heard of any structural failure that behaved anything like the WTC7 collapse. Gently falling down into itself is typical of controlled demolition, not one member failing and causing a global collapse at free fall.


Yes they do. Pool balls do not have a massive foundation holding them together. And if you drop a pool ball onto one, it bounces up. WTC is not going to bounce up.


No. I'm sorry, the physics do not change. You cannot discard concepts and equations just because we are talking about a building and not pool balls.

I notice you are unable to point out any flaws in the physics I have been presenting.


Tower is not made to support falling tower onto itself.


This is bad logic. Just because it was not specifically designed for that it does not mean it is exempt from the laws of physics.


Big rock hits tower, tower falls down. The big rock is the part of the tower that falls.


That is a brilliant analogy. Are you able to back it up with any physics?


There's not much more to that.


What? Was the big rock decelerated by the tower?


You can try the same with proper stimulated materials.


So can you. You will witness deceleration every time.


They are made to support people.


You make them sound like a house of cards. Live loads due to people are a very minute portion of their design strength.


Yes things do decelerate, but that does not remove the fact that it is a falling 100 million kg massive rock.


What? Did the top section decelerate or did it not?


I am not going to stand by my previous math because, again, I'm sick and it's 2 am. But I am going to stand by the basic concept.


The concept that force is proportional to velocity and not acceleration?


I would love for some maths on this when you feel up to it.


For the meteorite, for example. It could be traveling at 1000 mph. Doesn't matter if it is decelerating at a few miles per hour. That is still massive force hitting the ground.


Miles per hour is not a unit of deceleration, it is a unit of velocity. You are not understanding the concept. The acceleration refers to however much the ground decelerated the meteorite by, ie (assuming a constant deceleration) 1000mph divided by how long it took the meteorite to come to rest after impacting the ground (which would be a huge deceleration).










[edit on 27-8-2010 by Azp420]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


There are many, many more engineers that know it wasn't an inside job...If you had bothered to read any such testimonials, you would know that it was NOT an inside job. Flimsy and downright ignorant statements may say it was, but it simply was not. It. was. not. an. in.side. job. the. end.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
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.


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.


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.


This issue has been dragging on for soon to be NINE YEARS. It should have been determined within SIX MONTHS that NORMAL airliners could not do that in less than TWO HOURS.

I didn't say 15 inches was a LARGE AMOUNT. But the fact of the matter is that we never hear how much the south tower deflected. Why haven't the people with degrees in structural engineering been asking about that? The NCSTAR1 report says the south tower deflected by 12 inches at the 70th floor, 130 feet below the point of impact. I computed that 15 inches at the 81st floor. I have never seen that data anywhere.


I notice you didn't say anything about my real point. How much of the planes kinetic energy went into causing the deflection? Where have the degreed engineers mentioned this in the last NINE YEARS?

Considering that between 150 and 200 tons slammed into the building at 550 mph I consider the 15 inches to be amazingly SMALL. But considering the conservation of momentum I figure the mass in the vicinity of the impact had something to do with that miniscule deflection.

So why haven't the people with the structural engineering degrees been demanding and making public the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the towers?

The bottom line is that this is too simple a problem to have been allowed to go on this long. I have never taken a course in structural engineering and concluded after TWO WEEKS that there was no way an airliner could do that. But my reasoning was based on how the steel had to be distributed in a building that big and how much mass had to be on every level and I had not even gotten vaguely detailed data by then. That BIG a building has to be TOO MASSIVE to be destroyed that fast by an airliner. This situation is RIDICULOUS!

But Gage had some crap on his website about taking an architect or engineer out to dinner.

The WTC was supposed to sway THREE FEET AT THE TOP in a 150 mph wind.

The degreed people constantly try to make their area of expertise look more complicated than it is. IBM didn't even tell its own employees that computers are von Neumann machines even though they hired John von Neumann as a consultant in 1952.

I consider 9/11 to be the Piltdown Man Incident of the 21st century. It is too late for a lot of degreed people to not come across as either stupid or LIARS. At this point they need to keep most people from understanding Newtonian physics to keep themselves from being seen as STUPID.

www.youtube.com...

psik

[edit on 27-8-2010 by psikeyhackr]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by dR. kNOWITALL
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


There are many, many more engineers that know it wasn't an inside job...If you had bothered to read any such testimonials, you would know that it was NOT an inside job. Flimsy and downright ignorant statements may say it was, but it simply was not. It. was. not. an. in.side. job. the. end.


So where are those engineers explaining why the top of the south tower didn't fall down the side after it tilted by more than 15 degrees?

We aren't supposed to understand Newtonian physics. We are supposed to BELIEVE engineers.

Some people want to turn science into a religion but that means playing the same trick of keeping most people ignorant.

psik



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by dR. kNOWITALL
 

Actually I have never seen such reports. Link please?



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


The physical scientists (beyond those already mentioned) include:
· Dr. A. K. Dewdney, professor emeritus of mathematics and physics, University of Western Ontario.
· Dr. Timothy E. Eastman, Consultant, Plasmas International, Silver Spring, Maryland.
· Dr. Mark F. Fitzsimmons, senior lecturer in organic chemistry, University of Plymouth.
· Dr. David L. Griscom, former research physicist at the Naval Research Laboratory; principal author of 100 papers in scientific journals; fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
· Dr. Jan Kjellman, research scientist in nuclear physics and nanotechnology, École Polytechnique Federale, Lausanne.
· Dr. Herbert G. Lebherz, professor emeritus, Department of Chemistry, San Diego State University.
· Dr. Eric Leichtnam, professor of mathematics and physics, University of Paris.
· Dr. Terry Morrone, professor emeritus, Department of Physics, Adelphi University.
· Dr. John D. Wyndham, former research fellow, California Institute of Technology.147
With regard to architects and engineers: In December 2006, when Chomsky issued his suggestion, there were few if any architects and engineers who had publicly questioned the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center. But in January, 2007, architect Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), began Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and by now its membership includes over 1,200 professional architects and engineers.
Here are a few of the architects:
· Daniel B. Barnum, AIA fellow; founder of the Houston AIA Residential Architecture Committee.
· Bertie McKinney Bonner, M. Arch; AIA member; licensed architect in Pennsylvania.
· David Paul Helpern, AIA fellow; founder of Helpern Architects.
· Cynthia Howard, M. Arch; licensed architect in Maine and Massachusetts; past president, AIA’s New England Chapter.
· David A. Johnson, PhD, internationally known architect and city planner; chaired the planning departments at Syracuse and Ball State universities; former president of the Fulbright Association of the United States.
· Kevin A. Kelly, AIA fellow; author of Problem Seeking: An Architectural Programming Primer, which has become a standard textbook.
· Anne Lee, M. Arch, AIA member; licensed architect in Massachusetts.
· Dr. David Leifer, coordinator of the Graduate Program in Facilities Management, University of Sydney; former professor at Mackintosh School of Architecture.
· Paul Stevenson Oles, fellow of the AIA, which in 1989 called him “the dean of architectural illustrators in America”; co-founder of the American Society of Architectural Perspectivists.
· David A. Techau, B. Arch., MS; AIA member; licensed architect in Hawaii.148
Here are a few of the engineers:
· John Edward Anderson, PhD; professor emeritus, Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota; licensed Professional Engineer (PE).
· Robert Bowman, PhD; former head, Department of Aeronautical Engineering, US Air Force Institute of Technology; director of Advanced Space Programs Development (“Star Wars”) under Presidents Ford and Carter.
· Ronald H. Brookman, MS Eng; licensed Professional Civil and Structural Engineer in California
· Dwain Deets, former Director for Research Engineering and Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, which awarded him the NASA Exceptional Service Award.
Joel Hirschhorn, PhD; former professor, Metallurgical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison; former staff member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment.
· Richard F. Humenn, licensed PE (retired); senior Project Design Engineer, World Trade Center electrical system..."


Bales of Hay


[mod edit: added Required external source tags]

[edit on 27-8-2010 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 

To date 30 Peer Reviewed Scientific Papers support 911 Truth. Zero support the Official State Crime Against Democracy Myth.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Hi Azp420,
I must say I have enjoyed your replies to this thread and the, "Physics of 9/11", thread. You have made an unbearable read quite intriguing and even comical in regards to the ludicrous opposition you faced.

Personally I was in shock for over a year after September 11th and this all changed after I watched Gage's video from AE911 truth. It was from this that I saw the implications that you so nicely described in the Physics of 9/11 thread. The free fall acceleration without any decelerations, or "jolt" as described in the other thread" yet this energy was somehow supposed to bring down the rest of the tower. I suppose this is counter-intuitive and this is why I have had a difficult time explaining it to others.

I am no engineer but I do have an understanding of physics and what I saw was a near free fall acceleration with a complete lack of energy transference that was said to have caused catastrophic failure. I even plotted the distance per second of unresisted gravitational acceleration on paper and compared this to the collapse of all three towers. It was from this that opened my eyes and has since caused grain pain for me. I would like ,so much, to believe in the official story but I cannot deny the physics of what actually happened.

I would like to quote you from the other thread; Quote found here.

I realise the ramifications of planes and fires not bringing down the building are too much for some. It is hard for some people to not have faith in any government.


This statement is so very true. After I realized that the OS was not only a lie but incomplete and quite impossible my life has changed. As they say ignorance is bliss but would anyone ever choose to unlearn what they now know?

Anyway, I am glad you are here on ATS as your replies have given me piece of mind. I not only follow your explanations of the physics involved found on both of these threads but I look forward to reading more.



[edit on 8/27/2010 by Devino]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
Looks to me like the "trusters" had a meeting and decided to use a medical analogy to argue their "point of view"....urologists, neuro's, GP's......

Interesting...I like the way you guys use creative thinking in an attempt to sell your story....

Creativity is needed when justifying the PHYSICS DEFYING COLLAPSES ON 9/11....


Oh benoni, its just too bad you dont understand analogies. Such a shame really, and yet, you are suppose to understand more complex issues? How can that happen if you dont understand a simple analogy? And then to boot, ridicule it.

Here I'll break it down to simpler terms, since the big words obviously went waaay over your head.

What the analogy ment is this: That "lovely" list of 1200 "professionals" is just a motley collection of people that yes, are educated, and have degrees in a variety of fields with some that have relevance to a "basic" understanding of what happened on 9/11 to the buildings, but nearly NONE of them have the actual RELEVANT education that would be specific to the design, construction, and destruction of such large buildings as the WTC. Soooooo, you have interior designers, log cabin buildiers, people who design hale bales, one story buildings, some physics, some small building architects, etc. Ok, tell me what relevance are they to steel and concrete 110+ skyscrapers? A little bit of physics? well now this ties into the analogy with medicine:

Say you have a brain tumor. Who is going to be qualified in detecting, diagnosing, treating and hopefully curing or removing the tumor? You are given a list of Doctors. All have PhD in their fields, are very smart, some have their own offices, some work in hospitals, some specialize in thier fields. Some are dentists, some are veternarians. A few are urologists, a couple of heart surgeons, a couple of proctologists, podiatrists, general physicians, optomotrist, chiropractor. So out of this list, who is the most qualified to treat and remove your brain tumor? I mean, come now, they all have degrees, many have PhDs. So which of these are the best qualified in brain surgery??

Unfortunately we have to get creative in order for the simpler folks who just cant visualize it by themselves. but if you cannot even fathom somehting this simple, am I going to have to bring out sock puppets? I am making this as simple as possible, and really trying not insult your intelligence level. But if you cant even understand this simple analogy, well, then sorry, not much I or any one can do!

[edit on 8/27/2010 by GenRadek]



new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join