1,000 Architects & Engineers Call for New 9/11 Investigation

[dust1n]

However, accepting reality based on facts and logic is not. If there was any compelling evidence that the attacks on 9/11 weren't carried out by terrorists, and that the world trade center buildings didn't collapse because of the catastropic damage caused by the impact and ensuing fires, then I would have no emotional problem accepting the evidence to change my view. However, no such compelling evidence exists, and although each piece of "evidence" addressed by the conspiracy theories has been addressed, this seems to have no effect on the views of conspiracy theorists. Of course, this is to be expected when one doesn't realize that their emotional attachment to the theory is too strong for mere facts to break.

Well, if you could then debunk all information that suggests that 17 Muslims stole four planes, attacked 3 buildings (one being one of the most guarded buildings in the country), perpetuated insider trading on airline stocks, etc. etc. wasn't the case, than I would be more than happy to concede.

Either way, I have no emotional attachment to the incident.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well, if you could then debunk all information that suggests that 17 Muslims stole four planes, attacked 3 buildings (one being one of the most guarded buildings in the country), perpetuated insider trading on airline stocks, etc. etc. wasn't the case, than I would be more than happy to concede.

Either way, I have no emotional attachment to the incident.

Factual debunking of every aspect of the conspiracy theory that I've heard of is widely available on the internet. Perhaps you should engage in some of that "self-investigation" that you mentioned. Of course, try to maintain that emotional unattachment so that you can be as objective as possible while doing your investigation.

 

[dust1n]

Here's the other:

"Pull it" means "demolish the building".

- the building owner, the fire department commander, and who knows who else conspire to destroy WTC 7.
- the building is rigged for demolition without anyone noticing beforehand.
- coincidentally, a terrorist attack on adjacent buildings occurs.
- coincidentally, fires start in WTC 7.
- under orders from the building owner, a commander in the Fire Department of New York triggers the demolition.
- later, the building owner lets the cat out of the bag about the demolition in a television interview.


Do you really think it makes sense either way?

Well if the "pull it" means "demolish the building", that's not how the series of 'facts' would line up as your put them.

Granted, the fact the BBC reported the building fell 23 minutes (4:57 EST) before it did fall (5:20 EST) also makes me wonder.


I'm not claiming anything by the way.

 

[dust1n]

Factual debunking of every aspect of the conspiracy theory that I've heard of is widely available on the internet. Perhaps you should engage in some of that "self-investigation" that you mentioned. Of course, try to maintain that emotional unattachment so that you can be as objective as possible while doing your investigation.

I've looked over the official explanation, the 'conspiracy theorists' explanation, and the debunking of the 'conspiracy theorists' explanation. I'm not asserting anything happened, I'm asserting the official explanation is far from logical.

Of course, constantly asserting your unfounded ad homenim arguments doesn't actually present any real argument for what you are arguing for, though it may be somewhat insightful commentary.

 

[darkendless]

Well, I mean if you 'really do not care', then there isn't much I can say to you. I agree, Building 7 was obviously on fire on four floors, which weakened the entirety of the steel columns (which is the only way the entire building would have feel instantly), and it is the first steel building in human history to do so.

Yes well weak columns + damage due to debris doesn't help it stay up.

I have seen other buildings fall the same way, they look fine on the outside and simply just give way and collapse.

On the inside, load bearing columns and girders can be collapsing left right and centre and yet on the outside nothing looks different. Then all of a sudden, boom, down it goes.

I can understand why wtc 7 would be a conspirists wet dream but i bet they're getting paid to ignore everything they were taught as engineers.

The fact that architects support it means very little lol...... architects exist to annoy the heck out of engineers with idiotic designs.

 

[dust1n]

Yes well weak columns + damage due to debris doesn't help it stay up.

I have seen other buildings fall the same way, they look fine on the outside and simply just give way and collapse.

On the inside, load bearing columns and girders can be collapsing left right and centre and yet on the outside nothing looks different. Then all of a sudden, boom, down it goes.

I can understand why wtc 7 would be a conspirists wet dream but i bet they're getting paid to ignore everything they were taught as engineers.

The fact that architects support it means very little lol...... architects exist to annoy the heck out of engineers with idiotic designs.

So you are telling me than, that the building fell solely because it was on fire and some damage, though it would be the first steel building to fall due to 'fire' and that this fire was able to make all 330 ft long, 140 ft wide of the building fall entirely, not one side, or from one area, but the entire building fell straight down. Is that correct?

 

[Ba'al]

Yes well weak columns + damage due to debris doesn't help it stay up.

I have seen other buildings fall the same way, they look fine on the outside and simply just give way and collapse.

On the inside, load bearing columns and girders can be collapsing left right and centre and yet on the outside nothing looks different. Then all of a sudden, boom, down it goes.

I can understand why wtc 7 would be a conspirists wet dream but i bet they're getting paid to ignore everything they were taught as engineers.

The fact that architects support it means very little lol...... architects exist to annoy the heck out of engineers with idiotic designs.

You know, if you just take the time to educate yourself on how these engineers and architects have come up with these conclusions, we wouldn't need to converse in a circle. Your basic arguments have all been scientifically refuted.

 

[darkendless]

You know, if you just take the time to educate yourself on how these engineers and architects have come up with these conclusions, we wouldn't need to converse in a circle. Your basic arguments have all been scientifically refuted.

I'm not saying anything is concrete, i'm saying there are reasons that the building could collapse outside being pulled/demolished.

As an engineer myself with 2 years of structural design fundamentals i've seen many examples of buildings and structures simply giving way. It was taught to us to show why us making mistakes in the field is dangerous, because sometimes the clues are hard to spot.

The reason there is a conspiracy theory even alive is because its American. You all live in fear. Maybe it was blown up. The reason i joined this thread was to explain that things can happen which look suspect but really have logical answers.

 

[darkendless]

So you are telling me than, that the building fell solely because it was on fire and some damage, though it would be the first steel building to fall due to 'fire' and that this fire was able to make all 330 ft long, 140 ft wide of the building fall entirely, not one side, or from one area, but the entire building fell straight down. Is that correct?

I don't know why it fell. I'm saying that from my experience, although the building appears to have been pulled, that there are logical reasons why it could have fallen by itself. I'm not saying it wasn't pulled, but if it wasn't there are a number of reasons it could have fallen the way it did.

It would have been interesting to test the soil around the foundations before it fell. I've seen a concrete wall fall on top of itself because a crane dropped a section of steel on the ground next to it which cracked and damaged the foundations on one side. I can't imagine the force placed on the foundations of the buildings when the towers collapsed.

i don't think its even worth me trying to explain how it fell.

 

[dust1n]

I don't know why it fell. I'm saying that from my experience, although the building appears to have been pulled, that there are logical reasons why it could have fallen by itself. I'm not saying it wasn't pulled, but if it wasn't there are a number of reasons it could have fallen the way it did.

It would have been interesting to test the soil around the foundations before it fell. I've seen a concrete wall fall on top of itself because a crane dropped a section of steel on the ground next to it which cracked and damaged the foundations on one side. I can't imagine the force placed on the foundations of the buildings when the towers collapsed.

i don't think its even worth me trying to explain how it fell.

Well, I'm not an engineer or anything. I understand that building give away, but when they do, the entire building doesn't fall straight down and on itself. You can then at least understand why there are engineers who want another investigation?

 

[silvermoon383]

If the central support is damaged a building could easily fall straight down. If secondary supports are cut, thereby increasing the central support's load beyond what it can handle it can snap causing it to fall straight down. If a massive weight slams down from above, the impact and resulting damage can break the central and secondary supports, causing the building to fall straight down.

The destruction of the Twin Towers happened because of a combination of all 3. It is consistent with the laws of physics and what I've been taught to expect in my engineering classes. Don't believe me? Get a physics textbook and check for yourself. Heck, check the physics book even if you do believe me.

 

[darkendless]

If the central support is damaged a building could easily fall straight down. If secondary supports are cut, thereby increasing the central support's load beyond what it can handle it can snap causing it to fall straight down. If a massive weight slams down from above, the impact and resulting damage can break the central and secondary supports, causing the building to fall straight down.

The destruction of the Twin Towers happened because of a combination of all 3. It is consistent with the laws of physics and what I've been taught to expect in my engineering classes. Don't believe me? Get a physics textbook and check for yourself. Heck, check the physics book even if you do believe me.

Don't forget those supports would have been significantly weaker due to thermal damage of fire. That and debris from the twin towers collapsing may have damaged the lower supports.

 

[Ba'al]

Darkendness and Silvermoom, since you both have engineering experience I would appreciate your opinion on the evidences given on this site.
9-11 Research: The Evidence

 

[silvermoon383]

Can't comment on that page, that's all political, investigative, and bureaucratic BS that I refuse to slosh through. And my schooling doesn't give me the time to go through the sidebar.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well if the "pull it" means "demolish the building", that's not how the series of 'facts' would line up as your put them.

Okay... how would they line up?

Granted, the fact the BBC reported the building fell 23 minutes (4:57 EST) before it did fall (5:20 EST) also makes me wonder.

Wonder what? It was a chaotic situation and the building was expected to collapse. Why would this be cause for suspicion

I'm not claiming anything by the way.

Of course not. It's easier for you that way.

So you are telling me than, that the building fell solely because it was on fire and some damage, though it would be the first steel building to fall due to 'fire' and that this fire was able to make all 330 ft long, 140 ft wide of the building fall entirely, not one side, or from one area, but the entire building fell straight down. Is that correct?

Speaking as a civil engineer and someone who (admittedly, in a pre-graduation co-op position) worked in fire protection engineering, I can tell you steel buildings are well-known for being especially susceptible to fire, and that they were well-known for this long before 9-11. In a prolonged fire, structural steel will soften, deforming and losing strength. As one of my structural engineering profs put it, "it turns to licorice".

As for how it would fall, that depends on the structure of the building. The fact that it fell straight down doesn't raise any red flags for me.

 

[dust1n]

If the central support is damaged a building could easily fall straight down. If secondary supports are cut, thereby increasing the central support's load beyond what it can handle it can snap causing it to fall straight down. If a massive weight slams down from above, the impact and resulting damage can break the central and secondary supports, causing the building to fall straight down.

The destruction of the Twin Towers happened because of a combination of all 3. It is consistent with the laws of physics and what I've been taught to expect in my engineering classes. Don't believe me? Get a physics textbook and check for yourself. Heck, check the physics book even if you do believe me.

And yet then, why is it the only steel building to be officially explained to fall from fire?

[youtube]3B1OnhSucP8[/youtube]
YouTube - Beijing CCTV Annex Fire - Mandarin Oriental Hotel

[youtube]6sO7uLtfUZY[/youtube]
YouTube - Beijing CCTV Annex Fire - Morning after

The Mandarin Oriental Hotel had way more fire the WTF 7 (which barely looked like it was even on fire).

 

[silvermoon383]

Do you even know what caused the Towers to catch on fire in the first place? Fully loaded passenger jets make very large holes in buildings, snapping supports like twigs. Jet fuel burns hotter than anything that is normally inside of an office building, slagging supports.

To make it even more simple for you: Fire wasn't the only cause of the collapse. Darkendless, Penguin, and I have been trying to get that through your heads but apparently they're denser than lead.

To me it was a miracle that they stood as long as they did after they were hit, allowing more people to evacuate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Mandarin Oriental Hotel had way more fire the WTF 7 (which barely looked like it was even on fire).

It was also built in 2004. The World Trade Centre was designed in the '60s and built in the '70s. A lot changed with structural design and building codes over those decades.

I don't know the details of WTC 7 specifically, but one of my structural engineering profs (the same one who told us the "licorice" line) actually worked on the design team for WTC 1 and 2 as a young engineer. He told us about how the floor trusses were designed (specifically, how they connected to the beams) and, well, they just don't do them that way any more. It works okay during normal building use, but it's inherently weak if the floor joists sag... e.g. in a prolonged fire.

Also, I suspect that WTC 7 "barely looked like it was even on fire" because the fire was in the centre of the building... i.e. right next to its structural core.

 

[dust1n]

Okay... how would they line up?

Here's the other:

"Pull it" means "demolish the building".

- the building owner, the fire department commander, and who knows who else conspire to destroy WTC 7.
- the building is rigged for demolition without anyone noticing beforehand.
- coincidentally, a terrorist attack on adjacent buildings occurs.
- coincidentally, fires start in WTC 7.
- under orders from the building owner, a commander in the Fire Department of New York triggers the demolition.
- later, the building owner lets the cat out of the bag about the demolition in a television interview.


Do you really think it makes sense either way?

Well, I guess from someone who is claiming that the whole thing was a fraud, the listing would be something like this:

- The owner of the building, and the fire chief commander, are payed off, threatened, or are only related to WTC 7, not everything else about the entire incident. The slip up from the owner and builder of the building means he did not understand exactly what is supposed to be 'covered up' or what the 'fake story' necessarily consists of.
- The building was rigged, and no one would notice because they know nothing about the appropriate explosives which would be located in the basement.
- The 'terrorist attack' on the buildings next to it was also a controlled demolition, and the destruction thought to have happened on WTC 7 was not enough to take it down and/or something was array in the supposed destruction of WTC 7.
- The fire on WTC 7 was extremely minimal, as one can plainly see of any video of it pre-demolition.
- Under orders form who knows who, the building was demolished.

Wonder what? It was a chaotic situation and the building was expected to collapse. Why would this be cause for suspicion

The BBC report that aired 20 minutes before the destruction did not state that the building was expecting to be destroyed or fall, but that it DID already fall.

Of course not. It's easier for you that way.

Just like you certainly aren't trying to argue that the official story provided by the United States government is completely flawless in it's description of the incident. Which really is easy, because the information provided by the US government is obviously flawed, whether you think that terrorists did, or another story is the case.

Speaking as a civil engineer and someone who (admittedly, in a pre-graduation co-op position) worked in fire protection engineering, I can tell you steel buildings are well-known for being especially susceptible to fire, and that they were well-known for this long before 9-11. In a prolonged fire, structural steel will soften, deforming and losing strength. As one of my structural engineering profs put it, "it turns to licorice".

As for how it would fall, that depends on the structure of the building. The fact that it fell straight down doesn't raise any red flags for me.

And the fact that the building fell down so fast, that if you dropped a bowling ball from the top of the building, it would have hit the ground less than a second before the ceiling of the building did, due to a minimal fire that took place on a few floors doesn't raise any red flags for you... okay?

There are 1k Architects and engineers who are saying the opposite of what you are. How does your creditability mean anything more than theirs?

 

[dust1n]

Do you even know what caused the Towers to catch on fire in the first place? Fully loaded passenger jets make very large holes in buildings, snapping supports like twigs. Jet fuel burns hotter than anything that is normally inside of an office building, slagging supports.

To make it even more simple for you: Fire wasn't the only cause of the collapse. Darkendless, Penguin, and I have been trying to get that through your heads but apparently they're denser than lead.

To me it was a miracle that they stood as long as they did after they were hit, allowing more people to evacuate.

Were not even talking about WTC 1 and 2, just 7. Thanks.