It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"I was Senior Project Design Engineer in charge of the design of the electrical systems for the WTC Complex in NY.
Employed by the consulting and engineering firm, Joseph R. Loring & Associates, Inc., I was also a licensed Professional Engineer and was directly associated with ongoing projects at WTC for some 35 years before retiring in mid 1997.
Though an electrical engineer by trade, I was also very familiar with the structures and their conceptual design parameters.
On September 11, I watched the live TV broadcast of the progressive collapse of the World Trade Towers with disbelief, as the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel.
I viewed the presentation of Richard Gage and other related material, which compels me to believe that the fuel and planes alone did not bring the Towers down. I, therefore, support the proposal to form an international group of professionals to investigate all plausible causes for the virtual freefall and the almost total destruction of the WTC structures."
Originally posted by rival
Someone should bring these organizations together under one umbrella
of solidarity. It would give them much more clout.
Originally posted by esdad71
How many Nobel prize winners are on your list?
Originally posted by conar
Originally posted by 54v!0r531f
the fireproofing was knocked off or burned off by the fires or collisions.
But why put fireproofing on steel?
Steel does not give a @#"!#! about fire....
[edit on 25-8-2010 by conar]
Originally posted by etcorngods
Originally posted 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.
Wrong: There is a third alternative, which is consistent with all the facts. 911 was an "act of god". God can break the laws of physics, and cause free fall speeds. God can cause smart people like the 1200 A&E's to wrongly believe that it was Controlled Demolition -- when certain things couldn't have happened, but they did -- like free fall collapse, No Noise due to explosives, and many other things couldn’t have happened, but they did.
God’s hidden language in the English language – applied to 911/2001/AD converts to the word “Religion”..
See the websites listed after my signature.
Google Video 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.
Originally posted by SurefireII
If you had half the experience I do in any of the fields of work you still would be mediocre at best.
Originally posted by Azp420
Hi there Six Sigma.
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.
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).
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)
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.
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.
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.
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].
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
Originally posted by Gorman91
In any case, some simulations.
Originally posted by againuntodust
Why 2 planes hitting the WTC?
If one plane hit, likely no one would have filmed it. If they did, it would have been questionable, aka, "It was planned."