1200 Architects And Engineers

[color=414141]^star please? Respect Neformore
reply to post by neformore


thanks for weighing in nef. seems to me some of your contributions were just overlooked and/or ignored.

thank you for your professional opinion and the time you took to share it here neformore.

some ideologies and level of distrust here i found appauling, by some members.

people have the right to have an opinion, but at least we can try to have an open mind enough for educated and informed opinions, and those who share theirs.

what? do we want only the views of witch-doctors who practice "alternative medicine" here on our ATS, or is there also enough room for real doctors with PH.D's????




these are just some of my thoughts ... impo (in my professional opinion),
et

[edit on 29-8-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

So what doctor, with PhD, thinks the NIST story of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 is plausible? And we shouldn't leave out WTC 7 either.

[edit on 29-8-2010 by oniongrass]

reply to post by oniongrass


i would appreciate a little more consideration for the views of those who are trained, qualified, and experienced in specific fields of study, and their point of views should they choose to weigh in on the conversation.

I'm pretty damn sure if an expert in building demolition brought knowledge of their craft and expertise in their field here to this thread, neformore would probably be more receptive and show more respect for that person's point of view than what some of his contributions recieved here in this thread concerning his professional point of view.

i'm stating i would like to hear from experts when they chime in with info from their perspective, not attempts at bating them into an argument over assertions and assumptions of something they did not say.



[edit on 29-8-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

You would appreciate more consideration for some unspecified future other knowledgeable people and experts, than you think they would hypothetically receive without your request, if and when they ever show up? What kind of request is that?

It seems like all the knowledgeable people so far think NIST is full of baloney. Tomorrow who knows, the sun could rise in the west.

[edit on 29-8-2010 by oniongrass]

Originally posted by Azp420
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.

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.

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.

ROFL

You said I wouldn't get exact loadings. Are you talking about LIVE LOAD again? You DID NOT SAY whether or not computer models needed DATA. Nice dodge that. If computer models don't have GOOD ENOUGH DATA then they aren't worth a damn. So why did you bring up computer models? There is no way to avoid contradicting yourself about the data if you discuss computer models. It is one of those mathematics things. Computers can't do the math without being fed some numbers. But GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT you know.

I am not interested in rhetorical BS. That is part of why this crap keeps getting dragged on.

Who said I craved 100%? I don't see an attempt to get 90%. Has gravity changed since the Empire State Building was completed? So why can't we be told the minimum amount the steel had to be on every level? What is the problem with that? But actually I don't even see experts on either side of the issue discussing it.

What smoking gun?

Who decides what the smoking gun is? I consider the smoking gun to be the collapse time. But that brings up the issue of the resistance of the core. But again we aren't told the amount of steel in the core on every level. Wasn't the core steel stronger on the 10th level than the 60th which was stronger than the 100th level?

When did I ever say engineers should come up with any collapse initiation?

You keep accusing me of saying things I didn't. I never said a 15 inch deflection was large. I never said the deflection caused damage.

And I don't know what YOU consider to be the smoking gun.

But not knowing the live load is not an excuse for our not being told the distribution of steel. Or how much of the plane's kinetic energy produced the deflection. Not supplying such obvious information is demonstration of incompetence.

How much people understand about something depends on how well it is explained. But when experts leave out information it certainly makes it more difficult. Of course that helps educated people convince themselves that they are intelligent.

Were these models too difficult for any of our engineering schools?

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

psik

[edit on 29-8-2010 by psikeyhackr]

Originally posted by oniongrass
What kind of request is that?

apparently an unnorthodox one from your point of view.

It seems like all the knowledgeable people ....

i was not aware you spoke for all knowledgeable people.

thanks for letting us know,
et

Guess so psikey. All our engineering schools are too incompetent, and are just convincing themselves they are intelligent.

Including the engineering schools that taught the engineers on the WTC job and the Empire State building job.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by oniongrass
What kind of request is that?

apparently an unnorthodox one from your point of view.

Yes I think it's rather unorthodox. Indeed, bizarre.

It seems like all the knowledgeable people ....

i was not aware you spoke for all knowledgeable people.

thanks for letting us know,
et

No, observe the apparently subtle distinction in the English language: I did not speak for them. I described them, or the views they expressed here.

I am one of them. That is if you think the graduates of our engineering schools are knowledgeable. I would certainly not say that an engineer knows the answer to every engineering question or matter. But I've found the statements made by engineers in this thread to be informed and reasonable as informal opinions.


[edit on 29-8-2010 by oniongrass]

reply to post by psikeyhackr

You said I wouldn't get exact loadings. Are you talking about LIVE LOAD again? You DID NOT SAY whether or not computer models needed DATA. Nice dodge that.

Of course computer models need accurate data. I thought that was stating the obvious.

If computer models don't have GOOD ENOUGH DATA then they aren't worth a damn.

Estimated loadings are satisfactory. How do you think these things are designed?

Who said I craved 100%? I don't see an attempt to get 90%. Has gravity changed since the Empire State Building was completed? So why can't we be told the minimum amount the steel had to be on every level? What is the problem with that? But actually I don't even see experts on either side of the issue discussing it.

Who on earth thinks gravity has changed? What does that have to do with anything?

You keep harping on about how the steel distribution is being kept secret. I spent two minutes in google and found this:

North Tower Blueprints

That should get you at least 90% accurate. Let us know what you come up with.

Who decides what the smoking gun is? I consider the smoking gun to be the collapse time.

The collapse time can be proven to be a smoking gun without the need for all the information you have been complaining isn't available. Engineers are trained to provide the simplest and most effective solutions.

You keep accusing me of saying things I didn't. I never said a 15 inch deflection was large. I never said the deflection caused damage.

I never said you said either of those things. I've also already apologized for misinterpreting one of your statements about damage.

And I don't know what YOU consider to be the smoking gun.

I've been talking about it a fair bit in this thread. This post sums it up nicely.

How much people understand about something depends on how well it is explained. But when experts leave out information it certainly makes it more difficult. Of course that helps educated people convince themselves that they are intelligent.

LOL I see your conspiracy theory against those who have chosen to educate themselves has made another appearance.

Were these models too difficult for any of our engineering schools?

My engineering school likes to keep it a bit more sophisticated than that.

I honestly can't see what the second video is trying to prove or how it is relevant to anything.

reply to post by dereks


The criminal psychopaths at large fix intelligence, control scientific research grants, will get you fired, smear you in the press, libel you, but most important they are killers. Dr. Kelly, the DC Madam, and the dead list is very long when it comes to victims that challenge the cabal’s authority.

3000, 911 New Yorkers dead, thousands of 911 on site relief workers dead and dying, 2.5 million Iraqis murdered, 4.5 million Afghanis killed, over 3000 troops have bought the farm, and everyone knows this gang is not fooling around. Honest scientific study about 911 is dangerous for a lot of reasons, especially to one’s health.

It has to be done though because if we don’t take out these baby killing, Class A war criminals, nobody is safe.

OK. I hope I can convey some perspective I have gained through technical reasearch on controlled demolitions, nuclear weapons miniturazation/ efficiency trends and human nature..

Nuke bombs have come a LONG WAY, BABY!

1945 Hiroshima bomb: 15KT tnt equivalent blast yield from 9000lbs wt.
it took em four years to invent and make go BOOM!

But Only 12 yrs later:

1957 Mk-9 Atomic Demoliton pkg: 15KT tnt equiv. blast yield- 200lbs wt.
(not 2000lbs... uh-uh... two HUNDRED lbs)

Pause a minute and see if you can imagine what a ton of tnt looks like... Hint: I can probably get about a ton-and-a-half underneath your kitchen table but your chairs have to go out on the porch for awhile.

Now visuallize a 100 TONS of tnt: I saw a picture of that... it was about 13ft high and 20ft to a side...

but wait !Hiroshima was 15 THOUSAND TONS TNT EQUIVALENT


AND this demolition charge was also 15 THOUSAND TONS TNT EQUIV.
(see above Mk-9 atomic demolition charge.)



ARE YOU STILL WITH ME HERE? THIS IS A BIG DEAL BRUHTHAS & SISTAHS.

this is the classic QUANTUM LEAP type of gain. 200lb demolition package yields explosive power equivalent of 300 MILLION pounds of tnt (150 kilo tons)

do the math! THAT WAS 50 YEARS AGO chillin's!


There have been high explosives developed since then that are measured as much as 2x the power of tnt but thats essentially it as far as public domain.

What do you think they've done since then? hmmmmm?

'Nother example: a verrrry expensive cruise missile can carry a 300 lb warhead that is either 600lbs (tnt equivalent) high explosive or a 300lb nuke warhead that is 10x (ten times) the blast that Hiroshima was... BTW a cruise-missile is, bare-bones a cool Half-million USD. can you say 'BANG for BUCK!" not very effective for the money spent on a 6,000lb cruise missile, wouldn't ya say?

Rockets and artillery are also limited by thier size to a payload / range tradeoff. IE: for a given size: EITHER I can SEND farther OR I can HIT harder on arrival! with conventional chemical explosives I can have one or t'other, BUT NOT BOTH.

Atomic / thermonuclear technology is/ WAS a TOTAL GAME CHANGER!

Right away, back then in the 50's they started wondering what else they could do with it....
craters, trenches, underground caverns / reservoirs....

.....DEMOLISH SKYSCRAPERS!!!???

OH, you say, but I'd recognize the mushroom cloud? etc, etc, etc?

Except that the mushroom cloud films you are familiar with were taken when most of us (over 40's) were little kids and TV's and computers were running off VACUME TUBES instead of TRANSISTORS...

Like I said: 'We've come a long way, baby!"

They say variety is the 'spice of life'

guess what? A thermonuclear weapons designer now has a total of 7 diferrent fuel elements to choose from and can combine them into 6 different recipes for disaster.... It aint yer daddy's Oldsmobile girly!

Uranium, Plutonum, Lithium, Dueterium, Tritium, He3, He4... I think that's right... if I remember what I read, that is....

And rememberr these building s were pulverised to DUST and they only recovered what 200 bodies, not chairs, not cell phones, not big, flat acre sized slabs of concrete/metal pan/truss flooring.

Eye witnesses said the DUST was 2-3 inches thick, river to river..... at two inchess thats 7,ooo cubic feet of DUST per acre!! an acre is about 208' x 208'.... hmm thats about the size of each of the 110 floors in each of WTC 1 or 2... what a coincidence....


AIRPLANE FIRE!

LMAO.... well actually no, I am not laughing.

thanks for your attention, may you live to tell your grandchildren about it.
overnout

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

some ideologies and level of distrust here i found appauling, by some members.

In my opinion a healthy distrust towards a government (or any authority) which is prepared to mass murder its own citizens is a good thing. I always encourage people to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

what? do we want only the views of witch-doctors who practice "alternative medicine" here on our ATS, or is there also enough room for real doctors with PH.D's????

I think the discussion between "witch-doctors" and "real doctors" has been fairly balanced so far in the thread.

i would appreciate a little more consideration for the views of those who are trained, qualified, and experienced in specific fields of study, and their point of views should they choose to weigh in on the conversation.

Why thank you. I wouldn't want other members to be discouraged from participating in the discussion though. They may want to see if their beliefs will hold up to the scrutiny of an engineer.

i'm stating i would like to hear from experts when they chime in with info from their perspective, not attempts at bating them into an argument over assertions and assumptions of something they did not say.

Oniongrass and myself fall into that category, as well as a few others earlier on. Be sure to check out our earlier posts.

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

 

some ideologies and level of distrust here i found appauling, by some members.

In my opinion a healthy distrust towards a government (or any authority) which is prepared to mass murder its own citizens is a good thing. I always encourage people to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

i enjoy a fun ATS. I also enjoy a fun ATS where people of specified experiences and professional training are more than welcome to weigh in with their professional opinions and offer insights into their craft that laymen of their craft may not know.

i can appreciate a healthy skepticism to the "official reports", as well as a willingness to question government and government "authorities" and entities which control the flow of information.

i think, impo, that some of the subversive divisions of peoples' abilities to communicate effectively their professional viewpoints stems from the fact that many professions utilize career oriented jargon and rhetoric.

i am fully supportive of peoples' right to form their own opinions concerning this subject matter, and all subjects as well. i am also fully supportive of people forming these opinions based upon an informed opinion making process. Sharing of information from professional opinions is always welcome. But, i disagree with assumptions and inferences made which seemed to me to imply nef had stated something as fact, when from what i saw, he did not.

Admittingly, i am still mentallly digesting much of what has been discussed in this thread, and have some reading to catch up on.

I thank both of you for your educated opinions concerning this subject matter, as well.

if we are to listen to the testimony concerning specialized fields of studies though, then any level of mistrust is less healthy for productive and fruitful conversation, imo. some measure of trust is also healthy.

we are surely not all ovis aries.

thank you,
et

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

You said I wouldn't get exact loadings. Are you talking about LIVE LOAD again? You DID NOT SAY whether or not computer models needed DATA. Nice dodge that.

Of course computer models need accurate data. I thought that was stating the obvious.

If computer models don't have GOOD ENOUGH DATA then they aren't worth a damn.

Estimated loadings are satisfactory. How do you think these things are designed?

You keep accusing me of saying things I didn't. I never said a 15 inch deflection was large. I never said the deflection caused damage.

I never said you said either of those things. I've also already apologized for misinterpreting one of your statements about damage.

You said:

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.

I never said the deflection was large. When has ae911truth ever computed what the deflection was?

You say LOADINGS and don't specify LIVE or DEAD loads. I am only talking about dead load data. The building not the contents.

The airliner could not read the blue prints but the MASS of steel affected how much the building was deflected. I rarely use the word conspiracy but you choose to accuse me of charging the engineers with a conspiracy of secrecy yet you claim the information is in the blue prints and yet in NINE YEARS the engineers can't tell us the tons of steel and concrete that were on every level.

It sounds like the "educated" people want to keep this as mysterious as possible but expect everyone to take their word for TRUTH. Even though equally "educated" people tell a different story. The educated don't want to put the information in a form so the "not so educated" can objectively decide for themselves. The "educated" form a guild to serve their own economic interests and that is more important than 9/11.

The dimensions of the floor slab outside the core are readily available. But how often do we hear the "educated" specify the weight of 600 tons. I still don't KNOW the weight of the trusses and corrugated pans though I'm guessing it is somewhat less than 250 tons.

psik

[edit on 30-8-2010 by psikeyhackr]

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

And I don't know what YOU consider to be the smoking gun.

I've been talking about it a fair bit in this thread. This post sums it up nicely.

LOL

Typical "educated" BS taking the simple and being ten times as wordy and complicated as necessary.

The falling upper block should have been decelerated by the impact with the intact lower block. But you say nothing about the mutual destruction that had to occur at the impact points and the need to know the quantities of steel to understand how much more destruction had to occur in the upper block since skyscrapers must get stronger and heavier all of the way down.

Been there done that:
www.youtube.com...

You talk about columns weakening due to fire but say nothing about the QUANTITY OF STEEL being relevant to analyzing how they could weaken within the time allowed.

psik

[edit on 30-8-2010 by psikeyhackr]

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words....I have been in the construction trade all my life...but not in the demolition side of things....I tend to like the things i build to stay standing.

Anyways i will just post some of the materials used in the construction of the twin towers...which by the way was and is very substantial.

but in all due respect the floor fastenings are a weak ponit int the structure but the outside cast aluminium grid work is extramely robust.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fa3d9b6358f5.jpg[/atsimg]

aluminium exo grid work

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/34e347955bf5.jpg[/atsimg]

very strong internal core

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dc8bd358d484.jpg[/atsimg]

Tower 1 approaching completion tower 2 closing in.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d53ee2d93f14.jpg[/atsimg]

details of truss attachment

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1768708e4438.jpg[/atsimg]

All In All a lot of metel for the planes to crash through. Aluminium plane hitting 3/8" inch steel gussets supporting the floors.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/37b711732889.jpg[/atsimg]

A detail of the concete pour of the truss system. it is actuall a fairly lightweight system considering the time of the construction of the towers.
was fairly forward thinking and used in many designs of steel buildings today.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/432f17b2311f.jpg[/atsimg]

overall view of facing of the constrauction and materials used in the buildings.

Conclusion in my opinion....If the buliding was to just fal of it own accord i do not personally believe it would have fell in a free fall fashion as it did on the day.

maybe once in one off chance but to have THREE buildings fall in the same fashion on the same day...also keeping in mind that building seven was of a completely different construction from the twin towers...also on the 23rd floor of building 7 it had a been upgraded for a bomb proof senario so would have fell in a different fashion if it was to fall just due to gravity....IMHO

also one other note...the trusses were fireproofed...though poorly they were still coated

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/204906f1fba1.jpg[/atsimg]

now am i here to throw doubt ...not really...i am just trying to point out that the way they fell IMHO was a little to coincedental....I do have my views what happened but until it is proven i can only speculate.

I personally feel that is is not as the OS says.....just far too many coincedences for me...so i think i will go buy a lottery ticket now.

but in all due respect the floor fastenings are a weak ponit int the structure but the outside cast aluminium grid work is extramely robust.

JEEZ

The exterior columns were made of STEEL. They had an aluminum cladding.

But we are missing information on the types and weights of all of the exterior wall panels. Wheat chex as Judy Wood calls them. An article from 1970 says the heaviest was 22 tons. But Gregory Urich does a linear interpolation on the total weight of 2500 panels and uses 19 tons at the bottom. Using 22 tons with a linear interpolation would give a negative weight to the top panels.

The distribution can't be linear. Urich has too much weight too high. That is why I talk about gravity not changing. Once someone figured out the formula for the proper distribution it would not change anytime, anywhere in the world. So why aren't the experts talking about it to solve this problem? It had to affect the shape of this structure.

en.wikipedia.org...

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


yes the frame work was steel i was talking about the cast aluminiun cladding there sorry my mistake in my wording thanks for that.

i can see what your saying i will see what i can find on the structure of the first few floors of the building.

but my point is that yes possibly one building could have fell in that respect strictly due to the top down mass collapsing onto the floors lower down...but to happen to three buildings just by chance and also building seven being contructed in a different manner than the too towers would seem very unlikely to me.

once again just far to many coincedences.

Also if there are only 20 out of the 1200 that are truely expert engineers that is 20 professionals that do not agree with the OS.

but i am sure there is more than 20.

also as a person who has worked personally on many highrise projects does not make me an expert but it does allow me some insight into the buildings construction itself.

buildings have become more and more light wieght in their design and construction....back when the towers were built the materials were far more substantial.

so i just choose not to blindly believe what the OS states...

also I worked for PWA airlines for three years back in the 80'S i was a ground handler for 737's and i know how lightwieght the contstruction materials used in aircraft.

I tend to think that they would have not done to much damage to the central core of the building and as for the fires...heat rises...and so the only real way for them to come down in such a fashion would be from the top down load colapsing down onto the floors below....

now in the videos i have seen posted on here they take out the mid section of the buildings where as the mass from the towers could only be the top floors which i dont believe there was enough mass to cause this.

just my opinion in this.





[edit on 023131p://f15Monday by plube]

Originally posted by AZP420

And I don't know what YOU consider to be the smoking gun.

I've been talking about it a fair bit in this thread. This post sums it up nicely.

For what it's worth I consider "the smoking gun", as it were, to be found in the rate of accelerations seen in all three buildings. These accelerations can only be achieved by a lack of resistance from the structure to the force of gravity. Acceleration is an accumulation of energy over time and such is the same for its resistance just in the negative. The deceleration due to resistance from the remaining structure would accumulate throughout the collapse and should make a huge difference in the overall collapse time.

Furthermore these accelerations, and the lack of resistance to gravity, can been seen and measured. Wouldn't this be considered empirical evidence that directly contradicts the NIST report and therefore disproves the official story?

How can there be a recorded acceleration at near free fall speed with a transference of energy that destroys all of the resistance in its path, as well as pulverizing all of the concrete and the destruction of this accelerating mass itself (top section) without a recorded/measurable "jolt" or deceleration? I didn't see any resistance to these accelerations nor did I see this mass that is supposed to be transferring all of this destructive energy. What I did see is a complete, catastrophic collapse at near free fall speeds with almost zero resistance. Everything just fell apart as it all came down.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

I never said the deflection was large. When has ae911truth ever computed what the deflection was?

You specified the deflection and I gave my opinion on it. They haven't because it is not relevant for disproving the OS. It is also far more complex than the calculation you made.

You say LOADINGS and don't specify LIVE or DEAD loads. I am only talking about dead load data. The building not the contents.

Both are required for the model you are talking about.

I rarely use the word conspiracy but you choose to accuse me of charging the engineers with a conspiracy of secrecy yet you claim the information is in the blue prints and yet in NINE YEARS the engineers can't tell us the tons of steel and concrete that were on every level.

Do you want engineers to spoon feed you everything you demand? You have the blueprints, if you don't know the density of steel go look it up.

The "educated" form a guild to serve their own economic interests and that is more important than 9/11.

Typical "educated" BS taking the simple and being ten times as wordy and complicated as necessary.

I was elaborating because dereks didn't understand my quick explanation. Does this resentment towards the educated stem from you not being intelligent enough to make it into engineering school or something?