Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

1200 Architects And Engineers

page: 2
99
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Not to belittle the subject nor the lists of professional (of various flavors) but the only list that would really say something truly concrete would be a list of professional demolitions experts that have years of experience imploding large skyscrapers.

As far as paper saying that a person knows anything, I ask that you consider the computer techs with MCSE's. That paper means they know how to do thing the Microsoft way. And as is proven time and again, the Microsoft way is not the only way work on a computer.

But that is just my opinion.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
... wel if the Terrorrist.. could.. get on the plane fly them into the buildings... what makes you think .. they couldn't have planted explosives.. aswell...?.. doesn't mean.. it was done by the US....



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
When people work and train in specific fields, they tend to understand what they are looking at when they see something in their related field.

\that being said, there have also been demolition experts with DECADES!! of experience watching the buildings fall and say they believe it is a controlled demolition.

why would these people put their reputation on the line if they truly didnt believe the cover story. We see what happens to many industry professionals when they attempt to rock the boat against the status quo, do you people honestly believe that these people would risk their livelihoods and careers when they could simply walk away and go on with their lives.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
911 is becoming a distraction now from wat is currently going on. 911 happened so long ago to prove anything is near impossible and pointless because they will just deny it and be believed. People have short memories and I feel people would rather forget 911 and move on. The truth will come to the light one day but I feel it will be too late then for anything to be taken away from it.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
How is it that EVERY single scientific conclusion or hypothesis in all history of things scientific requires duplication, or repeatability, in order to be established as scientific fact EXCEPT the official government-media 9/11 story (fairy tale)? The filthy propaganda (lies) machine expects their blind followers to believe UNPRECEDENTED physical events such as:

1. the complete pulverization of the twin towers (and so quickly) "caused" only by 2 very smoky (oxygen-starved) jet fuel fires, which also happened to generate enough heat to melt rubber boots of workers 12 weeks later

2. the utter lack of physical evidence of a Boeing 757 at both the Pentagon and (near) Shanksville, PA

3. the MOST blatantly obvious demolition of WTC 7 when 2 of the buldings closer to WTC 1 and 2 didn't collapse after being hit with tons of debris

Oh, but sure, we're expected to believe, like good little zombie cyborgs, that magical pixie dust was sprinkled on 9/11/01 only. Yeah, thet's real science, alright.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Not to belittle the subject nor the lists of professional (of various flavors) but the only list that would really say something truly concrete would be a list of professional demolitions experts that have years of experience imploding large skyscrapers.


That seems reasonable enough at first thought, but consider the demand for demolishing skyscrapers and how many professionals are actually active in this field.

There are only so many skyscrapers in any given major city, and they are rarely, if ever, demolished explosively if and when they are brought down. It's typically a major risk to adjacent properties to try to demolish a tall skyscraper in a dense urban area. So they are more often deconstructed piece-by-piece or brought down carefully with cranes, wrecking balls, and bulldozers. And most demolition work in general is done with much smaller and less sturdy structures, again by bulldozer/wrecking ball/etc.

Of all controlled demolition companies in the US that offer explosive demolition of high-rises, CDI (Controlled Demolitions Inc) is foremost in the field with the most experience and contracts for high-rises. The same company was contracted to help clean up Ground Zero after 9/11 (reasonable enough given the totality of the destruction of the buildings) and had a couple related conflicts of interest if I recall correctly. Nonethless they have had employees outspoken against the official story of why the towers collapsed, as I'll show you below.

I personally contacted CDI a few years ago and asked if they were capable of top-down explosive demolitions of high-rises, mentioning nothing of 9/11. Their first reply stated that they would be happy to answer my question if I provided background on myself and why I was asking the question, because of modern "heightened focus on security" (post-9/11 I assumed). I lied and told them I was a member of a local town council and we were considering options to deal with a series of degraded buildings that would require top-down demolition for technical reasons, and we were exploring all feasible (and legal) options. CDI then responded that a "skilled professional" would be able to accomplish most anything, and that it was only an issue of where the charges were placed and what order they were set off, which could be arranged in many different ways.


Anyway here is an article on Tom Sullivan, former CDI employee who believes the towers were controlled demolitions: www.ae911truth.org...

He talks about wireless detonations and other technologies that are available even to all commercial/legal demolition companies today.


There is also the Dutch expert who was shown WTC7 collapsing for the first time, and instantly said it was obviously a controlled demolition, and he went on explaining why it was obviously demolished. This is in the video below. He was then informed that this building collapsed on the day of 9/11, after the Twin Towers, and was in apparent disbelief. He said there was no way such a professional job could be carried out on such short notice.



Since that time, he still believes WTC7 was demolished deliberately and has had to come to terms with the implications of that, though he still denies that the Twin Towers were also demolished.


Then there was the case of the demolition expert from New Mexico, Van Romero:


New Mexico demolitions expert Van Romero said on the day of the attack that he believed the building collapses were "too methodical" to have been a result of the collisions, and that he thought "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." His remarks were published in the Albuquerque Journal 1 and are reprinted below. Ten days later the same newspaper printed a retraction, in which Romero is quoted as saying "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail." 2 His assertion of the official line in the second article is not backed up by any explanation or analysis.


Romero's initial statement before his bare retraction 10 days later:


"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.
Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C. ...

If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.
The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said. "One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device," Romero said. Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion, he said.
Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would have been the collision of the planes into the towers. Tech President Dan Lopez said Tuesday that Tech had not been asked to take part in the investigation into the attacks. Tech often assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects.


911research.wtc7.net...


I thought those would be discussion-worthy examples of demolition experts discussing the WTC buildings. Just like these other fields, the various experts are apparently not in agreement. Figuring out why they are not in agreement should prove interesting either way.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
WE NEED MORE WE NEED MORE!

we need more structural engineers, we need more people in the architecture field, we need more people with high levels of education coming forward and brining this information together so the proof can never be denied.


were not done fighting guys, we need to keep strong and forward so we can make a huge difference and bring truth and justice for those who suffered that evil day..



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Yaw.. Law of Conservation of Momentum, what of that? All the energy being utilised would have been appropriated to the path of greatest resistance, i.e.falling through the floors, and it would have taken much longer for any of those buildings to collapse, regardless of what free fall speed is. It's quite simple. We got lost in all the semantics, but the fact of the matter remains that physics as we know was bastardised that day.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Hi there Six Sigma.


Let's not forget:

Dennis L. Lippert


Architect


May I ask what makes you more qualified than Dennis or how his mention of his hobby makes him under-qualified? Or does specializing in log architecture somehow negate his degree? Many engineers specialize in timber, doesn't mean they have no idea about the forces etc involved in other materials or how they behave.


Wait ....

His personal statement:


His personal statement is correct. The manor of each collapse resembled a controlled demolition to a much greater degree than what would be expected from a collapse due to jet liner impacts and gravity alone (at least that's how I interpreted it).


Oh? Classic? Freefall? Not really. 3.25 seconds in free fall I believe.


3.25 seconds is an enormous amount of time for a structure to spend in free fall (are you sure that's right?), and at near free fall for most of the rest of the collapse. ANY large accelerations should not have been possible (I proved this in the Physics of 9/11 thread), free fall is just the icing on the cake (while free fall was being sustained any structure being destroyed somehow provided less resistance than if it were made from marshmallows).


Please proved the scientific analysis of the molten material witnessed.


A proper unbiased investigation might have done this. Molten metal could be seen pouring out of one of the towers. It is a bit difficult to perform a scientific analysis on the chemical makeup using tv footage alone, but it is highly unlikely it is contaminated molten aluminum IMO.


Not many, I would assume. My "crap" however is honest and well researched. I use facts. Truthers should do the same.


I agree there is a lot of nonsense spouted by some about space lasers etc.

I would, however, like to hear your honest researched opinion as to how you think the top section of the North tower was able to crush the bottom section by applying less force than when it was stationary.


I will accept them... when they present them with sound science and have them peer reviewed.

Have you noticed not a one of them have?


Here ya go: Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics

The science presented in this paper is more than sound in my professional opinion.

More here: Journal of 9/11 Studies


The Journal of 9/11 Studies, a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal, covering the whole of research related to the events of 11 September, 2001.



Refereed papers have already been published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals: Fourteen Points...[Bentham] and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for energetic materials [SpringerLink], and Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe [The Open Chemical Physics Journal].







[edit on 25-8-2010 by Azp420]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I often have to laugh at you 9/11 Truthers, always coming up with what you believe as substantial evidence to support your argument. But after all the Engineers, and Aerospace professors, and after all the alleged Professionals you drag into the equation, one thing is left unanswered. The FACT that all these alleged experts are all either professors or some other type of book worm. Which by the way have had no real time experience in construction let alone any time in the field.
I for one am a building inspector for the largest company in the world kown as BECHTEL. And after 15+ years of construction experience not in some classroom with all my adoring fans ( aka students to dumb to perceive the world in their own light), I can assure you that the buildings did not come down to fast. Case in point, I highly recommend you look up or atleast view what is known as concrete field testing, also known as Concrete break tests. Also, one fact that i find truly amazing is that these alleged experts claim that the fire burnt off the fire proofing within the buildings, only problem is, the buildings construction were completed in the 70's, but not only did fire proofing not become a recognized practice, but the inspections for such procedures didnt begin till 1981. So how is an alleged practice let alone material get used on not one but two buildings when the ICC/ICBO didnt recognize it as an official practice till 1981?

Nice try jack wagon, you truthers make me laugh, always far reaching~

[edit on 25-8-2010 by SurefireII]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
The law of conservation of energy debunks wtc7 with its freefall collapse - it's basic highschool physics; something falling and crushing is doing work and falling much slower than freefall. To fall at freefall as evidenced (and admitted by NIST), it must have another energy source to help. Easy enough for disbelievers to check and learn for 15 minutes!



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SurefireII

I for one am a building inspector for the largest company in the world kown as BECHTEL. And after 15+ years of construction experience not in some classroom with all my adoring fans ( aka students to dumb to perceive the world in their own light), I can assure you that the buildings did not come down to fast. Case in point, I highly recommend you look up or atleast view what is known as concrete field testing, also known as Concrete break tests. Also, one fact that i find truly amazing is that these alleged experts claim that the fire burnt off the fire proofing within the buildings, only problem is, the buildings construction were completed in the 70's, but not only did fire proofing not become a recognized practice, but the inspections for such procedures didnt begin till 1981. So how is an alleged practice let alone material get used on not one but two buildings when the ICC/ICBO didnt recognize it as an official practice till 1981?

Nice try jack wagon, you truthers make me laugh, always far reaching~


Mr. "building inspector" for "kown as BECHTEL" lurker. Thanks for your monthly drive-by. Does BECHTEL have any hiring standards? Do you ever submit a report? The word you are groping for time after time is "too". You apparently can not construct a sentence. I would think that a construction technique/feature such as fire proofing, that goes above and beyond code, would very likely be used on a project such as these towers. I could be wrong on that. After all I am not an employee, nor have I ever been, of BECHTEL.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by SurefireII
The FACT that all these alleged experts are all either professors or some other type of book worm. Which by the way have had no real time experience in construction let alone any time in the field.


What a blatant load of bull crap. It's obvious you haven't even taken 2 minutes to look at the credentials of these people.

Richard Gage himself has worked on multi-million dollar architectural projects. That, is a FACT. That happens to debunk your "fact." And he's only one member.

I hope you put more effort into your job than you do researching what you're talking about before you post, because I don't think you can get much more careless assessing the credentials of these engineers and architects. Like I said, it wouldn't even take 2 minutes to read what I just told you on their own website.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:01 AM
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.



Wow, TOTS, you certainly live up to your moniker!

2nd line.


[edit on 8/25/2010 by dubiousone]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Why would you think the majority on that list would have an actual clue about the physics or science behind the collapse of a structure so huge as the Twin Towers? How many of those labeled "structural engineer" have ever worked on massive building structures, or more importantly, been involved in investigating their collapse? Even the very few on that list that DO have any such experience, have NO experience in this particular sort of thing Because a building this large has NEVER collapsed before! It's a first-time event. How could any of them possibly ACTUALLY know the facts? They can't. It's impossible.

But.. forgetting that a moment, look at your actual list. There are a lot of folks labeled "Engineer" and "Consultant," and variants of those (electrical project engineer for example). Do you really think simply being an engineer makes you smart enough to deduce facts about this particular case? I work for a very large remediation / construction / engineering firm, and I've worked with a TON of engineers, geologists, "consultants" and the like. I wouldn't trust a whole slew of them to determine why my house collapsed, let alone the Towers. But even the ones I feel are sharp as tacks - I still can't fathom their real-life experience amounting to a hill of beans when it comes to this. "Structural Engineer" can mean anything. We have of a load of those: They build roads, bridges, small buildings, etc. We've built some of the largest suspension bridges - that doesn't mean they are qualified to make conclusion statements about the towers. They've never worked on anything that huge.

Basically we have a list of people for whom the majority imo, just want to toot their horns or see their names on a list. I doubt a tiny fraction of them are qualified to make definitive statements about the actual event. Let's look at the sorts of people I feel have NO experience in this:

Senior Software Design
Electrical Engineer
Engineering "Staff" (whatever that means)
Senior System Administrator
Software Engineer
Author/Publisher/Filmmaker
Aerospace Engineer
Civil Engineer (common as mice in the construction world)
Optical Engineer


Ok.. that list there.. skipping identical professions.. I picked that randomly and consecutively near the bottom of the list. Not ONE of them is qualified to make definitive statements other than their own "opinion," which amounts to a hill of beans, about the twin towers.

This reminds of of a special I saw about the attacks. One guy who DOES study this exact sort of thing (impacts to buildings in accidents), and has for over 30 years, was on site at the Pentagon following the attack. He spent hundreds of hours there, putting in all the #'s and info about the plane strike. Afterward, he determined it was a plane, figuring out the exact path and cause of interior destruction, and even determined the cause of the smaller hole found on an inside wall. But aside from that, he was actually a bit angry and miffed when interviewed. He doesn't understand why someone who does NOT have his experience (or any experience in that sort of accident), can make qualified comments about what they felt "really" caused the accident.

Which is a nutshell, is what this is: A whole lot of people who are not actually remotely qualified, making "informed" decisions about this disaster. They can't know. They DON'T know. This list is a whole lot of nothing.

Even our "most qualified" folks in my company would not bother to try and make definitive comments about the Towers. For example: we have many who were tasked with shoring up / rebuilding many of our U.S. bases after this attack, to better withstand such things as plane impacts. That particular line of engineering does not in any way qualify them to make comments about this exact sort of disaster.

And yet you take these folk's word as gospel. If they have the word "Engineer" by their name, this magically makes them brilliant and all-knowing about massive structure limits and physics regarding disaster. I can only guess you've never actually closely worked with engineers before. This list is massively unimpressive.


[edit on 25-8-2010 by fleabit]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Physics teacher, David Chandler, brings us yet another video demonstrating why the State theory of pancake collapse is ridiculous.

Curious how purposefully demolished buildings not hit by an airplane full of jet fuel.. fall like they were hit by an airplane full of jet fuel..



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


i know this is off topic abit...but people who keep coming into 9/11 forums and just slinging junk around and not looking at the facts is a mystery to me.

these are professionals, but to tell you the truth....i work and have been in the construction trade all my life, i am not an Engineer, and I KNOW just by the way the buildings fell it was a controlled demolition.

but to all those who just come in and slag people and keep saying....wheres the PROOF.

well when the heck will you start backing up your statements with PROOF.

there is more actual proof against the OS than there is for it.

anyways another point to 9/11.

When major aircrashes happen what is one of the main objectives...SIMPLE.

Find the black boxes,collect all salvagable debris from the aircraft,reassemble the pices, and even after a plane explodes on impact there is always a large amount of aircraft debris.

the black boxes alone would have survived...and if you believe they found the passport of one of the said hijackers, then they very well should have found the black boxes.

so the people who immediately want to slag the thread(happen within in the second post(suprise).

I think you need to go back and reassess all matters on the subject and maybe try to present a story that all make perfect sense to everyone rather than just bashing what others might say on the subject.

also as i just mention in another recent 9/11 posting...how come soon as 9/11 is posted it comes under immediate srcutiny by the staff of ATS.

Observe and learn.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by cayrichard

The easiest way to attack those who defend the government story is to ask why bldg. 7 which was not hit by a plane failed in a classic freefall collapse. .


What do you mean? When I saw Bldg. 7 go down, I knew it was demolition.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by mnemeth1


An example of just one engineer's backstory:

John Edward Anderson






Let's not forget:

Dennis L. Lippert



Architect

Specialty:




I specialize in log and log integrated architecture.
I started out as a stained glass artist and went back to school and finished my architecture degree. I apprenticed in San Francisco, and moved back to my home town, Missoula. I still do stained glass in my spare time.




Wait ....

His personal statement:


Personal 9/11 Statement:

The way the buildings collapsed was more like a planned implosion rather than an impact such as a jet airliner.

www2.ae911truth.org...


Um... WHAT??





Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! How thoroughly intellectually astute of you!





new topics




 
99
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join