Credentials? Check, they have plenty....


Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics"


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

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?"

David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland, argues:

"Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . ."

Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California, states

"I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. “If” you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.

Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.

Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse.

For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the causes for the structural failures."

Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona, writes:

"We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.

We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.

The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from ?"

David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California

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

See this website and this website for further additions.

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://georgewashington2.blogspot.c...ineers-say.html

quote:

Originally posted by culorut who simply attack instead of debating the actual content

lol a pretty amusing comment considering it is coming from you. You can't even answer a direct question. Again:

1. If Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon where is the airplane, its crew, and all its passengers?

2. If Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon what did?

I saw the documantary (or movie) Lose change 2 days ago. I don't know but it really triggerd many questions.

But i don't think anyone will know the truth anyway.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Octanesyco Greetings. My name is Casey. You can call me Moose. -Moose

quote:

Originally posted by Massive84 I saw the documantary (or movie) Lose change 2 days ago. I don't know but it really triggerd many questions. But i don't think anyone will know the truth anyway.

loose change is full of lies and errors and poor research. the truth is already known, dont be misled by the morons. dont believe me, creator dylan avery admits there are plenty of errors in his movies.

quote:

Originally posted by cretinrot I have carefully studied the Jones 2006 paper, “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?” and concluded that it is a rational step-by-step study that meets the accepted standards for scientific building research. His critical reviews of the FEMA, NIST, and 9/11 Commission reports are correct.”

hahahaha. he can think whatever he likes, but he's still wrong. if it "meets the accepted standard" where is its publication and peer review? duh.

and all these so-called "experts" keep getting added by AEtruth, and yet none of them have been willing to write a paper on the fact. still waiting for the peer review kids. or does posting irrelevant opinion on a website count as fighting for the truth these days?

btw, richard gage is a liar and a fraud.

___________________

Care to back up your childish claims with some real evidence or are you simply down playing this because you know there was a peer reviewed paper and you cannot refute it.

The structural engineers are legitimate and know exactly what they are talking about. One has over 55 years experience, I am sure you do right?

Talking out of your ass will not make you favorable on the subject, the only thing that matters is experience and professionalism. In this case you do not possess either of the two.

You are a troll who blows hot air on a message board and believes your own BS that you post to be the truth when in reality this is far from the truth, it is completely the exact opposite.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Care to back up your childish claims with some real evidence or are you simply down playing this because you know there was a peer reviewed paper and you cannot refute it.

you don't have a peer-reviewed paper. if you knew anything about academia you would realise this, but since youre an uneducated fool you don't realise that its nothing but a letter to a vanity journal that includes no science that received no peer review in an online journal which charges $600 to be published.

Many REAL scientists have written to the bentham organisation and it is clear from the responses from their editors that the journal is a fraud, the same as the "journal of 911 studies".

quote:

For what it's worth, I've had no further response from Dr. Jeng. So it stands where it was -- the publisher is operating without oversight, the publisher has no idea what he's doing, and the publisher has yet to provide the reviewers' comments (or even their names) to their own editor-in-chief. I suppose I could turn up the heat and let their respective universities' steering committees know about this little tale of academic fraud, but I'm not sure we need to. We know what we wanted to know -- Dr. Jones got published because he found a disreputable journal, and his paper was never properly reviewed. Game, set, match, and he's still out a few hundred bucks. If this happens again, though, the responsible parties have been duly reminded of their responsibility.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110489&page=13

but im sure you know more about the process of peer review than this NASA scientist, especially since i bet you'd never heard the expression "peer review" before, haha.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you don't have a peer-reviewed paper. if you knew anything about academia you would realise this, but since youre an uneducated fool you don't realise that its nothing but a letter to a vanity journal that includes no science that received no peer review in an online journal which charges $600 to be published. Many REAL scientists have written to the bentham organisation and it is clear from the responses from their editors that the journal is a fraud, the same as the "journal of 911 studies". http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110489&page=13 but im sure you know more about the process of peer review than this NASA scientist, especially since i bet you'd never heard the expression "peer review" before, haha.

lol this goes right along with his:

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

quote:

Many REAL scientists have written to the bentham organisation and it is clear from the responses from their editors that the journal is a fraud, the same as the "journal of 911 studies".

Prove it is a fraud along with your claim that Richard Gage is also one as well. These guys are going from university to university around the world and have the respect of many professionals. What do you have exactly? You are nothing but full of shit.

Posting nonsense from that forum does not make you correct, I actually checked out the link and the forum is full of trolls, morons and disinformation. Looks like this is where you got that retarded 10 point list, LOL. Back up your claims with hard evidence.

I guess the structural engineers I just posted up are frauds too?

Moron.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut I guess the structural engineers I just posted up are frauds too? Moron.

You only gave enough information on 4 of them for me to check wether or not they are licensed....

well as im in a good mood today.... allow me to check for you.....

William A Rice, P.E. Vermont

Date of Liscensure 08/01/2006 *****wealth of experience here..... 2 whole years......

Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas *******no liscence to practice engineering in Texas

Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin

Date of Liscensure 2000/10/18 **** again wealth of experience...


David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California

currently holds a liscence but does not list date of origional liscensure on the registrar list. Since he is not affiliated with a Firm liscence (certificate of authorization in canada, it is safe to assume he is not a senior engineer (10+ years experience) as generally senior engineers are listed on firm liscence documents.

the other names did not provide a state of residence for me to check their credentials.


out of the 150-200 thousand practicing civil engineers in the US alone, you have managed to find 3 (liscenced) that happen to wear tinfoil hats on their days off...... what a breakthrough! you should write an article about it, then pay to have it published....

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I have 3 hobbies: gaming, DJing & correcting maladjusted fools on the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Yeah, I’d like to know what horrible, scarring incident in your childhood turned you into such an ignorant, intellectual-hating philistine?

http://kassandraproject.wordpress.c...ns-role-in-911/

hmm.

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp You only gave enough information on 4 of them for me to check wether or not they are licensed.... well as im in a good mood today.... allow me to check for you..... William A Rice, P.E. Vermont Date of Liscensure 08/01/2006 *****wealth of experience here..... 2 whole years...... Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas *******no liscence to practice engineering in Texas Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin Date of Liscensure 2000/10/18 **** again wealth of experience... David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California currently holds a liscence but does not list date of origional liscensure on the registrar list. Since he is not affiliated with a Firm liscence (certificate of authorization in canada, it is safe to assume he is not a senior engineer (10+ years experience) as generally senior engineers are listed on firm liscence documents. the other names did not provide a state of residence for me to check their credentials. out of the 150-200 thousand practicing civil engineers in the US alone, you have managed to find 3 (liscenced) that happen to wear tinfoil hats on their days off...... what a breakthrough! you should write an article about it, then pay to have it published....

So what you are saying is 2-8 years experience is not enough? I am sure you all study the same bullshit.

What a flake you are.