9/11 Poll

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are tens of thousands of architects and engineers and this is all that you came up with?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

assuming they are even intelligent. even then their opinion regarding this matter is no more valid than a gardeners or an auto mechanics, in most cases.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As you like to say "prove it."

This is an unsubstantiated claim common amongst pseudoscience nut jobs.

 

seeing these buildings like this leaves no doubt that these building could have easily fallen to the ground without explosives.

 

Of course, there were beams in the central core at every floor. The beams supported both the floors and provided lateral support to the columns.

The NIST report on the twin towers discusses beams in the central core at every story and there are a number of pictorials showing the layout.

The central core was a three dimensional matrix structure.

 

Bush administration FEMA appointees just happened to be in NYC the night before supposedly for a bio-terror drill in Lower Manhattan which was to take place on Sept. 12, 2001. After the buildings collapsed they immediately went into action and controlled the investigation. It did not have anything to do with the site being contaminated as that was left to the EPA and the White House. You may not know what occurred there, but the White House forced the EPA to change their words on whether the air was safe to breath or not.

 

If memory serves, that photo is actually good evidence; the idea being that the cuts they did were done differently. I don't have that information on hand, however, so you can hold this one on me if you like.

However, there's something you're overlooking here; we actually -have- 1 of those 681 architects and engineers right here in this very forum; Tony Szamboti. And he's making it quite apparent that the evidence doesn't just boil down to that picture you have there.

You of all people should know that even on their home page, they present a long list of evidence (it's on the right hand side if you've forgotten).

 

I'm trying to point out that 9/11 is far more controversial in scientific circles than evolution. A poll was actually done in another forum, democratic underground, as to how many people in the forum believed in creationism. When I was there, not one was for it. If you'd asked how many members of that forum believed in the official story, however, it would have been quite different. The same has clearly happened here as well; one need look no further than the poll.

It tells me that the evolution debate is fairly settled. What happened on 9/11, on the other hand, is another matter entirely.

 

They certainly bowed when the towers started to collapse. That is all there is positive proof of on video.

 

Trippy, I'm curious; why should the length of time that they bowed be important?

In any case, mechanical engineer Gordon Ross, in his article How the Towers were Demolished, comes to an interesting conclusion concerning the bowing:

Perimeter column bowing

Note that the bowing identified by NIST was only on one side of each tower. It was not generalised across all of the tower.
For the example of WTC1, NIST reports bowing only on the South face, storeys 94 - 100. For WTC2 bowing only on the East face, storeys 77 - 83. Note that for both Towers only the MID-WALL perimeter columns were bowed. The corners were not visibly bowed.

If the bowing was being caused by a pure vertical movement of the upper core structure, that is with no tilt, the bowing would be present on all four sides.​

 

FEMA had several functions after the attacks and the biggest one was to control the investigation. FEMA had help from the EPA concerning the contamination of the site and there is a lot of controversy about what the EPA said just a few days after.

Haven't you seen the testimony on this and the congressional grilling of EPA head at the time, Christine Whitman?

Don't you find it odd that the FEMA people just happened to be there the night before the attacks?

My problem is with whoever got rid of the steel before it could be forensically examined. Bush administration FEMA appointees were involved in that along with some of Mayor Rudy Giulliani's staff.

 

Yes, the NIST makes this claim.

 

No Scott, beams were cut in the clean up operation. A logical mind concludes that this is but just one of them. You can't say that some were cut before the collapse and some after. That is just idiotic.

Is that why everywhere I read his paper is being ridiculed? Included in this ridicule are his peers, other engineers.

And you don't need to be an engineer to debunk them:

1. Rapid onset of “collapse”

I showed you a YouTube video of a 10 story apartment collapsing at near free fall speed due to fire which debunks this and many of the following points.

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse

Conventional explosions make sounds heard for miles and smash windows. This wasn't observed.

3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration

See my response to #1. Symmetrical collapse has been observed in non-demolitions. And I believe the path of greatest resistance would be any direction but down. When buildings collapse, they tend to go DOWN, right?

4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint

Again, the 10 story apartment building did the same thing.

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

Are they saying that buildings collapsing in non-demolitions wouldn't give off massive plumes of dust? Explosives are not what cause these dust clouds. God, what morons!

6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses

You mean the same highly-qualified people who said "molten steel beam"?

7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

A paper that wasn't submitted for peer review (except for other likeminded truthers) and experts say the chemical signature were of mundane things we expect to find in a high rise tower.

9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional

Even if we accept this one guy's opinion over that of all of his peers, he still said that WTC 1 & 2 were not a controlled demolition.

10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

An extremely distasteful claim. They suspected the WTC7 would collapse because their quotes describe how the WTC7's condition was deteriorating. And why would the conspirators TELL the media, the police and firefighters that they were going to demolish the building?! This is why truthers are so fucking stupid.

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

They ignore the bowing observed in WTC 1,2 and firefighters described a 'buldge' in WTC7.

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

This didn't happen with the 10 story apartment building.

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

OH COME ON! What is the bowing then? Why was steel examined by a steel expert to have been twisted and warped?

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

Completely ignoring the fact that no fire has ever occurred in structures similar to the three buildings that collapsed that day. Oh and... that no other buildings have been hit with a 150 ton bullet.

All of their points are complete junk.

 

If this is the case then why is there no debate in scientific circles? You can't keep explaining this because of job security as there are retired experts and will be retired experts for all of eternity.