Numerous Structural Engineers Publicly Question the 9/11 OCT.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/04/14-structural-engineers-have-now.html

Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:

"Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"

Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:

"Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."

Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:

"WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"

Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues:

"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"

much more ...

when you see mention of free fall and evidence of thermite, you know it is BS. We know very well that the towers did not fall at free fall speed. We also know that there is no credible evidence of thermite.

It lets me easily identify those who don't have a clue.

You guys used to site what engineers and structural engineers said, now you have a new category of people who know what they are talking about - yourselves.
:eyes:

Though I'm not fucking stupid enough to parrot the crap they are in the OP, that's for sure.

For fuck's sake, learn how to spell. Is it really that hard? I know it's a goddamn homonym, but "site" and "cite" mean completely different things.

Would it really matter to you if he'd said roughly free fall speed? His meaning is obvious: they fell far too fast. All THREE times. Splitting hairs like this does not make you appear confident in the merits of your argument.

How fast did you expect them to fall?

No one expected them to fall at all. :rofl:

but it is wrong.

Who expected any of the two towers to completely collapse? :popcorn:

:silly:

with about 40 publications.

That thar's funny. You keep me young Flat. Thanks. :rofl:

it's a riot.

:rofl:

:shrug:

What do you think of the NIST investigators stating that they fell at essentially free fall speeds?

before the collapse zone indicate a collapse speed less then free fall? What figures have the truth community settled on for the proper collapse time? Can you show the calculations?

It's funny that you ask others to answer questions that even your sacred text of the NIST can't answer. Do you ask your questions out of ignorance or quest for knowledge?

Debris: Free Fall

Building Collapse: Not Free Fall

unconvincing!

when, by you own admission, there is no way to accurately calculate the collapse time? You do agree, however, that there is video evidence of debris falling faster than the collapse zone, correct?

As for videos of debris falling faster, yes, some debris can be seen falling faster, most of which was expelled outside due to the pressure from the collapse. Other than that, they really don't have much because it was obscured by the dust/smoke cloud and other buildings. I personally think they relied more on seismic readings for their times.

What was large enough to cause seismic readings? I'd venture to say it was some of the outer fascade, maybe several stories tall, that peeled away and actually *did* fall at free fall speeds... but I'm just guessing.

didn't they independently verify the collapse times?

Please feel free to do so at any time. Don't let me stop you...

If you've ever read some of my other posts you'd know that I don't identify myself as a "troofer" or an "OCTabot". I'm just a guy asking questions. I ask these questions in hopes that someone might explain what I'm missing about a certain subject and clear it up for me. See, I read a lot here, but comment little.

I can read both sides right here and figure out for myself most of what I want to know. When I'm unclear or uncertain, I ask... it's just that simple, really.

Where do I stand in all of this? I'll go to my grave believing LIHOP at the very least. The ignored warnings alone lend credibilty to this, in my mind. Someone, somewhere, in this administration and/or working for our government knew these attacks were coming. Strong evidence could lean me to MIHOP, just because of all the PNACers in high places at the beginning of the Bush Error. I'll never buy the 'incompetence theory' or the 'coincidence theory'. You don't get everything you wished for due to incompetence... it just doesn't work that way. As for coincidence... eh, there's just too many 'coincidences' to be coincidence.

All I want is the 100% pure unadulterated TRUTH of *what* happened on September 11, 2001... and *why* it happened. If that makes me a 'truther' in your eyes, so be it but I think we OWE it to everyone who died that day to find this absolute truth.

Whether or not the towers were brought down by controlled demolition is really not even relevant to me at this point. The main crime was committed when they hijacked the planes, then flew them into the towers. The relevant point to me is finding exactly WHO was behind it... and I mean *everyone*. I have a hard time buying the story of a guy in a cave and 19 hijackers. They might be PART of the story, but they aren't ALL of it.

but I don't understand the guy in a cave comment. OBL is a college educated engineer who operated from a series of bases in Afghanistan - he live in a house, not a cave. He and his followers are educated and very comfortable with modern technology. From their experience fighting the Russians, they are also hardened warriors that understand the need to study your enemy and take advantages of any weaknesses they present. I have no problem accepting that they would have the intelligence, patience and perseverance to plan an execute 911. It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that US airline security was a joke.

Maybe I've just read that description too many times and just picked up on it. I *know* bin Laden wasn't stupid by any means, but I still have a hard time believing that he could pull this off without *some kind* of inside help. Again, that's just a feeling that I have but I can't prove a thing. I may be totally wrong...

why would they do it? To get their countries invaded? Just to kill Americans they risk more of their counrymen's live's? That's not very smart in my book and I just can't buy it. :popcorn:

Then his mujahadeen would dispatch the American invasion force, much as they had forced the Soviets to retreat in disgrace.

His plan was to actually cause the collapse of the US, which he believed would not survive another Vietnam.

Spelling edit

but history does tell us that they are motivated in ways that you and I will never understand. Rationality and radical faith are mutually exclusive in my book.

Absolutely they wanted to provoke the US into doing precisely what Bush has done.

They already destroyed one superpower, and gained several more Islamic countries in the process.

well educated, intelligent religious nut jobs that believe allah is sovereign over the all earth and the pesky infidels need to get on the allah express

You obviously think the towers could not have fallen as they did without some assistance overcoming the resistiance.

replied to...

As someone who worked construction all his life and has seen buildings go up and come down, yes I expected to see a little more resistance from the lower part of the structure.

You are arguing that there was extensive demolition prep on each and every floor of both WTC towers involving thousands of pounds of explosives?

Otherwise the towers would have fallen in...what 38 seconds??? Or not at all???

I would think that much explosives would leave significant evidence in residue, metal spalling. Why none?

Did you see the words "explosives" or "controlled demolition" anywhere in my post?

You don't like your beloved, sacred texts of the NIST using the term "in essential free fall"??

I also know how to read into what I am reading. It's called an implication.

The implication is that the collapsing structure's momentum alone could not have overwhelmed the structure below so completely.

By claiming the buildings should have encountered more resistance, one is implying they had some sort of assistance. This assistance could only have meant each and every floor was compromised by some sort of chemical reaction, either from explosives or thermite.

The buildings fell as fast as they should have if one floor's worth of support was compromised.

is fraught with complications, partly because of language and partly because certain concepts are not common to both groups. You and I have experienced this ourselves.

It is important to understand that while the absolute difference between the expected duration of free fall from that height and the actual duration of the collapses is not large, the relative difference is significant. Since the collapse times were brief, a few seconds is a large percentage of the duration even though it might not seem like much. This is where the resistance (both inertial and structural) comes into play.

Lost communication is a big factor in understanding and misunderstanding.. many of us laypeople don't follow the technical jargon too well, or we take it out of context since we're not sure of the context that was implied in the first place.

That might be a good book for one of you guys to write: A Guide to 9-11 for Dummies :P

I'm the first one to admit that I don't understand it all... and I'm not afraid to ask questions if something just doesn't "sound right" to me. I've also stated before that I don't look too deeply into this subject, but I do have a passing interest in it... it just doesn't consume all my thoughts and time. I only read this forum for 9-11 info, but recently have begun to check links, like the one I posted to the NIST report. I try to follow only what I read here, so that my mind isn't tainted by 20 other sites and opinions.

I just want to know the pure, unadulterated TRUTH of what happened that day, and I don't totally buy the official story of a guy in a cave planning it all out and carrying it out. Taken at face value, I can see the towers collapsing because of the impacts and fires... but it sure as hell doesn't explain building 7 collapsing, in my mind, and where the Pentagon is concerned, the fact that the government grabbed all the security tapes from surrounding businesses and won't release them tells me they're hiding something... but that's just me..

I see this one a lot... "a guy in a cave planning it all out and carrying it out." This is just not true. First, OBL is a degreed civil engineer who worked for his father's construction company, which is/was the largest engineering firm in SA. Second, he was living as an honored guest of the Afghan government, not a cave. He had constructed a large compound named Tarnak Farm, just a few miles south of Kandahar. He fled to the cave complexes of Tora Bora only when the US started carpet bombing.

Mohammed Atta was also a degreed civil engineer.

The planning for the 9/11 attacks began in 1996.

These are all verifiable facts, but I see 9/11 skeptics resorting to snappy catch phrases to create the impression that these brown people are just too... well DUMB to pull off such an attack. This impression is completely false, and is employed in the same way that RW talking points (welfare cheats, lazy blacks etc) are used to try to create strong emotions among the easily fooled.

I have the privelege of working with many professionals from the Middle East, and these people are absolutely brilliant engineers and scientists.

To suggest that bin Laden's crew was somehow incompetent is way way off base.

The problem is that September 11th is much more than just physics/engineering. It's easy for some of us to focus on those issues because that's our area of expertise, but doing so tends to trivialize the rest of the story. Reading forums like this one can skew your understanding of events, partially because of the tendency for discussions to center around minutia.

Hey, that's a slogan! Or if you prefer, a canned response (getting pretty stale though).

No, I never expected them to fall at all. On the day itself, I had a similar reaction to the reporters heard to exclaim that obviously there were bombs or something else going on because huge buildings don't just fall down like that.

it is disingenous for 9/11 skeptics to repeat the same tired old slogans over and over again in order to oversimplify the problem. It is nothing more than sloganeering, which is fine for a marketing campaign, but somewhat insulting to people who know that the slogans are bullshit.

It is obvious to me that the purpose of the slogans is not to get to the truth, but to simply recruit more members. This makes the Movement more of a cult than anything else.

I feel like I'm being mauled by Jehovah's Witnesses when I read this stuff over and over again.

that you and others will keep repeating that same old tired bullshit lie that the towers did not fall at free fall speed. We also know that there is no credible evidence of what caused the three buildings to completely collapse to the ground for the first time in history.

that you and the other CTers have "studied" this for as long as you appear to have done, and you still come up with stupid fucking statements like that. "Free fall speed" is perhaps the most idiotic phrase to come from the "truth movement" (although I am happy to accept other nominations).

!

1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
4. The person in question is not significantly biased.
5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
6. The authority in question must be identified.

The 14 (out of how many SE's globally) structural engineers cited fail number 3. Get back to us when they convince their profession otherwise.

There's the site cited in the OP and there's AE911 Truth.org -- altogether something like a hundred professionals questioning the official story. That's not much, I admit, but the absence of information about other professionals doesn't mean they agree with the official story. Most of them have probably not given much thought to the matter. They're busy designing buildings and having families and generally living their lives. And some may disagree with the official story. You would have to ask them.

Sometimes it makes sense for an appeal to authority to require the agreement of most experts in the field. In a case like this, where few professionals have been asked and few are informed, requiring agreement would not make sense.

So who are your authorities who support the official story? If you can, list people who are not paid for their opinion.

between questioning the facts of the events on 9-11-01, and claiming there was a vast conspiracy by the US Government to Murder thousands of it's own citizens in broad daylight.

I find your caveat interesting. In your opinion are all people who receive a check from the Department of the Treasury completely devoid of any moral compass beyond self interest? Or just those who don't agree with the "9-11 Inside Job" conspirisy?

The whole premise is bullshit.

Scientists want to find anomalies. They build careers on anomalies. If they can actually demonstrate anomalies, such that they turn accepted scientific understanding on its ear, they get attention, money, and legacies.

Science rewards the better explanation. Science leaves the unnecessarily complicated and ultimately wrong answers behind.

In six years, 14 structural engineers have signed onto the 9/11 Truth Movement - at least, the part that advocates controlled demolition. Don't point to people like Galileo. Galileo could pop out a telescope and show everybody what he was talking about. The proofs that have convinced these structural engineers should not have done so. It is far more likely that some other factor convinced these people of controlled demolition (such as anti-war fervor) rather than their expertise having informed their opinions in this.

Have you asked all the licensed engineers in the nation?

And where are the thousands who disagree with the 9/11 Truth Movement?

Don't try to tell me John Gross and NIST were looking for anomalies. If they had been, they might not have constrained their investigation to end at the onset of "collapse."

That's kind of relevant to the discussion.


ETA: And it doesn't really matter how many of them there are, if they still can't muster a coherent explanation. They're parroting bullshit from years ago that is easily verified (and disproved).

they didn't like what they saw, and they very wisely declined
to comment on it.

That way they don't have to explain how a disorganized debris
pile can take down the robust core, why hundred-foot sheets of
perimeter wall material didn't peel off to fall on the World
Financial Center across the street, why debris took the path of
greatest resistance to the ground, how the hat truss failed
with perfect symmetry to drop the TV antenna straight down,
or what pulverized 220 acres of concrete floor, steel floor pans,
and carpeting or vinyl flooring.

Perhaps you should look into it.

The vast majority of structural engineers and architects have been silent on this matter, and it's impossible to say how many have either not looked at the evidence, would prefer not to know (because let's face it, the questions raised by this issue are deeply upsetting to many people) or have decided not to take a position, in the interest of their future livelihood. Repeatedly I see OCT defenders try to contend that a near entirety of professionals in these fields are on their side, when this is patently ridiculous. You simply cannot make these assumptions about the silent majority, and beyond that, in a climate where persecution and ridicule are virtually guaranteed to those who express skepticism - not to mention a threat to their ability to earn a living - their silence cannot rationally be construed as evidence-based support for the Official Lie. Conversely, supporting the OCT is clearly a great career move, particularly for those who expect to receive government contracts (or from the corporate interests running the government). It is hardly surprising we have the situation that we do, and it does NOT support the OCT because it is not a reflection of an open and unbiased environment for inquiry (the polar opposite, in fact).

I think it's great and important that a few brave professionals have come forward at considerable personal risk, but as far as confronting the obvious BS of the OCT, it doesn't take an army of engineers, or even one. It just takes your own two eyes, and your abililty to reason without caving to intimidation. The infinitesimal probability of the events of the day occurring as the government claims they did, along with the massive evidence of a cover-up -- that alone breaks the needle on the BS meter. No engineer required.

Engineers have huge egos. I don't know any engineer who would not leap at the chance to trumpet an achievement as significant as proving that the WTC towers did not fall due to fire and structural damage.

To suggest otherwise tells me that you have not worked with engineers.

14 in six years. Maybe by 2020, they can get over the 30 mark.

could result in a local collapse translating into global collapse.

I can't resist. Where the fuck did you divine that from, petgoat?

Everything focuses on column 79 at the 13th floor.

Don't you know anything, bolo?

Tell me, does your copy of the Structure Magazine article have the same words on page 44 that mine does?



Italics mine.

The piece does not explain how the failure was distributed through
the transfer trusses to other columns.

They claim they got a partial vertical collapse in their computer model
by removing column 79.

They're not clear on whether this alleged horizontal collapse mechanism
came from their computer model, or, to borrow your terminology "out
of their ass."

The article itself is not that in-depth. The report will be out soon. If you like, you can look through the Interim Report to see a number of ways charted out that the failure could be distributed through the trusses horizontally to other columns.

While we're on the subject, are you one of these people who think that because the NIST hypothesis doesn't rely on the diesel fuel or the damage, that means that NIST doesn't think either actually contributed to the collapse?

If you kick out part of the structure the collapse transmits horizontally.

The east penthouse collapsed on top of those two transfer trusses, petgoat.



As you can see from my annotated version of this picture, the transfer trusses under the east penthouse had crucial crossbracing that held up the core section containing things like all the elevator shafts. When the east penthouse fell (along with all the floors underneath it, they took out the crossbracing that kept the weight of the core section from shifting to the east.

That gone, the core section DID shift to the east. And down came the rest of the building.

And still you repeat that factual inaccuracy.

You ought to be ashamed.

The article does not say anything about the transfer trusses.

It has a drawing of the transfer (shear) trusses 1 and 2 on the
column 73 and column 74 axes respectively, and it has a label
for an eastern transfer girder on one drawing, which girder is
left out of the diagram showing the shear trusses.

It vaguely tells us the failure was distributed horizontally
through the "transfer elements," but does not identify the
elements or tell us how they failed.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

...they experience severe cognative dissonance.

Why don't you tell us what the article says about them?

Please stop this pretense.

It's so vague as to be meaningless.

Let me remind you how this started.

You said that the transfer trusses were no longer a part of the NIST WTC 7 "dogma." When I asked you where you got that from, you said it was because they weren't mentioned in the Structure article.

BUT THEY WERE. In fact, they continue to be a part of the working hypotheses, and are expressly pointed out in a key illustration used in the article.

Details about how the transfer elements transmit the failure to the rest of the structure are available in the several hypotheses found in the Interim Report. Beyond that, you are going to have to wait like the rest of us.

You were wrong. You were demonstrably and remarkably wrong. Why can't you just admit this?

It labels them in a picture. It does not mention them
in the text. It makes vague reference to "transfer elements."
The picture showing the transfer trusses does not even show
the eastern transfer girder. You are reading into the Structure
article the answers you want, but it is not a serious presentation.

This is as silly as NIST's report on the towers. "Our computer
model said a collapse was initiated, and the videos show that this
was a total progressive collapse, so we're satisfied."

Show us the words and the pictures, bolo, and don't relabel the
parts in the diagram.

This conversation is over, petgoat.

The article mentions "transfer trusses" in a description
of the building, and only talks vaguely about "transfer
elements" in describing its supposed collapse mechanism.

You read into it what you wanted to see, and now you won't
discuss it.

Everything in the Structure article is consistent with the Interim Report.

There comes a time when you should just stop. Just stop.

They didn't say the transfer trusses were involved in the collapse,
and they didn't say they weren't.

Of course if somebody had bothered to take pictures of the wreckage,
we might be able to discuss these issues. But oh gee, it was
National Security and all and nobody was allowed to take pictures,
and the ASCE investigators weren't allowed on the site.

Give it up, bolo. Your defense of the pathetic official investigations
is useless.

Murder will out, and it's outing all over the country.

That once these gentilemen are in possesion of the facts they will come around.

Right now their "questions" involve quite a few assumptions with few facts.

1. The collapse of WTC-7 while not understood 100% at this time is certainly NOT "unexplainable".

2. There is no evidence of thermite in the debris. The evidence and debris in question are alledged.

3. None of the buildings fell at freefall speed.

4. Mr Inman is correct, No plane hit WTC-7.

I assume in 1975 all of the perimmeter columns and passive fire protection systems were intact.

Only about 1/4 of the 11th floor was involved in the fire in 1975, although it did spread down to the 9th and up to the 16th floors through some openings that weren't firestopped. While the sprinkler systems had not yet been installed in the towers the fire department did respond, using standpipes in the stairways to fight the fire - first focusing on the 11th floor where the main fire was then tackling the 9th thru the 16th floors.

The jig is up, some just won't admit it.

There's a difference.

insisting that Muslim random berserkers who couldn't fly caused three buildings to fall rapidly to the ground in an identical mattter by flying into the buildings with precision and not being intercepted by any of our Air Forces despite four planes being in the air "hijacked" for over an hour - now THAT'S kooky.

it's an insult.

Sid

Where can I find the rest of the analysis and commentary written by these gentlemen?

Their conclusory statements are certainly interesting. Where are the analyses they have conducted?

I though we killed that piece of shit. I lost count of the inaccuracies and outright, flat wrong statements on that piece of crap blog. Why do people keep linking to it?

so you'll have something to bitch and whine about? :shrug:

Methinks it is probably more like that POS blog being the digital equivalent of crack cocaine for the intellectually lost and mentally confused.

They very likely have it bookmarked.

that professionals with equal qualifications disagree on what happened. (Except the professionals in this article aren't working for someone appointed by the people that many think are responsible for 9-11.)

They aren't publishing papers. They're just mouthing the same stunted numbskullery that Richard Gage has gathered into a steaming pile of bullshit over at AE911Truth.

How exactly is Zdenek Bazant working for someone appointed by the people that a few people think are responsible for 9/11?

It is just as invalid as when they use it.