Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

page: 1
137
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+99 more 
posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
This flim that I will summarize was recently released by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and contains interviews with various architects and engineers, many of them who have experience in high-rise buildlings.

World Trade Center 7


The film begins with experts briefly explaining their views on the collapse of WTC7.

After that, the film explores the removal of the steel and how it was sent to China to be recycled. While obviously cleaning up the debris from collapsed skyscrapers would most likely be the top priority, the structural steel was taken away from the site, sent overseas, melted down and destroyed before it could be properly analyzed. This Fire Engineering article explains why this is problematic.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.


The next topic was the federal investigation that ignored the facts. While the professional organizations involved in the NIST investigation are often cited to reinforce it's validity, no matter what experts were involved, it had some crucial flaws.

In this document, NIST stated that "it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings." However, in that same document, they also say that they "did not conduct tests for explosive residue". The report contained no significant forensic examination, and laws were actually violated in the destruction of the evidence.

NIST and FEMA didn't follow standard protocol for fire investigations. The National Fire Protection Agency, specifically 9.3.6.7., says the following:

“Once evidence has been removed from the scene, it should be maintained and not be destroyed or altered until others who have a reasonable interest in the matter have been notified. Any destructive testing or destructive examination of the evidence that may be necessary should occur only after all reasonably known parties have been notified in advance and given the opportunity to participate in or observe the testing.”
Here's a _/url] that gives a brief overview of the [url=http://www.nfpa.org/catalog/product.asp?title=Code-921-2001-Fire-and-Explosion-Investigations&category%5Fname=Fire+Service&pid=92101&target%5Fpid =92101&src%5Fpid=&link%5Ftype=category]2001 edition.

Firefighter Erik Lawyer brings up the explosions reported by witnesses, and says the fact that people even reported explosions means they need to be investigated. Terrorists used explosives in the 1993 attack on the Twin Towers, and there are witnesses and audio recordings of the explosions. The NFPA manual says that if there's melted steel and concrete, you should test for thermite. Both of these things were present, so why aren't they following these national standards in unprecendeted skyscraper collapses that killed 3000+ Americans?

Lawyer gets into the removal of the steel, and expresses his disbelief about the steel being taken away. This was the first fire-caused collapse in history, and they could have used the steel to learn from it, but instead it was melted down. There was never any physical evidence with which to do the investigation, and as was said earlier this completely goes against the national standards that explains as clear as day that you don't destroy evidence. Lawyer calls for an investigation into the investigators, in order to find out why they got rid of the evidence, because this was not a proper investigation.

The damage sustained by WTC7 is the next topic. Fire Protection Engineer Scott Grainger bluntly says that "steel-structural framed high-rise buildings simply do not collapse due to fire". He also points out that there has never been, until 9/11, a high-rise building that has collapsed due to fire even though fires have burned in similiar (but not identical) structures for longer.

At 29:20 in the video, an experiment done by British Steel in 1995 is shown that tested how steel beams that supported the ceiling would behave during office fires. The steel beams sagged over time, but the building did not come close to collapsing. There have been many other times that fires have burned in skyscrapers, yet none have produced a collapse. While the structure of those skyscrapers weren't identical to that of WTC7, the fact still remains that a steel-framed skyscraper has never collapsed due to fire damage until 9/11.

After many experts (Daniel Barnum, High-Rise Architect; Jonathan Smolens, Structural Engineer; Michael Donly, Structural Engineer; Edward Munyak, Fire Protection Engineer) give their opinions on how the fire damage could not have caused the building collapse, the 47 story building collapsing in 7 seconds is explored. WTC 7 collapsed at free-fall speed for over 100ft of its fall:
What does this reveal to us? It's impossible, unless there is nothing resisting it. The only way this could happen is if explosives were used.

NIST is basically telling us that the building below it ceased to exist for the first few seconds of the collapse. But unfortunately for them, universal physics concepts don't cease to exist. Things don't just cease to resist the forces that are acting upon them. Otherwise it would be a blatant violation of the action/reaction law of physics. If floors fall down, they would be braced by the floor directly beneath it, and this would cause delay. To call NISTs refusal to acknowledge this and explain how it happened bad science would be a massive understatement.

Dusterwald and Brookman explain how the connections are designed with a safety factor of 1.5 to 3 times the failure load for the member, which assures that the member always fails first, first in elastic mode, then in plastic mode. But in WTC7 the connections failed first without any of the members exhibiting large defamations or deflections. Over 400 connections per second had to fail in order for the members to be released and for the structure to descend at almost free-fall rate.

If we were to look at a "standard moment frame steel connection" which is a welded connection between the beam and the column, it would take on the order of around 500,000 pounds to shear off one connection. Multiply that by 400, and put a safety factor of 4, it would require 50 million pounds of force per second in order to collapse the building based on what we saw in the NIST report and the video evidence of the building collapse. This couldn't be done without explosives.
edit on 13-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Next, the symmetry of the WTC7 collapse is explored.
If there were some fires in one corner, it would maybe collapse in that corner, but not the entire building coming straight down. With fire, we would see a more natural, progressive collapse. You cannot get a perfectly symmetrical collapse from asymmetrical damage.

I did my best to explain this in my thread over the collapse of WTC7:

Let's think about the fire damage now. Fire burns randomly, it does not burn as a perfect cube, but instead as an organic, constantly changing form. The fire damage to WTC7 was asymmetrical, because there was not a fire burning on the 3rd to 7th window of the 28th floor on the left side of the building, and a fire burning on the 3rd to 7th window of the 28th floor on the right side of the building, and so on is a symmetrical pattern.


For the building to fall straight down on itself, you would need to take out the core columns in a symmetrical fashion within milliseconds of each other. A single failure at a random point in the building would not cause the entire building to collapse. A partial collapse may ensue which would be random and chaotic, but a total symmetrical collapse at free-fall speed is impossible without the use of explosives. According to the NIST report, the failure occured at column 79 on level 12. Supposedly a single column failure resulted in a total collapse.

The next topic is NISTs computer simulations/animations in support of their fire collapse theory. It basically gets torn to pieces by the experts, starting at around 47:30 in the film. Brookman explains how NIST had connections failing before the members, and they also considered 3 of the 4 connections failing to be 4 of the 4 failing. NIST has also refused to release all of their perameters and data used to model the collapse, despite multiple requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

So what do all of the experts conclude about the destruction of WTC7? They all agree that it had to have been brought down by controlled demolition. There had to be something destroying the connections in the building if 400 failed per second, explosives at the site of the connections being the only explanation.

Twin Towers


The Twin Towers were built to be able to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest aircraft at the time of it's construction. This article compares the statistics of 707s versus those of 767s:

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.
In this video, the World Trade Center Construction and Project Management Manager Frank DeMartini explains that the building could withstand multiple strikes from jetliners, because the structure is like the mosquito netting of a screen door, and the jetliners are just like a pencil puncturing the screen netting. "It really does nothing to the screen netting":
When the airplanes struck each tower, much of the jet fuel was instantly burnt up in the initial explosion. Although some jet fuel may have been burning in the towers, the black smoke indicates that the fires were oxygen starved and that they were low temperature fires.
One of the experts explains how he initially thought the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, but soon believed the official story because it was played to him over and over again, he was repeatedly told on television by experts that terrorists had brought down the building with planes.


NIST performed a test at Underwriters Laboratories, with fires burning at 2000*F for 2 hours. Even with these extreme conditions, the main trusses sagged only about 4 inches after 60 minutes and 6 inches after 100 inches, yet in their models, the main trusses were sagging well over 40 inches in their models. So the hypothesis was not corroborated by the experimental evidence.
edit on 13-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Structural steel is required by building and design codes to prevent catastrophic failure and loss of public life, yet both towers collapsed nearly identical to each other in an unprecedented fashion. In accordance with the equal and opposite law, as the top section of the building crushes the bottom section, the bottom section will simultaneously exert an equal and opposite force on the top section.

But rather than seeing the top 15 or so floors crush 15 or so floors beneath it, we see that small chunk of the building supposedly crush the entire building. Yet in videos of the collapse, there is no top chunk visible during the collapse, we just see the building progressively being pulverized because this top section basically is destroyed during the initiation of the collapse:
Even if the top and bottom sections wouldn't destroy each other, there would undoubtedly be a jolt or momentary deceleration as the two come into contact and exert a force on each other. Yet this jolt is nonexistant during the collapse. The top section of the building accelerates through the path of greatest resistance.This paper explains the data used to come to that conclusion. It's also explained in this AE911 truth video with some examples of jolts:
What this tells us is that the top section isn't actually interacting with the bottom section, because there is no deceleration as would be expected in accordance with the equal and opposite law as it travels through the path of greatest resistance.

Richard Humenn, the Principal Chief Electrical Engineer for the World Trade Center Complex, describes his experience working in the buildings, and his familiarity with the elevator shafts and the surrounding internal structure. He says that the only way the towers could have collapsed would have been if the interior columns were compromised. As the frames from this video show, the antenna fell first, which was above the middle of the elevator shafts. He explains how access to the elevator shafts gives people access to the interior core columns.

The lead investigator of the NIST investigation, Shyam Sunder, said that the measurements showed that WTC1 collapsed in about 11 seconds, and WTC2 collapsed in about 9 seconds, which is near the rate of free-fall ( 1:05:30 in the film ). They could not have come down through the path of greatest resistance at almost free-fall speed, as they would be met with 80,000 tons of structural steel on their way down.

There are columns of steel around the exterior and within the core, all of which are there to prevent the building from falling down. So even if something falls on it, it won't just immediately go down floor by floor essentially at free-fall, it would take time to do so.

There was no time for the elastic and plastic defamation that would have absorbed energy and decreased the descent to less than free-fall speed. As energy is drained away from the system to deform those members, it would slow down the descending mass, and cause a descent at less than free-fall speed. These are fundamental principles of physics, which people learn at a high school level, yet society has been misled to believe that they don't apply to the destruction of the Twin Towers.

The structural connections not only had to fail nearly simultaneously, but also in sequential order. The buildings fell at a speed that only can be attained if the vertical structure was removed. One would expect there to be reports of explosions if they truly brought down the building, which NIST says didn't exist, but as expected, the New York Times oral histories of first responders found that over 100 of them reported sounds of explosions and flashes of light during the collapse of the towers and at the onset of collapse. This video contains dozens of people describing explosions as well:


There is also direct evidence of explosives to accompany those witness testimonies. Massive steel sections of the building weighing several tons were ejected at speeds of 40 - 70mph. Gravity works vertically, not laterally. Something had to have thrown the beams outwards, explosives being the obvious candidate. Also the concrete from the building was completely pulverized into dust. Debris was ejected symmetrically hundreds of feet from all sides of the towers as well:



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Humenn describes that there were two sub-stations on the 108th, 75th, 41st, and 7th floors. Each sub-station had 4 transformers that weighed over 30,000 pounds. These was no evidence of these in the debris.

Appendix C of the FEMA report documents steel that has been melted and even partially evaporated, resembling swiss cheese. This was left out of the NIST report.


Although John Gross, Lead Engineer of the NIST report, denied the existence of molten steel in the debris, there are tons of witness reports of just that.

Appendix C of the FEMA report also described sulfur residues on the WTC steel. Sulfur slightly lowers the melting point of iron. Thermite mixed with sulfur is an incendiary called thermate, and produces a lower melting point and accelerated results. While it is not explosive, it can cut through steel, and also produces molten iron during it's reaction.

In the dust that was collected after the towers collapse, there were iron microspheres found, indiciating that the iron was previously molten, allowing the surface tension to pull it into a sphere. These spheres contained iron, with smaller portions of aluminum, sulfur, and trace portions of manganese and potassium. These spheres were found in all of the dust regardless of where the sample was taken from in Manhattan. A chemical reaction had to have taken place in order to provide the extreme temperatures needed to turn steel molten, and thermite would do the trick.

Not only was evidence of thermitic reactions in the form of by-products found, but partially and totally unreacted nanothermite chips were found in the dust as well.
The extremely small particle size it what qualifies it as "nanothermite" as opposed to regular thermite. Remember that thermite can be used to slice through and destroy steel. These nanothermite chips are explored in detail in the paper published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, called Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

So what do the experts agree on about the Twin Towers? Fundamental laws of physics were violated by the collapse of the Twin Towers according to the official explanation. Their total destruction could not have been caused by fire, it had to have been caused by controlled demolition.

The FOIA request to NIST by a registered structural engineer for calculations and analysis substantiating the walk-off failures of the horizontal gerders from their seats at columns 79 and 81 was denied by NIST, on the basis that releasing this data "might jeaporadize public safety". Science is never secretive if done right. It's not science if it's not published and made public for criticism. Another unscientific course of action taken by NIST was that they did not test for explosives, even though they are in reality the thing that most accurately explains the towers collapse.

Access to the elevator shafts also provided 24/7 access to the surrouding core columns. But there are still some unanswered questions, however Bowman does a good job of explaining where to go with that and what it means:

"We know we've been lied to about 9/11. We don't know for sure who did it and we don't know exactly how they did everything, and that's why we need a new investigation to find out. But in the mean time, there are things we do know. We do know that there was a massive cover-up."
What's the next logical step to take recommended by the experts? Very simply, an unbiased investigation that follows national standards. Existing information, tests, and hypotheses would be re-examined, and the controlled demolition alternative would also be examined.

Coming to terms with the idea that controlled demolition brought down the buildings and that we were lied to is difficult for many people. Psychological experts see many reasons for this. People are either completely oblivious to this information pointing towards a controlled demolition, or completely resistant to looking at it.

But why do people resist the information that shows that the official story of 9/11 cannot be true? The destruction of the towers were televised live, and the whole nation watched as 3,000 American citizens were killed, which traumatized the nation.
edit on 13-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
As humans, each of us has a world view. When we hear information that contradicts our world view, social psychologists call the resulting insecurity cognitive dissonance. One cognition is the official story told to us by the government and media. On the other hand, we have what scientists, researchers, architects, and engineers are telling us, which is that there is evidence that shows that the official story cannot be true.

It challenges some of the most fundamental beliefs about our government and country. When your beliefs are challenged, or two beliefs contradict each other, cognitive dissonance is created. The controlled demolition hypothesis challenges the belief that our country protects us and keeps us safe and that America is the good guy.

When your beliefs are challenged, fear and anxiety are created. In response to that, our psychological defenses kick in, which protect us from these emotions. Denial, which is probably the most primitive psychological defense, is the one that is most likely to kick in.

What people tend to do is deny the evidence, and stick to the official story, and try to regain their equilibrium. Another thing that people can do is look at both sides of the issue, examine the evidence, and make up their mind on which side is accurate.

If we can think of our world view as being our mental and emotional home, people will do just about anything to defend our 'homes' and 'families'. This is seen when people are confronted with the evidence of a controlled demolition, the uncomfortableness with the topic makes them defensive. A persons world view of their government gets completely altered, almost as if they were cast out in the wilderness.

People often have spontaneous reactions when initially confronted with this evidence, such as the following:
"I don't want to know the truth, or I might become too negative."

"I'm not sure I want to know, because if it's true, then up would be down, down would be up, my life would be changed."

"I refuse to believe that that many Americans could be that treasonous, someone would have talked."

But those are all beliefs, not scientific facts, however these beliefs do keep people from looking at the empirical evidence. There are people who simply look at the evidence, and if it's convincing, they will change their minds. However other people are paradigmatic, and are convinced that they know how the world works and that they are right, and controlled demolition on 9/11 doesn't fit into their paradigm. Then there's a third type of person, called wishful thinkers, who simply will not believe something that they fear to be the truth.

So whenever somebody says that they "refuse to believe", it's obvious that the evidence is conflicting with their world view and it's too much to bear. Denial protects people from this kind of anxiety. The emotion of fear tends to be commonly held with these kinds of people. They're afraid of being alienated, ostracized, or shunned. They're afraid of having to change their lives, confusion, psychological deteriation, feeling hopeless and vulnerable, so they don't want to feel that way.

They want to defend themselves, and a way that people defend themselves is with anger. When people become angry, they become indignant, offended, and want to ridicule and pathologize and censor the messenger. How do people overcome this denial?

It doesn't exactly work to challenge peoples beliefs and tell them "I know the truth about 9/11". A good way is to ask open ended questions and lead them into a dialogue. People have to work together to look at the evidence and agree upon the conclusion no matter where the evidence takes us. Not being able to see our "dark side" or weaknesses is the most dangerous thing.

Pride comes into play here with Americans, because we've learned to look at other nations, see faults in their countries, but look at our country and think that we wouldn't have problems like that, or leaders that would treat us like that. American exceptionalism makes 9/11 particularly difficult for Americans, but the evidence that the buildings were brought down by a controlled demolition is undeniable.

 

As the film doesn't show their entire interviews for the sake of time, I will provide the full interview of each individual, as well as their credentials. Each interview begins with a brief introduction which describes what their degree is, how much experience they have, what sort of structures they work on, and so on.

These people aren't just some armchair scientists trying to make a quick buck, they're experienced professionals who have spent decades of their lives working with buildings and know what they're talking about.

Kamal Obeid, Civil and Structural Engineer with 30 years of experience.

Steven Dusterwald, Structural Engineer with 37 years of experience.
edit on 13-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Casey Pfiefer, Structural Engineer with a Bachelors of Science in Civil Engineering, with 15 years of experience.

David Topete, licenced Structural Engineer with a Masters of Science in Civil Engineering.

Robert Bowman, retired United States Air Force Lt. Colonel, PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering.

Robert McCoy, licenced Architect since 1964.

Stephen Barasch, Bachelor of Architecture and Masters of Architecture & Urban Design. Founder and President of Barasch Architecture and Associates Inc., a 33 year old architecture planning and engineering firm.

Jan Utzon, Architect and son of Bjorn Utzon who designed the Sydney Opera House.

Les Young, licenced Architect with 20 years of experience.

Lynn Margulis, PhD in Genetics, received the Presidents Medal of Science and the DaVinci Award.

Steven Jones, PhD in Physics with 30 years of experience.

Ronald Brookman, licenced Structural Engineer with 24 years of experience.

Anthony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer with 20 years of experience.

Erik Lawyer, Firefigher.

Scott Grainger, Fire Protection Engineer with 25 years of practice, and 39 years of engineering practice.

Michael Donly, Structural Engineer with 14 years of experience, works with designs of steel-framed, fireproof buildings.

Edward Munyak, Fire Protection Engineer with 25 years of experience.

Kathy McGrade, Metallurgical Engineer with 30 years of experience with three companies.

Tom Sullivan, Explosives Technician/Loader.

Robert Podolski, Physicist and Engineer with 10 years of experience.

Richard Humenn, WTC Chief Electrical Design Engineer with 41 years of experience. Principal Chief Electric Engineer for the World Trade Center Complex.

Jeffrey Farrer, Material Science Engineer and Physicist.

Mark Basile, Chemical Engineer with 25 years of experience.

Gary Warner, Mechanical Engineer.

Jerry Lobdill, Chemical Engineer and Physicist with 30 years of experience.

Niels Harrit, Chemist and Associate Professor at the University of Copehagen with 40 years of experience.


Roland Angle, Civil Engineer since 1967, also with demolition experience through military training. ( 21:25 )

William Rice, Professor at Vermont Technical College who taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses to engineering students for 20 years.
( 9:50 )

Daniel Barnum, High-Rise Architect with over 40 years of experience.
( 30:35 )

Jonathan Smolens, Structural Engineer with 12 years of experience. Specializes in Forensic Engineering including evaluation of structures post-disaster.
( 31:35 )

William Brinnier, Architect.
( 50:53 )

Steve Luce, Former US Army Combat Engineer, explosive demolition of structures.
( 51:43 )

Frank Cullinan, Civil Engineer with 17 years of experience.
( 57:45 )

Alfred Lopez, Structural Engineer with 40 years of experience. He's worked on numerous high-rise buildings.
( 1:09:10 )

Jason Cheshire, Chemical Engineer and Metallurgist with 10 years of experience.
( 1:21:23 )

David Gregg, Chemical Engineer with over 30 years of experience.
( 1:25:22 )

Robert Kim Ireland, Chemical Engineer with explosives training during military experience. 20 years of experience in the industrial chemical industry.
( 1:29:06 )

Adam Parott, Chemical Engineer.
( 1:31:03 )

Rick Fowlkes, Civil/Structural Engineer with over 40 years of experience.
( 1:39:55 )

Psychologists:

Marti Hopper, Licensed Clinical Psychologist with 30 years of experience, 11 years of experience in trauma.
( 1:53:00 )

Frances Shure, Psychotherapist and Counseler with 20 years of experience.
( 1:54:40 )

Bob Hopper, Clinical Psychologist with 29 years of experience.
( 1:56:00 )

Danielle Duperet, Psychologist with 15 years of experience.
( 1:57:00 )

Dorothy Lorig, Counseling Psychologist with 16 years of experience.
( 1:58:15 )

David Ray Griffin, Theologist.
( 2:01:04 )

John Freedom, Personal Development Counseler with 20 years of experience.
( 2:04:07 )

Wiliam Woodward, Experimental Psychologist with 35 years of experience.
( 2:04:40 )

Robert Griffin, Psychologist with 25 years of experience.
( 2:07:00 )


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Holy 9/11, great work putting all this together, best 9/11 thread ever I would say - sadly I heard someone say yesterday "What, a third building went down that day, I've never heard that"


+3 more 
posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


I am an architect with nearly 30 years experience, and I have high-rise experience. I can tell you without reservation that this parade of people being offered as "experts" are no such thing. Many of these "experts" are described as "civil engineers", "firefighters", "mechanical engineers", "fire protection engineers", etc. People in these professions are not in a position to render a professional opinion on a structural collapse! Don't be confused because some have "engineer" in their title, there is a HUGE difference between these "engineers" and structural engineers. The only people who can even begin to render a professional opinion are structural engineers, and to a lesser extent, architects. But even these should be people with an intimate working knowledge of the WTC with full access to the drawings, spec's, field reports and contruction personnel involved with the project. There are too many people throwing around fantasies and opinions as fact, and because of this we'll never get to the bottom of what really happened regardless of how many lengthy threads get posted (and there have certainly been many).


+25 more 
posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by SavedOne
 


OK then start by watching these interviews:

Kamal Obeid, Civil and Structural Engineer with 30 years of experience.

Steven Dusterwald, Structural Engineer with 37 years of experience.

Casey Pfiefer, Structural Engineer with a Bachelors of Science in Civil Engineering, with 15 years of experience.

David Topete, licenced Structural Engineer with a Masters of Science in Civil Engineering.

Robert McCoy, licenced Architect since 1964.

Stephen Barasch, Bachelor of Architecture and Masters of Architecture & Urban Design. Founder and President of Barasch Architecture and Associates Inc., a 33 year old architecture planning and engineering firm.

Jan Utzon, Architect and son of Bjorn Utzon who designed the Sydney Opera House.

Les Young, licenced Architect with 20 years of experience.

Ronald Brookman, licenced Structural Engineer with 24 years of experience.

Michael Donly, Structural Engineer with 14 years of experience, works with designs of steel-framed, fireproof buildings.

Richard Humenn, WTC Chief Electrical Design Engineer with 41 years of experience. Principal Chief Electric Engineer for the World Trade Center Complex.

Daniel Barnum, High-Rise Architect with over 40 years of experience.

Jonathan Smolens, Structural Engineer with 12 years of experience. Specializes in Forensic Engineering including evaluation of structures post-disaster.

William Brinnier, Architect.

Alfred Lopez, Structural Engineer with 40 years of experience. He's worked on numerous high-rise buildings.

Rick Fowlkes, Civil/Structural Engineer with over 40 years of experience.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
On the other hand, we have what scientists, researchers, architects, and engineers are telling us, which is that there is evidence that shows that the official story cannot be true.


I've pointed this out before, but the architects and structural engineers that have signed the petition on 911truth are a very small minority. I calculated it on another thread and as I recall it was around 0.3% of registered professionals. And it should be noted that the petition is merely a statement that the signators believe a more in-depth investigation should be held, they're not saying that they agree with the conspiracy. I am not saying the conspiracy is or is not true, but as an architect I feel a need to set the record straight whenever I see someone imply that all architects and engineers back the conspiracy. The vast majority do not.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SavedOne
 





I am an architect with nearly 30 years experience, and I have high-rise experience.


So perhaps you could give us your opinion of the collapse ?



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SavedOne
 


If you would have watched the film, you would see that they almost all agree on controlled demolition being the most likely explanation for the collapse. And yes, they all do call for a new investigation as well.

Obviously every single architect and engineer doesn't share the exact same beliefs as them, but what percentage of them would you say have taken the time to look into it on their own? What percentage would you say have heard of AE911 Truth?

I would find your claim to be more indicative of how architects and engineers view these conspiracies if they had all seen the evidence presented within this and other films made by AE911 Truth. Without seeing the evidence that backs up a controlled demolition, all they have to go off of is what they were told and what they saw happen.

And remember what this dude said?:

One of the experts explains how he initially thought the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, but soon believed the official story because it was played to him over and over again, he was repeatedly told on television by experts that terrorists had brought down the building with planes.
You're (supposedly
) an architect, you read through the thread and saw some of the evidence provided in the summary. What do you think about all of it? What do you think about these things that cannot be explained by anything other than controlled demolition? Since there isn't 50% of architects and engineers saying "The official story cannot explain these things", does that make the claims any less valid?
edit on 13-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


I have just one question for you, OP:

Are you a "No-Planer"?


I want you to consider the meaning of that question, in view of the many threads that you have posted that seem to have been influenced by the so-called "AEFor9/11Truth" videos and what-not......


+4 more 
posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


No, the planes hit the towers. That's pretty obvious, I really can't imagine how somebody could dispute that.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
OK then start by watching these interviews:


Again, my point is that many if not all of these may indeed be in the field just like I am, but that does not make them experts just like I am not. I am an architect with nearly 30 years experience and several high-rise projects as I said above (and as I've repeated in many other threads not related to 9-11, feel free to look in case you think I'm making it up just for this occasion). This does not make me an expert on the WTC collapses. Nor does it make my peers experts. The only "experts" would fall under two categories:

1. Those intimately involved in the design and construction of the projects (and they have been completely silent, probably for legal reasons).

2. Those who are experts in the field and have engaged in a full study of the drawings, specifications, field reports, test reports, submittals, etc. etc. etc. for the projects. These wouldn't start out as experts, but could become experts if allowed full access to all the documentation. They should also interview the construction personnel involved to get the full picture- IE, were connections made per the drawings or were field modifications made, etc.

Again, not saying the conspiracy is true or not, just pointing out that these people are expressing personal and not professional expert opinions unless they fall under one of the two above categories.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


OK!!! Good, that is a beginning of understanding. A start.......

So.....next question that inevitably follows is:

What do you think...no, WHO do you think were flying the airplanes? American 11 and United 175?

(PS.....Your contributions on the "chemtrail" issue show a logical and rational mind...just thought I should mention that, as an aside....
....).
edit on Sun Jan 15 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Lots of excellent information complied here, I will go over it this weekend S&F for one doozey of a threadnaught. The sad thing is that regardless of how much work you put into uncovering the truth of what happened that day, there will always be those who silence you or ridicule you for it. It is really sad.

The whole thing smells like gefilte fish to me, not because those of us who don't accept the official take want to believe that our government would allow/partake in such an egregious act against its citizens, quite frankly the idea scares the # outta me, but because there is something Obviously fishy about it. I only hope that someday we learn the whole story so that missing pieces can be put in place.

I know, I know, 911 commission report retort to come flying at my screen in 3...2... But seriously, don't even try to cite that as the 'raw story' exactly as it happened; it is summarily incomplete, doctored, and nothing short of a 10 pound pile of # in a 5 pound bag. Thanks for the work OP



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SavedOne

Originally posted by TupacShakur
OK then start by watching these interviews:


Again, my point is that many if not all of these may indeed be in the field just like I am, but that does not make them experts just like I am not. I am an architect with nearly 30 years experience and several high-rise projects as I said above (and as I've repeated in many other threads not related to 9-11, feel free to look in case you think I'm making it up just for this occasion). This does not make me an expert on the WTC collapses. Nor does it make my peers experts. The only "experts" would fall under two categories:

1. Those intimately involved in the design and construction of the projects (and they have been completely silent, probably for legal reasons).

2. Those who are experts in the field and have engaged in a full study of the drawings, specifications, field reports, test reports, submittals, etc. etc. etc. for the projects. These wouldn't start out as experts, but could become experts if allowed full access to all the documentation. They should also interview the construction personnel involved to get the full picture- IE, were connections made per the drawings or were field modifications made, etc.

Again, not saying the conspiracy is true or not, just pointing out that these people are expressing personal and not professional expert opinions unless they fall under one of the two above categories.


I'd have to agree with him, If you don't have access to ALL of the information, then your not an expert. Experts are objectives and shouldn't have to speculate, not that I'm saying I think the OS is true, cause it most obviously is not. I do think that when you have so many "professionals" that is people working in a relatively same field, that they do have something to contribute. But look we already destroyed all the evidence, all we can do now is speculate as to what happened....


+4 more 
posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SavedOne
 



Again, my point is that many if not all of these may indeed be in the field just like I am, but that does not make them experts just like I am not.
But you did say this:

The only people who can even begin to render a professional opinion are structural engineers, and to a lesser extent, architects.



1. Those intimately involved in the design and construction of the projects (and they have been completely silent, probably for legal reasons).
Kind of like this guy? Richard Humenn, WTC Chief Electrical Design Engineer with 41 years of experience. Principal Chief Electric Engineer for the World Trade Center Complex.
And this guy? Drank DeMartini, World Trade Center Construction and Project Management Manager.
I'd say those two are a good start.


2. Those who are experts in the field and have engaged in a full study of the drawings, specifications, field reports, test reports, submittals, etc. etc. etc. for the projects. These wouldn't start out as experts, but could become experts if allowed full access to all the documentation. They should also interview the construction personnel involved to get the full picture- IE, were connections made per the drawings or were field modifications made, etc.
And this could be done with the very new investigation that these experts are calling for. These are the conclusions reached based on the available evidence, and they want a new investigation, through which the controlled demolition hypothesis can be fully confirmed or debunked. From the OP:

What's the next logical step to take recommended by the experts? Very simply, an unbiased investigation that follows national standards. Existing information, tests, and hypotheses would be re-examined, and the controlled demolition alternative would also be examined.
edit on 13-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
137
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join