An Architect Reflects on 9-11
75
I guess that September 11, 2001, will be one of those days you will remember exactly where you were and what you were doing. Not unlike when the Challenger blew up, when President Kennedy was shot, or when Pearl Harbor was attacked. I think that all these dates had such a profound affect on American history that anyone of a knowing age will never forget just exactly how they felt when they heard the news.
My wife and I had been married only a year and a half, and our oldest daughter was only 8 months old. I had been granted my Registration as an Architect a few months before, on July 2nd. I was in the middle of teaching a structural preparatory course for the Architectural Registration Exam (ARE), a course that I had developed and had been teaching for a number of years. At that time our classes were held on Saturdays, and the Saturday class before was quite normal and uneventful. Tuesday, the 11th was an election day for the City of Phoenix, and I was planning to go to an election night party for several of our Council Members. So I got up at 6:00 AM as I did every work morning and turned on the local news for my morning briefing of the events of the last day. Very shortly after it started, BAM!!!! One of the towers at the World Trade Center in New York was on fire. The reports were so sketchy and contradictory; it was hard to figure out just what had happened. I stopped getting ready for work and watched in astonishment and amazement. Not long after tuning in, flying in from the left side of the screen, a commercial plane hit the second tower. WOW!!! I could not believe my eyes. Then we were informed the Pentagon had been attacked. Was this the beginning of World War III? Shortly after that news, I sat there watching as the south tower collapsed, 56 minutes after it had been hit. The north tower followed suit shortly there after. Then a report of Flight 93, that had been hi-jacked and missing crashes into a field in Pennsylvania. I left for work, numb, fearful, would I see my wife and baby girl at the end of the day? What the hell would happen next?
When I arrived at work, a small TV had been tuned into the news and this was the topic being talked about both on TV and in the office. The immediate reports feared tens of thousand had been killed in the collapse of these two towers. Sensory overload. It was impossible to process all the information coming out at that time. By the end of the day, numbness gave way to the surreal. The FAA grounded all flights. There was an eerie quietness to the skies for 3 days as air traffic had been completely grounded. Even in a large City, like Phoenix, the quiet skies were noticeable and disconcerting. The election night gathering was somber, and in the background on most every TV around was continuing coverage of the day's events. We spent Saturday's class talking about the towers collapse, never did cover what we were supposed to that week. One of the things we discussed was why the buildings fell on themselves and not toppled over the side when they were hit. Since I essentially grew up as an Architect, that question at first sounded strange to me. Knowing how buildings are designed, we never want the building to topple over in a catastrophic event. That would make a single collapse even a larger catastrophic event. Now hundreds of thousands of lives would now be imperil as a building tips over. Imagine what the kill radius of a building almost 1,400 feet would be. The standards of localized and controlled collapse go back to standards that I studied in 1983 as I first prepared to take my ARE. These were standards that buildings were supposed to be designed under for at least several years earlier, at the very least. A week after that later, Phoenix sent their FEMA team to ground zero, and on it was a Structural Engineer I knew, Tom Wandrie, a plan reviewer with the City of Phoenix. Tom has been the building official for the City of Phoenix the last few years. He spent a week there during the clean up of ground zero.
Weeks later, as the casualty numbers and other information were becoming clearer, it became possible to do some analysis. Based on what had been said, I did some math to find out that on any given workday hour, those two towers housed around 50,000 people. Some 2,700 people lost their lives when the buildings collapsed. About 500 of those were EMS workers that went into the building after the catastrophic event began. The death toll for those OCCUPIED buildings was only about 4%. I do not want to devalue any of the lives lost that day, but it is amazing to me, that 30-year-old technology had been so efficient that it was able to evacuate like 96% of the buildings' occupants before catastrophic collapse. That is why the initial news reports were projected tens of thousands of deaths. Subsequent studies and reports have shown that the majority of deaths occurred to those trapped above the impact floors, as the two large jets had severed their means of escape.
In the week leading up to this anniversary, I watched many programs on the History Channel, Discovery Channel, and others. Since these events, my wife will tell you, I have gotten very bent out of shape when I heard people like Rosie O'Donnell claim that the collapse of these towers was "an inside job" because they fell on themselves. Are you S#%!*$#@ me! What the hell training is she making this judgment off of? She is nothing more than an entertainer. Where is her engineering background? I got even more inflamed as I watched some of these "conspiracy theory" programs that was aired in the week leading to this anniversary. One of them had an "Architect" on, Mr. Richard Gage spouting off. Far be it from me to call out another "Professional", but after hearing him, my first question is WHO IS PAYING YOUR BILLS? He sounds like one of those "hired guns" prostituting his profession for monetary gain. One of the first things taught in our training (and tested, at least when I took the test) was the knowledge and understanding that steel loses strength, and will deform, when exposed to heat. That is why the building code requires structural steel to be thermally insulated. Steel does NOT have to be exposed to melting temperatures to deform and fail. There are countless test from Underwriters Laboratories, Factory Mutual, and Ohio State University that proves this. These are all agencies that have completed fire testing on assemblies. So where does Mr. Gage get off with contradicting science? Does he know something that the rest of the world does not know? Is he trying to tell us that he is an Einstein? Bless my britches and kiss my grits.
I know this is a very emotional issue. If I had a loved one perish in these events, I sure would not want their memory dishonored. Let us not dishonor these lost lives by perpetuating lies for our own benefit. As I said in a previous hub just because someone is Registered, that does not necessarily mean that they are correct. Check other opinions, if this one stands alone, opposite other professionals, then maybe this is not the most accurate. What we need to take away from the events of September 11, 2001, is that American technology is still superior, even at 30 years old. That is the only reason that the initial reports of tens of thousands dead fail to come to pass. That is the true legacy of the American spirit.
CommentsLoading...
Dan, I worked as an apprentice blacksmith for a year and a half right out of high school. Steel goes through a series of molecular changes as it is exposed to higher and higher heat. Tiny imperfections in the steel (in all steel) become pronounced and can cause the steel to crack, bend, or shatter depending on stresses, heat, and pressure. Hmmm, like the weight of a building on steel girders being heated by burning jet fuel. When these goofballs like Charlie Sheen and Rosie O'donnel speak, they bring out their own predjudices and ignorance. They aren't interested in the truth - they are interested in hating George Bush.
From my thermal knowledge working in a cement plant with akiln running at 2600 deg.f. I do not know how beams would be thermally insulated in a big fire. My knowledge is that the heat would have to be dissipated off. I do not see this in a big fire from jet fuel. The beans would heat up with the fire. And the concrete reinforcement would lost from the re-bar being heated up also. The heat would not be dissipated off.
Keep on hubbing!
Great Hub! I too remember and it had a profound impact on this old soldier, Good work on dispelling the conspiricy concept. Soon to be your fan..
The molten steel in footage and photographs is not being accounted for in your digression. Also you are forgetting building 7 which completely eludes planecrash-fuel-fire rationale.
Moreover, the scientific article with thermitic evidence in the rubble composition is also very incriminating.
You also have no leverage or authority whatsoever for being an architect, an enraged on at that.
The whole world suffered the aftermath of war and tyranny and thus some profited at the expense of those 2700 lives plus many in the wars that followed. Halliburton, CACI, Blackwater, and others made a living out of 9-11.
Roger,
Molten steel? What pictures have you seen? I have not seen anything like that in the photos I have studied. I personally know a Structural Engineer that was at ground zero working for a week (part of the Phoenix FEMA team) about a week after 9-11. Steel melts at 2500 degrees F, yet exposure to as little as 800 degrees F for as little as 15 minutes will cause the steel to deform and fail to support the intended loads. So steel does not have to melt to fail. It will fail long before reaching the melting point.
As for Tower 7, it was damaged and caught fire when the north tower collapsed at 10:28 AM. With no water available to fight that fire it burned unchecked until collapsing at 5:20 PM. That was almost 8 hours of fire. The building was designed to resist 1 hour of fire before beginning failure, by building code requirements, what’s your point? I think it performed beyond expectations as a building. How long do you think your house would burn, without fire suppression, before it would collapse?
Now the BIG question, what “thermitic evidence”? I have seen nothing scientifically proven to be thermite on the site. Oh yea, that all burned away, I forgot that! For the first time in 30 years a building was imploded here in Phoenix just a couple weeks ago. I have seen many programs on Discovery and other channels on how this occurs. There are ALWAYS traces of the detonation devices. That was true for the Oklahoma City bombing and all other bombings, just ask a bomb squad member. Let us not forget that I have seen test results that show that, although extremely hot in burning, thermite also burns incredibly fast, which makes it difficult, if not impossible to melt steel, which must absorb that heat to melt. I ask you, why must there be thermite? So how “incriminating” is that now?
You continued by saying that I have “no leverage or authority for being an Architect”. Is that a personal attack? I am betting that you see yourself as civilized and advanced, yet you stoop to the mid-evil tactic of shooting the messenger of bad news. Your personal attack like that might be interpreted as a deep seeded distrust of the very views you seem to be espousing. I have over 3 decades of designing buildings and analyzing them, what experience are you calling on? I have been on site after a catastrophic event, have you? You need to read my profile, I am Registered in three states, and I hold two Building Code certifications, but because I said something that you disagree with, you believe that is grounds to discount all my experience. What my outrage is about is that people, with ABSOLUTELY no scientific background or evidence, spout off as facts things that have no validity. I have spent a life time learning what I do, and if someone is going to attempt to contradict me, at least provide me the courtesy of using facts and proven science.
As for the subsequent wars, I never mentioned anything like that in this hub, so why do you have to be so petty in an attempt to get your view out that you have to overshadow what this hub was about. We can discuss the wars later, but how do these wars have an impact on the science behind the collapse of these buildings and the lives lost? Why not be honest about your attempt to promote your own personal agenda. I accept the fact that personal agendas are not founded in science; just do not try to sell me on our own agenda as science if there is little or none.
Here are several images showing molten steel at the site: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Graphics-Other/PSCI/Wtc
http://9eleven.info/moltenstreamthermate.jpg
http://www.camelotcorp.com/Fires-burned-and-molten
and the article I cited about the incriminating evidence of thermite: ~http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCP/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
another one
http://physics911.ca/pdf/2004/grimmer_thermite.pdf
and another one
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86
and another one concerning sismology: http://bb.domaindlx.com/alexjames9999/chapters/wtc
It is not the specialists role to say what is the truth, it is evidence's.
I am sorry, I do not want to attack you personaly. I am only trying to present evidence. Sometimes people do not want to believe what is known.
Here is my response: http://unendingevolution.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/
It is not the specialists role to say what is the truth, it is evidence's.
I am sorry, I do not want to attack you personaly. I am only trying to present evidence.
Sometimes people do not want to believe what is known.
Roger,
First, what is your background? Do you have any FIRST HAND knowledge on how buildings are constructed, designed and/or engineered? I am analyzing the information provided. At first glance a couple thoughts come to mind immediately. The first picture I looked at that you provided was of what appeared to be steel that was red hot. For the record, that is NOT molten steel. Molten steel is steel that is heated to a liquid state. The steel in the picture still held its form, but had absorbed enough heat to become red hot. That would be similar to the temperature that a blacksmith would heat iron or steel to form it. There were reports that the police helicopter reported seeing columns white hot as he was circling the buildings in the first hour of the event. Those white hot columns were hotter than the red hot steel in your first picture. That is science, not me. Go to your local high school and ask the chemistry teacher there, you will find this corroborated.
Another picture showed what was claimed to be “mini” explosions from below the floors as the building collapsed. The most basic physics confounds such a claim as that. As the floors above collapse, air is compressed on that floor. Air will have to move away from the compressive force taking the path of least resistance. The air that could not be forced out the windows on the collapsed floor would most likely find a vertical shaft and escape from a lower floor blowing out windows. Looking at the picture you referred to does nothing to discount these forces of physics. It appears that all the information that you are citing is from other sources and that you, personally, have no experience with issues such as these, and there is nothing wrong with that. I know nothing of delivering a baby, yet I watched the Doctor deliver all three of my children. No one person can know everything, which is why there are “specialists” and that is by itself not derogatory. It is just the way things are. We that are not “specialists” need to be very discerning about those that we do listen to. Do our own research to confirm that at least the basic science espoused by those speaking is correct. If that cannot be substantiated , then one must question the validity of the rest of their claims.
It must also be submitted as evidence that it would have taken weeks, with hundreds of man-hours to wire those towers for explosive demolition. Why has no one come forward with such information and evidence? I am sure that would be very lucrative for one conspirator. It is known that the more people that know about a secret, the less likely it is to stay a secret, and that would have taken a lot of poeple to complete and thus keep quiet.
So I will look closer at your information, but you need to be honest with this question as well. Why must there be conspiracy? Why, in your opinion, does this have to be an “inside job”? Is it that difficult for you to accept that a handful of extremist could perpetrate such a crime on their own without “inside” help?
Dan and Roger - I have absolutely no knowledge or expertise in structural engineering, (other than Bunkers I've built when I needed them). I would point out though that OBL did have an Engineering background but even with that background and the building plans available, the total collapse was considered a bonus not the primary objective, (He stated so in the interview he gave after the attack.) He had rather hoped the damage of the attack would have stood as a monument to it on the New York Skyline for the years it would have taken to fix the structures. Where all this fits in the current argument I do not know, what I do know however is that the attacks took place and were funded , planned and executed by Al Quieda, a force of evil on our planet that requires the same fate we hand out to a bumble bee or mosquito that stings or bites us, we need to find them and kill them. - Hmrjmr1 Out
Hammer,
Thanks for helping us focus. Great thoughts.
Dan
My background is Biochemistry but that does not define me. The important thing is I had the fortune to learn a bit about critical thinking. Even when an insect stings, the best way to prevent it from happening again would be to... understand the cause. To kill a bee is just like painting a target on yourself causing others to attack most of the times, because of the pheromones released. Generally US paranoia about national security naturally leads ironically to national and international insecurity. Anyway, the evidence is presented and I am sure there is a lot more. The jury is out. As you might have realized I am not a proponent for either side, rather I am trying to make each side notice gaps of knowledge characteristic to them. I bet any of you haven't imagined that such scientific articles have been produced in the wake of this terrible event. Only thing really relevant is to make it impossible to repeat itself by knowing its cause as best as possible.
"what I do know however is that the attacks took place and were funded , planned and executed by Al Quieda, a force of evil on our planet that requires the same fate we hand out to a bumble bee or mosquito that stings or bites us, we need to find them and kill them."
Hitler also called soviets a force of evil and used such to promote fascism, and eventually, total war. War is the worst way to try to solve problems.
Roger,
I can respect your words. Differing opinions have been the guiding light in our Country from its inception. If you truly are trying to point out gaps in both sides, then you need to question the very same things that I have. The set up for the demolition alone could not have been done by one person, a group would have to be required. As a result, EVERYONE in that group MUST keep silent, and that has been proven historically as not likely. Also, the use of any chemicals would leave trace evidence that would be discovered. Where is that evidence? How would so many people be kept silent for so long? The claims of explosion from inside the building are used as evidence that there were explosives. Ask any firefighter, in a structure fire oxygen can build up in areas of the structure on fire and create explosions and backdrafts. There was even a movie a few years ago about those events, remember it's named was Backdraft.
When I started my career, there was a document that I had to study for my exams. It was ANSI A58.1, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. It is that standard that outlines the loading requirements and the process for design for localized collapse in case of a catastrophic event. These building, like Oklahoma City, all performed in the manner that they were supposed to. As a result only about 2,200 building occupants lost their lives, not that I am diminishing the value of human life, we must be aware the deaths could have been in the thousands, if not tens of thousands.
Dan,
Great article. Once a conspiracy theory is started and particularly believed, it is fruitless to confuse the believer with the FACTS. As an electrical engineer who for the predominant part of my career in the aluminum industry I know for a FACT that if aluminum is exposed to an open flame thermite will result. I am sure there was some aluminum in the towers so if no thermite (oxidated aluminum)
had been found it would be miraculous.
I am not sure what Roger proposes in our struggle with radical islamist. I don't think a dinner invitation will solve the problem. We ARE in a KILL OR BE KILLED SITUATION!!!!!!
Tom,
What great insight. As I pointed out in this hub, I only wanted to invoke my emotions that day, and the after analysis of the collapse. I do not believe that a building in any other Country could have faired as well. I especially find it interesting to study how the buildings failed, and how the lives got out. After all, that is what building safety is all about.
Tom said
"I am not sure what Roger proposes in our struggle with radical islamist. I don't think a dinner invitation will solve the problem. We ARE in a KILL OR BE KILLED SITUATION!!!!!!"
Damn, that is quite an ignorant statement to be made. You shouldn't be proud. More Americans died in the Iraq war than in 9-11. And nobody cares about the plus one million Iraqi civilians killed during this war. Your xenophobic affirmation is very unchristian if you are one. If you are not one you should be ashamed for not being able to use critical thinking, or even common sense for that particular matter.
The Iraq war resulted in increased hatred across the world towards US oppression. There has never been so much will to react against US especially by these oppressed people (sometimes in a violent manner) Plus, the war was mainly all about oil. The Iraqi oil reserves and future Afghan pipeline.
Watch this documentary:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/194794-Video-The
and please just do one thing: think!
Even the freefall time of the towers has been ignored by you all, also the vertical columns were not there in ground zero (if thermite was not used). Everything was, at ground zero, so to speak. Also the impossible-to-keep-secret is not a very strong argument. Nazis kept the concentration camps secret for years until Germany lost WWII.
Even though history doesn't perfectly repeat itself, it progresses in rhymes.
Roger,
Let me first address a couple things you said about Tom's comments that are absurd. How do you equate innocent civilian lives with the lives willing to be placed on the line by our military personnel? When you sign up in the military, you knowingly accept that you will be placed in harm's way at some time, and you may need to sacrifice to save some one else. A civilian going to work makes no such commitment. Get real!! In fact many who have given that ultimate price did so because of the events of 9-11. How about Pat Tillman of the Arizona Cardinals? If you do not know who he is, look him up. Before you start preaching "Christian", please look at the Bible. Under the Law of Mosses, there are both civil and religious law components. The Civil (Governmental or Societal) Law and the Individual (Personal Responsibility) Law. The personal part of the law was fulfilled as being that of forgiveness of those that wrong you. However, there was no contradiction to the civil side of those Laws.
As for the wars, they have always been there throughout the world. The Arabs (Iraqi) and the Persians (Iranians) have been enemies for generations. Many more have died in that long running feud, from each side, than have died in any war with another enemy. As far as American oppression, maybe you failed to study in school, but after WWII, the allies demanded that the US protect them with our military. As for the violence, only since 9-11 has Americans been dealing with issues that the rest of the world has struggled with for eons. Did you forget the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, the Palestinians, Iran and Iraq, China and Chinese Taipei, Tibet, etc.? The security measures that were initiated after 9-11 here in the U.S. have been happening all around the world for decades. Conflicts are part of history, why single out a handful to object to? To be consistent, should you not object to all of them? As far as war goes, most all wars are economical in basis, making the claim about the current ones only are ludicrous. Why not use critical thinking about that? Oh well, that is enough of your comments towards what Tom said.
I must ask this about your comments about the "freefall time of the towers". What the hell are you talking about? Once collapse started the towers fell within moments, are you claiming that that they took to long to fall to the ground or collapsed to quickly? Is this part of the "critical thinking" you were referring to? If it is, it completely eludes me. As for your claim that no columns were at ground zero (because of thermite), that information is completely inaccurate. I personally know one of the workers that had been at ground zero, a Structural Engineer, and he will dispute that, as he had to over see the dismantling of the columns and beams in order to move the rubble. I believe that pieces of those elements had been cataloged at the Long Island site that most of the buildings were taken to be inspected before being sent out to their respective dumps and recycling centers. As for the Nazis, their secret last only about 6 years, now that is something to think about. Finally, again I ask you, why must there be a conspiracy?
Dan,
I thank you for your courtesy in your responses.
I do not appriciate being called ignorant by Roger. I was raised as a Christian. I was also raised by a father who volunteered to go into the Navy in January of 1942 at the age of 33. My brother was 8, and my sister was 4 at that time. Dad knew he would never be drafted but he believed in defending America. So he did a four year hitch in the South Pacific, and I was born one year to the day after he finally returned home.
I do not relish war but I am not stupid enough to believe that it can always be avoided.
Tom,
I truly respect those that choose that type of commitment as your father did, it because of them that we have our freedom. It is that gift of freedom that we hand down to our children and grandchildren. I believe that the only way to continue to pass this gift down is through truth and I believe, of course, that truth can, and will, stand scrutinizing by all. I welcome those of differing views, however I do demand that you come with facts and not emotions. Facts can be analyzed and discussed with results, where emotions cannot. If someone feels something, I respect that; I will not argue that as it is based in that one's own feelings. I believe that my wife is the most caring, loving, desirable woman in the world. Do not try to argue differently with me, as I will respectfully disagree you with you and there is no changing my view.
If one argues Government from that type of emotional base, then there is no way to change Government's direction, and that will truly be a travesty. We must remember that passion often drives leaders, and blinded passion often results in innocent deaths. For example the Nazis and concentration camps, Saddam Hussein gassing the Kurds, militants and the bombing of innocents (Pan Am Flight 103 in Lockerbie, Scotland, the hijackers of 9-11, the Olympic park bombing, etc.). Like you, I believe war is not something that should be engaged in lightly, but once there; the only acceptable outcome should be victory. I learned that from sports, a true competitor never competes for second place. Thanks for reading.
Ok what about this man's statements?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E
Major General Albert "Bert" N. Stubblebine III, head of all intelligence says:
Pentagon NOT hit by a plane
WTC 7 brought down by explosives
Media in America is controlled
Still in denial?
Human creativity is limitless in solutions and directions.
Opting for war is a true failure in realizing the potential of human creativity.
The easy way out.
Roger,
Again, let me focus you on my one question you have resisted responding to. Why must there be a conspiracy? Is it impossible for you to accept that these radicals acted on their own without "inside" help?
Stop letting others speak for you, you are a biochemist, which tells me you are educated. Use your chemistry education. The basic chemistry on the steel deformation I have spoke of, you have not responded to, and that was a subject you should have to studied in school. Are you saying that the physical properties of steel in these buildings acted differently on September 11, 2001? Are you kidding me? Here is your chance to respond, take it!!
The Major General's comments were very interesting. He admitted that he has never said what hit the Pentagon, just that he did not believe that it was a plane. However, then how would you explain the bodies of those that were on the "alleged" plane being scattered in front of the nose of the "alleged" plane on rings C & B of the Pentagon, according to the reports? I took an aeronautics class in Junior High, and the weakest point on any plane is the connection between the wings and the fuselage. Anyone who has flown RC planes will agree with that. So the wings folding and going into the building with the fuselage is conceivable. I did not see him provide any evidence to contradict that theory, just his belief. However I have seen evidence that would appear to support the theory that the wings folded, and no one has refuted it. I am open to any new evidence. Present it.
The Major General's comments on the collapse of Tower 7 contradict the very ANSI building standard that I have already cited above. A building must never be allowed to tip over, or more lives would be jeopardized. His comments must be weighted as any other opinion from a source that has limited technical background on this topic.
Are you saying that the President has control over the media? If so, how is it that President Obama still cannot quash the reports of his "alleged" Kenyan birth or Muslim roots? If he had such claimed control I would think that he would eliminate these topics from the media. So how do you propose that President Bush exercised such control that his successor cannot exercise?
Are you still smoking something?!?!?
I agree that human creativity is limitless, however other physical laws have to be obeyed. I still do not have my transporter and I am impatiently waiting for it to come.
As for opting for the war, that decision rested solely, on then, President Bush and whether or not that was a good decision still has no bearing on the collapse of these structures, so what is your point? Are you claiming that President Bush ordered the buildings to be sabotaged?
It is easier to explain violations to normal human conduct as you deem "conspiracy" than to physical principles. The towers fell through the path of most resistance. And yet they fell with a speed that is consistent with freefall. They had no matter in the way providing resistance. The supporting structure was not conferring resistance. There was a major fire in 75 in WTC north tower and the strucure did not even waver. I am not saying that jet fuel weakens steel. What I am saying is that It is more probable that you were duped by your government (the neocons), than physical laws were violated such as fall speed of objects in a path where mass is.
Even the NIST scientists said that there is a problem in the official report because the buildings fell with freefall speed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng
9-11 deserved over 100 million dollars for investigation (like Collumbia and Challenger Shuttles) and it only deserved 15 million.
There is footage still apprehended, illegal wars on oil bearing countries and future oil pipeline countries, planted witnesses, trillions of dollars shifted hands when the towers were hit, more than a million dead since then and I and a very large group of citizens of the world want a real investigation.
I am still looking at the pictures of molten metal you don't believe in.
Well I don't believe in the NEOCON artists.
It is also very difficult to believe that a guy in a cave orchestrated the biggest sneak attack since pearl harbour...
Unless you believe everything your government and corporate news tell you.
Roger,
You sound like such the liberal approach, the more money you spend the more "correct" the answer is. How ridicules. I do not need $100 million to drop a ball off a building to find a more accurate answer to how fast the ball will fall. Its speed of decent will be the same if I spend a few thousand dollars to measure it or if I spend a few hundred million dollars to measure it.
The scrutinizing of results, and subsequent revision to such results happen quite frequently. Dare I remind you of Utah's supposed discovery of cold fusion a few years ago? After the scientific community studied it, there were problems with the conclusions, and subsequently the ultimate retraction of the claim was made by Utah. This is not surprising, as the very steps to prove a scientific hypothesis is flawed, at least in my opinion. The reason I have that opinion is because the way the process goes, as I was taught in school, is:
1. Form a hypothesis
2. Devise an experiment TO PROVE THE HYPOTHESES
3. Write a report
The flaw as I see it is that, most people do not want to be proved wrong, so they will find a way to place the results in a favorable light to their hypothesis. That is why the balance of the scientific community scrutinizes the results, and performs their owns experiments. It is a checks and balance. So I am not sure that the "flaw" is as critical as the person that was speaking in your clip.
Using that very same clip, I timed the fall my self several times, and I came up with around 5 seconds from the time parapet started movement to the time that that it disappeared, which is what the NIST report claimed that you are disputing. I will not get into that pissing contest with you, as I have said before, I will not argue emotions. I draw the conclusion that your arguments are emotional, rather than factual, based on the statement that you made "I am still looking at the pictures of molten metal you don't believe in." You studied chemistry, and you are selectively ignoring the definition of "molten" steel. Where the hell the liquid steel that constitutes "molten" by definition, or are you selecting to re-define the word to suit your needs now? For the record, I do not only have photos that I have looked at, but first hand reports from those that were on site shortly after the buildings fell, do you have information with equal veracity?
Again, quit avoiding my questions, your absolution will not make these questions go away. How is it so hard to accept that maybe "a guy in a cave orchestrated the biggest sneak attack since pearl harbour [sic]..." or did you forget that he waged a nine-year war and defeated the USSR in Afghanistan?
Stop grinding your axe on wars that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of why these buildings collapsed. You show nothing but a childish behavior when you try to obscure the debate with irrelevant, useless facts. You speak of how "limitless" the human creativity can be, but as soon as it goes outside the box you have in mind, you discount it. Is that not being a little hypocritical?
I am the first one to question the Government and news media. I do not blindly accept that which is told to me, however, I do believe that physical laws cannot be ignored. As my 2 year old son has found out, no matter how many time he stands on the back of the coach, he will come down eventually, either by his direction or by gravity. Now at least respect me enough to address my questions to you that I have posed in previous comments. Please read the past comments if you forgot what they are. Your claim is "you might have realized I am not a proponent for either side, rather I am trying to make each side notice gaps of knowledge characteristic to them." If this is true, why do you not attempt to answer my questions posed to you? I encourage you to prove me wrong with my facts! Otherwise, concede that your comment is untruthful, and that you are essentially trying to prove the "conspiracy" at all costs. You could start with the questions if one President could control the media so well, why is it that the next President unable to accomplish the same?
Well if you think your president in the US is the utmost and all knowing authority you better think again. I was not, and the General, I believe, was not referring to the president.
Dig in this document to know what I mean:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html
You also did not respond about the fire of 1975, so no one is perfect.
As for the steel, why was it all shipped to China to be melted in such a hurry? Why destroy the scene of a crime? Or a at least the evidence?
There are a lot of whys that I still have.
Do you think everything in this page is pure nonsense?
Possibly I will find incorrections just like with you.
It is very strange there is even an engineers and architects group trying to show just how fake the official report is. Have you anything to say about them? I would be truly interested to know, as you share the field of work. Here is their website:
I at least have less emotional connection to the attacks because I am not an American. I am not biased by mass media as I do not watch television and neither biased by the US government. My concern is especially with the implications 9-11 had in millions, maybe billions of lives in the world after the fact.
Which is undeniable.
Roger,
Since you are obviously paranoid and even hiding your identity by having your avitar linked to a paranoid conspiracy website I would sugget you find a good psychiatrist and get yourself some good meds.
Your paranoia is undeniable.
Sorry but I am not famous enough to have a wikipedia entry to link to. I also don't rely on internet networking like myspace and others...
By the way it is my site. What do you have against it. I really would like yo know point by point if you find something in it that requires correction?
Also ad hominem attacks do nothing to favor your rationale.
Roger,
So now I ask you to be transparent. Not being American, why do you even have an interest in this matter? What is your motive for participating in this debate? Where do you live? Where are you from? Are you really a Biochemist? If so, why are you failing to apply basic definitions, such as molten requires a material to be in a liquid or fluid state, not a pliable state?
I do not understand why one has to be “famous” to be open about who they are, as you claim, I am certainly not “famous” by any stretch of the imagination, yet my profile lets everyone know who I am. You do not have to be “famous” to be open and honest. So why not tell us who you are? Why do you have to be so clandestine to voice your words?
As far as your reference to the ae911truth.org citation, one of your previous comments took us to this group’s clip on the NIST report on Tower 7. What was confounding about that clip, it was from a High School Physics Teacher, not an Architect or Engineer? The Architects and Engineers that I know would want a Registered Professional to lead that discussion in order to substantiate the organization (since it is an Architects and Engineers organization), not a High School Physics Teacher.
Again, in order for this to continue in a transparent fashion, why not just tell us exactly who you are, what your background is, and why you have an interest in this matter. You may be educated as a scientist, yet you are failing to apply basic definitions to the words you use. Why is that? You above all should know the meanings of these words. Even when I was teaching, I made sure that my students used words correctly or the would not pass. Words do have meaning that is why there are dictionaries. A person cannot redefine a word for each use; otherwise no one would be able to communicate. If you use words, be sure to correctly use their meaning. Or, as a scientist, are you falling into that pit that I have already discussed in my previous comments. Are you just attempting to prove your hypothesis no matter what? I could draw no other conclusion for the redefining of words as you are doing.
Roger,
My attack was not ad hominem it was the opinion of a clinical psychologist that I know. They would not make a true diaganosis since they never had you in a session. They gave an opinion as to your mental state, and a statistical analysis that I expressed in my previous post. The symptoms gave them the opinion that their analysis was accurate within a 70% probability.
Your obvious inability to accept facts from experts in a field is typical delusional behavior.
I find it pointless that my background is found relevant when what is on the table are things that have nothing to do with my personal life. Anyway here is my youtube profile: http://www.youtube.com/rogeriopfm
Modern Psychiatry is also wrong in many aspects. Studies have been made that show how most of the population would be considered insane when diagnosed by current standards in a session. Everyone thinks different. Deal with it. I am not violent, by contrary as you might have noticed. I am just an idealist and that freaks the hell out of you. And I question what most deem unquestionable. Sorry about being so annoying by that but you have to be prepared to get questions if you are talking about an unresolved dispute.
So the "problem" that your psychiatrist friend has found just from some lines of text is not one that implies a real threat to society.
Ok I am ready to accept the molten metal is not self evident in the photographs I presented as I am not a steel specialist. However a friend of mine that is a steel expert says that there was molten steel. If we only had the thermal readings of an infra-red camera...
I still have the questions about:
Metal shipped to China in a hurry to be melted;
AE911 members, there are more of them (the physics teacher is one in 952 people trained in the realms of Physics, Architecture and Engineering of the "conspiring lot" as you might deem them to be);
Still have no response about the fire of WTC in 1975;
As for the free-fall I would endearingly like to see your actual measurements. Or are they also closed knowledge?
I hope the above questions can deserve your comments.
"did you forget that he waged a nine-year war and defeated the USSR in Afghanistan?"
Yes, but not without good old uncle Sam's help at the time.
Cheers
Before the 1975 fire had the structure been weakened by having a plane crash through it? Leaving a large gaping hole?
"Before the 1975 fire had the structure been weakened by having a plane crash through it? Leaving a large gaping hole?"
I ask the same about building 7 then.
Roger,
First, I find it borderline dishonest (almost arrogant) for you to attempt the claim "I find it pointless that my background is found relevant…" This comment is at best disingenuous, if not more deceitful, as everyone has a bias on any particular topic, as we all have experiences that will form ideas and/or ideologies that provide us with basic reasoning capabilities from our own perspective.
For example, you finally conceded that the pictures you offered as evidence to "molten" steel really show nothing of that nature. I commend you for finally exercising some of that education you have. We have now agreed on a definition, the first key to communication. Now we can progress to the next phase. If "molten" steel had been present in the debris, there would have been harden and/or fluid "puddles", of steel found on the site. So that would be the evidence that we would want to find to support the claim of "molten" steel in this event. I personally know a Structural Engineer that was on site directing how the piles of steel and concrete could be safely removed. He was on site the week after the event. He reported no sightings of molten steel or hardened puddles from molten steel. With molten steel at 2500 degrees F and an outside temperature lets say for argument sake 60 degrees F, it would take molten steel over fourteen days to cool to a harden state (somewhere about 900 degrees F). Now I know that I did not calculate these times as there is no way to accurately account for the heat transfer resistance due too the debris on top of the "molten" steel providing some sort of resistance value (R-value), however we must agree that it would be held in a fluid or slightly harden state for an extended time do to this inhibited cooling capacity. With that being said, there are no reports of any molten or hardened puddles anywhere on site, so it escapes me as to what your friend is basing his claims on. Does he have any pictures of these molten or hardened puddles? If so, I would absolutely love to see them.
As for the mental health issues you described, I am curious, is this information that you have "quoted" or is it information that has been proved to you by specialists in that field of practice? As far as scaring the hell out of me, that is far from the truth. In fact I take pity on those that form opinions on non-existent facts, then drown while holding onto them even when they are proven inappropriate. For example, you finally conceded that the picture you published did not indicate what you claimed, but then instead on conceding the point, you attempt to defend your position with the "my friend says" without any other supporting evidence. I am afraid that I do not grasp your concept of "unresolved dispute". Just because you reject the hard evidence and fail to support your position with other hard evidence does not make this an "unresolved dispute". When one rejects hard evidence in lieu of no hard evidence, it does not constitute "unresolved", it just shows an individual's bias. So again I ask why do you have an interest in this topic? I do not see a vast number of people in Portugal having a great deal of interest in this, so why do you?
As far as my measurement, I have this great tool called a computer. Embedded in that clip is a clock. I can stop the clip at the moment the parapet starts to move, note the time within the clip, start the clip again and stop it at the time the parapet disappears from the screen. Now since that is what the NIST report claims did, I see about 5 seconds elapsed time (I cannot go to the fraction of a second that the NIST repots claims) but the 5 seconds appear to be closer than the 2 seconds claimed by the ae911 Members claim. As far as Tower 7, once again I must REMIND you that the fire burned uncheck for about 8 hours. What the hell did you expect? Do you think that the fire would have burned everything, except the main steel frame and put its self out leaving the structural frame in tact?
As for the 1975 fire, I have no data to analyze with respect to 9-11, but the repairs were deemed as making the building structurally sound, so is your claim that this devious plan to destroy these buildings started in 1975? Are you saying that explosives were buried into the structure at that time, just waiting for 2001? That sounds like someone is really smoking something.
As for help for the "cave guy", he did have the support of the Taliban and the Afghan Government. So what is your point?
Indicators of a delusion
Psychology
The following can indicate a delusion:
1.The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
2.That idea appears to exert an undue influence on his or her life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.
3.Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
4.The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
5.There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
6.An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
7.The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural and religious background.
8.The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of his or her psyche.
9.The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.
10.Individuals who know the patient will observe that his or her belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.
Yes Rogerio delusional people are often a danger to themselves or others.
Thank you so much for that hub,. It has put many demons to rest inside myself. I was horrified at rumours of 'inside jobs' etc., but I had no engineering or architectural knowledge to rebuff the stupid people. Thank you again
Thank you for your words. I am only trying to keep the science and facts forward. This is not a topic that should be politicized. I have some other hubs that might also help your understanding of the building sciences and arts.
I am British and so i have a valid reason to comment. even if i wasn't the terror unleashed by the USA after 911 means that everybody has a right and duty to take an interest n this matter. I have seen numerous documentaries about 911 and I am totally convinced that 911 was an inside job by elements of the US establishment.
Look at Bush's face in the primary school. Looked like he knew something. please see Loose Change, terrorstorm, In plane sight and many others for a factual background.
The owner of this page is obviously a right wing neo con and his patriotism cannot countenance that his beloved US of A would sink so low but history is full of inside jobs, pearl Harbour. reichstag fire, Gulf of Tonkin, Northwoods etc etc
Even in London they were having a terror exercise on the EXACT same say as the 7/7 attacks. a duplicate of US modus operandi
Americans are too often blind to their governments evil ways
One m ore small item, you claimed that 96% of the occupants escaped was due to the wonderful design of office blocks but fact is first attack was at 8.45 and most people had yet to arrive
Terrorists may have chosen a later flight to ensure buildings would have been full
Paul and Roger are far more objective and the facts a lot more convincing to support their points ... and there is all the other evidence!
Just read the hub "The true story of 911 in Plane Site | World Trade Center & Pentagon Attack Conspiracy of 11-Sep-01 by andromida
hruz,
While I will defend to the death the right for those of you to spout off as you do, disregarding scientific evidence to hold on to your conspiracy views is beyond ostrich-like.
I challenge you to prove your so called evidence. My take on what I have seen as “evidence” is this:
1. Thermite has been tested and while it burns very hot, it also burns very quick and gives no chance for structural steel failure. Steel requires an extended exposure (several minutes at the very least) to such high temperatures to initiate such failure collapse. The properties of thermite do not provide this type of sustained burn. As for some “secret” thermite type of material, I have found nothing to support such a magical argument. Show me the proof!
2. Controlled demolition is absurd because not one shred of the hundreds of detonators required has been found, not to say the time it would have taken to prepare the buildings for such an act. The people that explosively destroy buildings will tell you the immense amount of man hours and space required, yet no one report such disruption to entire floors that would have been required prior to this catastrophic event. Are you telling me that these people that knew about such disruption are part of this conspiracy?
3. In order for such a vast cover-up many, many people would have to have been involved, and how do you keep everyone one of them quiet for so long? Were they all killed? The Iran-Contra affair of the Regan years came out very quickly, and there were few people involved with that event. How do you explain the question that so many others could be quiet this long?
I am at a loss how untrained people such as Rosie and others like you can carry so much weight without holding any scientific or forensic evidence, but only rhetoric as evidence. The only way that those of you spouting of can be correct is if the laws of physics and nature were suspended at the time of these events, and I would be more interested in the technology that would allow that suspension to take place. Get real evidence, and then publish it to the world. Otherwise, just be honest with your agenda and do not waste our time.
It IS a vast cover-up and many were involved ... maybe you don't even want to know all the facts?
Why would that be?
Too much of a patriot, not enough critical thinking ability, or a bit of both?
Building 7 is a perfect example that it was previously set up for controlled demolition just like the two towers - one of the Bush boys is in this business. Now, why is the fact that his company is known to have arranged it news to you?
Lot's of people are STILL asking questions ... like in this TV ad here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo9K9nGDvvQ&feature
What's your agenda for letting criminals like Dick Cheney walk free?
hruz,
I love your “facts” as you stated, “Building 7 is a perfect example that it was previously set up for controlled demolition just like the two towers - one of the Bush boys is in this business.”
Where is the evidence? No detonator fragments were found. What floors were the explosives wired on? How many man hours were covered up to do this? In Phoenix just recently the old Mountain Bell building was explosively demolished, and it was recorded for a program on the Discovery Channel. It took about a month, and that was only a 10 story building. Explosive charges were place on 4 complete floors. Now parallel that to Tower 7 at 47 floors, using straight line interpolation (a mathematical process of proportions) that would have meant that Tower 7 would have had around 18 floors wired. Now even if that sounds excessive, let us just say that it would have required between 10 and 12 floors wired. How was this accomplished? Are you telling me that someone actually was able to hide all that work from view?
Grant people are still asking questions, but if they refuse to accept the scientific and forensic evidence, why should these questions be given validity. I am not saying that conspiracy people are wrong, hell you may be right, but for crying out loud, do not feed me a diet of rhetoric, but provide scientific and forensic analysis to support your theories. If the evidence really exists present it! Do not ask me to accept your word of mouth rumors and innuendos. It was that type of evidence that had people once believing that the earth was flat. It is not that I am a “patriot”, in which of course I am, so what is wrong with that? One’s beliefs do not discount the law of gravity. Whether I believe in gravity or not, I am still forced to adhere to it as one that walks on this planet.
As far as Dick Cheney as a criminal, there are many others doing the same. What about another former President that lied under oath? So the axe you are grinding has little to do with science and evidence and more with political bias. I agree that there are plenty of faults in our government, from both sides of the aisle, and I am not sure that our political leaders are trust worthy at all, but you cannot spout off view with little or fabricated evidence. Like Winston Churchill said, so I have heard, “Democracy is the worst form of government, but there is none better.”
Try being constructive, do YOUR homework. Do not quote someone else. I speak from a position of knowledge and training in building structures, building exiting, and safety. Where is your expertise?
Dan, regarding WTC 7, are you telling me that you can't recognise a demolition when you see one? Surely an engineer like yourself can recognise one? Since when does fire bring down a building at free fall speed in its own footprint? Building 7 began its collapse at free-fall acceleration for over 2 seconds over a distance of more than 100 feet – equal to at least eight stories.
Do you agree with the following statement?:
"For the observed straight-down collapse to happen, an immense network of heavy steel columns and beams would have had to be forcibly removed and more than 400 structural-steel connections would have had to fail every second, evenly, all across each of the eight floors involved. These failures had to occur ahead of the collapsing section – and could not be caused by it – because a freefalling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall."
Here is testimony from former NYPD officer, Craig Bartmer regarding the demolition:
“I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn’t see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though,” said Bartmer. “Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn’t hear any… I didn’t hear any creaking, or… I didn’t hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming ‘get away, get away, get away from it!’… It was at that moment… I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself… Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit’s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you’re hearing “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it… Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they’re saying… Nothing to account for what we saw… I am shocked at the story we’ve heard about it to be quite honest.”
Emergency Medical Technician, Indira Singh said,
“After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke – it is entirely possible – I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage,” said Singh.
He went onto say that it was the fire department who said WTC 7 had to be brought down.
Kevin, Mcpadden, an airforce reserve medic said he heard the countdown:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgAJ4sKUp8g
Larry Silverstein, owner of WTC 7, said the decision was made to "pull it". I don't know if that can be interpreted as anything but a demolition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100&feature
A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety Technology Authority (Dr. Heikki Kurttila) stated regarding WTC 7 that “The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition.”
A Danish professor of chemistry (Dr. Niels Harrit) said, in a mainstream Danish newspaper, “WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building would have fallen in that direction. You don’t have to be a woodcutter to grasp this” (translated)
More information on this:
http://www.infowars.com/the-911-whistleblowers/
The FEMA report stated:
“A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel"
More information:
http://www.infowars.com/building-7-implosion-the-s
You say that no detonator fragments were found. How do you know that? How do you know the evidence wasn't destroyed? You know the steel beams were quickly taken to a scrap heap? Evidence can be destroyed.
That's all for now.
Claire,
First, have you personally seen a controlled demolition of a building?
The problem with your rhetoric for WTC 7 it is almost verbatim from “Loose Change”. I saw those claims very precisely addressed in “The 9-11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction” that was aired on the History Channel. In fact I have seen that show a couple of times. I will not waste time quoting that show to you, you can do your own homework, I just think that maybe you should WATCH it with a critical eye. Your “free fall” speed has errors by assumption. In fact there is only one camera view that I have seen, of the collapse of WTC 7 and it does not show enough information to support the claims made. That does not mean that those claims are wrong, only unsubstantiated. With my professional background, I choose not to concur with that premise based on my professional experience.
However what I will address is some of your other claims. Your quote:
"For the observed straight-down collapse to happen, an immense network of heavy steel columns and beams would have had to be forcibly removed and more than 400 structural-steel connections would have had to fail every second, evenly, all across each of the eight floors involved. These failures had to occur ahead of the collapsing section – and could not be caused by it – because a free falling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall."
Is in error because it only allows for the premise that the columns and beam were removed forcefully; the error is that this premise fails to account for basic physics and material strength. This building was constructed in a manner that protected the structure from deterioration because of fire for a minimum of 1 hour. In my industry this is referred to as 1 hour construction. WTC 7 burned for over 8 hours, well in excess of the 1 hour minimum the building was designed for. It has been proven, scientifically both before and subsequent to 9-11, that after only 8 minutes at temperatures above 800 degrees F, steel undergoes irreversible deterioration. The interior columns closest to the fire will be the ones that would be first to deflect.
As for the fire not being fought in WTC 7, those conspiracy people, as you, fail to account for what I learned in economics as scarcity of resources. The was only so much water pressure and water flow available for all those buildings, not all could be handled at the same time. I am amazed how conspiracy people, such as you, feel the need to suspend the laws of gravity, economics and physics just to prove your point.
The NYPD officer that you quoted said nothing to indicate explosive demolition. In order for explosive demolition to work, all detonations are made within seconds or milliseconds of each other, the “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom” described is more indicative of progressive collapse which is what would be expected from a building failure. Every building demolition that I have been witness to or seen have had all detonations occurs so close together that they were almost indistinguishable.
Your youtube videos provide no substantiated evidence. Anyone can say anything. Find something a little more substantive. The Danish chemist that you quote, does not show any expertise in structural design, so how much does his comments weigh, really? Your infowars site was great, some of the sources were tied to the Loose Change group, and others were not identified, real neutral and trustworthy. I could not find a source for your FEMA quote so I have no idea what your point is. There is no way to know what the mixture is in that quote of yours, but many mixtures burn very hot (thermite for instance) however they lack the burning time to create the failure of a steel structural element. The basic physics require both temperature and extended exposure to create failure.
As for the “destroyed” evidence I will not waste time arguing with you on that. As for the “scrap heap” you mentioned, all the debris was shipped to several make shift dumps to be sifted through. I know a Structural Engineer that is on the FEMA team from Phoenix that at ground zero one week after 9-11. I will trust his eye witness report, since it coincides with the scientific evidence that has come out. I will ask you this, and as with all the conspiracy people I have talked with, not one has had the courage to answer this, “Why must this have been an inside job?” Why is it too much for you to grasp that a few fanatics are capable of such an act?
Do your homework, do not spout rhetoric, words are useless in light of scientific facts.
"No, I haven't seen personally a controlled demolition but I sure know how to spot one. If you can't see that WTC 7 was a demolition, then I doubt your expertise.
Name one other building made from steel, but the towers that are claimed to have fallen from heat stress, in the case of history that has fallen from heat stress. Many buildings burn for much longer, one instance 20 hours, and they still stood.
What does it matter what angle the camera was showing the collapse of WTC 7?
Irreversible deterioration doesn't mean a collapse or else other building in history would have fallen due to heat stress. Also, the fire was limited to a few floors.
"For the observed straight-down collapse to happen, an immense network of heavy steel columns and beams would have had to be forcibly removed and more than 400 structural-steel connections would have had to fail every second, evenly, all across each of the eight floors involved. These failures had to occur ahead of the collapsing section – and could not be caused by it – because a free falling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall."
"It is in error because it only allows for the premise that the columns and beam were removed forcefully; the error is that this premise fails to account for basic physics and material strength. This building was constructed in a manner that protected the structure from deterioration because of fire for a minimum of 1 hour. In my industry this is referred to as 1 hour construction. WTC 7 burned for over 8 hours, well in excess of the 1 hour minimum the building was designed for."
You are missing the point. The point is that for it to have fallen THE WAY IT DID, that is "more than 400 structural-steel connections would have had to fail every second, evenly, all across each of the eight floors involved. These failures had to occur ahead of the collapsing section – and could not be caused by it – because a free falling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall."
In order for a building to fall with absolutely no resistance caused by the lower falls, the above premise must have occurred. Did you notice any resistance in the collapse? The other floors below should have slowed the collapse but it didn't. Why?
It's obvious that it was at free fall speed. 8 stories in 2 seconds? Even the NIST concedes it was a free fall. Name one other building but on 9-11 that has fallen free fall due to heat stress?
What about the symmetry in which it fell?
Quote from this site:
http://www.infowars.com/building-7-implosion-the-s
"The overall building mass fell uniformly and with almost perfect symmetry through what should have been the path of greatest resistance – some 40,000 tons of structural steel. According to structural engineer Kamal Obeid, this requires a precisely-timed, patterned removal of critical steel columns – which office fires, a gradual organic process, simply cannot achieve."
Do you agree or disagree with this structural engineer?
The NYPD officer said that he recognises an explosion when he hears it. Do buildings explode due to heat stress?
You say my youtube videos don't prove anything and that anyone can say anything, you say, but you automatically believe the structural engineer from the FEMA team that was he says is true.
Here is the FEMA report about the hot corrosion attack on the steel. Does a regular fire do that?
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pd
"The United States Geological Survey (USGS) used NASA thermal imaging of the WTC rubble pile surface to document hot spots with extreme temperatures of almost 1,400° F"
Come one...due to an office fire? As for thermite burning out quickly, it depends on the amount used and the ratio.
If we are going to have a debate, you need to address ALL my points and not dodge the ones that are inconvenient. What did Larry Silverstein mean when he said the decision was made to "pull it" in reference to WTC 7?
You also didn't address this fact:
"A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety Technology Authority (Dr. Heikki Kurttila) stated regarding WTC 7 that “The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition.”
Is he talking rubbish?
I am going to include many others here:
"Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and Flight Research Program Manager for NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering (Dwain A. Deets) says:
“The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Centers on 9/11].”
A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects (Dr. Steven E. Jones) stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition
A U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities (Dr. Crockett Grabbe) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition
An expert on demolition (Bent Lund) said that the trade centers were brought down with explosives (in Danish)
A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded
A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety Technology Authority (Dr. Heikki Kurttila) stated regarding WTC 7 that “The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition.”
mechanical engineer with 20 years experience as a Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs, who is a contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities, a board member of the Northern California – Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, currently serving as Fire Protection Engineer for the city of San Jose, California, the 10th largest city in the United States (Edward S. Munyak) believes that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition.
The former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S. Department of Energy, and former Director of the Office of Engineering at the Public Service Commission in Washington, D.C., who is a mechanical engineer (Enver Masud) , does not believe the official story, and believes that there is a prima facie case for controlled demolition of the World Trade Center.
An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use (Richard Gage) disputes the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled demolition (many other architects who question 9/11 are listed here)"
I mean, come on! How much more evidence do you need?
Look at the many other opinions here!
http://www.infowars.com/the-911-whistleblowers/
You asked why it must have been an inside job? As a pretext for war, of course.
I've written on this subject:
http://clairelesleyevans.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/
http://clairelesleyevans.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/
If you have any questions, like why the United States would give millions of dollars to the Taliban months before 9-11 and negotiate a pipeline deal with them up until August 2001, feel free to ask.
Claire,
If you have never seen a controlled demolition, how do know how to spot one? Tell me would you also say, “I have never seen brain surgery, but I know when it is being done wrong.” So I pose to you, what is the difference between the two statements? In the spirit of open honesty, I must ask, what the hell is YOUR agenda? Can you tell me why you have such an interest in this anyway as a South African?
Your next claim is absurd. There have been documented cases of metal building deformation and collapse, one even in Phoenix just a few years ago; however these events were on a smaller scale, but maybe your claim is that smaller buildings react differently than larger scale buildings. Again, physics applies to all buildings the same way that is basic science. As far as the camera angle goes, it does matter for the most accurate analysis of what is being seen.
Your comment about irreversible damage is ignorant. Steel has the characteristic that it can be over stressed to a certain point and return to its shape without degradation, however beyond that point it will not. This is the point that I was referring to as irreversible deterioration. Once this point is obtained, motion starts. This is Newton’s first law of physics which states that an object in motion will tend to stay in motion, while an object at rest tends to stay at rest, unless some force is applied to it to change states. Once motion begins, progressive collapse occurs. It does not matter to the steel what initiates the deformation movement, heat or force, once begun, it will continue until equilibrium is once again obtained.
I am not missing any point. Progressive collapse is the result of multiple smaller collapses that may destroy an entire building or only a part of a building, your assumption that all the columns and beams being forcibly removed at one time can be seen as erroneous, at best. The number of 400 connections per section is even more absurd than any other comment you have made or quoted. Do the math, at that rate you are tell me that there were only 4,400 connections in Tower 1 (11 second fall), and 3,600 connections in Tower 2 (9 second fall). Your math is not even balanced for the two towers, and my experience would dictate there would be far more connections in a structure of that type, so if your facts are wrong here, why should your other facts be accepted as correct? Your comment of no resistance is just as bogus. There is no such thing as “no resistant” falling. Friction always exists, be it by air, or materials rubbing against other materials. Again, are you claiming the laws of science were suspended on that day?
I would contend your claim of symmetrical collapse, but if you are referring to the center falling first, that would be a result that the center core was one of the main structural support systems along with the outside walls, placing most of the load on the center core. Your claim is no surprise, because I see you are attempting to equate these buildings falling to a tree being chopped down, but that too is also erroneous. Tree branches are supported by only a trunk and do not have supports at the perimeter like the towers had, that is why they fall differently.
Then lets us look at your “evidence” of the “FEMA Report” on corrosive attack. You quote an appendix, but not the report. What was the rest of the report stating within the light of the appendix? DID the main report support the appendix or opposed the appendix. At least be complete and accurate in your citations. I am not sure where you quoted the 1400 degrees F from, but I like how you are trying to sound like a chemist on the thermite issue. The fire triangle that I learned in elementary school, or the fire tetrahedron that I am learning about in fire science now, still do not uphold your claim as the fuel burns way too quickly to complete structural failure as claimed. As for the use of “pyroclastic gasses”, that phrase appears to be misused, according to Michigan Tech University this form appears to be accompanied with rock as with volcanic eruption, see http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/hazards/primer/py .
As for your other citations and quotes, try reading my previous responses. As far as Architect Gage goes, I will say that unless he took a different educational path than most Architects (such as I did) he will not be able to make that type of analysis, as most Architects fail to get that type of structural training while in school.
Your accusation of pretext to war is ungraspable to me. What makes you think that an American President would order the killing of American civilians? I know other governments have had such practices, but that is not one here in the US. With all your erroneous science, as I have pointed out here, why should any of your other “facts” be trusted? You ignore any sense of reason in blind dissertation of your position, and have flawed science and unsubstantiated claims. So again I demand that you answer, what the hell is your agenda?
You are silly to say that just because I haven't seen a controlled demolition in person, I shouldn't be able to identify one. If someone has never been to a tennis match in person, can they not recognise one on TV?
I have, as a South African, interest in what America does because what it decides, affects the rest of the world. They tend to invade countries illegally. 9-11 is a global issue and is not an issue only Americans should dwell on.
"I would contend your claim of symmetrical collapse, but if you are referring to the center falling first, that would be a result that the center core was one of the main structural support systems along with the outside walls, placing most of the load on the center core. Your claim is no surprise, because I see you are attempting to equate these buildings falling to a tree being chopped down, but that too is also erroneous. Tree branches are supported by only a trunk and do not have supports at the perimeter like the towers had, that is why they fall differently."
You are now assuming the center core was severely damaged. The fires were randomly scattered around the building and not much fire was visible. We don't seem to be talking about the same building here. I'm referring to WTC 7, not the towers. So your comment here:
"Do the math, at that rate you are tell me that there were only 4,400 connections in Tower 1 (11 second fall), and 3,600 connections in Tower 2 (9 second fall). Your math is not even balanced for the two towers, and my experience would dictate there would be far more connections in a structure of that type, so if your facts are wrong here.." doesn't apply. Just to make it clear, I'm talking about WTC7 at the moment.
According to FEMA, there were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged asymmetrically, along with approximately 57 perimeter columns. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.)
So if was arranged asymetrically, how did it fall symetrically? Doesn't that mean the all the steam beams gave way at the same time?
This seems to be what FEMA considered as well.
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5;"
Is FEMA wrong or right?
Here is what the media said:
2. A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” provides relevant data.
How does steel evaporate due to fires?
Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)
So where did you get the idea that the building in Phoenix, which you are suggesting is also steel reinforced and modern, collapsed?
The link to the New York Times article dated November 29th, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-
Here are expert witnesses that claim to have seen pools of molten steel.
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/ma
"Your comment of no resistance is just as bogus. There is no such thing as “no resistant” falling. Friction always exists, be it by air, or materials rubbing against other materials. Again, are you claiming the laws of science were suspended on that day?"
By this, I mean there was no resistance from the floors below. In order for this to be the case, the floors would have had to have given way before the collapsing section reached it. If it had been caused by the collapsing section, it would have slowed the fall. It did not happen. The building collapsed in 6.6 seconds.
Here is the Chapter 5 of the FEMA report to which the appendix relates:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
I'm not sure where you saw "pyroclastic gasses" being mentioned. Please refresh my memory? I looked through Appendix C and couldn't find any reference to that.
"As for your other citations and quotes, try reading my previous responses. As far as Architect Gage goes, I will say that unless he took a different educational path than most Architects (such as I did) he will not be able to make that type of analysis, as most Architects fail to get that type of structural training while in school."
Why do you only single out one or two people? A Dutch demolition expert says WTC 7 was demolished. Is he not qualified to claim that?
"The fire triangle that I learned in elementary school, or the fire tetrahedron that I am learning about in fire science now, still do not uphold your claim as the fuel burns way too quickly to complete structural failure as claimed"
This is what I learnt from wikipedia:
"Thermite usage is hazardous due to the extremely high temperatures produced and the extreme difficulty in smothering a reaction once initiated. The thermite reaction releases dangerous ultra-violet (UV) light requiring that the reaction not be viewed directly, or that special eye protection (for example, a welder's mask) be worn. Small streams of molten iron released in the reaction can travel considerable distances and may melt through metal containers, igniting their contents"
Is it not the molten iron that is released from the thermite reaction that melted the steel?
http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/614_mo
What is that substance coming from one of the towers?
The NASA hotspot reference:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r
The quote here says the hotspots were over 800 F.
You still haven't told me what Larry Silverstein meant by "pull it".
There was a topic I forgot to address in my last comment and that is the destruction of the evidence. Here is a quote from one of my blogs:
"The chairs of the 9-11 Commission and the Joint Inquiry of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees report that government “minders” obstructed the investigation by intimidating witnesses. It was deduced that the officials from the Pentagon lied to the Commission with the result that the Commission recommended them to be criminally charged. Recorded interviews on tape with traffic controllers working on 9-11 were destroyed by cutting the tape into pieces and tossing it into the trash cans around the building.
Structural engineers have pointed out the serious “mistake” of the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that once held up the towers. Without this, some of the most direct evidence to how the towers collapsed was thus destroyed. I don’t know how anyone could see it prudent to destroy evidence in a criminal investigation, because that is what it is, unless they had something to hide.
Matthew G. Monahan, spokesman for the city’s Department of Design and Construction, which was in charge of the debris removal at Ground Zero said, “The city considered it reasonable to have recovered structural steel recycled. Hindsight is always 20-20, but this was a calamity like no other. And I’m not trying to backpedal.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/25/nyregion/25TOWE.
Your rapid response proves to me that you didn't read all the links I gave you because it is a lot of information.
What makes me think an American president would order the killing of Americans? Maybe a very evil one? But then again, presidents don't run the country. Shadow governments do. Saddam Hussein can kill his own but not American presidents because America can do no wrong.
Of course you just disregard all the proof that America was in cahoots with the Taliban shortly before 9-11. If you actually read my blogs, you would be referred to sources that prove all that I write. You are denial, of course. You don't have the courage to face the truth. My agend
Claire,
You completely missed my point. My point is that since you have never seen a controlled demolition, you have no idea of the subtleties of such an action, so what you are relying on is what others have said not your own personal experience or knowledge, so just be honest with me and everyone else.
As far as the US “invading” other countries illegally, I am confused, are you saying that no country should respond to a direct attack? If that is really your position I ask what the world would look like today if countries did not respond to the aggressive acts of others. Are you saying that Germany’s invasion of Poland and France should have been left without reaction? Did you forget that the world had no idea about the holocaust until ally forces entered into German held territory? Should Iraq have been allowed to take over Kuwait the first time? You seem to forget history when it suits you.
You go on to dispute the evidence that the main tower cores were not severely damaged. That claim contradicts the physical evidence found at the site. The evidence is over whelming that towers 1 and 2 suffered catastrophic damage at the core. As for tower 7, that building’s core was not directly damaged by debris; however that entire building succumbed to the uncontained fire that it was exposed to. As far as the “randomly scattered” fires, no evidence has support that claim. The basic chemistry of fire disputes that claim entirely. Fire spreads by itself if left uncontained. Fire spreads quickly and even hotter in an enclosed space as the pressure rises from the expanding gasses of from the fire. That is the undisputed science.
If you are still disputing this fire spread explanation; then look for a video that shows what happens when a small fire is left in uncheck in a building, they are all over the Internet. The structure will eventually collapse from the fire. It is no different than WTC 7. If you really want to see this in history, look up the date October 9, 1871, in the US City of Chicago. A very small fire that started in a barn ultimately burned a huge percentage of that City. If you do not believe me, set your house on fire, prevent the fire department from doing anything, and see how long that house stands, then answer this, “why is WTC 7 different?” Let go your politics and embrace the science alone.
The asymmetry that you are speaking of is an insignificant value as the main structural proportions where only out symmetry by a very minor percentage. All apples are not the same, yet most people refer to them as “round”. Do not split hairs inconsistently in an attempt to “prove” your contention.
I am glad you finally admitted your own paranoia, there have always been claims of shadow governments, yet indisputable evidence still eludes sight. As for your comments America can do no wrong that is such crap it does not warrant response. Everyone and everything is imperfect, and your comments just shows that your main focus and goal on 9-11 is to politicize that event. This hub was never meant to be a political statement, but a statement on the construction and building codes used in the US construction industry. The only reason Architect Gage was even mentioned was because of his deliberate disregard for his training, and his misrepresentation of what an Architect should be. The practice of Architecture is not a political profession, but a life safety profession.
In concluding, politics makes strange bedfellows, and alliances are never permanent. So who was in cahoots with whom is irrelevant. What matters is how many lives were saved by the performance of those buildings during a catastrophic event. Stop spouting off your politics here, this is hub is to show how building codes save lives. Spout your politics elsewhere. Do not bash the US in an attempt to promote your own political paranoia.
Okay, I see that science won't convince you that the buildings were demolished. You are entitled to your opinion. I mean, it doesn't matter to you that lots of architects, engineers, etc, say it was a demolition, it's only your opinion that counts.
"As far as the US “invading” other countries illegally, I am confused, are you saying that no country should respond to a direct attack?"
Hmmm, it appears as if you didn't read my blogs on the US, Pakistan and Taliban. Let me refresh your memory. There is absolutely not a SHRED of evidence that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9-11. I don't know if you have it but no one else does. I mean, the USA even admits they have faked Al Qaeda videos so don't mention the fake confession of Osama. So you don't go around and attack countries when you have no evidence they attacked you first. My goodness, Al Qaeda isn't even a terrorist organisation. It is a database. A list of mujahideen in the 80s recruited by the CIA.
It also doesn't perturb you that the USA was negotiating a oil pipeline deal with the Taliban up until August 2001? They don't mind doing business deals with the Taliban.
As for Iraq, it is technically known as an illegal war according to the United Nations. Where the hell was the evidence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction? NONE! And the irony of it all is that in the Iran-Iraq, the USA sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein which he used to GAS the Kurds.
That's a historical fact, not a conspiracy theory. So if the USA can be responsible for that, they can be responsible for 9-11.
"You go on to dispute the evidence that the main tower cores were not severely damaged. That claim contradicts the physical evidence found at the site. The evidence is over whelming that towers 1 and 2 suffered catastrophic damage at the core"
Show me the evidence please. You know the towers were designed to take multiple impacts by jet liners, according to WTC Construction and Project Management manager, Frank A DeMartini. He said the steel beams were like a mosquito net on a screen door and the jects are like pencils puncturing a steel netting.
"A very small fire that started in a barn ultimately burned a huge percentage of that City. If you do not believe me, set your house on fire, prevent the fire department from doing anything, and see how long that house stands, then answer this, “why is WTC 7 different?”
How is WTC 7 different? Maybe it is different because it had kick ass steel reinforced columns. My house isn't constructed like WTC 7. Is yours? And might I remind you that the FEMA report said heat stress was unlikely to have brought the building down?
Anyway, you fail once again to tell me what Larry Silverstein meant by "pull it" when referring to WTC 7. Pull it is a demolition term.
As for the symmetry business, I'm not going into that again. I don't know why, if your science is correct, many demolition experts say that WTC 7 was demolished. Did they buy their qualifications at the local flea market?
About shadow governments, ah, Obama himself admits the bankers control America. Excerpt from this site:
http://www.infowars.com/barack-obama-puppet-on-a-s
"The extent to which the CIA, and the International Bankers who control the Agency, create statesmen is something Obama himself is acutely aware of. In a 1983 article for the Weekly News Magazine Sundial of Columbia University, ironically entitled Breaking the War Mentality, the then 22-year old Barack Obama wrote:
“In 1933 the German establishment thought it could use Hitler to restore a modicum of order to the confused and confusing Weimar Republic. In fact, Hitler did strengthen the German establishment, but not exactly in the way the bankers and businessmen had wanted; and now, fifty years later, it is clear who was using whom.”
The young Obama was also aware that most statesmen were just puppet-presidents, put in power by the CIA and the bankers behind it:
“Nevertheless, the Western World did not complain in 1933 because Hitler, though a fascist and a totalitarian, was seen, like countless American puppet dictators today, as someone who leaves the established order in place.”
They are powerful people out there that attest to a shadow government.
Benjamin Disraeli, British prime minister said: "...the world is governed by very different personages to what is imagined by those who are not themselves behind the scenes."
JFK said: "The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the Americans' freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight."
He must have been paranoid, as well.
Manly P Hall, a 33rd degree Freemason said:
"Not only were many of the founders of the United States government Masons, but they received aid from a secret and august body existing in Europe which helped them to establish this country for A PECULIAR AND PARTICULAR PURPOSE known only to the initiated few."
"By the time you become the leader of a country, someone else makes all the decisions. You may find you can get away with Virtual Presidents, Virtual Prime Ministers, and Virtual Everything." - Bill Clinton
He says ALL the decisions!!
1954 -- Senator William Jenner said:
"Today the path to total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people... outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government, a bureaucratic elite which believes our Constitution is outmoded and is sure that it is the winning side.... All the strange developments in the foreign policy agreements may be traced to this group (CFR) who are going to make us over to suit their pleasure.... This political action group has its own local political support organizations, its own pressure groups, its own vested interests, its foothold within our government, and its own propaganda apparatus."
And...
"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing NO allegiance and acknowledging NO responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul this unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today." -- President Theodore Roosevelt, 1906
Were they all paranoid?
"In concluding, politics makes strange bedfellows, and alliances are never permanent. So who was in cahoots with whom is irrelevant."
Oh my gosh, I can't believe you just said that. You are saying it doesn't matter than the USA makes terrorists their alliances. That's insane.
"What matters is how many lives were saved by the performance of those buildings during a catastrophic event. Stop spouting off your politics here, this is hub is to show how building codes save lives"
I am sorry, but it is you who brought up the inside job claim in your blog. And discussing the way the buildings fell is very relevant to your blog.
You are not doing yourself any favours by denying the truth.
Claire,
While you are fond of quoting “other architects and engineers”, I believe that you are referring to a group that calls themselves “Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth”. Let us examine some of those leaders. First, Architect Gage, I have wasted enough words on him. He has turned his back on all that he was trained to be. Another leader of that group is Steven Dusterwald, who appears to be from the radical right. Look at his website:
http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/profile/STEVEN
This group’s home page boasts that there are 1,426 “verified Architectural and Engineering Professionals” signed their petition. Of that I found 233 Registered Architects (some from outside the US). This number of “Professionals is insignificant when compared to the number of total registrants in Arizona alone. According to the NCARB (National Council of Architectural Registration Boards) there were 105,312 Architects Registered in July of 2010 alone; being less than 0.22% of the Registered Architects in the US signed this petition. Hardly enough to say anything about, but say what you would say.
Claire, I would refer you to another hub I just published, largely because of your claims, that has illustrations and documentation that cannot be include in the comment section here. Go read it as well:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Modern-Fire-Science
According to the information I have seen, Bin Laden has been on the FBI’s wanted list before 9-11, and continuing on to your claim that there is no shred of evidence that Bin Laden was involved, apparently you missed the fact that he claimed responsibility for it.
I have wasted enough words responding to your misguided conspiracy BS. You will twist everything in attempt to prove yourself right. I have found that those like you that look for ghosts under every rock will always “find” something to support your claims, and the facts be damned.
For the record, I never brought up the “inside job” in this hub, other have. Try reading MY words again. When you drink your coffee, and have down your homework, come back again. Manufacturing facts cannot stand the test of time.
For the first time I deleted a comment from this hub. I am all for the exchange of ideas, but have no tolerance for useless political rhetoric. I will give anyone a couple opportunities to espouse their beliefs, however misdirected, but expect that those discussions will return to facts alone.
The funny thing about shadows, is when examined under light, they disappear. I have heard for much of my life some claiming that here are “shadow governments”, yet no one has ever offered anything up to support their existence but rhetoric and innuendo. We need to respect those that lost their lives on the fateful day, both victims and heroes, so do not come on here and shoot your mouth off without first thinking your comments through completely. As always I am completely prepared to examine all claims to ascertain a level of validity in your position.
For instance in 2009, a Danish scientist claimed that there were microscopic red flakes in the dust retrieved from the WTC site, continuing that he researched this for the previous 2 years. When ask by the Danish reporter interviewing him, this scientist said that this said that the amount he found represented between 10 and 100 metric tons of thermite used in demolishing the WTC towers. My other hub addresses this more in depth, see it at:
http://hubpages.com/hub/9-11-Fire-Science-and-Cons
In short that scientist failed to account for the logistics in the delivery of the explosives alone, notwithstanding the wiring time and logistics. How would between 5.2 million and 520 million people not notice something and question it in a period between 180 days and 18,000 days (almost 5 years). How can this position even be considered a possibility, let alone likely?
For those that argue for the “truthers” or conspiracy side, I will expect you to be aware of all your sources completely, as I have looked at many of those sources and have major concerns about their so called “facts”. If you are going to espouse such tripe, go the 9-11 truthers sites and become familiar with the information contained there. Do not make the claim that there are other “Architects and Engineers” that question the “official reports”, without looking into who that group really is. I have been on that website for this group as well, it was easy to find by doing a search. The minuscule number of supporters on that website have do not constitute citing this group as a mainstream source. You may be overlooking that fact by NOT signing that “petition” on the website people might be saying that this is a complete farce of an argument, when the claim made is that only a few are “brave” enough to question the official report. What a crock! That argument discounts the notion that lack of signatures might mean that there is little support for those conclusions.
Many news outlets broadcasted Bin Laden’s claims of responsibility for the 9-11 attacks, including Al-Jazeera (October 30, 2004). See just one site:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html
When attempting to debunk this claim, do not go to another “truthers” site to support your claim, find an independent source to do that. Would you accept me citing my website to support my own claim? So do not expect me to do the same. I do not have time to respond to this nonsense, as I have too much going on, like studying for my classes to be wasting time on unsubstantiated BS fro truthers and conspiracy believers.
 | Amazon Price: $9.00 List Price: $16.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $5.49 List Price: $24.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $3.83 List Price: $8.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $12.34 List Price: $19.99 |
breakfastpop Level 8 Commenter 2 years ago
Great Hub, informative and moving. I too remember where I was on September 11. I was on my way to the Jersey Shore when a news broadcast announced that a plane hit the Towers. My immediate thought was a small single engine plane, because anything else was way too difficult to fathom. We pulled our car over and people were standing around by the beach, stunned and silent. We could actually see the smoke rising from the towers in the distance. My children worked in Manhattan at the time and a close friend in the Towers. I don't have to say what my husband and I were going through at that moment. Thankfully, our children and friend were safe, but my heart still cries for all those who lost their lives that day. I have no patience for idiots like Rosie who muddy the waters with their insanity.