TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 [87] 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Colonel, you completely misunderstood the context of my comment directed at PKC who esentially thinks that anyone lacking certification as a structural or civil engineer is inherintly completely incompitent lacking any credibility in context of the subject. I was pointing out that his silly assumtption (or assertion), if anything is more aking to turning reality upside down... which makes his argument laughable at best.

phew.... i almost lost control of my superiority complex for a minute there. things rarely end well when i go into my rants about how bullshit arts degrees are ruining our economy by making half wits think they are deserving of high paying salaries.

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp phew.... i almost lost control of my superiority complex for a minute there. things rarely end well when i go into my rants about how bullshit arts degrees are ruining our economy by making half wits think they are deserving of high paying salaries.

lol

quote:

Originally posted by ******** You need to understand how physics works to understand. Support structures diffused building stress, but to do so they redistribute vibrational kinetic energies. It is like pushing a door open. You push to door what happens - the energy from your arms transfers to door - visualize the plane as you and the WTC support structures as the door. The impact was sort of higher up in the bulding but still those massive impacts while not enough to collapse the buildings transfered enough energy to the support system to cause vibration.. all the debris and scraping caused a thermite reaction to start to occur in the foundation like a mortar and pestel... when there was enough powder accumulated there was enough heat transfer to melt the metal support structures in a few locations.. then this is because friction causes heat to be created .. for example if you rub your hands together they get hot because of friction.. now picture those support structures rubbing getting hot enough to transfer the heat required to iniiate the thermite reaction where there was enough debris accumulation of iron oxide and alumnum..once the ignition temperature was reached.. the reaction debris then added the extra heat needed to melt the metal structures in some locations... It is documented the girders were heated but not enough to melt them... it was simply overlooked that the building materials themselves could be used to cause a thermite reaction and the heat levels of the girders was not hot enough to melt them but hot enough to start the thermite reaction which did produce the heat needed to melt them.

Are you seriously telling me that there was enough friction in the WTC after the impact to create the hundreds of degrees necessary to ignite the thermite? Sorry, but I don't buy that. When did the thermite reaction begin then? At the time of impact? How much thermite do you think would have been there for the reaction to last around an hour for each tower?

Sorry if im a little slow but what you're saying isn't making sense.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z but point is that no architect, civil engineer, or structural engineer buys in to a bullshit theory like the pancake theory...

To quote rimmer from red dwarf - "brimming over with wrongability"

structure magazine

and some more....

quote:

9/11 demolition theory challenged An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks. The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total. One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition". The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell. Resistance to collapse Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures. In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts. "The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website. Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse. His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down. This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground. He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behavior of the buildings. The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center. This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers. Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble. Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm Dr. Keith A. Seffen http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~kas14/ ---- Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy... For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is... "Walter P. Murphy Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science Northwestern University The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News: Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001). That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors. I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "theory of intelligent design" except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books." http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/ The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html Editor: Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder [email protected] http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/facult...ple.cgi?corotis Editorial Board: Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego http://kudu.ucsd.edu/ Henri Gavin, Duke University http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/ Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/ Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/ Nicos Makris, University of Patras http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep...en.asp?profid=5 Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calenda...ademicAlpha.htm Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/facul...aculty_list.htm Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592 George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff...iadjis_Gbio.htm Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/facult...e/people.cgi?xi Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/ James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/ Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354...ategory&op=show Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact Journal of Engineering Mechanics More links to civil engineering papers and other information concerning the WTC collapse... Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y. "Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf) Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370. Brannigan, F.L. "WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150. Clifton, Charles G. Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001. "Construction and Collapse Factors" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108. Corbett, G.P. "Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135. "Dissecting the Collapses" Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46. Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C. "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation" JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor. World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations (also available on-line) Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A. "Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center" The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48. "Collapse Lessons" Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103 Marechaux, T.G. "TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering" JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17. Monahan, B. "World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations" Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135. Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D. "Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?" Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800. National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs �Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center� Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002. Pinsker, Lisa, M. "Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site" Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001). The print copy has 3-D images. Public Broadcasting Station (PBS) Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary. NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online) Post, N.M. "No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report" ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14. Post, N.M. "Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing" ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14. The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects A resource site. "WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives" ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

http://debunking911.com/paper.htm

quote:

Originally posted by ******** DUDE THE WTC WAS BEING MADE BEFORE THERE WAS WIDESPREAD CRITICISM OF IT IN THE 70's. DUDE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.. a bag of this stuff will burn like thermite

so much for being polite.


your a fucking idiot.


im not even going to try and debate this with you because clearly you dont know fuck about shit anyways. just because a chemical is a compound of aluminum does not mean that it will react like aluminum you fucking arts major halfwit. now go and pump my gas you insignificant twat!

http://williamsequipment.com/PDFs/sfl_msd.pdf



there ALUMINA cement is one of the major ingredients 10-30% by weight..... and look ITS NOT REACTIVE! or FLAMABLE...

Look colonel and PKC are playing the "I have an education" bullshit again but still cannot debunk why there are thousands of things wrong with the official story.

Good job, here's sticker.

14 Structural Engineers Now Publicly Challenge Government's Explanation for Destruction of the World Trade Center


14 structural engineers now publicly challenge the government's account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11:

A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this)

Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)

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!"

Mills M. Kay Mackey, structural engineer, of Denver, Colorado, points out:

"The force from the jets and the burning fuel could not have been sufficient to make the building collapse. Why doesn't the media mention that the 11th floor was completely immolated on February 13th, 1975? It had the weight of nearly 100 stories on top of it but it did not collapse?"

Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer and architect (ret.)

Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)

Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)

Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer

William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College

There are many other structural engineers who have questioned the government's account in private. We support them and wish them courage to discuss these vital issues publicly.


http://georgewashington.blogspot.co...s-have-now.html

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Look colonel and PKC are playing the "I have an education" bullshit again but still cannot debunk why there are thousands of things wrong with the official story.

the only people that think there's are "thousands" of things wrong with the official story look like this

quote:

Originally posted by culorut 14 Structural Engineers Now Publicly Challenge Government's Explanation for Destruction of the World Trade Center

Well, we're waiting for them all to put their money where their mouths are and produce a paper that examines the collapses. We won't be holding our breath, and I'm willing to bet a bunch of those 14 people aren't even licensed engineers but I'll wait for colonel to examine that for me.

Indeed, having followed your link and seeing some quotes attributed to structural engineers im rather doubtful that any of the people quoted are actually involved in civil engineering (colonel has previously debunked the notion that the names that appear on your troofer websites actually refer to licensed engies).

quote:

"The force from the jets and the burning fuel could not have been sufficient to make the building collapse. Why doesn't the media mention that the 11th floor was completely immolated on February 13th, 1975? It had the weight of nearly 100 stories on top of it but it did not collapse?" Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer and architect (ret.)

No accredited engineer would ever say anything so completely stupid. or at least i hope this person isn't designing buildings because they're retarded.

quote:

Mills M. Kay Mackey, structural engineer, of Denver, Colorado Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas

I searched two right off the bat and guess what the result is? not currently liscensed, and have never held a license......


shocking................

Rockefellers caused jews who caused evolution which caused 9/11!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN the only people that think there's are "thousands" of things wrong with the official story look like this

How original, here's one that describes your kind to the tee....






I bet you really do look like that. LOL

quote:

I'm getting a little tired of the way the [CTer] switches back and forth between demolition charges and thermite depending on which piece of evidence is being discussed. "Squibs," "freefall speed," "debris ejected sideways," and "some people heard explosions" is all cited as evidence of demolition charges blowing apart the WTC. BUT....."molten steel," Steven Jones' microspheres, and the lack of loud CD charges on audio of the collapses is "proof" of thermite! Sometimes I see truthers switch between the two in mid-senetence - as Richard Gage did in a CFRB radio debate when I pointed out how the usual sounds of a CD were not heard or recorded. "That's cuz they used thermite....and people heard explosions." So let's clear this up once and for all: is it bombs or thermite? It can't be both. If your position (like Gage's) is that thermite was used because bombs are too loud then say goodbye to all those "explosive" talking points because none of that could be caused by silent explosives. If it's bombs you believe in then stop with the "molten steel" and Steven Jones.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=111143

amen.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut How original, here's one that describes your kind to the tee.... I bet you really do look like that. LOL

what is it you do on here again? o yeah i remember, propagate lies, plant seeds of doubt and personally attack established members......

I call bullshit, and anyone following this thread knows dam well between you and PKC the picture I posted fits the both of you like a glove.

Seriously fuk off you trolls.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut I call bullshit, and anyone following this thread knows dam well between you and PKC the picture I posted fits the both of you like a glove. Seriously fuk off you trolls.

hrmmm my account was created in 2003.... yours in 2007.... who is established? furthermore what you seem to think is compelling evidence is nothing but irrefutable proof that you had major difficulty putting square pegs through round holes as a child.... you wouldnt know a good fit if it bit you in the arse while you were crouched under a bridge eating children........

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp hrmmm my account was created in 2003.... yours in 2007.... who is established? furthermore what you seem to think is compelling evidence is nothing but irrefutable proof that you had major difficulty putting square pegs through round holes as a child.... you wouldnt know a good fit if it bit you in the arse while you were crouched under a bridge eating children........

And yet another compelling post from someone who has the credentials (supposedly) but still has not disproved the thousands of problems that are present in the official 9/11 story.

Good job troll, keep proving to others how you define what you are with every keystroke.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut And yet another compelling post from someone who has the credentials (supposedly) but still has not disproved the thousands of problems that are present in the official 9/11 story. Good job troll, keep proving to others how you define what you are with every keystroke.

hi, long time listener, first time caller..

i don't understand why 3 different buildings all falling at free-fall speed (i.e. falling with gravity, as if no weight was underneath such a massive structure) didn't raise more eyebrows.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} i don't understand why 3 different buildings all falling at free-fall speed (i.e. falling with gravity, as if no weight was underneath such a massive structure) didn't raise more eyebrows.

when a few thousand tons of steel begins to fall, nothing will stop it.

the south tower:


you have it in your mind, instictively, to assume that the upper 1/3 of the building has little to do with the structural integrity of the lower 2/3's when, IN FACT, in a building like the WTC (a purely exoskeleton design) when the top of the building is no longer connected to the rest most if not all of the original integrity becomes non-existent.

National Geographic. at 1:40 begins the close-up shot the exoskeleton begins to buckle the instant prior to collapse:

heh, fair enough. and building 7? pretty odd, i think.

Marvin Bush at the helm of security is also pretty curious.

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday [September 11]. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local...0,6794009.story

and what about the fake bin laden tapes released by bush's administration?

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} and what about the fake bin laden tapes released by bush's administration?

Source? I want to see what the claim is specifically...

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

The "War on Terror" as
Defined by 1984's Emmanuel Goldstein

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/o...stein_1984.html

nothing factual of course, just eerie words from Orwell.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

i'm sorry but that can't be taken seriously.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.