| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Not Convinced; engineering facts dont suport conspiracy | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 26 2008, 05:41 PM (5,172 Views) | |
| cmdo83 | Oct 26 2008, 05:41 PM Post #1 |
|
Hello there people I am a British civil and structural engineer and new to this, I find these theories very interesting from an engineering point of view, and have studied the 9/11 for a number of years on a purely personal interest basis. I do feel some of the theories have credibility and I am certainly not swayed by any government and general work on the rule that whatever politicians say means the opposite happens for example: George bush: we are winning the war on terror (when actually it’s getting worse) Tony Blair (ex British prime minister): weapons of mass destruction (Iraq) Gordon Brown (current British prime Minister): Notably everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie. However I am not convinced and have yet to come across anything that can’t be explained with all be it simple explanation. As an engineer I work on a factual basis and the laws of physics, and whatever theories lead up to the events of this terrible day, nothing can be taken away from the simple engineering analysis which eventually ended up in the collapse of the buildings due to failure of the materials attributed to the fire and impact damage. I generally agree with some of the theories relating to what happened before the attack and find them either very suspicious or weirdly circumstantial; however I would like for someone to provide me with some credible factual evidence that proves the eventual failures were not by fire or impact damage. Because from a engineering point of view there is none, and the whole conspiracy relies upon the ultimate goal which arguably is the failure of the towers. So if the failure cannot be attributed to anything but the fire/impact damage then there is no conspiracy. enlighten me please. |
 |
 
|
| Tim Riches | Oct 26 2008, 06:54 PM Post #2 |
|
Not an engineer myself. I do rely on the work of Richard Gage, an architect who has detailed reasons for questioning the collapses. You can find his work at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth: http://www.ae911truth.org/ Video here: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8182697765360042032 Also, Engineer Gordon Ross has an excellent presentation specific to the Twin Towers: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4801566025292753615 Here is Mr. Ross' website: http://gordonssite.tripod.com/index.html |
|
|
|
| Grit1645 | Oct 26 2008, 07:03 PM Post #3 |
|
cmdo, I am also a civil and structural engineer, and I agree that there is no physical or engineering reason why the collapses could not have been caused by impact damage and fire. You will not not find many on here who agree with that point of view, however. Most of the arguments I have seen exhibit a lack of engineering and/or physics knowledge, or lack even a rudimentary understanding of how the building's structure actually worked. |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Oct 26 2008, 07:32 PM Post #4 |
|
Welcome to the forums! First and foremost, since no steel structured building has ever collapsed due to fires before or after 9/11, that can be ruled out altogether. If buildings could be brought down by setting fires, then there would be no need for demolitions companies. There are plenty of tell-tale signs of controlled demolition in all three WTC buildings: Massive detonation waves on the left side of the tower in this gif:  Detonations going up the side of WTC7:  And squibs visible in both towers as the buildings are collapsing. The top left pic in this collage is from implosionworld.com:  All of the above video evidence alone is indicative of controlled demolition. For further study and communication with hundreds of scholars, scientists, engineers and architects, click on the banners in my signature. Watch the following vid and ask yourself, do you believe what you're told or do you believe what you can see with your own eyes? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk Edited by BoneZ, Oct 26 2008, 07:38 PM.
|
|
|
| Rhymenoceros | Oct 27 2008, 10:01 AM Post #5 |
|
i'm not an engineer but i've always thought my understanding of physics was good - it bothers me however when two engineers feel that the collapse can be explained without the need to deviate from the official theory. Surely the towers could not have collapsed (without some help) in such a short space of time - given this information, can either of the skeptical engineers explain how they interpret the speed of collapse of WTC1, 2 and 7? |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Oct 27 2008, 10:40 AM Post #6 |
|
Bolding is mine. Very impressive. I would like to see all those simple explanations. It never fails to amaze me how arrogant some people become when instilled with some knowledge of science and engineering. It's particularly annoying when the opinions of other equally thoughtful people have their arguments dismissed because they have in effect, been deemed "professionally unqualified". Here we have two members, Grit1645 and cmdo83 both claiming to be structural engineers, yet neither of them appear aware of, or have any willingness, to legitimately address the hundreds of professionals who stand in stark disagreement with them. For some reason, or reasons, your simple convenient explanations cmdo83, just don't cut it for those highly educated professionals who have joined the 9/11 Truth Movement. If you have nothing other than rhetoric to present here, I see no point in working up a thoughtful presentation which the two of you will ignore. MM Edited by Miragememories, Oct 27 2008, 10:41 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Grit1645 | Oct 27 2008, 11:48 AM Post #7 |
|
You're a 9/11 researcher, which I assume means you have read the official nist reports, and other papers, etc. regarding the collapses, written by engineers and physicists NOT in the truth movement. Having read both sides and formed your opinion, isn't it equally useless for US to spend time working up thoughtful presentations which YOU will ignore? I have not found that people who are already convinced of a CD can have their minds changed in any way. And nowhere have I ever said that engineers/scientists in 9/11 truth are "professionally unqualified". I am not in a position to judge whether they are qualified or not. It would seem to me that it is *you* who would assert that anyone NOT in agreement with them/you is professionally unqualified, or a crackpot, or what have you. |
|
|
|
| mycal | Oct 27 2008, 11:59 AM Post #8 |
|
It wasn't just a fire. It was a massive plane going very fast and loaded with fuel, that crashed into the tower. You always seem to forget that part as if it doesn't matter. The building had many supports taken out by the impact and many weakened by the fire. Why would it not fail? Thousands of tons of building will giveway due to gravity, if the support is not there. |
|
|
|
| Headspin | Oct 27 2008, 12:20 PM Post #9 |
|
and building 7 ? there was no plane, there was no jet fuel, there were no columns taken out. Why would it fail? Thousands of tons of building will not giveway due to gravity, if the support is there. You always seem to forget that part as if it doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
| mycal | Oct 27 2008, 04:11 PM Post #10 |
|
Building 7 burned for almost 7hrs after being damaged by the collapse of tower 1. We can't say exactly how damaged it was, but we do see the penthouse giving way before the whole building comes down. It is well documented that many on the ground knew and expected building 7 to come down. It was just a matter of when. Why would the gov rig 7 to fall, but wait 7hrs to do it? |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Oct 27 2008, 05:08 PM Post #11 |
|
Is it mycal or mad cow? Seriously though, we know it was Boeing 767's that crashed into the towers. Most people who bother to do a bit of research, also know that the WTC Twin Towers were engineered to survive the impact and fire damage from a Boeing 707, a very comparable passenger jet, so your point, really doesn't matter. MM |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Oct 27 2008, 05:24 PM Post #12 |
|
You speak of many things regardless of whether they have any significance or actually relate to each other. The duration of the fire, as can be seen from many other examples of highrise buildings that burned far longer, is not a determinant of anything other than how much office furnishings fuel must have been consumed. We can't say exactly how damaged it was, but after years of analysis, the NIST concluded debris damage from the collapse of WTC1 was not a contributor to the collapse mechanism they settled on. It is well documented that those on the ground were mostly repeating the mantra provided by their superiors. Having absolutely no comparable experience to base a judgement on, those on the ground in effect, held unqualified opinions... unless there quotes were based on insider knowledge. The why, the when, have been previously addressed. Don't just repeat the questions. Challenge the damn answers. MM |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Oct 27 2008, 06:33 PM Post #13 |
|
That's because it doesn't matter. You seem to forget that the buildings were designed to withstand fully loaded 707 jetliner impacts. Although the 707 is slightly smaller than a 737, the 707's were faster than the 737's that actually hit. "Fully loaded" means passengers, fuel, baggage, etc. The WTC construction manager said he believes the buildings could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because a jetliner would not do any considerable damage to the structural integrity of the building. Rule that point out and there's no reason for the buildings to collapse. Moving on... That's just a purely false or uneducated statement. Several exterior columns were severed, but over 90% of the exterior columns were intact. No significant structural integrity issues there. There would have been little damage to the massive core of the buildings. A few core colums may have been slightly damaged, but there would have been no significant damage to the core which also rules out any significant structural integrity issues there. The steel was not significantly weakened by fire, if at all. Most of the jet fuel burned up outside in the explosion. The remaining fires were simple office fires. Since fire cannot and has never brought down a steel-framed structure before or after 9/11, fire can also be ruled out as a catalyst for collapse. If you rule out the jet impacts, which had no significant impact on the structural integrity of the buildings, and rule out fires which have never brought down a steel-structured building before, then the buildings had no reason to collapse. So then, what's the reason why the buildings collapsed? Why did Larry S. take out a several billion dollar insurance policy, which specifically included terrorism, on the entire WTC complex six weeks before 9/11? At the time, there had been no official word or investigation on how WTC7 collapsed, and I believe Larry S. was trying to give an explanation as to why WTC7 came down and why it looked so much like a CD when he said "pull it". But that would mean the building would have to have been prepped before 9/11, as it's not possible to prep the building for CD in 6 or 7 hours, while there are fires inside also. So, the government overrode Larry's explanation and said the building fell because of fire, for the first time in history. Larry S. was probably a direct accomplice to the events of 9/11. Larry probably even knows someone in the military industrial complex that planned the events. The planners probably came to Larry with an offer and a plan and told him that he can become a multi-billionaire if he goes along with the plans. And that's why the buildings had to come down. Take out an insurance policy 6 weeks before and make sure every single building gets destroyed (by terrorism, no doubt) and you can get billions of dollars to rebuild the entire site how you see fit. And all 7 of his buildings were destroyed, whether hit by planes or not. As you can clearly see from the pics I posted above, there are detonatons and explosions all indicative of controlled demolitions, and not indicative of a fire-induced collapse. There's absolutely nothing you can say or do to convince any of us here, or the professionals in my sig, that those buildings didn't come down in a controlled demolition. You can either continue to look at the evidence that's been posted over and over again, or you can stay close-minded and agree to disagree and move on to another subject. Rehashing the same stuff over and over does nobody any good. The evidence is there, read it, research it and learn, or move on. Edited by BoneZ, Oct 27 2008, 06:37 PM.
|
|
|
|
| mycal | Oct 28 2008, 11:24 AM Post #14 |
|
There is nothing that happened to either tower, that can't be explained by physics. Just because Mr. Demartini said the building was designed to take a hit from a 707, does not mean that it will automatically survive a hit from one. There are many different senarios that can happen, they can't plan for everything. Does that mean that any 'earthquake proof' structure will never crumble during an earthquake? It all depends on the circumstances, so please stop acting as if these buildings were invincible. Are you accusing higher ups in the fire department of being complicit in these attacks? You are saying without any proof that 'superiors' told the firemen and others that building 7 would fall, so they all just said 'OK'. These people are not stupid and they lost many close friends and relatives that day. Why would they not speek up, if there was any chance that this was an inside job? Why would 'superiors' in the fire dept want to lie for the govt? You act as if everyone there that day knew absolutely nothing about the signs of an imminent collapse. These people do this for a living. Chief Pfieffer lost his brother and he was heartbroken afterwards. Do you think he would help cover this up, just to keep his job, etc? Firemen were in the towers before, during and after the collapses, and you think they wouldn't have an inkling of CD? They came together to oppose Rudy G. for the republican presidential nomination, because they blame the deaths of some their friends on the lack of poper radios, not a govt conspiracy. They were extremely upset with him and felt he was partly to blame for their loved ones' deaths. Why didn't they attack Bush, Cheney, or the FAA, or AA, or UA, or Lloyd England, or USA Today staff, the military, rescue workers, debris and evidence collectors, eye witnesses other than noc, or anyone else you like to say are the culprits of this? |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Oct 28 2008, 03:30 PM Post #15 |
|
Here's a video of FDNY talking about how the buildings looked and sounded like a CD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64 Had you watched Loose Change: 2nd Edition you would have seen that video already. Had you watched any other video's from the Loose Change guys, you would see other fire and police talking about such things. The firemen were told by their superiors to shut up and don't question what happened. You can go ask their superiors why they told their subordinates to shut up and not talk about it and then you can tell the rest of us, if you get an answer. Yes, if you want to use the new laws of physics that the government invented to explain away 9/11. I'd rather trust real scientists and engineers that have no affiliation and nothing to gain from the government. Those are two totally different scenarios that have no comparison. A jetliner impact is a local event that only partially impacts a few floors. An earthquake is a global event that impacts the entire building and every floor in that building and essentially the whole entire structural integrity, not just a couple/few partial floors. I didn't hear Mr. DeMartini say "the buildings were designed to withstand fully loaded 707's, but they probably really wouldn't survive". I heard him say the buildings could probably sustain multiple impacts of jetliners and that the jetliner impact does nothing to the structural integrity of the building. You haven't looked at any of the evidence. You haven't watched a single 9/11 documentary. You haven't done any research of your own what-so-ever. Had you done any research at all, you would have answered your own questions. YouTube and Google are your friends. Use them and do some research instead of spewing stuff from your keyboard that you have no idea of what you're talking about. There are tons of videos on YouTube with police and fire talking about the events and what they saw and heard. There is tons of evidence everywhere on this site and the two professional sites in my sig. It seems to me that you don't want to do any research. You just want to come here and troll and stir up things while not knowing what you're talking about. I have a feeling your time here is very short if you don't start doing some of your own research and start showing an effort. |
|
|
|
| mycal | Oct 28 2008, 04:00 PM Post #16 |
|
Dude, I own all of those dvd's. I have watched that Hisory Channel documentary many times. Just because he says that does not mean that it can't happen. He lost his life that day also. Why would firemen let superiors tell them to help cover this up? You think these people don't have minds of their own, or any conscience whatsoever? Would you let your boss tell you not to say anything, if you had any idea who was responsible for the deaths of your friends or family, because you may get fired? These superiors don't own these people. Would you let your boss tell you to go rob a bank and you do it? It is ridiculous to think that these people are all puppets with no free will. I also have watched the Naudet bros. dvd many times and know it from memory. The firemen were saying it looked like a CD. They never said it was a CD or that they had any reason to think the official story wasn't true. Didn't you see what was going on in the north tower as the south tower fell? Did you hear explosions like a CD? The firemen didn't even know tower 2 had fallen until after tower 1 fell. Wouldn't they have heard all of the explosions of tower 2 being brought down? The firemen who survived in the stairwell of tower 1 never said they heard anything but the rumbling getting closer and closer. They were in the stairwell, why weren't they blown up by the CD explosives? Wouldn't they have seen or heard these explosives? Was this a hide and seek CD? |
|
|
|
| Avenger | Oct 28 2008, 05:50 PM Post #17 |
|
Start with the north tower antenna. Don't you think the antenna should have dropped AFTER collapse initiation? And why did the top section behave like this? And why do all four sides and core of that top section drop symmetrically? |
|
|
|
| Tim Riches | Oct 28 2008, 06:56 PM Post #18 |
|
Sorry BoneZ for any perceived attack on you. Farthest from my mind. But I do have a bit of a problem with 2 of the arguments made:I have to agree with mycal here. Of course he would say that the building would sustain such impacts. Granted he would have a better-than-average understanding of the strength of these buildings, being the Architect and on-site construction manager, but there is simply no predicting how a situation will turn out. Shit can happen, and based on what I've seen of the blueprints and video of the towers being constructed, I've never been fully comfortable dismissing the effect a fully loaded 757 (not 737  ) would have on it. This is not to say that I think the plane was responsible for what took place - far from it. While I do feel that the effect of the impact would be significant (understatement) and I believe that a partial collapse was almost certainly inevitable; the total collapse to dust of the entire structure, through the path of most resistance, leaving a pile of shattered materials several floors high was simply not possible without help. It would be reasonable to expect the top 60-or-so floors to remain standing, with a huge gash out of one side where the top of the tower in one piece creamed them on it's way to the ground. There is a fantastic photo (below) of the top of one tower (WTC2) starting to do exactly that, only to disintegrate independantly of the rest of the structure in what can only be a controlled fashion.  This is the single most damning photo taken of the events of 9/11 in my opinion. It is clear as clear can be that the top of WTC2 was on it's way over the side, and yet the entire structure was pulverized, ostensibly from this massive chunk of building falling straight through the center. I have heard no explanation that begins to account for why Newton was violated, save the CD hypothesis. Oh well, rambling a bit there, but the point I was trying to make is that a fully loaded 757 would pack one fuck of a whallop.
I again have to agree with mycal's position on this. I'm not aware of any proof that superiors had instructed their subordinates to keep quiet. This is not to say it doesn't exist, just that I haven't seen it. I'm sure someone can supply the reference if it can be done. However, even if that were the case, I don't feel that given the gravity and horror of the situation, with the rescue workers bearing the greatest psychological toll (colleagues dead, body parts all over the place) that they would obey an order to keep quiet. The ramifications of keeping silent would not be lost on those who had knowledge that the attacks were other than was described. The extent of that knowledge - what they were exactly being told to keep quiet about - could cover a wide range of subjects, and the order to remain silent about each subject would have a different outcome, I think. Just a general "don't talk to anybody about anything that took place" would fail utterly, and no sane person would expect such an order to be obeyed. I am actually at a loss in imagining what information or circumstances would qualify as a 'hush up subject" in anyone's eyes. What could they have been asked to keep quiet about, and wouldn't the order itself raise enough eyebrows to get those subordinates to research the proscribed subjects and perhaps clandestinely talk to others about it anyways? Rambling again!  Suffice it to say that I don't believe any such order could be given without a serious risk of backfiring. I think a more reasonable explanation was that the operation was planned meticulously enough that few overt signs were evident to the rescue workers, such as unexploded ordinance in the rubble; and that explosive sounds would have been almost expected in such a catastrophic set of circumstances. As some have stated before, and I (reluctantly) agree, many people describe a very wide range of noises as explosive events, big booms, etcetera. I also noted with a chuckle that some clever bastard made a film ridiculing the movement by piecing together clips of people describing noises like "freight trains," concluding that the collapse of the WTC was a railroad job.
 I truly dislike waving my hand in dismissal at witness reports of explosions, but I feel entirely too much emphasis has been put on this.(ducking and covering now) EDIT:spelling Edited by Tim Riches, Oct 28 2008, 07:37 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Headspin | Oct 28 2008, 07:35 PM Post #19 |
|
I would have thought that there would have been an expectation at the time that whatever was going on would have been investigated to the fullest possible extent. "Why would they not speak up?" - who would they speak to that would listen? certainly not the agenda driven mainstream press, the 911 commission didn't want to listen to anything counter to Zelikows script. the firefighter oral histories were suppressed for 4 years and only revealed by a FOIA request in 2005, many of those testimonies support evidence for demolition. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven.pdf http://firefightersfor911truth.org/ |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Oct 28 2008, 07:50 PM Post #20 |
|
To each their own. We still come to the same conclusion that the buildings were CD'd. There's no getting around that. http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/shocking_new_revelations_on_911_ground_zero_cover_up.htm I know I heard it elsewhere way before this and I almost swear it was in Loose Change or one of Dylans vids or from the FDNY themselves. I could be mistaken, but I know I heard this from somewhere quite some time ago. |
|
|
|
| Grit1645 | Oct 28 2008, 09:20 PM Post #21 |
|
Can you explain in your own words or in equation(s) how this event violates Newton? |
|
|
|
| mycal | Oct 29 2008, 10:37 AM Post #22 |
|
What force do you think was greater? The downward force of the 30fls crashing into the lower 80, or the force to push the entire 30fls over and off the top of the building? I believe that the top tilted, because the plane hit off center and more to that side. There was more damage to the support on that side. That support gave way first and the building tilted, but the greater force was all of that weight coming down on the lower floors. There was some momentum in that tilt, but the lower floors began to give way and it just all came down. If the bottom floors were strong enough to resitst the force of the top 30fls crashing down, then maybe we would have had a partial collapse or the top falling into the streets below. |
|
|
|
| Grit1645 | Oct 29 2008, 11:19 AM Post #23 |
|
The overturning moment wouldn't push the top off of the bottom, since it couldn't tip over enough to get the center of mass of the top outboard of the bottom before hitting the bottom and breaking through it. Once it hits the bottom 80, a large load is supported on a few columns in the corner of the building. There is no way that a few columns would carry that much load.
If the bottom were stronger, the top would have fallen over and lain at an angle on the bottom 80 floors. |
|
|
|
| mycal | Oct 29 2008, 01:51 PM Post #24 |
|
Sorry Grit, I meant to quote Tim Riches. We seem to be in agreement. |
|
|
|
| Avenger | Oct 29 2008, 05:29 PM Post #25 |
|
On all four sides? Seems to me that if the top section tilted, then at least one side of the building would have less weight to support. What caused those steel columns to be ejected from the building on all four sides at the same speed?
Edited by Avenger, Oct 29 2008, 05:30 PM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
4:33 PM Nov 25
