1200 Architects And Engineers

reply to post by beijingyank


Not to try and catch you out more to bolster my arsenal, do you have the particulars of these 30 peer reviewed papers? I would like to get my hands on them. So far I've only got the thermite one.

Cheers

reply to post by psikeyhackr

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?

Because unless the deflections compromised the structural integrity lower down in the tower it is not of much more use than a piece of interesting trivia.

I notice you didn't say anything about my real point. How much of the planes kinetic energy went into causing the deflection?

I don't know, most of it? It does not matter. Allow me to quote my reply to your real point.

Originally posted by Azp420
Energy lost in the deflection does not [necessarily] 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.

Remember, each tower was designed to absorb the kinetic energy of a fully loaded 707 plus some safety factor and result in only localized damage.

Where have the degreed engineers mentioned this in the last NINE YEARS?

Unless you have anything that proves or suggests the amount of kinetic energy the aircraft had was relevant then why should they mention it? It is immediately obvious to a trained eye that the deflections and kinetic energy caused localized damage only. Don't worry, your degreed professionals know what they are doing.

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?

Once again, perhaps you could point out what knowing this would prove?

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.

My reasoning (which I consider to be the most obvious and simple), does not require any of that. Why make it more complicated than it needs to be? You're the one complaining that engineers are trying to make it their profession look more complicated than it is.

The degreed people constantly try to make their area of expertise look more complicated than it is.

We are trying to educate the public on the truth about 9/11 in the simplest possible way.

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.

As I said before, it's not too late for at least 1200 of us. I can only speculate how many more don't believe the OS but don't want to publicly put their name down in fear of closing doors in their career further down the line.

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.

LOL nobody is attempting to suppress the teaching of Newtonian physics. Engineers are delighted when other people understand Newtonian physics because it makes explaining things much easier. If anyone in a developed country is ignorant (in most cases) it is because they choose to be. Public schooling and the internet cover Newtonian physics in detail.

Don't be bagging on engineers. Engineering is an honest and respectable profession that I am proud to be a part of.






[edit on 28-8-2010 by Azp420]

reply to post by Devino


Hey Devino,

Thanks a lot for your kind and encouraging reply! I had no idea I actually made a difference to anybodies thinking.

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.

Beautifully put.

I would like ,so much, to believe in the official story but I cannot deny the physics of what actually happened.

Well done. In my opinion it takes a strong mind to confront the pain and make life changing belief changes.

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?

I think very few would choose to unlearn it. I would definitely not. My life and outlook has changed far more than I expected as a result but mainly in a positive way. It also helped me question, what else (is BS)?

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

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?

Because unless the deflections compromised the structural integrity lower down in the tower it is not of much more use than a piece of interesting trivia.

But we are being told by SOME PEOPLE that the building COLLAPSED.

Therefore shouldn't the EXPERTS trying to tell us that the building could not collapse explain what effect the deflection could or could not do? OH yeah we are not supposed to think we are supposed to just BELiEVE.

Originally posted by Azp420
Energy lost in the deflection does not [necessarily] 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.

This is hilarious. The NIST says damage was done to the core columns in the area where the plane hit. But of course no one saw this that lived to tell about it so they are making some kind of guesstimate.

I am not saying the deflection caused damage I am saying the deflection absorbed energy from the impaact without damage. Therefore to compute how much energy was left over to do damage it is necessary to compute how much energy went into the deflection. But to do that it is necessary to know the distribution of mass on various levels because they moved different amounts.

OK?

psik

These architect confirm that something else was going on then what the official 911 report says.

It confirms that the mass-murderers are still out there.....

Unfortunately they seem to be untouchable and will this 911 event go down in history like the murder on JFK is going.

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.

They know it was not in inside job how?

If i read a testimonial from an engineer about how 911 was not an inside job, wait. I wouldn't even read it. Because he/she cannot possibly know that it was not, only if it was.

There is great debate about how the buildings came down, especially building 7, amongst them. No one has been able to show the math thusfar, so both sides are at a stalemate, to say the least.

reply to post by Azp420


Free fall happened as a result of previous actions. It is observable. The penthouse wouldn't collapse for no reason right before the main collapse unless the structure was failing inside. If it was a demo, it would have gone down with the structure as one.

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.

Why do you think the towers collapsed so easily once the core went? Any one event or item selected will not collapse anything. All together they would.

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

As stated. Demos don't preserve the outside. It all goes down together. Not hierarchically.

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

That was the main causer. It was not what could bring down the towers alone. It required several events that occurred.

This is sounding more along the lines of an evolution debate. You keep selecting single things that obviously could not alone do anything as opposed to all the events that caused the event and change of circumstances that lead to the collapse.

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.

With all due respect, building failures don't exactly happen every day so as to have a massive number of examples. If they did, nobody would build them.

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.

Actually, for what you originally mentioned, yes. Because we are not talking about a moving item hitting a stationary one and sending that one into motion. We are talking about a massive number of pieces failing, the millions of pieces weighing some 100 million kg falling down, and the nearly 400 million kg under them being compressed between its foundation and the moving pieces. It would be more along the lines of a pool ball nailed to the table with another one falling directly on top of it with an immense amount of force. And we are not talking about one item, but rather many, so pool balls don't work. The system simply is not designed to handle that.

I'm sorry, but for these designs, what the system is not designed to handle, it is not going to. That is one of the main problem with that time period's buildings. It's why many states are spending millions to upgrade their buildings of that style because of Earthquake fears and other worries. They are not known to be incredibly lasting. It's why some of them are going through restoration now, a mere 50 years after their construction. Roman structures that are 2000 years old went through centuries of zero maintenance and still maintained much of their glory, most prominently the pantheon.

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

Craters that are several dozen times larger and deeper than the rocks that made them,

What? Was the big rock decelerated by the tower?

Deceleration does not mean stop.

So can you. You will witness deceleration every time.

Not if I do it over a broken stair. Then after I decelerate on the wood cracking, the wood breaks and I regain my initial acceleration and go faster. What do you think 100 million kg of the stuff would do to each stand alone level? break one, slow down, gain speed, break one, slow down, gain speed. Not stop.

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

The design of the structure is similar enough. It's basically O shaped floors. Once the 100 million kg falls on the first floor, it breaks it, barely slowing down. That broken floor then adds to the mass and gains the speed of the mass.

Want to use pool balls again? Wat happens when one big pool ball the mass of 4 smaller pool balls hits a line of smaller pool balls? Do you expect the bigger one to stop moving after the first one? Now lets use the structure of the wtc rather than pool balls. You get each individual floor taking the load of all the ones falling above it. Each one cannot resist that load. And so fails and adds to the mass of the falling. The added mass and the increase of velocity from gravity in turn blasts through floors bellow it. In time the speed becomes meaningless. The structure simply cannot take the load at all and fails altogether.

Azp420, please stop. This guy will run you in circles forever, and just when you think you have explained it well enough, another crazy idea will appear requiring twice as much explanation. This series does not converge, it diverges. I think it's because he is not susceptible to the combination of logic and common sense that is typical of engineers. Why he is not, I do not know and will not speculate.

But he will suck up all your time and nothing will be settled. Let him believe NIST. Let him believe the whole thing is totally unknowable. Let him believe in the tooth fairy. Please. It's painful to me when I look at this thread, how he's showing no respect for your time and expertise, throwing in an insult here or there to keep you engaged and motivated to prove that you're right, etc.

reply to post by neformore


i spent 11 years assigned to the 99th Civil Engineering squadron, fire protection flight, with the usaf.

i do not have the qualifications as neformore in his speciality and field of study, and his profession. however, i do have many long term co-workers and friends who are.

also, as a professional firefighter at the level of fire officer III, fire investigator II, and fire instructor II, i'd like to weigh in on this if i may.

i was stationed at nellis afb in january 99 after tech school at goodefellow afb in texas.

on 9-11 i was at the fire station and on duty watching the second tower get hit.

40+ firefighters were there in the day room watching the events on the big screen tv.

it was about 10 minutes prior to the towers collapse we were openly discussing the very real possibility of collapse and structural stability, and whether our firefighter brothers and sisters should or could do to get those people out or reach the fire in time, and whether the standpipes were going to be good for use at any level above the fireline.

i remember the head guy of fire prevention, a veteran firefighter with 36 years of experience saying to the chief and assitant chief not 2 minutes before the first tower fell "those buildings are going to collapse."

i'm not saying for sure there were not explosives, or other variables that helped bring those towers down, i don't know.

but when someone of experience in a profession shares that information with us, we should probably at least thank them, not attack their professional opinion and informed educated opinion on the subject matter.

i agree with nef on this. there are too many variables to know certainly, although i do have some personal opinions, it would be irresponsible of me to say ya or nay either way. my opinion and reason for agreeing with nef is due to my training in bulding structure and classification codes through fire inspector and fire officer training certification classes.

when a professional of a specific field weighs in with their professional opinion based upon their personal experience and qualifications, read and pay attention. or don't learn what they share.

thanks for weighing in nef, your time was appreciated,
et



[edit on 28-8-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

reply to post by psikeyhackr

But we are being told by SOME PEOPLE that the building COLLAPSED.

I don't think there's any doubt that the building did indeed collapse.

This is hilarious. The NIST says damage was done to the core columns in the area where the plane hit. But of course no one saw this that lived to tell about it so they are making some kind of guesstimate.

You obviously have no idea what I am talking about. Of-course there was localized damage to the core columns at the impact zone.

I am not saying the deflection caused damage I am saying the deflection absorbed energy from the impaact without damage. Therefore to compute how much energy was left over to do damage it is necessary to compute how much energy went into the deflection. But to do that it is necessary to know the distribution of mass on various levels because they moved different amounts.

No energy was left over to do damage. That is why we are not concerning ourselves with it.

reply to post by oniongrass


I agree. Gorman's latest offering resembled the ravings of a lunatic. He firmly believes that:

-Newtonian physics don't apply because we are not talking about pool balls.

-Force is directly proportional to velocity instead of acceleration.

And won't let anyone convince him otherwise.



[edit on 28-8-2010 by Azp420]

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

But we are being told by SOME PEOPLE that the building COLLAPSED.

I don't think there's any doubt that the building did indeed collapse.

WTCs 1 & 2 were destroyed in sequence from the top down by SOMETHING.

Is that the same as a gravitational collapse where the top 15% crushes the rest?

Why do the destructions of WTC 1 & 2 look so different from #7?

Words that are used make people think along certain lines rather than focus on what happened exactly. They get fixated on that pattern. A collapse is a destrucion but a destruction is not necesarily a collapse.

Like people use the term "implosion" a lot. I doubt that any building has ever been imploded. An implosion is what can happen to a submarine. Force pushing in from ALL SIDES. How can that be done to a building?

A collapse would mean that the lesser mass at the top crushed the greater mass below. But AE911Truth doesn't talk about the distribution of mass in the building. they are talking about thermite. But for a skyscraper to hold itself up the designer must figure out how to distribute the mass of steel. So where is that data? Why don't the architects and engineers consider it important in explaining this phenomenon?

You obviously have no idea what I am talking about. Of-course there was localized damage to the core columns at the impact zone.
No energy was left over to do damage. That is why we are not concerning ourselves with it.

Now those are interesting contradictory statements.

When the planes impacted two things happened simultaneously. Some of the kinetic energy did structural damage and some pushed the building off center. The sum of the two must equal the total kinetic energy of the plane. So if we don't know how much went into deflecting the building then how can we estimate the core column damage?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Words that are used make people think along certain lines rather than focus on what happened exactly. They get fixated on that pattern. A collapse is a destrucion but a destruction is not necesarily a collapse.

WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapsed. I'm not going to debate the semantics, I'd prefer to debate the physics of what might have caused the collapses.

But AE911Truth doesn't talk about the distribution of mass in the building.

Why don't the architects and engineers consider it important in explaining this phenomenon?

It is good enough to estimate the mass because the live load would only be an estimate anyway.

I am not saying the deflection caused damage I am saying the deflection absorbed energy from the impaact without damage. Therefore to compute how much energy was left over to do damage it is necessary to compute how much energy went into the deflection. But to do that it is necessary to know the distribution of mass on various levels because they moved different amounts.

Sorry, where I italicized "damage" I initially assumed you were referring to damage to the tower outside of the impact zone, as I thought your reasoning was based on the rate of collapse rather than if it should have even collapsed at all. After reading your latest reply I now see that you meant damage to the structure in the impact zone.

It's not just the structural mass on each level that affects lateral deflections but the estimated live load too.

When the planes impacted two things happened simultaneously. Some of the kinetic energy did structural damage and some pushed the building off center. The sum of the two must equal the total kinetic energy of the plane. So if we don't know how much went into deflecting the building then how can we estimate the core column damage?

Computer models have already been made that show which structural members were severed or rendered effectively useless as a result of the mechanical impact. The remaining structural members in the zone were then weakened by fire, which has nothing to do with the kinetic energy.








[edit on 29-8-2010 by Azp420]

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

When the planes impacted two things happened simultaneously. Some of the kinetic energy did structural damage and some pushed the building off center. The sum of the two must equal the total kinetic energy of the plane. So if we don't know how much went into deflecting the building then how can we estimate the core column damage?

Computer models have already been made that show which structural members were severed or rendered effectively useless as a result of the mechanical impact. The remaining structural members in the zone were then weakened by fire, which has nothing to do with the kinetic energy

Don't computer models depend on THE DATA being correct? So why don't we have the data on the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level? Watch that Purdue simulation of the north tower impact. Concentrate on the core columns. Notice that the columns don't move as a group as they would if the building deflected. But survivors talked about the building moving due to the impact.

Computer simulatons depend on getting the math and the DATA for the math and the code correct. If computer simulations can be trusted why do we have this controversy after NINE YEARS?

Physical models don't have those problems. But a building a truly accurate model still requires the CORRECT DATA.

www.youtube.com...

That model demonstrates that CHANGING the MASS changes the BEHAVIOR due to IMPACT.

But doesn't steel conduct heat? Isn't the QUANTITY of steel going to affect the TIME it takes for the steel to get hot enough to weaken? So don't we need to know the QUANTITY of steel at the 81st level of the south tower to understand how it came down in less than an hour and the QUANTITY of steel on the 94th level of the north tower for less than two hours?

By the way, the NIST tested floor sections in furnaces that lasted longer TWO HOURS. Why don't they test them without fireproofing? Of course if they still last without fireproofing they will really have a serious problem explaining this. Maybe that is why they don't want to do the test.

Why isn't AE911Truth on about the distributions of steel and concret in the towers? By the way, I can't find that information on ANY SKYSCRAPER. Is it a guild secret? I have had one man who claims to be an architect say that Newtonian physics is a side issue. How reality works is a side issue! ROFL

Our schools treat knowledge as PROPERTY and only the people that pay for education should have it. Grade school physics is kid's stuff. The EXPERTS have turned 9/11 into a joke and made fools of themselves. How long is this charade going to go on?

psik

[edit on 29-8-2010 by psikeyhackr]

It is good enough to estimate the mass because the live load would only be an estimate anyway.

It's not just the structural mass on each level that affects lateral deflections but the estimated live load too.

We keep getting this excuse of not knowing the live load as a rationalization for not being told the dead load. Our brilliant engineers seem to be able to design buildings to handle the live loads without being told ahead of time.

The buildings had to handle the deflections caused by the wind with their live loads. The NIST says the models were tested in wind tunnels from 16 different directions. If the dead load is known then various live loads could be added in different simulations. The dead load would remain constant. That excuse is ridiculous.

Don't we need to know the quantity of steel to understand if it could be weakened in the time available?

psik

[edit on 29-8-2010 by psikeyhackr]

reply to post by Titan Uranus


“Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction,” by Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, and James R. Gourley, published in 2008 in the Open Civil Engineering Journal.141



· “Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials,” by Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones, published in 2009 in The Environmentalist.142



· “Active Thermitic Material Observed in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” by University of Copenhagen chemistry professor Niels Harrit and eight colleagues (including Jones, Ryan, Legge, and Gourley), published in 2009 in The Open Chemical Physics Journal.143



· “Discussion of ‘Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis’ by K.A. Seffen,” by physicist Crockett Grabbe, published in 2010 in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, which is published by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).144



· “Discussion of ’Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions’ by Zdenek P. Bazant and Mathieu Verdure,” by chemical engineer James R. Gourley, published in 2010 in the ASCE’s Journal of Engineering Mechanics.145



· "Discussion of ‘What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?’ by Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening, and David B. Benson," by Anders Björkman, published in 2010 in the ASCE’s Journal of Engineering Mechanics.146





Given the time it takes to write scientific papers and get them through the peer-review process, combined with the relatively small number of scientists writing about these issues, this is an impressive achievement. It would seem that this part of Chomsky’s test has been met.



'These publications demonstrate, moreover, that many of the same scientists who had been publishing in the Journal of 9/11 Studies have now written papers that have gotten through the peer-review process of mainstream science journals. There is no empirical basis, accordingly, for the assumption that the Journal of 9/11 Studies’ peer-review process is any less critical. We can, therefore, add the 25 scientific papers about the WTC collapses in the Journal of 9/11 Studies to the six recent papers in mainstream journals, giving us a total of over 30 peer-reviewed scientific articles challenging the official theory about the destruction of the WTC that have appeared since 2006."

"Do You Really Believe in Miracles"

Originally posted by beijingyank
reply to post by Titan Uranus

 

· “Active Thermitic Material Observed in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” by University of Copenhagen chemistry professor Niels Harrit and eight colleagues (including Jones, Ryan, Legge, and Gourley), published in 2009 in The Open Chemical Physics Journal.143

We've been over it, time and time again, that particular 'paper' was not properly peer reviewed.

reply to post by roboe


Didn't get properly peer reviewed ay. Is that cause they didn't run it past you first?

Nah jokes. I still think its funny at the amount of effort put into discrediting one side of the argument whilst at the same time defending the seemingly miraculous anomalies on the other side.

9/11 has become yet another tool to divide an conquer. The scumbags responsible know they can get away with murder and oppression and I bet they're rollin on the floor in fits of laughter watchin most of us lap it up like obedient dogs.

reply to post by Titan Uranus


This reminds me of the global warming hoax where the criminals tried to "control" the peer review process to advance their agenda. They were also active in making honest scientists lose their jobs. Stand up for science and no more study grants for you! Cherry pick the science, and reverse engineer it to arrive at the preconceived fairy tale and you get thirty million in gold.

Still, another independent fair peer review of the thermite in the dust paper will blow the doors off the criminals. It should and must be the catalyst to begin serious legal efforts to putting the baby killing, war criminals away. Because if they are not taken out, they will keep on rolling and nobody is safe from the like of these psychopaths.

Originally posted by beijingyank
Still, another independent fair peer review of the thermite in the dust paper will blow the doors off the criminals.

Yet it has not happened, nor does it look like happening - Why do you think no one is willing to peer review it?

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Don't computer models depend on THE DATA being correct?

You are never going to get the exact loadings. I'm not sure why this is difficult for you to understand.

why do we have this controversy after NINE YEARS?

The government will never admit to the role that they played and most of the general public will lap up anything their beloved government tells them is truth, despite the obvious evidence suggesting otherwise.

That model demonstrates that CHANGING the MASS changes the BEHAVIOR due to IMPACT.

Nobody doubts this.

So don't we need to know the QUANTITY of steel at the 81st level of the south tower to understand how it came down in less than an hour and the QUANTITY of steel on the 94th level of the north tower for less than two hours?

We don't know the exact specifications of the fire or to what extent fire proofing was blown off. You are never going to get this 100% exact model that you crave.

By the way, the NIST tested floor sections in furnaces that lasted longer TWO HOURS. Why don't they test them without fireproofing? Of course if they still last without fireproofing they will really have a serious problem explaining this. Maybe that is why they don't want to do the test.

I agree.

Our brilliant engineers seem to be able to design buildings to handle the live loads without being told ahead of time.

Yes, they are estimated based on statistical probabilities.


One minute you complain that engineers try to make everything more complicated than it really is so the general public won't understand it. The next minute you demand that instead of focusing on explaining to the public the really obvious and basic physics involved in the rate of collapse, engineers instead come up with a complex alternative to NIST's version of collapse initiation which very few of the public will understand.

The smoking gun is laid out in front of you. Why is that not good enough? Why make it more complicated than it needs to be? The general public's thinking will just be "ah well, the engineers at NIST say it should have collapsed but the engineers at AE911truth say it shouldn't have, I don't understand the complex physics so I'll just believe the higher authority."