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

[dust1n]

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.

The original 7 World Trade Center was a 47-story building, designed by Emery Roth & Sons, with a red granite facade. The building was 610 feet (186 m) tall, with a trapezoidal footprint that was 330 ft (101 m) long and 140 ft (43 m) wide.[2][3] Tishman Realty & Construction managed construction of the building, which began in 1983.[2] In March 1987, the building opened, becoming the seventh structure of the World Trade Center.

 

[dust1n]

Again, I'm not arguing what happened 9/11, I'm arguing that the information provided by the FBI, Defense Department, The 9/11 Commission, and the US government are flawed.

 

[Ba'al]

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.

Jetliners do not snap steel columns. The twin towers were actually designed to withstand such an event.

~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)

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.

No need to be rude. Didn't you say you were taking engineering? I suppose that is why we don't believe you. There are plenty of experienced structural engineers who have laid out the evidence for us (you are too busy to read it), and you continue to make elementary statements that have been proven false.

 

[ericoh2]

To all those who still totally believe the official story, do you believe that these people are lying?


YouTube - What really happened at WTC 7? Barry Jennings

New Cover-up revealed? 9/11 Black Boxes found

 

[silvermoon383]

The collapse of WTC 1 2 and 7 are linked. Can't talk about 1 w/o dealing with the others.

Baal, might want to actually read what I write. I didn't say jet fuel burned hotter than steel, I said that it burns hotter than anything than you would expect to burn inside of a building, like paper, wood panelling, and electronics.

If you really think a multi-ton aircraft flying at several hundred miles per hour won't cut structural supports you need to wake up and start living in reality. And here's a fun fact: you don't have to heat metal to its melting point to damage it. Especially structural members.

 

[darkendless]

Baal, might want to actually read what I write. I didn't say jet fuel burned hotter than steel, I said that it burns hotter than anything than you would expect to burn inside of a building, like paper, wood panelling, and electronics.

If you really think a multi-ton aircraft flying at several hundred miles per hour won't cut structural supports you need to wake up and start living in reality. And here's a fun fact: you don't have to heat metal to its melting point to damage it. Especially structural members.

:yes:

 

[Ba'al]

If you really think a multi-ton aircraft flying at several hundred miles per hour won't cut structural supports you need to wake up and start living in reality. And here's a fun fact: you don't have to heat metal to its melting point to damage it. Especially structural members.

I am well aware of the structural integrity of the steel coulombs being compromised. Years ago before my fascination with religion my major was physics. But as I pointed out, there are just too many experts of all fields refuting your little arguments and have the facts to back up their claims for people that actually want to know.

 

[silvermoon383]

Want to know what? That instead of making a mistake the government instead killed thousands of its own citizens, destroyed millions of dollars worth of property, all while violating the laws of physics and common sense? I know what happened that day. I watched it happen. I use my brain in connection with my senses to learn what happens around me. My schooling has taught me what to look for, and what to expect. I have a working and ever-growing knowledge of how the world works. I don't live in a fantasy world where a guy with a flashy smile and pretty language dictates what is real.

Don't worry about asking me any more questions. I've got better things to do than to deal with willful ignorance and stupidity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Not just them - also the fire department dispatchers, whoever it is at the fire department who handles scheduling, and the fire department's on-scene incident commander, since they'd need to make sure that the specific commander who they paid off and/or threatened was the one who would be sent to handle WTC 7.

Also, all the firefighters who actually went into the building, since they'd have to be kept quiet about all those explosives they'd see while searching the basement for victims and survivors.

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 owner said that the decision to "pull" the building was made by the fire department commander.

- The building was rigged, and no one would notice because they know nothing about the appropriate explosives which would be located in the basement.

Because nobody goes into office building basements, right?

Well, at least you're not claiming that the windows bursting as the building fell were "explosive charges" going off.

- 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.

Wait - the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 was a "controlled demolition"? You do concede that planes flew into these buildings, right?

So they wire up the buildings to be demolished, then fly planes into them anyhow? Where's the sense in that?

- The fire on WTC 7 was extremely minimal, as one can plainly see of any video of it pre-demolition.

Just because a fire doesn't produce spectacular results from outside doesn't mean it's not serious.

- Under orders form who knows who, the building was demolished.

Hmm.

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.

I know. What I'm saying is that, knowing the building's collapse was imminent, they got ready to report this when it happened and then, in an environment where reports from the scene were confusing and sometimes inaccurate, they "pulled the trigger" and gave the report too early... not because they had some sort of inside line to the "real" conspirators, but because they made an honest mistake in a chaotic situation.

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 obvious flawed, whether you think that terrorists did, or another story is the case.

I haven't gone through the government's entire description of the incident.

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?

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from. According to a quick Google search, WTC 7 was 186 m tall. Neglecting drag, an object dropped from the top of the building would've taken 6.2 s. to hit the ground.

According to the NIST preliminary report, it took 8 seconds from the time when movement of the penthouse began until the entire building began to collapse. Judging by an online video I was able to find, it took about 9 seconds after that for the building to totally collapse, for a total of 17 seconds.

No, this doesn't raise any red flags.

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

Well, for one thing, you can ask me about why I believe what I do, and you can quiz me about my professional credentials. Just because someone is an engineer doesn't mean that they're qualified in the disciplines that relate to the World Trade Centre collapse. A computer or chemical engineer doesn't necessarily know anything at all about structural engineering - in school, while we were breaking reinforced concrete beams in the lab, they were writing computer programs or synthesizing polymers.

OTOH, as I pointed out, I'm a civil engineer, I've worked in fire protection engineering, and I've personally talked with a member of the WTC design team about the details of these specific buildings.

Also, if it's just a numbers game, consider this: the Bureau of Labour Statistics says that there were 1,571,900 engineers in the United States as of 2008. Which do you think says more: the fact that 1,000 engineers have chosen to speak out on this issue or the fact that 1,570,900 haven't?

There are probably more engineers who are Young Earth Creationists than there are who are "truthers".

 

[ericoh2]

Scientists find nano-thermite in the dust of World Trade Center debris after an 18 month scientific study. Do those who accept the official story dismiss this as a lie and fabrication or do you just believe that they are mistaken?


YouTube - A danish scientist Niels Harrit, on nano-thermite in the WTC dust ( english subtitles )

Bentham Science Publishers

 

[Ba'al]

Also, all the firefighters who actually went into the building, since they'd have to be kept quiet about all those explosives they'd see while searching the basement for victims and survivors.

Actually there are lots of firefighters who have come public with all kinds of anomalies. Some are playing a major role in the truth movement. And about people being paid off, no just threatened, and many have been.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Jetliners do not snap steel columns. The twin towers were actually designed to withstand such an event.

~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)

The number that matters here isn't the melting temperature, it's the eutectoid temperature. When steel reaches this temperature, its crystal structure breaks down and its strength greatly diminshes. The eutectoid temperature of steel is 727 degrees C, or 100 degrees less than the maximum fire temperature you mentioned.

Also, and more to the point in the case of WTC 1 and 2, there are several possible mechanisms for failure in a building structure. The floor trusses of the two towers didn't fail through fracture, they failed by deformation: even though they still held, they sagged so much that the loading changed on the connection at the one end of the truss. When the trusses sagged, the bolts at the one end that were designed to operate only in shear suddenly found themselves in tension and taking the entire load of the truss (instead of the truss bearing directly on the beam, as it was designed to do). The bolts couldn't take this stress, so they failed.

Edit: I also strongly doubt your "maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires" figure. A fire will simply add heat energy; the resulting temperature depends on the ability of the space around it to radiate away this heat energy. In an enclosed space, walls, ceilings and floors will reflect heat back toward the fire, increasing the temperature.

Not that it really matters in this thread, since as I pointed out, the temperature that matters is below the number you gave... however you arrived at it.

 

[Ba'al]

Edit: I also strongly doubt your "maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires" figure. A fire will simply add heat energy; the resulting temperature depends on the ability of the space around it to radiate away this heat energy. In an enclosed space, walls, ceilings and floors will reflect heat back toward the fire, increasing the temperature.

The temperature will actually be less than mentioned. I was giving the temperature of a perfect "blue flame" burn. That is where the fuel has all the oxygen necessary to burn pure. That rarely happens except in perfect circumstances, as in fuels that have their own oxygen supply. The black smoke seen in the videos prove a smoldering fire which cannot burn at near efficiency as the "enclosed space" you mentioned would have limited the oxygen supply as it would have been used up quickly by the fire. Estimates from rubble and video footage placed the heat estimates at below 700 deg.

 

[Ba'al]

Army Major General confirms 9/11 inside job.


[youtube]daNr_TrBw6E[/youtube]
YouTube - General of all American Intelligence: 911 was a fraud!

 

[Galileo]

That guy is just a kooky old man. He didn't seem to know what he was saying half the time. He mentioned how the buildings fell straight down rather than sideways. The only time a large building falls sideways is if the foundation is compromised in which case it would be top heavy and tumble over on its side. In the case of the WTC it wasn't the foundation that was compromised but rather the supporting beams in the upper levels of the building which gave way and caused the whole thing to collapse straight downward on itself. I've actually already made a post as to why all the evidence for a conspiracy theory doesn't add up on another thread, but I really don't feel like retyping it here so if you want to see it go to Lou Dobbs, the NAU, and NWO? All the conspiracy theories can be explained away with common sense.

 

[dust1n]

That guy is just a kooky old man. He didn't seem to know what he was saying half the time. He mentioned how the buildings fell straight down rather than sideways. The only time a large building falls sideways is if the foundation is compromised in which case it would be top heavy and tumble over on its side. In the case of the WTC it wasn't the foundation that was compromised but rather the supporting beams in the upper levels of the building which gave way and caused the whole thing to collapse straight downward on itself. I've actually already made a post as to why all the evidence for a conspiracy theory doesn't add up on another thread, but I really don't feel like retyping it here so if you want to see it go to Lou Dobbs, the NAU, and NWO? All the conspiracy theories can be explained away with common sense.

Just a KOOKY old Army Major General!

I know, I know; the US government is very used to hiring lots of kooky old men to lead the heads of their operations....

Ok, so use your common sense to explain every conspiracy theory... because you certainly didn't do anything of the likes in the other post.

 

[dust1n]

Not just them - also the fire department dispatchers, whoever it is at the fire department who handles scheduling, and the fire department's on-scene incident commander, since they'd need to make sure that the specific commander who they paid off and/or threatened was the one who would be sent to handle WTC 7.

Also, all the firefighters who actually went into the building, since they'd have to be kept quiet about all those explosives they'd see while searching the basement for victims and survivors.

Why would firefighters be searching the basement of WTC 7 for victims and survivors?

The building owner said that the decision to "pull" the building was made by the fire department commander.

Well, then you have to consider the possibility that IF it was some sort of conspiracy, that the guy is probably lying in the first place.

Because nobody goes into office building basements, right?

I don't really know, but I don't anything about explosives or how obvious they would if they were even explosives.

Well, at least you're not claiming that the windows bursting as the building fell were "explosive charges" going off.

I wouldn't know, seems like that would happen if the building was falling either way.

Wait - the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 was a "controlled demolition"? You do concede that planes flew into these buildings, right?

Yeah, you noticed that the building didn't fall directly after being hit by the plane, right?

So they wire up the buildings to be demolished, then fly planes into them anyhow? Where's the sense in that?

Well, I can tell you haven't look much into the skeptical side of the attacks. The idea would be that a plane crash wouldn't take down the building in itself. But if the both buildings just collapse for some reason, it would be kinda obvious. The planes were necessary to convince people that Muslims are efficient terrorists, though the planes wouldn't make the buildings collapse. If the buildings didn't collapse, then less people would have died, or evidence would be available about the planes, and we wouldn't have started a 9 year war.

Just because a fire doesn't produce spectacular results from outside doesn't mean it's not serious.

Sure, but the fire producing spectacular results would indicate that it was waaay more serious.

I know. What I'm saying is that, knowing the building's collapse was imminent, they got ready to report this when it happened and then, in an environment where reports from the scene were confusing and sometimes inaccurate, they "pulled the trigger" and gave the report too early... not because they had some sort of inside line to the "real" conspirators, but because they made an honest mistake in a chaotic situation.

I see. I'm not willing to dismiss this as a possibility.

I haven't gone through the government's entire description of the incident.

Well I'll let you know that their entire description didn't even mention WTC 7.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from. According to a quick Google search, WTC 7 was 186 m tall. Neglecting drag, an object dropped from the top of the building would've taken 6.2 s. to hit the ground.

According to the NIST preliminary report, it took 8 seconds from the time when movement of the penthouse began until the entire building began to collapse. Judging by an online video I was able to find, it took about 9 seconds after that for the building to totally collapse, for a total of 17 seconds.

So the penthouse collapsed in 8 seconds... and then the entire building than collapse, is this correct?

Also, if it's just a numbers game, consider this: the Bureau of Labour Statistics says that there were 1,571,900 engineers in the United States as of 2008. Which do you think says more: the fact that 1,000 engineers have chosen to speak out on this issue or the fact that 1,570,900 haven't?

There are probably more engineers who are Young Earth Creationists than there are who are "truthers".

That really doesn't account to much considering there aren't any group of engineers who have formed a response to the original group. It is more than likely that more engineers believe it was contrived, but just didn't join a group to lobby another investigation, or that the majority of those engineers never looked into and are apathetic and never looked at the situation fully, than to assume than the remaining engineers are all supportive of the government's explanation of the event.

 

[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.

I was comparing the building in the video to WTC 7, which didn't get hit by a plane, nor was it filled with jet fuel. It was filled with office supplies as well.

 

[ericoh2]

The number that matters here isn't the melting temperature, it's the eutectoid temperature. When steel reaches this temperature, its crystal structure breaks down and its strength greatly diminshes. The eutectoid temperature of steel is 727 degrees C, or 100 degrees less than the maximum fire temperature you mentioned.

Also, and more to the point in the case of WTC 1 and 2, there are several possible mechanisms for failure in a building structure. The floor trusses of the two towers didn't fail through fracture, they failed by deformation: even though they still held, they sagged so much that the loading changed on the connection at the one end of the truss. When the trusses sagged, the bolts at the one end that were designed to operate only in shear suddenly found themselves in tension and taking the entire load of the truss (instead of the truss bearing directly on the beam, as it was designed to do). The bolts couldn't take this stress, so they failed.

Edit: I also strongly doubt your "maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires" figure. A fire will simply add heat energy; the resulting temperature depends on the ability of the space around it to radiate away this heat energy. In an enclosed space, walls, ceilings and floors will reflect heat back toward the fire, increasing the temperature.

Not that it really matters in this thread, since as I pointed out, the temperature that matters is below the number you gave... however you arrived at it.

The fire must not have been too hot considering supposed high jacker Satam al Suqami’s passport was allegedly found after the attacks "soaked in jet fuel." Reports also claim that the passport appeared doctored.

Newly Released FBI Timeline Reveals New Information About 9/11 Hijackers that Was Ignored by 9/11 Commission - Complete 911 Timeline

Context of 'After 8:46 a.m. September 11, 2001: Hijacker’s Passport Found Near WTC'

Yet isn't it strange that none of the four black boxes from the world trade center attakcs, which are designed to withstand temperatures of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit and tremendous impact (Airplane black boxes, by WonderQuest) could be found, even though Dan Rather reports that Mayor Giuliani has apparently found a black box and that he has a clip of him holding it up. There are then some "technical problems" that prevent him from showing the clip.

YouTube - Dan Rather Says Flight Recorder RECOVERED From Ground Zero

Not to mention the two firefighters who report finding three of the boxes. (I provided a link to this earlier.) How can someone be expected to accept the official story after coming across these seemingly endless inconsistencies. Whatever the truth may be, it doesn't appear to me to be clear, at this point, by any means.

 

[Caladan]

That guy is just a kooky old man. He didn't seem to know what he was saying half the time.

A proponent of psychic warfare, Stubblebine was involved in a US military project to create "a breed of 'super soldier'" who would "have the ability to become invisible at will and to walk through walls". He encouraged visitors to his office to walk through walls and has said that the ability to do so is a great idea, but that it would also be a disappointment, similar to levitation.[3] He features prominently in Jon Ronson's book The Men Who Stare at Goats[6], where he is described as firmly believing that he himself can walk through walls.

Major General Albert Stubblebine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia