1200 Architects And Engineers, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 99 times

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 01:32 AM by Onboard2

Originally posted by cayrichard
When you get 1200 professional engineers questioning the official story, 3 commissioners claiming coverup as well as 2 lawyers and a host of uninvestigated issues like unusual stock trading patterns you have to conclude that Richard Gage is onto something.

Are you referring to those 100s of Put Options purchased days before?

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 02:01 AM by w00dhAK

Originally posted by SurefireII
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 ...

[edit on 25-8-2010 by SurefireII]

Would You like to explain what concrete stress testing has to do with any of this? I've been in the construction industry for 25+ years, 15+ of those in Concrete and Steel high-rise construction as a Foreman/Supervisor ( the guys that actually Build the buildings..) and in my experience most 'building inspectors' were nothing but jack-'wagons' themselves. Their claim to fame would be being able to read structural blueprints, oh my. So don't act like you have 'real time experience in construction' being an inspector, that makes me Laugh hysterically..

It is also a known fact that Both WT1 & 2 were filled with ASBESTOS fireproofing which made these buildings 'white elephants' and it was going to cost Millions to remove and replace..this fact made many informed people wonder why anyone (Silverstein) would even consider such a purchase/lease due to the cost of the removal, it doesn't add up.

What does add up is somehow knowing those buildings weren't going to be standing much longer and having insurance covering 'terrorists attacks' on them.

..as for the 'buildings not falling too fast', you've Got to be kidding me..I for one would be afraid to enter Any structure you've inspected and I'll leave it at that..

[edit on 25-8-2010 by w00dhAK]

[edit on 25-8-2010 by w00dhAK]

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 02:11 AM by Azp420

reply to post by SurefireII

I often have to laugh at you 9/11 Truthers

Ironic. I often have to laugh at those too innocent and naive to believe the government is capable of evil.

always coming up with what you believe as substantial evidence to support your argument.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

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.

Wow, I didn't know that was a "FACT". I have real world structural design experience. Your fact has just been debunked. Also during my degree the majority of lecturers had experience in the industry at some point in their carrier. Not that someone who chooses to make a career out of research and teaching somehow has a less qualified opinion...

I for one am a building inspector for the largest company in the world kown as BECHTEL.

Engineers not only inspect structures during and after construction but they design the things too. Your attempt at discrediting the AE911truth members is going nowhere.

I can assure you that the buildings did not come down to fast.

I'm going to assume you are referring to the extremely high rates of acceleration all three buildings underwent. If not please explain.

So a rate of acceleration equal to free fall is not too fast in your opinion as a building inspector? I'm sure BECHTEL would be horrified to learn one of their employees thinks this. What rate of acceleration would be too much? Something greater than free fall? Is that based on any calculations and physics or just your experience in rates of collapse working as a building inspector?

I can assure you the rate of accelerations in all three buildings was too fast and have lengthy simplified derivations to back it up. The Chandler video in the OP also does a wonderful job, I notice no OS believers are able to find errors in it.

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.

Can't see what that has to do with anything, please explain.

aka students to dumb to perceive the world in their own light

Engineering students are pretty dumb these days eh? As opposed to the genius required to become a building inspector.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by Azp420]

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 02:12 AM by stirling

Truth is, the truthers have a host of good objections and questions that cannot be rebutted adaquately by the goverment theory......
I saw the buildings fall exactly as if they werre demolished by preplanted explosies along with everybody else.
Its gonna take more than a bunch of trolling name calling disinformers to show me what i saw was anything different than a controlled demo....
The pentagon lawn should have been littered with debris and two large turbo fan engines should have been recovered from the wreck....the damage isnt in scale with the WTC planes by a long shot yet it was supposed to be a similar aircraft.
And finally too many loose ends got tied up with this one event....
i wont bother enumerating.....who benefitted?
It was an inside job..........

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 03:07 AM by masterp

If the floors below the impact point were intact, shouldn't we have seen a brief stop of the fall, as the floors above hit the floors below? the period of the stop would have lessen as the floors collapsed, because more and more force would be applied to each floor, with less and less resistant from below as the number of floors that collapsed increased and the number of remaining floors decreased.

Instead of this, what we see in the videos is a collapse with almost constant speed, and no stop whatsoever, as if there was no obstacle below the falling floors.

Some say that the floors below the impact point were weakened due to fire. In that case, shouldn't we have seen the floors above the impact point collapsing as if they were a single block of material?

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 03:14 AM by Rigel Kent

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Most of us who frequent this forum or have followed the 9/11 truth movement know that Architects and Engineers for Truth has garnered over 1200 signatures from professional engineers that support the claim the towers were brought down by explosives.

THIS STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE

From the AE 9-11 Truth website, the "mission statement" reads:

We are a non-partisan association of architects, engineers, and affiliates. Our mission is to research, compile, and disseminate scientific evidence relative to the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, calling for a truly open and independent investigation and supporting others in the pursuit of justice.

Nowhere does it mention explosives. Whilst I support your thread, I think that you need to be very precise with your statements otherwise the OT supporters will be all over it like a rash and tear it to shreds. For what it is worth, I am an AE 9-11 Truth movement member and I DO believe that explosives were used.

It is true, there are articles about controlled demolition using explosives on the site, however, as far as I am aware, there is no common statement that all members support the explosives theory.

Forgive me for sounding pedantic but I feel that it is an important point, worthy of note. Any thread which raises awareness for AE 9-11 for Truth gets a S & F from me,
well done.

PEACE,
RK

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 03:23 AM by Ex_MislTech

reply to post by Rigel Kent

The video in my signature leans in the direction of saying
thermite was used and to be honest it had to be to move the
core columns out of the way that fast.

If it was pancake the core columns would have remained.

An unevenly damaged structure does not fall straight down.

Here is the AE911 truth video.

YouTube Link

It appears the firefighters say NIST is lying, it appears several ppl
working the clean up say NIST was lying.

I am going to take the word of the ppl that risked their lives
going into the buildings after ppl over the flunky who is lying.

Now on the pentagon it is the governments actions that draw
extreme attention.

They have multiple security videos from civilian buildings that were
filming the front of the pentagon.

They refuse to release the videos.

Do not listen to what they say, watch what they do.

The act of holding these videos and not releasing them is one
of the serious flaws in their case.

The same thing has happened for the videos of the OKC bombing.

There are many others pointed out in the film 9/11 press for truth.

Google Video Link

I have had skeptics cry after watching that film.

I recommend it as the evidence in it has not been proven false
or been debunked.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by Ex_MislTech]

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 03:38 AM by Rigel Kent

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by mnemeth1

John Edward Anderson

John writes in a statement published by AE911:

"My own calculation showed that the buildings fell more quickly than possible considering momentum exchange in pancaking from floor to floor."

The list of engineers seems to scroll on for eternity.

Where are those calculations? Everyone has calculations, yet none have submitted them for proper peer review.

When will the professionals at this forum submit their work?

Gage= Charlatan

Truthers= Snake Oil Purchase Agents!

Calculations?

Well considering you know:

the height of the buildings,
the time taken for collapse,
the speed of gravity,

the calculations and comparisons can be pretty much done in you head. Why do you need peer reviewed calculations?

PEACE,
RK

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 04:14 AM by hmmmbeer

Wow. So there are still people denying common sense and physics and all available evidence and sticking to the O/S. Just Wow.
I guess my ignore list is working at least - I only see the replies to those who havent found the ignore button.
Honestly, anyone who can tell me a Boeing crashed into the Pentagon, or the towers fell without pre-plented assistance (including Tower 7!) is a fool and simply eating all the crap the government and media feed them.
I thought this was a done deal - just that nothing will ever be done about it.
Wow.

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 05:11 AM by dragnet53

reply to post by SurefireII

LOL at you believing in NIST and its 'investigation'. I bet you know someone who works for NIST or you work for NIST.

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 05:38 AM by TrickoftheShade

reply to post by hmmmbeer

That's it. Head in the sand.

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 06:11 AM by Thepreye

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Have you considered the possibility that it might have been immature skeptiks muddying the waters for a laugh.

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 06:20 AM by rival

Many of the petitioners on this list of 1200 have credentials and experience
unrelated to the type of structural engineering and architectural experience
that would be relevant for posing scientific observations in regards to
explosions, implosions, or the collapsing of buildings. While the moniker
"Architects and Engineers" is accurate, it is also misleading...

That being said, this list still represents 1200 men and women with college
degrees (and at least some small measure of related experience) who agree
that the NIST investigation of 9/11 falls short.

If you factor in all the other groups of professional petitioners who hold
the same opinion that 9/11 needs to be re-investigated (Pilots for 9/11
Truth, etc.) you have a compelling argument.

Someone should bring these organizations together under one umbrella
of solidarity. It would give them much more clout.

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 06:52 AM by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Thepreye
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Have you considered the possibility that it might have been immature skeptiks muddying the waters for a laugh.

Yes. And then I've rejected that and concluded that it was more likely an example of someone who doesn't like having their precious world view threatened.

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 06:52 AM by XL5

All talk and no physics. If a nail needs 200lbs to overcome the friction of the wood and get driven down. You are 150lbs, just by pushing down on the nail with the hammer, you will not get it to move. By swinging the hammer a distance first, the hammer will output a force greater then 200lbs.

If you force the hammer down a foot of distance with 50lbs of force and it stops suddenly, the 50lbs become "like" 300lbs over one cm of distance. This is how an impact wrench works and yet does not need a long bar and does not spin in your hands. Non hardend metal acts like silly putty, slowly put force on it and it will bend and stretch, but do it fast enough and it snaps.

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 07:27 AM by hmmmbeer

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Welcome to my ignore list.

Head in the sand? I trust evidence, physics, comon sense etc. you trust the government.

QED.

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 07:49 AM by etcorngods

Originally posted by Vonour
... 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....

How about the answer: It would have taken months and many man-months to do the job of planting the explosives -- how is that possible without being caught?

And if it was "controlled demolition" why didn't the noise of the explosives going off make very loud noise?

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 07:55 AM by hmmmbeer

reply to post by etcorngods

How did the buildings - all 3 including tower 7 - accelerate at freefall speeds? Please explain the total power outages in the towers in the weeks leading up to 911, and the security breakdowns, and the very low occupancy rates.
Simple physics, only plausible explanantion consistent with all evidence is controlled demolition.

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 08:09 AM by wcitizen

Unfortunately, I'm not an engineer or an architect, otherwise I would be asking to become a member too.

Needless to say, I support you and what you are doing 100%, as do millions of people around the world.

The terrible crime that took place on 9/11 was enormous, not only in the tragic and needless loss of life of all those who died in the WTC, but also in respect of its terrible aftermath - two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and hundreds of thousands more deaths.

Of course, you won't have an easy fight, but I do believe this will eventually end up in court with those responsible being found guilty of the most heinous crimes imaginable. The truth is so evident, it is only blind, evil corruption which is stopping the process of a fair enquiry leading to criminal charges from moving forward, as it should in any decent, civilised society.

There are some people on this site whose sole purpose in being here seems to be to trash people who are presenting reasonable and reliable evidence with regard to 9/11. They appear out of the woodwork anytime 9/11 is raised, and diss anything which is said.

It's not worth engaging with these people, I can only conclude they have a vested interest in the truth of 9/11 not being publicly acknowledged.

Thank you for what you are doing, for the truth, for the victims, for their families and for the good of the whole world.

I truly believe the Universe is with you and that in the end you will prevail and these murderers will be called to account.

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 08:32 AM by Thepreye

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Seriously you think, a guy who built a wendyhouse out of hay is a serious signatory?