It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What exactly is the problem with architects and engineers for 9/11 truth?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Experts have a vested interest in making their area of expertise look complicated.


That may be. Though if the consensus is that the structural collapses indicate a conspiracy that can be explained though "grade school physics", why is it that these architects and engineers can not or have not published anything about these "grade school physics"? Explaining events with simplicity is not only a representation of Occam's razor but the nature of western reductionist science. This should hardly be a challenge, especially for those architects and engineers who employ physics as a component of their jobs.




posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
My problem with AE9/11T have many parts. For one thing, their list of "suspicious" activity and events on 9/11 seems as if it was all copy and pasted from every other 9/11 truther site. Second, their very own list contradicts itself a couple times. Third, they use some very poor terminology in their accusations. Fourth, their list is based on observations of things they have no credibility to comment on. (For example: Griffin, a THEOLOGIAN.)

Let us look at their WTC7 list. I remember seeing on that list a while ago, that one "characteristic" of the collapse of the WTC7 was squibs. Now, take a look. No mention of squibs. Why?

Second, that term, "pyroclastic dust clouds". Did a volcano erupt in Manhattan? You mean to tell me an "intelligent" group of "professionals" would use such poor terminology to describe dust from a collapsing building? After all these years?? Sorry, more credibility down the toilet.

Third: First they say it was demolition charges exploding. They were allegedly heard right before the start of collapse. So that means, demo charges. Or bombs. Then, they go and say a few lines down, "evidence of intergranular melting and oxidation of steel" as strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices. Wait, so we just jumped from explosives to incendiary devices? Incendiary devices are not explosives. Geeze even a lay person should understand THAT basic fact. How did these "professionals" and "experts" miss that is beyond me. Even for the acclaimed demolition "experts" on their site. Sorry, but that bird wont fly with me.

Fourth: They claim that: WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire such as slow onset with large visible deformations. That is a flat out lie, and there was significant evidence of it ALL DAY. That was why firefighters were pulled from the building., that was why they put a transit on it, that was why they saw a bulge appearing early in the afternoon, that was why the building was noticed to be leaning towards the south before the collapse, that was why people heard creaking and groaning from inside the building, and that was why the firefighters KNEW it was going to collapse early on. How the hell can such a bunch of "experts" and "professionals" MISS all of that evidence and LIE right to your face? And of course, Joe Schmo who has no idea about the story of WTC7 looks at it, reads their claims and is automatically biased, and believes the false claims. And we all know he doesnt know the rest of the story, because AE9/11T conveniently leaves out the reports and accounts of the firefighters that specifically mention the deteriorating condition of WTC7. Is that honest? No. And they pulled the same crap with the WTC1+2 part and lied the same way about no "obvious slow onset of collapse or deformation". Did they forget the reports from police pilots who saw the towers leaning in one direction, or the exterior columns bending inwards, or hanging floor slabs and trusses that failed well prior to collapse? Again, these are left off the site. Honest? NOPE.

I'll keep going down the list if you dont mind.

The claim samples of explosives found in the dust. Where? What? I've never heard this nonsense. Oh are they referring to those paint chips that somehow have contradicting properties of being explosive, melting, silent, loud powerful, and painted on? I wish to see this report of explosives found in dust. FYI: thermite is not an explosive. You'd think a demo "expert" would know that.

They mention some European demo "expert" as confirming demolition evidence. But strange, they didnt go to Explosion World or use their expertise or knowledge. Why is that? Explosion World is a respectable demolition company, why arent they included or mentioned?

Then they use an appeal to authority. They think that if you have the title: pilot, doctor, or engineer, that somehow validates their claims. Sorry, but that aint going to work on me. No matter how hard you try, you cannot convince me that a person with a doctorate in THEOLOGY is a credible source on ANYTHING involving with demolition, highrise construction or highrise engineering. And for another "professional" using boxes as comparison to the WTC Towers (ahem Richard "Boxboy" Gage") really seals the deal.

In the end, this is just a motley rabble of loosely related fields with varying levels of education but not the least bit as relevant to the complexity of the WTC events. Once again, a theologian is not a credible source for anything mechanical, engineering, or demolition.

But he did start a heck of a new religion though! Gotta give him credit for that!
edit on 1/9/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Experts have a vested interest in making their area of expertise look complicated.


That may be. Though if the consensus is that the structural collapses indicate a conspiracy that can be explained though "grade school physics", why is it that these architects and engineers can not or have not published anything about these "grade school physics"? Explaining events with simplicity is not only a representation of Occam's razor but the nature of western reductionist science. This should hardly be a challenge, especially for those architects and engineers who employ physics as a component of their jobs.


So why haven't those engineers specified the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the buildings in NINE YEARS? Why can't you figure out why it is necessary to solve the problem? The trouble with our educational system is they usually don't try ot teach physics until late high school but everyone deals with physics all of the time. They pretend it can't be understood without calculus.

The Laws of Physics are incapable of giving a damn about Occam's Razor. Most people really just interpret that as whatever is EASIER for them to BELIEVE.

All it really says is that the simplest explanation that ACCOUNTS FOR ALL OF THE FACTS is the most probable. It does not say what is TRUE it says most PROBABLE. But it must also account for ALL OF THE FACTS.

Now if you don't even know the distribution of steel in the building how can you say that all of the facts are accounted for? How could the steel weaken on the 81st level of the south tower in less than ONE HOUR and yet you don't know how much steel was there but there had to be enough to support another 29 stories for 29 years?

But you want to dish out this Occam's Razor crap.

People just RATIONALIZE what they believe and then claim to be rational.

I never said a damn thing about anybodies' conspiracy. This is nothing but physics. Who did it and why is totally irrelevant. How do you PROVE that airliners could bring the buildings down if you don't even know the distribution of steel?

psik
edit on 9-1-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



My problem with AE9/11T have many parts.


My problem is What have all these groups arguing the OS got to gain by lying??
If they are all lying, WHAT is their motive.??

I just don't see it..



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
All it really says is that the simplest explanation that ACCOUNTS FOR ALL OF THE FACTS is the most probable. It does not say what is TRUE it says most PROBABLE. But it must also account for ALL OF THE FACTS.

Now if you don't even know the distribution of steel in the building how can you say that all of the facts are accounted for? How could the steel weaken on the 81st level of the south tower in less than ONE HOUR and yet you don't know how much steel was there but there had to be enough to support another 29 stories for 29 years?

But you want to dish out this Occam's Razor crap.


Yep, a simple question seems to ignite the emotions when it cannot be answered. I'll try again.

Someone posted that the collapses would indicate a conspiracy through the explanation of "grade school physics". I pointed out that an organization of people whose employment relies on such physics and suspects 911 conspiracy has not published any explanation based on these "grade school physics" - something that should be relatively easy to do. Then, you posted emotional vitriol while never answering the question.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Like I said, it is the debunking of the report that comes easy to the sufficiently educated. Producing an alternative scenario is a different matter, that requires an investigation, unless you are happy with replacing something somebody made up with something somebody else made up.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Like I said, it is the debunking of the report that comes easy to the sufficiently educated. Producing an alternative scenario is a different matter, that requires an investigation, unless you are happy with replacing something somebody made up with something somebody else made up.


There have already been investigations and there is and was data already available to work with. If conspiracy can be indicated from simple physics (as is widely claimed), not much particular data is needed to make the case - certainly nothing that could be acquired from new investigations.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
All it really says is that the simplest explanation that ACCOUNTS FOR ALL OF THE FACTS is the most probable. It does not say what is TRUE it says most PROBABLE. But it must also account for ALL OF THE FACTS.

Now if you don't even know the distribution of steel in the building how can you say that all of the facts are accounted for? How could the steel weaken on the 81st level of the south tower in less than ONE HOUR and yet you don't know how much steel was there but there had to be enough to support another 29 stories for 29 years?

But you want to dish out this Occam's Razor crap.


Yep, a simple question seems to ignite the emotions when it cannot be answered. I'll try again.

Someone posted that the collapses would indicate a conspiracy through the explanation of "grade school physics". I pointed out that an organization of people whose employment relies on such physics and suspects 911 conspiracy has not published any explanation based on these "grade school physics" - something that should be relatively easy to do. Then, you posted emotional vitriol while never answering the question.


You can call it an emotional outburst all you want. It doesn't change the physics.

Write a computer program with 109 masses floating in the air. Let the top 14 masses fall and compute the resulting combined masses and velocities. I have already written the program. It takes about 12 seconds for all of the masses to hit the ground. The conservation of momentum alone makes it IM0POSSIBLE for them to come down in less than 9 seconds. However the seismic data for the collapse of the north tower seems to indicate that it came down in 8.4 seconds. Dr. Sunder of the NIST says 11 seconds.

But the masses of the WTC were not floating in the air. Thousands of tons had to be supported all of the way up. So the floating masses calculation is a GROSS OVERSIMPLIFICATION. The supports would have to be bent and broken and dislocated and that would require energy therefore that would slow everything down considerably.

So it is the so called "COLLAPSE TIME" which proves the fall of the top of the north tower could not have brought the entire building down that fast. Yeah, I get emotional about the utter STUPIDITY of this NINE YEAR charade. I applied to MIT back in the day and got an interview. Now I am glad I was never accepted.

Seen this video?

video.google.com...

The graphic of the floor outside the core falling like that is IMPOSSIBLE because rectangular sections of floor could not break off and hinge down because the concrete floor slab was a single large solid piece with the upper knuckles of the trusses embedded into the concrete. But MIT participated in producing that garbage and it aired in 2002. So lots of people are emotionally invested in believing in and perpetuating the belief in nonsense physics.

So how do all of the experts explain not talking about the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level if that is what proves it could not happen. The NIST report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. But they did it for the steel in three places. Very curious!

psik



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You can call it an emotional outburst all you want. It doesn't change the physics.

Write a computer program with 109 masses floating in the air. Let the top 14 masses fall and compute the resulting combined masses and velocities. I have already written the program. It takes about 12 seconds for all of the masses to hit the ground. The conservation of momentum alone makes it IM0POSSIBLE for them to come down in less than 9 seconds. However the seismic data for the collapse of the north tower seems to indicate that it came down in 8.4 seconds.


So it seems you're claiming that the laws of physics were somehow broken. Interesting, because even a controlled demolition could not cause a violation of the laws of physics. It looks like someone needs to go back to the drawing board.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



Producing an alternative scenario is a different matter, that requires an investigation....


Why?

If the gang over at AE911 don't hold that the impact of the planes caused the collapse of the towers then propose some alternative means and methods. The gang knows everything about the buildings, the collapse and the events that everyone else does. There is no top secret information out there. Think it was explosives? Fine, just calculate how much and where and show their work. For anyone on the street that would be a tall order but for these "experts" they should be able to come up with that rather easily, right? I mean, thats the job of architects and engineers, correct? Thermite? Same deal - how much where and how to produce the results the whole world saw on 9/11. Or any other means and methods they so desire. What would you want to find out in a new investigation? Test for explosives? What does that prove unless you can show how explosives would work?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cassius666
 



Producing an alternative scenario is a different matter, that requires an investigation....


Why?



What do you mean why? Are you serious? Because thats how you get serious and credible results, with an investigation. Also there are many explosives. It could turn out no explosives were used too. But testing for explosives still needs to be done, something that hasnt been done, except by some individual which did not produce a paper base on their findings as far as I know and Niels and Jones who, while they produced a credible paper that has been peer reviewed, it is still all based on the samples they collected, so an indipendent investigation by a larger team would be good to seem if they obtain the same results and finding. Thats why there needs to be an indipendent investigation else its just all suspicion and assumptions and we already have a report based on suspicion and assumption.
edit on 10-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   


I applied to MIT back in the day and got an interview. Now I am glad I was never accepted.



So you weren’t good enough to get into MIT but you are able to calculate the failures of the steel? Or do you just use the fall back story of ‘it must have been explosives’?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



What do you mean why? Are you serious?

Uh, yeah. Why?

Because thats how you get serious and credible results, with an investigation.

Well, there was an investigation, a very serious one done by very serious and qualified persons. Or did you mean to say that credible results are only realized when there is ANOTHER investigation, because, if so, then you'll have to explain that concept.

Also there are many explosives.

So? Pick one, any one. It doesn't really matter. Just explain, in detail, as engineers are required to do exactly how you would achieve the results of 9/11.

It could turn out no explosives were used too. But testing for explosives still needs to be done,

Again, why? Unless you can prove that explosives can cause what was observed then your test is meaningless.

something that hasnt been done, except by Niels and Jones and while they produced a credible paper that has been peer reviewed,

I think you meant NOT peer reviewed. Its OK, easy mistake.

it is still all based on the samples they collected,

Better read that "peer reviewed" paper a little closer. The "authors" never collected any samples themselves.

so an indipendent investigation by a larger team would be good to seem if they obtain the same results and finding.

Fine - why don't they send their samples to some other folks at AE911 and see if they get the same results when they send the samples out to an independent lab for testing? You don't need anyone elses permission or money to do that.

Thats why there needs to be an indipendent investigation else its just all suspicion and assumptions and we already have a report based on suspicion and assumption.

Just for kicks - define independent.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You can call it an emotional outburst all you want. It doesn't change the physics.

Write a computer program with 109 masses floating in the air. Let the top 14 masses fall and compute the resulting combined masses and velocities. I have already written the program. It takes about 12 seconds for all of the masses to hit the ground. The conservation of momentum alone makes it IM0POSSIBLE for them to come down in less than 9 seconds. However the seismic data for the collapse of the north tower seems to indicate that it came down in 8.4 seconds.


So it seems you're claiming that the laws of physics were somehow broken. Interesting, because even a controlled demolition could not cause a violation of the laws of physics. It looks like someone needs to go back to the drawing board.


The Laws of Physics can't be broken.

It is a matter of inputs and outputs. Just like in a computer simulation. If all of the inputs are known then the output should be completely predictable. At least in Newtonian Physics. If the output is different from what all of the known inputs say should happen then that means THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOME UNKNOWN INPUTS.

That is where the conspiracy crap comes in. I am not saying what they were or who was responsible. But the physics dictates that they had to be there. The north tower came down far too fast and probably should not have come down at all on the basis of the known inputs.

www.youtube.com...

That is part of what makes this problem so disgustingly amusing. The physics people should have been demanding accurate info on the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers within weeks of 9/11. But we still don't have it and I don't hear lots of people complaining about not having it. Don't skyscrapers have to hold themselves up and aren't they built from the bottom up? So the designers must have figured all of that out AND DOCUMENTED IT ahead of time? But since gravity does not change and computers have gotten so much better since 1972 then organizations like AE911Truth should be able to come up with excellent estimates even without blueprints. How may skyscrapers have been completed around the world since 1972. The Empire State Building was done without electronic computers.

Richard Gage is a joke with his boxes but not talking about the distribution of steel.

www.youtube.com...

Now the whoever made that video is even more absurd than Gage. But Gage should be able to come up with more than silly propaganda to explain 9/11. But the truly serious fact is that he should not have to. The MAJORITY of architects in the country should have been saying it could not happen within a year of 9/11.

So why don't we have multiple independently produced but very similar tables with the steel and concrete on every level of the towers?

psik



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



So why don't we have multiple independently produced but very similar tables with the steel and concrete on every level of the towers?


Probably the same reason we don't have tables telling us exactly how much toliet paper was left in each bathroom stall at the moment of collapse - its not relevant.

But since your obviously obsessed with this undefined point of trivia - why don't you figure it out? Better yet - tell us exactly what the ratio had to be in order to observe what was observed on 9/11 and then we'll work it backwards from there?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The Laws of Physics can't be broken.

It is a matter of inputs and outputs. Just like in a computer simulation. If all of the inputs are known then the output should be completely predictable. At least in Newtonian Physics. If the output is different from what all of the known inputs say should happen then that means THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOME UNKNOWN INPUTS.


Such as what? You said this:


The conservation of momentum alone makes it IM0POSSIBLE for them to come down in less than 9 seconds. However the seismic data for the collapse of the north tower seems to indicate that it came down in 8.4 seconds.


Since the laws of physics can't be broken, either the source data is incorrect or the beams all had jet turbines firing them downward. A controlled demolition, as is widely suggested, isn't going to make things fall faster. There were no jet turbines pushing them down, nor electromagnets sucking from the bottom, nor evidence of controlled demolition, therefore there must be a problem with the source data.

Isn't this the sort of thing that 1,400 architects and engineers could hammer out in an afternoon if they put their minds to it? How about after ten years?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by GenRadek
 



My problem with AE9/11T have many parts.


My problem is What have all these groups arguing the OS got to gain by lying??
If they are all lying, WHAT is their motive.??

I just don't see it..


Well you tell me. Why would a group, posing as a front for truth and honesty, and genuine concern about the events of 9/11, go and conveniently leave out the (for example) observations, commentary, and eyewitness accounts on the all day deterioration of WTC7 from the fires burning within? Explain that to me, please. They have it right there, front page, on their list of "CD evidence". Why would they go and keep such a blatant LIE on their misguided list? All they need to do is a 30 second search on Google, Yahoo, Bing, Askjeeves, ATS, and they would have all the information they need. Why then has this not been rectified?

So please explain why they would lie like this, and why do some many of the TM love them to death for it? I can find many more issues with their claims, but I think I covered a good gist of it earlier. I too would like to know why they would lie like this. Maybe its a complete disinfo campaign aimed at diverting attention from the fact that someone in our govt screwed up ROYALLY, and is playing a game of "cover your ass" as to not be held accountable for screwing up royal and getting three thousand US citizens killed in the largest, costliest attack on the US since Pearl Harbor. Would you like to be the one responsible for screwing up on 9/11 and accidentally letting it happen because you were too dense to figure out there was a serious threat with all the warning signs pointing at it, and you just happened to leave the memo buried under a pizza box and some Playboy magazines? I sure as hell wouldnt, lol. Maybe that is all it is, and what I've suspected long ago.

And here we have a group, claiming to be for the truth, out and actively lying and pushing more lies out in an effort to muddy the waters and make it look like something else happened. "Hey lets blame it all on some sinister shadow people in the govt, and have them responsible for 9/11. Let's make some wacky crap up and see if we can sell it to them, and say we are for truth!" Hey it worked with Roswell and the "UFO" coverups. What better way to divert attention of top secret projects than to engage and support the belief that there are UFOs out there and hide the real black projects. Didnt an officer of the USAF once admit to that? Well, is it possible this whole TM is just that? Think about it. Who has the most to lose?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The Laws of Physics can't be broken.

It is a matter of inputs and outputs. Just like in a computer simulation. If all of the inputs are known then the output should be completely predictable. At least in Newtonian Physics. If the output is different from what all of the known inputs say should happen then that means THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOME UNKNOWN INPUTS.


Such as what? You said this:


The conservation of momentum alone makes it IM0POSSIBLE for them to come down in less than 9 seconds. However the seismic data for the collapse of the north tower seems to indicate that it came down in 8.4 seconds.


Since the laws of physics can't be broken, either the source data is incorrect or the beams all had jet turbines firing them downward. A controlled demolition, as is widely suggested, isn't going to make things fall faster. There were no jet turbines pushing them down, nor electromagnets sucking from the bottom, nor evidence of controlled demolition, therefore there must be a problem with the source data.

Isn't this the sort of thing that 1,400 architects and engineers could hammer out in an afternoon if they put their minds to it? How about after ten years?


I emailed Richard Gage in 2007:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Richard Gage"
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Distribution of Mass
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:36:55 -0700

Karl - you're right! Please post this on our newly organized forum next week!!

Thank you!

Richard


-----Original Message-----
From: karl_smithe@email2me.net [mailto:karl_smithe@email2me.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 4:38 PM
To: rgage@ae911truth.org
Subject: Distribution of Mass

Name: Karl Smithe

Comment: On page 3 of his ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE, F.R.Greening makes a couple of interestingly dumb mistakes.

He says he divides the total mass of the WTC by 110.

Doesn't the total mass include the 6 basements? So shouldn't he be dividing by 116.

But even worse, isn't the WTC going to be bottom heavy because every floor must support all of the floors above? Doesn't that mean a lot more mass at the bottom? So averaging that mass shifts the mass upwards. He is saying the upper floors are much heavier than they actually were so that would mean a lot more potential energy would go into the collapse therefore his computations are WRONG.

Later link on JREF

This link is dead:
9/11 & when to Average

After all of these years shouldn't the experts be able to tell us the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level? Didn't they have to figure that out to design the building in the 60's?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But I asked him about the distributions of steel and concrete in 2008 and he said the NIST wasn't releasing accurate blueprints.

Yes, it is ridiculous that our EXPERTS didn't resolve this in a year.

Why don't most of the high school kids in the nation that put men on the Moon understand enough about Newtonian physics to see how ridiculous it is? This is an educational and psychological problem. The psychology of refusing to be educated?

psik



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Yes because the National Institute for Standards and Technology a part of the department of commerce is so much better suited.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Well it is. Its actually 1000000000X better than the crew of AE911T. In fact, I have yet to see anything scientific to come out of AE911T, rather than their LC/Infowars/Griffin cop and pastes of nonsense.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join