1200 Architects And Engineers

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!

You believe the NIST report without the math included or peer review, but not other architects?

It sounds to me like you are the one who bought the snake oil my good friend.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by jprophet420]

Originally posted by SurefireII... So yes, the buildings fell at natural gravity. ...

Well indeed, nobody is saying the pieces of debris had little rockets attached that were making them accelerate downward faster than gravity.

But a problem is that unless there's an organized demolition, there's no way the building would pancake so well and accelerate downward at anything like gravity. It would be held up by joints that don't conveniently get out of the way, get sideways because one corner goes down faster than another -- a real mess, if the building would collapse at all.

Originally posted by oniongrass
reply to post by 54v!0r531f

 

I agree, this "building inspector" doesn't ring true to me. I've never seen a building inspector claim to understand construction better than licensed Professional Engineers. Building inspectors are taught something once it is tried, true and standard.

You obviously havent been around engineers. 90% just copy and paste right out of there book, now that's a tried and true standard~

When you're building almost the tallest buildings in the world, you don't use only what is "official practice". That's what they have engineers for -- to make decisions that go beyond "official practice". To make decisions based on principles of physics and material properties.

I'm glad you have all this confidence in the Engineers, but Im sorry to say, that most if not all have no experience in the field and believe everything they read. Thus suggesting that the men and women who actually do the work 9 times out of 10 have to redo said work because?, you guessed it the engineer was wrong. Now Im not saying all, but many of the engineers are questionable at best.

That's not to say the building inspector cannot start to learn that stuff too. But to deny it exists because it's not "official practice" -- this guy has spent 15 years repeating his first 3 months of experience I guess.

If you had half the experience I do in any of the fields of work you still would be mediocre at best. Code is an evolving cycle. It constantly expands and builds on what you claim as tried and true methods.
Those who bash inspectors have the right, i just laugh because we had to babysit those who performed the work and ensured they followed the standards and contract drawings. Without us, half the time the workers couldn't read much less read the drawings.
Go figure?

[edit on 25-8-2010 by SurefireII]

Originally posted by astrogolf
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I like to stick with the basics. The biggest problem with your theory is that thousands of people saw two jet airliners fly into the building. It was captured by every imaginable camera angle. Here's a wager. Let's say you build a one-hundred story tall house. There's a wall around it, so nobody has access to it. No chance of anyone planting explosives in it. A 757 slams into the 75th floor. Trust me, you would try to get out. And also trust me, that it would collapse. ...

Why would that building collapse after waiting for quite a while? I don't get it. I want to stick with basics too and understand this.

And here's the bad news. I'm an engineer.

Originally posted by SurefireII

Originally posted by oniongrass
reply to post by 54v!0r531f

 

I agree, this "building inspector" doesn't ring true to me. I've never seen a building inspector claim to understand construction better than licensed Professional Engineers. Building inspectors are taught something once it is tried, true and standard.

You obviously havent been around engineers. 90% just copy and paste right out of there book, now that's a tried and true standard~

When you're building almost the tallest buildings in the world, you don't use only what is "official practice". That's what they have engineers for -- to make decisions that go beyond "official practice". To make decisions based on principles of physics and material properties.

I'm glad you have all this confidence in the Engineers, but Im sorry to say, that most if not all have no experience in the field and believe everything they read. Thus suggesting that the men and women who actually do the work 9 times out of 10 have to redo said work because?, you guessed it the engineer was wrong. Now Im not saying all, but many of the engineers are questionable at best.

That's not to say the building inspector cannot start to learn that stuff too. But to deny it exists because it's not "official practice" -- this guy has spent 15 years repeating his first 3 months of experience I guess.

If you had half the experience I do in any of the fields of work you still would be mediocre at best. Code is an evolving cycle. It constantly expands and builds on what you claim as tried and true methods.
Those who bash inspectors have the right, i just laugh because we had to babysit those who performed the work and ensured they followed the standards and contract drawings. Without us, half the time the workers couldn't read much less read the drawings.
Go figure?

[edit on 25-8-2010 by SurefireII]

Cool it. I'm not saying you are not a great building inspector, nor that codes don't evolve. What I am saying is that building codes evolve to include things that are tried and true, not brand new.

There really isn't a building code that contains all you need to know to build a structure like that, I'm almost sure of it, and I'm absolutely there wasn't when WTC was built.

I don't have experience in building inspection, so you've got me there. But I do have experience in engineering.

Originally posted by oniongrass

Originally posted by SurefireII... So yes, the buildings fell at natural gravity. ...

It would be held up by joints that don't conveniently get out of the way,

Um?, joints within a building are designed for contraction and expansion? "joints" are not designed to withstand a falling building?

And you went to school were?

Originally posted by SurefireII

Originally posted by oniongrass

Originally posted by SurefireII... So yes, the buildings fell at natural gravity. ...

It would be held up by joints that don't conveniently get out of the way,

Um?, joints within a building are designed for contraction and expansion? "joints" are not designed to withstand a falling building?

And you went to school were?

Vertical joints are designed for compression.


[edit on 25-8-2010 by oniongrass]

reply to post by oniongrass



Oh, really???

Did you intend to imply that there MUST be 'explosives', using the term "organized demolition", by writing this?:

But a problem is that unless there's an organized demolition, there's no way the building would pancake so well and accelerate downward at anything like gravity.

Ever heard of the "Verinage" technique of building demolition? It uses NO explosives. Selected critical structural members are compromised, and gravity does the collapsing. A lot like the tragedy of the Twin Towers.

Here's a video to demonstrate:




AND another --- NOTE the location, where the structure is compromised. In this case, by pulling on the vertical supports, with cables. NOTE how high up it is, where the damage is inflicted, and the result...as the UPPER portion crushes that beneath...in a "Top Down" method. Compare to the Twin Towers videos....:



Remember...NO explosives were necessary in these.

Here, they didn't even use cables. Machines inside, using hydraulics, caused the damage, and compromised the structural integrity, and gravity did the rest:



These are not isolated examples.....






[edit on 25 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

A quick google will show that many people have debunked the "verinage" theory.

The examples I saw were masonry buildings, perhaps with steel supporting members but still with a low strength to weight ratio. Not so much strength is needed in the frame of such a building, maybe just enough to support the masonry veneer if the building is not constructed to withstand seismic shocks.

WTC towers had an extremely high strength to weight ratio. They were built light, strong and flexible. That means the joints had to withstand large side and compression loads as well as twisting moments.

So the way that verinage works, where the heavy top crushes successive floors below (but still tends to slow down a bit) would not work the way we observed with the WTC towers. There we saw the collapse start from the very top, with relatively little weight above, and despite that and the very strong construction, the collapse clean all the way down, even accelerating.

Another feature of verinage is that once the critical members are pulled, the building initiates its collapse immediately. It doesn't wait a half hour.

reply to post by oniongrass


The OP video specifically addresses this.

Originally posted by NightVision
Here comes the wave of ATSr's who are smarter than 1200 Degreed Architects and Engineers.

What, because we believe the many thousands of degreed architects and engineers that don't agree with them.

Oh, wait, I get it - the fact that there are MANY more experienced professionals that haven't questioned the official story is PROOF that they're being intimidated into silence, right?

ATS - your home for circular logic.

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by NightVision
Here comes the wave of ATSr's who are smarter than 1200 Degreed Architects and Engineers.

What, because we believe the many thousands of degreed architects and engineers that don't agree with them.

Oh, wait, I get it - the fact that there are MANY more experienced professionals that haven't questioned the official story is PROOF that they're being intimidated into silence, right?

ATS - your home for circular logic.

But using YOUR OWN logic no conclusion can be drawn.

Obviously we need more data. I wonder why its not available?

reply to post by oniongrass


No, joints are not designed for compression. Case in point: Concrete structures are subjected to a variety ofstresses. These stresses are the result of shrinkage and differential movement. Shrinkage occurs during hydration, and differential movement is caused by temperature changes and different loading conditions. These stresses can cause cracking, spalling, and scaling of concrete surfaces and, in extreme cases, can result in failure of the structure. TYPES OF JOINTS Stresses in concrete can be controlled by the proper placement of joints in the structure. Isolation Joints :Isolation joints are used to separate (isolate)adjacent structural members. An example is the joint that separates the floor slab from a column. An isolation joint allows for differential movement in the vertical plane due to loading conditions or uneven settlement. Isolation joints are sometimes called expansion or contraction joints. In this context, they allow for differential movement as a result of temperature changes (as in two adjacent slabs). All isolation joints (expansion or contraction) extend completely through the member and have no load bearing members within. Reference ICC
code book chapter :Reinforced Concrete/Structural members ( both horizontal and vertical) Reference also Integrated Publishing for more info online.

Key word is the very last sentence, non-load bearing members. I highly advise looking up the definition of a load bearing member. You can also cross reference what happens to a non-load bearing member when it is structurally compromised.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by SurefireII]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by oniongrass

 

The OP video specifically addresses this.

Indeed, although I didn't actually watch that video first. And probably every one of the 1200 engineers on the list would say more or less the same thing, or at least agree to those things even if their favorite problem with the official story is a different one.

Because it's pretty obvious.

Originally posted by oniongrass

Originally posted by astrogolf
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I like to stick with the basics. The biggest problem with your theory is that thousands of people saw two jet airliners fly into the building. It was captured by every imaginable camera angle. Here's a wager. Let's say you build a one-hundred story tall house. There's a wall around it, so nobody has access to it. No chance of anyone planting explosives in it. A 757 slams into the 75th floor. Trust me, you would try to get out. And also trust me, that it would collapse. ...

Why would that building collapse after waiting for quite a while? I don't get it. I want to stick with basics too and understand this.

Massive fires, which weakened (NOT melted) the steel supports to the extent that they could not hold the weight above them. Then, the force of the floors collapsing caused it to pancake all the way down.

The towers were designed with support in the outer walls, which would both aid an internal collapse and keep the structure relatively vertical as it collapsed.

If it had been destroyed intentionally, you wouldn't have reports like this:

As the fires continued to burn, occupants trapped in the upper floors of the South Tower provided information about conditions via 9-1-1. At 9:37 a.m., an occupant on the 105th floor of the South Tower reported that floors beneath him "in the 90-something floor" had collapsed. The aviation unit also relayed information about deteriorating conditions of the buildings to police commanders, who issued orders for its personnel to evacuate the towers. At 9:52 a.m., the New York City Police Department (NYPD) aviation unit reported over the radio that "large pieces may be falling from the top of WTC 2. Large pieces are hanging up there". With the warnings, the NYPD issued orders for its personnel to evacuate. During the emergency response, there was minimal communication between the NYPD and the New York City Fire Department (FDNY), and overwhelmed 9-1-1 dispatchers did not pass along information to FDNY commanders on-scene. At 9:59 a.m., the South Tower collapsed, 56 minutes after being struck.

After the South Tower collapsed, NYPD helicopters relayed information about the deteriorating conditions of the North Tower. At 10:20 a.m., the NYPD aviation unit reported that "the top of the tower might be leaning," and a minute later reported that the North Tower, "is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south". At 10:27 a.m., the aviation unit reported that "the roof is going to come down very shortly." The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 a.m., after burning for 102 minutes.

The North Tower was hit first, but the South Tower was the first to collapse because the structural integrity was compromised on a much lower level - between the 77th and 85th floors, while the North Tower was hit between the 93rd and 99th floors. Thus, more weight to bear on the compromised supports, which were then weakened further by fires, etc.

In addition to the weakened steel (again, no one says "melted" except the 'Truthers' - complete strawman argument), the fires caused the floors to sag, which pulled in the perimeter columns and made them much less able to support the weight above.

While they were designed to support enormous static loads, they provided little resistance to the moving mass of the sections above the floors where the collapses initiated. Structural systems respond very differently to static and dynamic loads, and since the motion of the falling portion began as a free fall through the height of at least one story (roughly three meters), the structure beneath them was unable to stop the collapses once they began. Indeed, a fall of only half a meter would have been enough to release the necessary energy to begin an unstoppable collapse.

Like vertical dominoes.

reply to post by SurefireII

That's isolation joints.

The joints holding up the weight of the WTC towers were not isolation joints. If they had no load-bearing members within, as is said of the isolation joints you describe, nothing would have supported the compression load of the building.

Nice job finding an irrelevant section out of some book though ... sheesh.

Let them go ahead and get away with 911 and support the naysayers.

There is a big incriminating slop fest on the way. As we advance further into the cesspool of illusion, the ones behind 911 get more cocky and reckless. Eventually all the world will see them for who they really are.


911 Conspiracy naysayers?

fugghetttaboutit

cuttem loose with a big hug and sloppy kiss.

reply to post by mothershipzeta


Some of the quotes are irrelevant. The guys above the airplanes, who never escaped, saw collapsing things, and indeed the planes did a lot of structural damage.

The NYPD reports of the building starting to lean, and someone saying it was soon going to collapse, I had not heard before. But they can be checked from the videos. Before the moment the collapse starts, there is no lean, no movement. Zero. Are those NYPD quotes accurate?

Earlier I mentioned seismic. I imagine these buildings were built to withstand light to moderate seismic shocks, since occasionally there are small shocks even in NYC. By the time these buildings were built, engineers were well aware of the importance of dynamics in large structures. (Everyone had seen the Tacoma Narrows Bridge oscillation video.) If it was designed for seismic, it would be harder to get the pancaking "chain reaction" started.

reply to post by oniongrass


Like I said before, there is no amount of evidence or FACT like I just submitted with references that will open your mind. You obviously have no comprehension of construction joints. You have deluded yourself into believing anything other than submitted information that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt your argument doesn't hold water...
...NEXT!

Originally posted by superluminal11
Let them go ahead and get away with 911 and support the naysayers.

There is a big incriminating slop fest on the way. As we advance further into the cesspool of illusion, the ones behind 911 get more cocky and reckless. Eventually all the world will see them for who they really are.


911 Conspiracy naysayers?

fugghetttaboutit

cuttem loose with a big hug and sloppy kiss.

Yes, I've run out of time to allocate to this discussion, I wish them all the best. Everyone can make up their own minds.