1200 Architects And Engineers

Originally posted by hmmmbeer
How did the buildings - all 3 including tower 7 - accelerate at freefall speeds?

They did not, (except for WTC7 for a short time) WTC 1 and 2 did not fall at freefall speed, that is just a truther lie!

Please explain the total power outages in the towers in the weeks leading up to 911,

Another truther lie, there were no total power outages in the towers.

and the security breakdowns

exactly what "security breakdowns" are you on about?

Again here we have a truther telling lies, as they have no facts to back their silly claims up!

[edit on 25/8/10 by dereks]

Looks to me like the "trusters" had a meeting and decided to use a medical analogy to argue their "point of view"....urologists, neuro's, GP's......

Interesting...I like the way you guys use creative thinking in an attempt to sell your story....

Creativity is needed when justifying the PHYSICS DEFYING COLLAPSES ON 9/11....

Originally posted by Gorman91
With a hole on the outer structure and an unstable inner structure, the mass of the above falls on the bellow, and really you are not going to have a structure resist that fall.

So, if you drop 1 bowling ball on top of a stack of 9 Bowling Balls glued to each other, The 9 Bowling balls will not "have a structure resist that fall"" of the 1 dropped Bowling ball?


Or perhaps you also think the same as Dave Thomas, that the WTC collapse was like a Bowling Ball dropped on a toe?

[edit on 25-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by Gorman91
... Again, more than likely this conspiracy on demos and everything is to divert attention to the fact our government failed to care about us and did not care. To add insult to injury they started 2 wars that, for all intensive purposes, gained us nothing.
[edit on 25-8-2010 by Gorman91]

I doubt there's an overall conspiracy on demos. I mean two guys might have worked together on something, but I doubt TPTB big dudes are behind the truther movement. Where do I go to get my payoff for my contributions to trutherdom in this thread?

How again did WTC7 fall down again? Was it because the building got real scared because two of its companion buildings had been hit by airplanes?

And by the way, the twin towers were engineered specifically to withstand a hit by a Boeing 707. The planes that hit them were considerably bigger than a 707, but there's generally a design margin of safety too.

None of this means that the government acted in the best interest of the people. It's real strange how, when GWB was told "America is under attack" or something like that, he continued reading goat stories to the schoolchildren. And then how, later in the same day before any investigation could have been completed, Lawrence Eagleburger declared on TV that al Qaeda was at fault.

reply to post by Six Sigma

Hi there Azp!

Thanks for playing and not getting too serious!

I never said his degree was negated in any way. I was looking at his qualifications. Let me ask you, sir; If you were in need of open heart surgery, would you have your urologist perform it?

As has been recently discussed on this thread, a more appropriate analogy would be the common cold, as all engineers and architects have a good understanding of Newtonian physics, which is all that is needed to see that something is terribly wrong with the OS.

The man has an architecture degree. Good for him. He builds log cabins and stain glass windows. As I have asked so many times, I will ask again. Where is his scientific, peer reviewed explanation of the events at the towers?

He has put his name forward (risking his reputation with nothing to gain) in support of the work and evidence people before him have produced. It would be unreasonable to expect every one of the 1200 A/E's to submit their own peer reviewed paper right?

There is not a single controlled demolition expert on this planet the believes the twin towers resemble a controlled demolition.

Given the patriotic nature of the general public one would imagine it would be bad for business to publicly hold such an opinion. In any case:

Structural engineers opinion > Controlled demo expert opinion.

And regardless of opinions, the physics remain unchanged.

I had a hard time interpreting what he was saying as well, but who is he or you for that matter that knows what a building should look like when it collapses from getting hit by a speeding plane?

I hold a BE and have real world structural design experience.

Actually I was wrong. It was 2.25 seconds.

2.25 seconds is an enormous amount of time for a structure to sustain pure free fall. How do you think this was achieved without getting some of the structure out of the way ahead of time?

If you "proved" anything that disputes the findings of the collapse, please submit your work through the appropriate channels. If not, please supply me the link to your work and I will have some structural engineers have a look at. I am not a structural engineer.

After viewing the video in the OP I now see that Chandler has submitted a paper along basically the same lines as the points I was proving. I am a structural engineer and the physics presented in the paper are correct. I linked you this paper in my previous post. In the Physics of 9/11 thread I provided very lengthy and simplified (I was intending for anyone with the most basic physics knowledge to understand it) derivations of how the only way the top section could have accelerated through the bottom section was if the bottom section provided a smaller upwards reactional force than the upwards reactional force it provided when the top section was stationary.

Well, your opinion means nothing.... please don't take that personally.

Not at all.

Research shows that the room where you see the molten material flowing downward was more than likely a mixture of many materials including the UPS system batteries for FUJI bank.

Learn something new everyday.

I would also say that super secret nano thermite along with conventional explosives covertly buried in 3 large skyscrapers to implode them after planes are flow into them is just as loony as Space Beams and Mini-Nukes.

I never mentioned super-secret-nano-thermite or gave any speculation as to what caused the supposedly undamaged lower structure to suddenly provide a smaller upwards reactional force on the falling top section than when the top section was stationary. It is highly intriguing though as to what did cause this.

You want me to explain the collapse? That would take up too much space here. I can point you to some peer reviewed papers that do explain this. Please let me know if you are interested.

I don't need the entire collapse explained, I am familiar with the NIST/Bazant explanation and have read the papers. I want to know 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. Or in other words, what caused the bottom section to suddenly provide a smaller upwards reactional force as described above. I've been searching for a debunker to attempt to tackle this but most wont. 9/11 debunker Joey Canoli used to post almost everyday debunking truthers, but hasn't been seen for quite some time since failing after multiple attempts to debunk my derivations. If your explanation is too long to post here, I invite you over to the Physics of 9/11 thread to debate me, else I might start a dedicated thread focusing on this specific aspect (the biggest smoking gun imo) when I have time.

Apparently you misunderstood what I was seeking. PEER REVIEWED. This means it is accepted by the scientific community. Putting your paper in an obviously biased conspiracy theory website is far from accepted.

I gave you a list of papers published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.

Fourteen points...... Why did you edit the title??

Apologies, I copy-pasted the list I quoted and the rest of the title was cut off as it was a hyperlink. Thanks for clearing that up.





[edit on 25-8-2010 by Azp420]

Originally posted by oniongrass
How again did WTC7 fall down again? Was it because the building got real scared because two of its companion buildings had been hit by airplanes?

"Mission Accomplished"

Second line.

Originally posted by Gorman91
I'll post these previously posted simulations. Basically, you can have pancaking and falling into the footprint. And the heats and environmental conditions could allow the production of thermite-like reactions.

...

These aren't scientific simulations. These are art.


A "WTC tower" rebuilding itself out of apparent oil drums and then 4 planes flying out of the top of it?

Planes flying through houses in pairs?

Every collapse shown being bottom-up?

This has to be a distasteful joke.


I hope everyone watches these just to see the caliber of "critical thinking" going on here. Calling these "simulations" is like calling Wiley Coyote cartoons physics lessons.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Ever play pool with bowling balls? Try it. Arrange 6 bowling balls side by side in a 2X3 arrangement. Make sure something like tape holds them together. Preferably something like zing or solder that cracks, not stretches. draftsman tape. Then throw one bowling ball at 9.81 miles per hour to the top of the tower. Tell me if the bowling balls remain together.


Momentum. It'll kill ya.

reply to post by oniongrass


WTC7 fell because of the massive chunk into it, the crushed side structure, and the fact that it did not collapse at once. It collapsed inside for a number of seconds before the whole structure did. Don't watch the snippets. Watch the whole thing.


reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


Don't twist it. Yes some is not related. But there are those that are related.

Me using food for simulated models sure isn't scientific. Architects crumpling up a piece of paper into something that looks like a structure sure isn't scientific. But it certainly is used. A lot. Perhaps you haven't heard. Engineers hate architects because engineers have to do all the math. Architects don't. If the architect messed up, say making something designed to basically be a mies van de roe monstrosity, you shouldn't expect much structural strength beyond what is needed. Object Oriented design. Why design for things that have a very small chance of happening. Ok yes maybe a helicopter of small plane will crash. but a 747? No body prepares for that.

Take a look at the bomber that crashed into the empire state building. Now imagine something twice the size with many times the fuel crashed into a building designed to be for its purpose, not the Apocalypse. What would you expect?

www.findingdulcinea.com... lling-14/news/0/image.jpg

[edit on 25-8-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 25-8-2010 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by Gorman91
Don't twist it. Yes some is not related. But there are those that are related.

You must mean "related" in an extremely loose way.

The "simulations" twist themselves -- literally! The structure twists around on its axis like a ballerina in one video!

Part of it... is a man jumping up and down on top of a plane while it is frozen mid-air??

Look man. I don't care who you are. Or what you say. This is absolutely ridiculous.

You do not understand the meaning of science.

If a truther posted this they would never hear the end of it. And neither should you. This is a complete failure.


You should feel embarrassed to have even posted this in the context you have. I know I would. Which is why I would never do it.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]

reply to post by Gorman91

Then throw one bowling ball at 9.81 miles per hour to the top of the tower. Tell me if the bowling balls remain together.

May I ask why 9.81 miles per hour?

Your video of oils drums might as well be a video of a house of cards being hit by planes.



[edit on 25-8-2010 by Azp420]

Originally posted by Six Sigma
... If you "proved" anything that disputes the findings of the collapse, please submit your work through the appropriate channels. If not, please supply me the link to your work and I will have some structural engineers have a look at. I am not a structural engineer. ... Well, your opinion means nothing.... please don't take that personally. ... You want me to explain the collapse? That would take up too much space here. I can point you to some peer reviewed papers that do explain this. Please let me know if you are interested. ...

Who needs it. Why do you get to be so unpleasant? It really does make it difficult to respond; it's like being forced to participate in a mud throwing contest.

The alternative is to decline to participate. Anyway we're not supposed to discuss with him here, but just to submit it to him for his team to evaluate.

Originally posted by Azp420

Then throw one bowling ball at 9.81 miles per hour to the top of the tower. Tell me if the bowling balls remain together.

May I ask why 9.81 miles per hour?

My God, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

If he mentions anything about the acceleration of gravity.... I swear to God....


1) Acceleration of gravity is 9.81 meters per second squared

2) You'll notice meters are METRIC.

3) This guy is using the same number with CUSTOMARY (US) units.

4) You can't even measure acceleration in mph!!

5) Throw it to the top of the tower against gravity??

5) The whole freaking statement makes absolutely NO SENSE.


Is this guy intentionally trying to discredit all "debunkers"?


I figured out if I wanted to laugh or cry.

I'm laughing. My ass off.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

My God, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

If he mentions anything about the acceleration of gravity.... I swear to God....

Haha yeah I knew he was thinking 9.81 miles per hour was something to do with gravity but I wanted to see him admit it.

I wonder how he will explain it away now.

Originally posted by Gorman91
... Me using food for simulated models sure isn't scientific. Architects crumpling up a piece of paper into something that looks like a structure sure isn't scientific. But it certainly is used. A lot. Perhaps you haven't heard. Engineers hate architects because engineers have to do all the math. Architects don't. If the architect messed up, say making something designed to basically be a mies van de roe monstrosity, you shouldn't expect much structural strength beyond what is needed. Object Oriented design. Why design for things that have a very small chance of happening. Ok yes maybe a helicopter of small plane will crash. but a 747? No body prepares for that. ...

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

But in this case the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707, a plane they were familiar with when the towers were built.

You're generally right about architects. Architects are artists not engineers. (At least that's my perspective as an engineer who has talked to and considered hiring architects, but just decided to do their job myself because I knew what I wanted the structure to look like as well as they did.) Engineers don't hate architects, because generally engineers get paid better.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
... If he mentions anything about the acceleration of gravity.... I swear to God....

1) Acceleration of gravity is 9.81 meters per second squared
...
Is this guy intentionally trying to discredit all "debunkers"?
...

Haha good catch, that is funny. But actually he's not as bad as the average debunker. At least he's pleasant, not trying to turn it into a bloody foodfight.

I think he actually believes his point of view. I don't mind someone being wrong. I do mind someone being dishonest, and I don't think he's dishonest.

Originally posted by Gorman91
Ever play pool with bowling balls? Try it. Arrange 6 bowling balls side by side in a 2X3 arrangement. Make sure something like tape holds them together. Preferably something like zing or solder that cracks, not stretches. draftsman tape.

I tried it with regular pool balls with craftsman tape.

They all held together and the cue ball re-ka-shied off. (ricocheted for the literate).

Matter of fact, I would guess I plowed the cue ball with 3 times the acceleration of your definition of "gravity"

It bounced off the stack of the other pool balls and shot across the room.

Need a video?

Bettter yet,

Why don't you take 9 pool balls, line them up, put one long piece of scotch tape on each side holding them together. Put two pieces of scotch tape holding the "Base" to the bumper.

Pick your Cue stick, doesn't really matter. Get on the other side and plow the cue ball as fast as you can at the construction you just made.
Video tape it and post it here...

Be sure to video tape the hole in the wall your cue ball just made.

LMAO!

[edit on 25-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by Gorman91
WTC7 fell because of the massive chunk into it, the crushed side structure, and the fact that it did not collapse at once.

The NIST disagrees with you.

Matter of fact, the NIST virtually claims that you can put a waste paper basket fire next to one column on a 47 story skyscraper, and the whole thing will come down.

Imagine all the money developers will save!

Not only do you not understand the acceleration due to gravity, but you haven't even read the NIST report, nor listened to their presentation.

Anyway.....

I get so angry with threads like. Explosives REALLY? Why can people not except the fact that the terrorists got the better of us. There was no Bush conspiracy!!

Originally posted by rand27
I get so angry with threads like. Explosives REALLY? Why can people not except the fact that the terrorists got the better of us. There was no Bush conspiracy!!

GGGGRRRRRR those pesky terrorists, causing terror everywhere they go!

Isn't it amazing that in the year 2010 we still have people questioning authority and thinking for themselves?

I can't understand either why people don't just put a blind faith in their honest and trustworthy politicians.

So why doesn't Richard Gage and his cronies talk about the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers?

I drove into Chicago when he did his dog and pony show at Chicago Circle campus in May of 2008. I got in line afterwards and asked about that. He gave this lame excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blue prints. What kind of computers did they have in the early 60s when the WTC was designed? How much computing power should AE911Truth have at its disposal now? Gravity hasn't changed in the last 50 years. They should be able to come up with some pretty close estimates without blueprints.

They don't even talk about the weight of a floor assembly.

This is grade school physics. These ENGINEERS are making this appear too complicated. If the average man understands how easy it is they won't be in awe of the expensive degrees. It is like AE911Truth doesn't want people to UNDERSTAND they just want them to BELIEVE a different story.

www.youtube.com...

Get people to UNDERSTAND and end this charade. But then those degrees would not seem worth $100,000 if that grade school Newtonian physics was demonstrated to be easy. Curious how the Empire State Building was completed 17 years before the invention of the transistor but electrical engineers aren't supposed to comprehend the physics of skyscrapers. What a joke!

psik