Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

An Overview and Debunking of the AE9/11T's List of Demolition Signs

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek


3. Symmetrical "structural failure" – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration


Not that symmetrical as the penthouse collapsed into the building first, and we only see the shell of the building fall, how can one say it was symmetrical? Also, seismic reports nearly 18 seconds of collapse at WTC7, and none of it from anything explosive. So this is a sign that the building was turning itself inside out, with failures inside first, and then the shell. Also, it fell towards the south.


Not only that, Gage is lying through his teeth when he says "symmetrical" becuase he has ZERO proof the south side of the building fell exactly the same way that the north side did. NIST has a computer model that suggests the entire half of the south side (the side that got whacked by the collapse of the north tower) collapsed before the north side did, and the penthouse actually fell along with the south side. This is as non symmetrical and non-symmetrical gets...which goes a long way in explaining why the truthers insist the NIST engineers are really all secret agents.

Whether the south side fell before the north side did is yet to be proven, but the fact remains that Gage is still intentionally being fast and loose with his evidence.




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
An addendum to one of my earlier comment regarding Danny Jowenko.

Why do the actual experts at ImplosionWorld disagree with the 9/11 Truthers? They are THE go-to guys and gals regarding controlled demolitions. Why didnt the "experts" at AE9/11T seek out answers with ACTUAL experts that are in the actual industry? Instead they rely on just one person, who most probably was given an edited video to watch, and he had to base his entire opinion on that one video. That is not being honest.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
Seeing you are smarter than 1.500 Engineers and international experts regarding construction techniques and material sciences, I'm sure you own a Fortune 500 enterprise yourself. I'm surprised, and feel honored at the same time, that a capacity like you does find the time posting his analysis on these very forums. I stand in awe.


Have you ever actually looked at the list? Not too many that have actual relevance to the subjects at hand.

Also, recall Richard "Boxboy" Gage. He is one of the founders. Here is how he demonstrates the WTC collapse!



Yeah! A true expert there!




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vardoger
Regarding the snipped footage.

The original video released by NIST had removed both the penthouse collapse and edited the sound feed. It was only more recently that the original (with penthouse) and sounds feed was re released by NIST. So at the time the No penthouse version was the only available "credible" video for use.

Also, as explained by those same experts. the penthouse collapse is even more evidence that it was a controlled demo as it is the central column that is taken out first. In almost all videos of controlled demos the penthouse is the first to go.


NIST had access to many more videos, unless they were using that "clipped" version to try and establish a collapse time. However, the unclipped version has been available for a long time. Why they released this version and not the other is odd, but there are other videos that do show the same thing from different angles.

What was missing is the sound of detonations of the demo charges. No one mentions hearing or noticing anything until the building actually started to collapse. Some claim that the explosions were muted or quieter because they were "deep inside" the building, and the sound was drowned out by the collapse.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Why didnt the "experts" at AE9/11T seek out answers with ACTUAL experts that are in the actual industry?

Instead they rely on just one person, who most probably
That is not being honest.

Been a few years , I'm rusty, but I believe there was a French Demolition guy who saw WTC7 video for the first time and decreed "Thats Controlled Demolition.
Your second line, your basing fact on ... "most probably"????

Your third line , you can apply here. "That is not being honest"

Your up sir



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vardoger
If the OP bothered to do any actual research and used the links provided in the BULLET points he would find damning evidence for the "chemical signature"

You're disregard for the evidence of thermite because of your limited understanding of the chemical process is a very poor argument for your case. The process includes more than just Iron oxide and Aluminum, again if you did some actual research prior to posting you'd know this.




The metallic element ingredients along with sulfur can be determined with considerable certainty. Of course, owing to the nature of the thermite reaction and the high-temperatures during spherule formation, the content of the various metals varies somewhat from sphere to sphere and even from one spot to another on a single sphere. Done carefully, the presence of the aluminothermic reaction signature is quite unambiguous; as stated by Materials Engineering, Inc. (MEi):

• “When thermite reaction compounds are used to ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic burn pattern and leave behind evidence. These compounds are rather unique in their chemical composition, containing common elements such as copper, iron, calcium, silicon and aluminum, but also contain more unusual elements, such as vanadium, titanium, tin, fluorine and manganese. While some of these elements are consumed in the fire, many are also left behind in the residue…

• MEi has conducted Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) on minute traces of residue, identifying the presence of these chemical elements. The results, coupled with visual evidence at the scene, provide absolute certainty that thermite reaction compounds were present, indicating the fire was deliberately set, and not of natural causes."47

Note that the NFPA 921Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations clearly states: “Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials.”48

This is the standard procedure for fire and explosion investigations – looking for thermite residues. Was it applied to the WTC “crime scene”? NIST was asked:
• Question: ““Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter." • Answer; “NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.” 49 NIST is remiss in not testing for thermite residues as required by the NFPA 921 code.


Because of the FAILED investigation you have numerous professionals (not armchair experts) calling for a new one. If NIST was due diligent in the initial investigation and didn't withhold information for "insert blanket reason here" maybe we wouldn't need to question so much. As it is the NIST report should not be taken as fact, should be thrown out, and a new investigation opened.

edit on 26-1-2012 by Vardoger because: (no reason given)


If you'd like, you can go address Pteridine regarding the failed Dr. Jones' paper, and why it is so very very flawed. I have done my research. Its apparent you have yet to begin. And its bad to start from the Truther Sites.

Pteridine has done a wonderful job address all of the flaws in Jones' "paper". All you have to do use the "search" button above and the ATS archives will open up for you. It is all there.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


There is a video where we see Danny Jowenko and he was shown the clipped version of collapse, and was asked to base his entire opinion on that one clip. Was he given time to do any research for that clip? No. Show me he has. It is easy to show someone a clip out of context, with no background or any additional history, and get an uneducated opinion.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


ANOK, why is it that firefighters usually avoid going into buildings with steel trussed roofs? Ever wonder why? Also do you know the difference between a light steel truss and a steel I-beam, and the behaviors of the two in fires?

Also, did you forget the loading on the trusses? You know, what they were holding up? How many times has it been explained to you, and every time it flies over your head like a jet.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Im sure no amount of evidence in the world would convince someone that the 9/11 OS was a hoax, if they didn't already think so. Its gotten to the point, that some people are so trusting of their government, we could have a videotape of george bush going up and shooting some guy point blank in the face, and he'd get away with it, because we wouldn't be able to prove him guilty, even with multiple tapes, and eye-witnesses, and all the evidence you could imagine. This is the problem, people underestimate the capacity for people to be horrific. Our government, has a number set out for an "acceptable loss" for starting wars, or doing anything as part of their "agenda". They see the acceptable loss, as just a number, how many died in 9/11, like 3000, I guess thats acceptable. Then to start a war, that wasn't even necessary. It sickens me that people are this gullible, and this trusting of other people. All of history has shown us, that people in power are corrupt, and do horrific things, but its like people think we live in a different world now, and that could never happen, well think again, they just f**ked us over, and now that they know we are a bunch of idiots, they'll just do it again and again. Of course we can't really prove anything now, because most of the evidence has been destroyed. One question all the people who believe the OS fail to explain is why all the hiding from our government? Why not just show us all the confiscated videotapes, the black boxes, that supposedly were never found, why destroy all the rubble of the twin towers. why? Its incredibly simple to understand. Because it would show overwhelming evidence that the OS was false, and there could potentially be a societal collapse. So give yourself a pat on the back if you still buy the OS, because you are a sheep, most like everyone else, and it is you, that will be the downfall of the human race. It disgusts me to call you and me, the same species. In a way I can understand why everyone else around the world wants to kill us, and more and more, I find myself wishing for that to happen. Lets just nuke it out, then the remaining 5% can start over, or we can rid the entire human race and just let nature start it over again.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I like that you took your time to present your side of the your argument, all very well done and easy to follow. That said, I disagree with you 100% about your accusations against the AE9/11 folks. I think its a bad idea not to include their wesbite since you take from their site and they are the focus of this thread.

www.ae911truth.org...

1,636 verified architectural and engineering professionals and 13,876 other supporters have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation.



Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is an American non-profit[1][2] organization of architects, engineers, and demolition experts who dispute the results of official investigations into the September 11 attacks, including the 9/11 Commission Report.[3][4] It advocates that the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosive demolition, a position generally considered by others to be a 9/11 conspiracy theory.[5]

Founded in 2006, the group demands that the United States Congress pursue "a truly independent investigation" into the September 11 attacks as they believe government agency investigations into the collapse of the World Trade Center have not addressed what it calls "massive evidence for explosive demolition." As of March 2011, the group's petition to Congress was signed by nearly 1,500 architectural and engineering professionals. The mainstream scientific and engineering community has generally rejected the position taken by the group.



According to the organization, the identities and qualifications of all licensed architects and engineers whose names are being published on its website as well as those of other supporters who are listed separately are subjected to verification before acceptance.[13]


Have you looked into the backgrounds of these people? For someone too so easily call them salesmen of snake oil you prolly should see who you are accusing of such things. I took a look and picked this guy and this is what I found out about him.

Paul Stevenson Oles


Paul Stevenson Oles, FAIA Lic: MASSACHUSETTS 2754 MArch, Architecture, Yale Santa Fe, NM



Name: Paul Stevenson Oles
Title: FAIA
License #: MASSACHUSETTS 2754
Degree: MArch, Architecture, Yale
City: Santa Fe
State: NM
Country: USA
Category: Architects (Degreed & Licensed - Active & Retired)
Discipline: Architecture
Status: Degreed and Licensed
Bio:

BArch Texas Tech University 1960
MArch Yale University 1963
Loeb Fellow Harvard University 1982
Currently: Principal, Interface Architects

Personal 9/11 Statement:

There appear too many unexplained events and unverified circumstances to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous acts, it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough and impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is fully merited.

Verification Status: Verified


His webiste, and I discovered he wrote a book about architecture illustration.

I believe this man before you, sorry but he actually earned it, unless you're an engineer or architect?





edit on 26-1-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vardoger
If the OP bothered to do any actual research and used the links provided in the BULLET points he would find damning evidence for the "chemical signature"

You're disregard for the evidence of thermite because of your limited understanding of the chemical process is a very poor argument for your case. The process includes more than just Iron oxide and Aluminum, again if you did some actual research prior to posting you'd know this.




The metallic element ingredients along with sulfur can be determined with considerable certainty. Of course, owing to the nature of the thermite reaction and the high-temperatures during spherule formation, the content of the various metals varies somewhat from sphere to sphere and even from one spot to another on a single sphere. Done carefully, the presence of the aluminothermic reaction signature is quite unambiguous; as stated by Materials Engineering, Inc. (MEi):

• “When thermite reaction compounds are used to ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic burn pattern and leave behind evidence. These compounds are rather unique in their chemical composition, containing common elements such as copper, iron, calcium, silicon and aluminum, but also contain more unusual elements, such as vanadium, titanium, tin, fluorine and manganese. While some of these elements are consumed in the fire, many are also left behind in the residue…

• MEi has conducted Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) on minute traces of residue, identifying the presence of these chemical elements. The results, coupled with visual evidence at the scene, provide absolute certainty that thermite reaction compounds were present, indicating the fire was deliberately set, and not of natural causes."47

Note that the NFPA 921Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations clearly states: “Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials.”48

This is the standard procedure for fire and explosion investigations – looking for thermite residues. Was it applied to the WTC “crime scene”? NIST was asked:
• Question: ““Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter." • Answer; “NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.” 49 NIST is remiss in not testing for thermite residues as required by the NFPA 921 code.


Because of the FAILED investigation you have numerous professionals (not armchair experts) calling for a new one. If NIST was due diligent in the initial investigation and didn't withhold information for "insert blanket reason here" maybe we wouldn't need to question so much. As it is the NIST report should not be taken as fact, should be thrown out, and a new investigation opened.


MEi [Link?] may have missed the fact that all of those elements are commonly found elsewhere and are hardly diagnostic for thermite. Thermite is a metal oxide and a reducing metal, usually iron oxide and aluminum, and the other elements are really unnecessary. Ignition can be accomplished in various ways, but the easiest are aluminum powder and an oxidant such as KClO4 or BaO2.
The show stopper is, of course, that the effects of thermite cannot be accurately timed. This eliminates thermite as an agent for demolitions requiring a series of timed explosions.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds


Here we go again! There were NO volcanoes in NYC.


Dude, make your case, fine. But that is the worst point to make. Notice the world "like" in there? A term to express that it RESEMBLES something. No kidding there's no volcanoes in NYC. Thanks for the intel.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by rstregooski

Dude, make your case, fine. But that is the worst point to make. Notice the world "like" in there? A term to express that it RESEMBLES something. No kidding there's no volcanoes in NYC. Thanks for the intel.


No, they first used "pyroclastic" in their argument, and it was up for a while on their site. They later changed it, but nonetheless, it is still an incorrect term to use. Clouds like that mean nothing in terms of collapse or controlled demolition.



Same type of dust clouds, from a fire induced collapse.



All it is that building collapses are very dusty. Using the term "pyroclastic" is erroneous, in any way, shape, or form.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


Thank you for your civil attitude.


As to your argument, that person is an architect. Ok, that is a well respected field, however, what exactly qualifies him to be an expert, other than being an architect? Allow me to make this comparison:

You are going to have heart surgery for a quadruple bypass. Now, you have a choice of doctors to do the operation. All have PhDs in their fields. You have a neurosurgeon, a physician, veterinarian, a chiropractor, a dentist, a podiatrist, optometrist, cardiac surgeon, gastrointestinal surgeon. Now which of these is qualified to do heart surgery on you?

Do you understand my point? Just because they have a degree in architecture, or engineering, it doesnt really mean anything, unless it is something that would be exclusively relevant to the topic at hand. At best there are a few in the list of AE9/11T that truly have any relevant experience in relation to the construction and destruction of the WTC. However, when it comes to such a specific category, all you have is a ragtag bunch of "professionals" that are not truly qualified or experienced.

Also, the amount they have is a very tiny percentage of the overall grouping of such persons and experts. In a group of 1000 people picked off the street, there is always a chance to get a few people that are crackpots. That is just the law of probability.

I'd rather go to actual professionals in ASCE and see their opinion.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by AzureSky
 


It sounds an awful like they are talking about the collapse of the WTC. They refer to the collapse as an "explosion." Let me ask you this: How would you describe the sound and feel of 110 story building collapsing on you? A feather hitting a pillow?

At the time, they realized it was a terrorist attack. Usually, a terrorist attack involves explosives it is only natural to assume explosives are being used.

Initial reports are usually inaccurate.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 



Originally posted by Swills

Itook a look and picked this guy and this is what I found out about him.

Paul Stevenson Oles


Paul Stevenson Oles, FAIA Lic: MASSACHUSETTS 2754 MArch, Architecture, Yale Santa Fe, NM



Name: Paul Stevenson Oles
Title: FAIA
License #: MASSACHUSETTS 2754
.
.
.
Personal 9/11 Statement:

There appear too many unexplained events and unverified circumstances to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous acts, it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough and impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is fully merited.
.
.
.
I believe this man before you, sorry but he actually earned it, unless you're an engineer or architect?

edit on 26-1-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)




Here's the thing: Mr. Oles is not making any particular claims about any of the points in GenRadek's list.

He merely asserts that there are unnamed "unexplained events and unverified circumstances". It's not enough to merely make assertions. Before I accept any of his conclusions, I need to at least see some evidence that he has given it some thought. Preferably he should explain why he has reached his conclusions in detail.

I'd like to also address the book that Mr. Oles wrote. It is about illustration, specifically illustrating perspective color drawings of buildings. That doesn't tell us anything about his expertise on the subject at hand.
edit on 1/26/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
bUILDING SEVEN WAS OF WELDED STEEL CONSTRUCTION....IE, THE BEAMS WERE WELDED INTO ONE CONTIGUOUS WHOLE
TO FALL AT THE SPEED INDICATED OVER 400 WELDED JOINTS PER SECOND HAD TO HAVE GIVEN UP AND PARTED.....THIS IS NOT REALLY POSSIBLE................



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
There's only one problem with glen's postings.
It's going to confuse them with the facts.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek


If you can honestly sit there and tell me that WTC7 collapse due to office fires while two nearby towers collapsed because jetliners flew into them, on the same day, then you must surely admit that the construction of WTC7 was so bloody piss-poor that it would have collapsed in the same fashion if there were office fires on any other day than 9/11.

Am I right?

Because in my opinion, one has to be retarded to believe the official story about WTC7. I said it: retarded- meaning that instead of employing one's own sense in determining what is right before them, one instead believes the explaination told to them by those who are the obvious suspects in whatever conspiracy there was that could have brought the building down.

All of the nitpicking about details means nothing. Three large buildings collapsed in New York on 9/11, one wasn't hit by a plane. If this doesn't raise red flags within the mind of the independent mind, then we are one hopeless species.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

...it would have collapsed in the same fashion if there were office fires on any other day than 9/11.

Am I right?


Maybe so...

IF the fires were unfought, and the sprinkler systems were cut off, as they were on that day.

keep in mind that the fires burned for several hours.

Also, you should remember that steel is required to be fireproofed in tall office buildings for good reason!
edit on 1/26/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: fix quote






top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join