|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 180)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
That being said... now time to adress some of shaolin's irks with engineers. engineers are masters of practicality and application. Theory is great but physicists couldn't get anything done.... they would spend 15 years arguing over the atomic interaction between a nut and a bolt. |
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. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
It's not my fault little green men edit my posts. Lets not do personal attacks cause that is not nice. And we are nice people, right.
Dude you do come off as not knowing anything about thermodynamics or chemistry... it is like rocket science so no offense.
I didn't know thermite and cement have identical properties. Maybe they don't maybe I'm just BSing you..
High Alumina Cement - Suitable bauxites contain 50 to 60 percent alumina, up to 25 percent iron oxide
Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of aluminium powder and a metal oxide which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction. It is not an explosive, but can create short bursts of extremely high temperatures focused on a very small target for a short period of time. |
since you are being a smart ass..... allow me to retort...
ever taken WHMIS training? say hello to my little friend.... the MSDS for calcium aluminate cement, which is rarely used due to its huge potential for sudden failure (many buildings in teh UK that used this technology have since been retrofitted....
http://www.kerneosinc.com/pdfs/new/CACMSDSUSA.pdf
KEY PHRASES
reactivity = 0
will not support combustion in the presence of any other material
the most dangerous thing about this is that it may cause a rash on your skin.... |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| 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.:D things rarely end well when i go into my rants about how bull arts degrees are ruining our economy by making half wits think they are deserving of high paying salaries. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
phew.... i almost lost control of my superiority complex for a minute there.:D things rarely end well when i go into my rants about how bull arts degrees are ruining our economy by making half wits think they are deserving of high paying salaries. |
:stongue: lol :) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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 bull theory like the pancake theory... |
To quote rimmer from red dwarf - "brimming over with wrongability" :p
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 |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| 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 ing idiot.
im not even going to try and debate this with you because clearly you dont know about anyways. just because a chemical is a compound of aluminum does not mean that it will react like aluminum you ing arts major halfwit. now go and pump my gas you insignificant twat! |
|
|
| culorut |
Look colonel and PKC are playing the "I have an education" bull again but still cannot debunk why there are thousands of things wrong with the official story.
Good job, here's sticker.
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| culorut |
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 |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Look colonel and PKC are playing the "I have an education" bull 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. |
|
|
| Krypton |
 |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| 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................ |
|
|
|
|
