Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of World Trade Center Building 7

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.


libenter credunt homines fere volunt quod
edit on 18-8-2011 by patternfinder because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 




It was pointed out to you long ago that those spheres are also a byproduct of WELDING. For some reason you forget that.
...so I guess we'll continue with this off-topic discussion in this thread?

You are wrong. The first sample, taken 10 minutes after the collapse, contained the exact same iron spheres as the ones taken later.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


And as was also pointed out to you. Welders do not clean up their welds during the construction process. BOTH towers were full of iron spheres since their construction.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by SirMike
 


So your using the generalized definition of the word "Architect". We aren't talking about software architects or even landscape architects. The architects we are talking about, by definition, means a person trained in the planning, design and oversight of the construction of buildings. So the destruction of a building would be that job in reverse. They would know the weak points of a structure wouldn't you think?


No, I am not using a "generalized definition" for architect. An architect lays out floor plans, determines what codes need to be used, get permits, write specifications and things like that. However, every piece of steel and reinforced concrete, every foundation, every gusset plate, weld and connection is designed by a structural engineer. Architects tell you what its going to look like and how the paperwork needs to flow, but engineers make it work.

Trust me on this, I do this for a living.


The architects screw up all of the time....I do not know how many times we have to get the engineers in to fix a serious mess up.....

I am with you brother.... The architects just like to draw....When it comes to real life structures, there is always an I beam in the way or the darn wall is intersecting a _.....

But what do I know, I am just a tinner.........



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 




And as was also pointed out to you. Welders do not clean up their welds during the construction process. BOTH towers were full of iron spheres since their construction.
Did their welders also produce the active thermitic material, which creates iron spheres as a by-product, during the welding process?

And for the third time, this is ridiculously off-topic so private message me to continue this discussion because we're derailing the thread.

Sorry OP...
edit on 18-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


I ain't harping on architects to be a jerk, But as you know they don't design structures like SE's do and for this guy to question a board of the nations best engineering experts and dozens of papers smacks of hubris.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Can I ask you to explain to me what you are getting at?

Here is some photos of weld spatter.


This one has been painted over.



This is just an example of the "spheres"



That is what it is called. It is no special littles "spheres" or whatever.....Certain electrodes give off more spatter than others. It depends on the position of the welding being done and also the amperage (heat input) that affects the amount of spatter.

And no most of the time the welders do not clean their welds..I say most because they might have a grunt there to wire it quik. Even then it does not take all of the spatter away...............They do not pay you 30-50 dollars an hour to run a wire wheel and chisel all day. You are there to weld and get the job done.

Not only am I a tinner, I graduated my 2 year welding degree with a decent GPA.

So what is up with all of the "sphere" talk? Seriously, I never heard this one before....


ETA: Photos
edit on 18-8-2011 by liejunkie01 because: ETA: I thhought I did
edit on 18-8-2011 by liejunkie01 because: spheres, sorry



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


Without the architects, we would not have a job.........


Sometimes it is funny, the mistakes they make.........



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 





Can I ask you to explain to me what you are getting at?

Here is some photos of weld spatter. That is what it is called. It is no special littles "soheres" or whatever.....Certain electrodes give off more spatter than others. It depends on the position of the welding being done and also the amperage (heat input) that affects the amount of spatter.

And no most of the time the welders do not clean their welds..I say most because they might have a grunt there to wire it quik. Even then it does not take all of the spatter away...............They do not pay you 30-50 dollars an hour to run a wire wheel and chisel all day. You are there to weld and get the job done.

Not only am I a tinner, I graduated my 2 year welding degree with a decent GPA.

So what is up with all of the "sphere" talk? Seriously, I never heard this one before....
What I'm getting at is that there was active thermitic material found in the dust samples, and a by-product of thermitic material is iron spheres, which leads me to believe that the iron spheres may have been caused by the thermite which could have been used to weaken the towers before it's destruction.

But the welding explanation is pretty solid and makes a lot of sense.

However this is severely off-topic so if you want to discuss it can you private message me about it?
edit on 18-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
No, you can list a bunch of people who saw molten METAL...not steel. You cannot list ONE shred of proof that there was molten steel.

Not one shred of proof, eh?

Proof:

Noun: Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.



Proof is evidence. What is evidence?

Evidence:

Evidence is a piece of information that supports a conclusion.



Now, of the types of evidence there are, witness testimony is the most important:

almost all evidence must be sponsored by a witness




What is the conclusion? That there was molten steel at the WTC site.

What is the proof or evidence of molten steel?

  • FEMA's metallurgical analysis showed inter-granular melting of the steel.

    That covers the forensic type of evidence. Now some witness testimony;


    Assistant engineer of the WTC towers, Les Robertson, talks about seeing the molten steel:



    Firefighters talking about the molten steel:



    First responders, including police, firefighters, and paramedics are called into court every day to testify as credible, professional witnesses. If firefighters, and a former WTC engineer aren't credible enough for you, on top of the metallurgical analysis of the steel, then there is not just denial going on; there is an agenda going on.




    edit on 18-8-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



  • posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 12:13 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by deadmessiah
    reply to post by psikeyhackr
     


    You didn't think this through very well, did you? Do you really think the government wants to "find out" what really happened? Of course not, that would mean that either they lied about the official story or don't believe their official story. This would raise doubts as to why they thought they had the pretext start wars. You must not be a believer in History. Remember the Reich-stag, Hitler, and his "minority" following at the time? You should have learned about it in 7th grade, you know, the grade where you learn also about the laws of gravity, physics, melting points of various metals, how to use reason, common sense, and so on.


    The Government is composed of thousands of individuals. I do not regard it as monolithic. I don't pretend to know who within it knows or thinks what.

    The point is that the simplicity of the physics problem means that almost no one should believe it.

    But after TEN YEARS it raises the problem to another level. It means that the integrity of most architects and engineers is not worth much.

    It means we have an educational system that essentially issues licenses to lie. But who is supposed to believe a lie this dumb? The physics of 9/11 is so obvious and so global it really strikes to the heart of Western culture. Didn't Western culture become dominant on the planet because of SCIENCE? So what does saying such an obvious lie about such simple science say about Western culture?

    If historians think history is more important than science it just means historians are really dumb.

    psik
    edit on 19-8-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



    posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 12:54 AM
    link   
    The biggest question about WTC 7 is: How did it collapse at free-fall speed for 2.2 seconds? That means either there was an external force acting on top of the building (obviously didn't happen) or, all the structural support was gone in an instant.

    Also AE911Truth has demolition experts as seen in the trailer.



    posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 01:36 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Supernatural
     



    The biggest question about WTC 7 is: How did it collapse at free-fall speed for 2.2 seconds? That means either there was an external force acting on top of the building (obviously didn't happen) or, all the structural support was gone in an instant.

    Also AE911Truth has demolition experts as seen in the trailer.
    Yeah Tom Sullivan and Danny Jowenko are two demolition experts who say that WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition:



    posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 05:44 AM
    link   
    reply to post by _BoneZ_
     





    First responders, including police, firefighters, and paramedics are called into court every day to testify as credible, professional witnesses. If firefighters, and a former WTC engineer aren't credible enough for you, on top of the metallurgical analysis of the steel, then there is not just denial going on; there is an agenda going on.


    Wasn't it some of the first responders who were claiming the victims had turned to dust?

    How credible is that?



    posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 05:48 AM
    link   
    reply to post by psikeyhackr
     





    If historians think history is more important than science it just means historians are really dumb.


    If anything, history is more important than science.

    If more people understood history, they'd understand scientists can be brainswashed to repeat lies just as easily as the next guy.

    Some reallly smart people thought the world was flat for a very long time.

    edit on 19-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



    posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:00 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Yankee451
     




    If more people understood history, they'd understand scientists can be brainswashed to repeat lies just as easily as the next guy.


    So you are saying that 99.999% of all teachers, scientists, engineers, etc have been brainwashed?

    Ask yourself something.
    Why hasn't the number of 'experts' on ae911 gone up exponentially?
    My take is that they are the few who are flat out wrong.



    posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:50 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by deadmessiah
    Wow hooper, your first post is really ignorant. An architect's job is to design a building able to withstand various different elements. Richard has designed several steel structure buildings in his 20+ years as a architect. He knows his area of expertise pretty damn well.

    Definition of a conspiracy theorist appears to be: Anyone that disagrees with what the government or media says.


    This is the same old regurgitated crap that's been around for years. All these supposed experts. How many, if any, of the legion of professionals at ae911 has ever put their stamp and license on a demolition plan?

    You see, in most jurisdictions large scale demolitions require review and seal by a licensed engineer, structural or civil depending on the State. Some States recognize the separate discipline of structural engineering, some don't. Architects don't sign and seal demo plans. These are not experts. They are con men.



    posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:05 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by SirMike

    Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
    reply to post by hooper
     


    Wow, so your boldly saying that anyone that has the capability to build a structure such as a skyscraper doesn't have the know how on how one would fall or shouldn't fall?

    You call them professional con men when they have nothing to gain. So why would they con?

    Do you have anything new to bring to the table?


    Correction, architects design aesthetics, it’s the licensed structural engineers who figure out how to make it work.

    And yes, these guys are charlatans.


    Clearly you know nothing about the work of an architect. Just saying he is a con man wont do anything for your case. You are conspiracy guy on conspiracy board, with him at least we have a face and a name. So we are just left with your opinion about these men, an opinion based on a hunch of yours.
    edit on 19-8-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



    posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:23 AM
    link   
    reply to post by samkent
     





    So you are saying that 99.999% of all teachers, scientists, engineers, etc have been brainwashed?

    Ask yourself something.
    Why hasn't the number of 'experts' on ae911 gone up exponentially?
    My take is that they are the few who are flat out wrong.


    Is that what I said?

    My take is you like to rely on so-called "experts" to do your thinking for you.



    posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:32 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Yankee451
     



    My take is you like to rely on so-called "experts" to do your thinking for you.


    Yeah, its called specialization. Its been around for a couple of thousand years now and has worked pretty well. We let medical experts do our health "thinking" for us, we let engineering experts do our bridge building "thinking" for us, etc., etc., etc..

    What's dnagerous is when non-experts start thinking that they are the equal of the experts. This usually occurs when the experts say something they don't like.





    new topics

    top topics



     
    21
    << 1  2    4  5  6 >>

    log in

    join