Originally posted by colonelcrisp
Mark Routhier B.Eng Civil Engineering, Structural and Infrastructure. PEO Registered EIT
Does PEO Registered EIT mean you are a licensed professional engineer? If so that's pretty cool.
I'm currently studying civil engineering also specializing in structures as well and I have a question for you: Do you agree that the stuff we learn academically at the bachelor level doesn't get that involved compared to the experience you learn out there in the field, am i right?
The reason I'm asking is because I'm halfway into my major and the only stuff I learned about failure of steel structures so far are due to extreme weight loads on beams and not the effects of RDX or explosives. To be honest all that RDX stuff I learned on the net. Did you learn that type of stuff at the last year of your civil engineering program or also learn about RDX the way I did through personal research?
By the way, no joke, I just realized the track that was playing while I was typing this was:
Animotion - I Engineer
:wtf:
DJ Shibby
quote:
Originally posted by kamil
of course it was a conspiracy.
what astounds me is that HALF of the american people voted for that liar, and arent taking a stand.
what the is wrong with USA? 50% out of 300+ million voting FOR BUSH?
sad.......truly ing sad.
Naaaaaaaaaaaaah.
I said it the day of the election, and I'll say it again years later as evidence is emerging and more stringent measures are being taken to secure the scene and create papertrails.
The voting machines were insecure.
colonelcrisp
quote:
Originally posted by stevieboy32808
Does PEO Registered EIT mean you are a licensed professional engineer? If so that's pretty cool.
I'm currently studying civil engineering also specializing in structures as well and I have a question for you: Do you agree that the stuff we learn academically at the bachelor level doesn't get that involved compared to the experience you learn out there in the field, am i right?
The reason I'm asking is because I'm halfway into my major and the only stuff I learned about failure of steel structures so far are due to extreme weight loads on beams and not the effects of RDX or explosives. To be honest all that RDX stuff I learned on the net. Did you learn that type of stuff at the last year of your civil engineering program or also learn about RDX the way I did through personal research?
By the way, no joke, I just realized the track that was playing while I was typing this was:
Animotion - I Engineer
:wtf:
EIT is a provisional liscence, in ontario (and canada) for that matter, once you get your degree and pass your liscensure requirements, you are granted an EIT permit, which allows you to practice under the supervision of a senior engineer, after 4 years of EIT you write your ethics exam, and you are granted P.Eng, your full engineering liscence. so in short EIT is a provisional liscence.
As for school..... lol you learn the theory and the basics..... ive learned alot more since i have been working. as for the cool stuff like explosives and vibration and seismic design, take some grad courses in your upper years, thats what i did. i took a course on seismic design and strucutral vibration analysis where you look at the design of joins and members to withstand high amplitude vibration and pressure shock.
you never stop learning in this profession lol.....
stevieboy32808
quote:
Originally posted by colonelcrisp
EIT is a provisional liscence, in ontario (and canada) for that matter, once you get your degree and pass your liscensure requirements, you are granted an EIT permit, which allows you to practice under the supervision of a senior engineer, after 4 years of EIT you write your ethics exam, and you are granted P.Eng, your full engineering liscence. so in short EIT is a provisional liscence.
Over here you can trim a year off the experience requirement if you go for your masters and if you go for your doctorate’s they’ll trim another year.
quote:
As for school..... lol you learn the theory and the basics..... ive learned alot more since i have been working. as for the cool stuff like explosives and vibration and seismic design, take some grad courses in your upper years, thats what i did. i took a course on seismic design and strucutral vibration analysis where you look at the design of joins and members to withstand high amplitude vibration and pressure shock.
you never stop learning in this profession lol.....
Will do colonel. Thanks for the advice.
Trancer-X
quote:
Originally posted by colonelcrisp
no offense but since when does an electronics technician know all about structural engineering?
to answer your question briefly, the reason why you have to blow the molten metal out of the cut is that it will fuse together since it is molten, Especially when you are looking at the WTC columns' gauge. RDX cut charges dont melt the steel they simply fire a jet of copper through the metal, so the cut will just walk itself apart. thermite on the other hand would melt the steel so you would need to clear the cut in order to achieve separation.
the thermite theory is retarded based on lack of evidence and lack of feasibility. we are talking thousands and thousands of TONNES of thermite. Controlled demolition requires too much preptime, and not to mention enough det cord to wrap around the world 12341234132 times. Pancake theory is theoretically sound, feasible and is the most probably cause of failure.
but what do i know im only a civil engineer.......
I'm not an electronics technition, I was just blessed with both an exceptional mechanical inclination and aptitude. I was that kid who took everything apart and then put it back together just to see how it worked... when I was like twelve years old. lol. It didn't have to be electronic, either. I did it with practically everything.
Anyway, I'm just curious how you'd explain the pools of molten metal in the sub-basement six weeks after they came down? How come that didn't fuse together? Why did people in the cleanup crew say that it looked like they were in a foundry with molten metal running down steel channels? Wouldn't that have fused?
Also, in your professional opinion, what do you think about the questions that Dave Heller raises?
Here's his paper/essay:
quote:
Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center
By Dave Heller
While it may be difficult to awaken everyone from their state-induced fog of fear, we are at a critical point in history which requires us to try. We truly must take an objective look at the facts and evidence surrounding 9-11.
While none of the many 9-11 researchers knows exactly what happened on that fateful day in September almost 3 years ago, any sensible person can easily spot dozens of inconsistencies in the official story that is being forced upon us.
And these inconsistencies are huge. They range from the apparent stand-down of our immense military arsenal (for over an hour and a half) to the small hole and lack of debris at the Pentagon. There was Bush's bizarre, uninterrupted photo op in a Florida elementary school, and then there is the matter of the remains of Flight 93 being scattered over eight miles of Pennsylvania farmland, a fact which suggests the plane may have been shot down. The official story seems wrong on all of these points.
But the focus of this article is on just one point: the odd collapse of the three buildings in the World Trade Center complex.
Senator Mark Dayton Confirms V.P. Dick Cheney Gave Shootdown Orders on 9/11
Blistering testimony of Senator Mark Dayton before the 9-11 Commission chairs Kean, Hamilton and NORAD. Senator Mark Dayton calls NORAD liars and the 9/11 Commission "not worth and Enron pension". "You lied to congress, you lied to the American people".
Trancer-X
quote:
Originally posted by colonelcrisp
and with 15 minutes of my own internet sleuthing, i had debunked 98% of that list.
Well, lay it out for us. I'm not going to just take your word for it. Anyone can type out a bunch of credentials. i don't know if they're real or not. Show us what you've debunked! Otherwise, I'm only able to consider what you're saying here as just another part of the Big lie. ;)
this engineer from MIT definitely didn't believe the official conspiracy theory :eek:
(edited to start at 1 min 13 sec)
Trancer-X
quote:
Originally posted by colonelcrisp
you never stop learning in this profession lol.....
That's the way that it should be anyway. You should never stop learning and that doesn't mean strictly focusing on a profession.
The whole world is meant to be understood, not escaped through a maze of fictional diversions like most of what we're fed on television and in the movies.
Trancer-X
quote:
I ran into a fella, Tom Colden, who was on the 64th floor of the North Tower. When the first plane hit he said that everything was orderly, they were evacuating. But when the second explosion occurred and they lost power, lost lights, it was pandemonium. He said they just rushed down the stairs. Firefighters were there trying to lead them out dazed, covered with soot, covered with ash, just staggering away from the building, lucky to be alive.
Sunsnail
Why would there be multiple explosions?
colonelcrisp
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
Well, lay it out for us. I'm not going to just take your word for it. Anyone can type out a bunch of credentials. i don't know if they're real or not. Show us what you've debunked! Otherwise, I'm only able to consider what you're saying here as just another part of the Big lie. ;)
if you look at the last few pages of the other 911 thread (the big one) culrout posted a list of "professional engineers" who are members of scholars for 911 truth. i merely took their names and searched the PE registry of the states in which they reside to see if they were or ever have been licensed. in all cases save 1 or 2, none of them had ever been licensed as an engineer. the two taht were, were not civil engineers.
i have never argued the suspicious events leading up to and during 911, BUT what i do understand much better than most forum members is the way in which that building was designed, and the weakness it had. one of my proff's from uni was actually involved with the study done by the ASCE following 911, i belive it was part of the FEMA report or released shortly there after. anyways he did a lecture on it in class the one day and explained in great detail the short commings of the desing especialy in the realm of fire protection, for the record my prof, professor hadjisophecleus (sp) is the chair of the canadian fire safety research council, and a highly distinguished professor of structural engineering.
the molten metal (if it was indeed molten metal) could have been insulated from cooling by the tons of debris on top of it. a tremendous ammount of heat was caused by teh buildings collapse, there is alot of energy dissapated in an event like that and that energy has to go somewhere.
Forensic engineering is not an exact science. there is no way to ever find out exactly what happened step by step. the final solution is almost always based on a series of most probable events. despite how much you CT people hate the word "pancake" theory.... it is the most feasibly failure mode for that structure given the dammage sustained by teh impacts and ensuing fires. i belive PKC posted a picture of rubble form ground zero that clearly showed a section of concrete that looked like a boulder with what looked like office papers sandwiched between layers of concrete.
