Structural Engineers seek truth.

[rik st albans]

Could some of you guys help to get the truth onto this site for The Institute of Structural Engineers UK.

Here's what one guy said;

I would consider myself level headed and not one to be easily swayed by the 'conspiracy theories' that everyone so readily falls back on when this subject arises. I also consider myself reasonably well qualified to have a considered view on the events of September 11th 2001. Although not Chartered (before someone asks) I have several years experience as a Consultant Engineer. There are many problems with the events of 9/11 as portrayed by the official explanation but I think this is not the place for these things, but those who have an interest should look at the wider picture because to isolate out the physics, engineering or science serves only to obscure the fuller picture.

I have problems with the following (no particular order and the list is not exhaustive)

1)Models of the collapse used for the official story show the central core remaining after collapse. I would expect this as the connection cleats to the columns were identified as the weak point so force could not be transferred to buckle the columns. But in actuality both buildings were virtually raised to the ground.

2) NIST report simply ignores the events after the onset of collapse - this to me is at best strange as it would provide vital information for improvements to codes etc.

3)The majority of the arguments that are used to defend the in the official collapse story cannot be used for building 7 which fell symmetrically within its own footprint but did not have a plane hit it or aviation fuel fires. Further it is strange to me that a building that was damaged largely on only one corner can collapse in such a uniform manner?

4)The video footage of one of the towers clearly shows the 30ish floors above the impact damage rotating to a great degree as if it was to fall off and then mysteriously coming back onto line and falling vertically in a puff of dust and debris. This seems normal the columns are damaged more on one side of the building than the other, thus the upper section falls to one side. Why doesn’t it continue? The angular momentum must be huge? The structure below is (at this time) still unaffected so how does it fall back as if the structure below has disappeared?

5) The time taken for collapse. There is agreement that they fell virtually at freefall. Would the structure really offer no resistance? Even if only attributed 0.2 sec to each floor below the impact zone then we would have approximately freefall+ 75floors (say) x 0.2 = 25 secs ?????

I respectfully ask for considered engineering responses to these queries?

[rik st albans]

Here is the site.

http://www.istructe.org/forum/thread.asp?tid=877&fid=1&cid=

[chek]

Rik, firstly good on ya for wanting to introduce more evidence to counter the prevailing orthodoxy.

I'd recommend the work of Gordon Ross in analysing the collapses and their official explanations as a good starting point in terms that would be understood by fellow engineers.

http://gordonssite.com/index.html

There are some here in professionally related fields who may still respond to the thread directly.

[Stefan]

rik (and all),
If you're in or around London on the 8th June, please do come to see Gordon Ross speak (with Calum Douglas also on the bill) at our public meeting of that date (see Events for details).

Perhaps you could recommend same to the engineers on that thread?

[rodin]

Why bother? Free fall collapse is all the proof you need for CD. Divide and rule. Keep it complicated is their MO

[rik st albans]

[quote="rodin"]Why bother? Free fall collapse is all the proof you need for CD. Divide and rule. Keep it complicated is their MO[/quote


Why bother? Why BOTHER? What you doing then Rodin??

[QuitTheirClogs]

Hi Rik

The video “9/11 Revisited” has just been updated, and I think it is now the best video covering the wtc collapses.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4488542891415681105

See 9/11 blogger for discussion:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8715


9/11 Revisited (v2) includes parts of a presentation by Richard Gage of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The links to the full presentation are:

Part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6883441047197474365

Part 2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4995319675737766037

Part 3: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7686303663508827383

Website: http://ae911truth.org/


I highly recommend Kevin Ryan’s video – New Standard of Deception
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7465849608574246153


See also the article at Why the towers fell: Two theories – by William Rice
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=58571

[outsider]

[quote="rik st albans"]

[QuitTheirClogs]

Rik

I’ve had look at the thread on the structural engineers site. The mini-nukes theory is very much a minority view within the truth movement, and it’s one of a number of issues which have been very divisive.

I recommend reading the following by Steven Jones:
http://stj911.org/jones/focus_on_goal.html

[Engineer]

Well, 9/11 is now by far the most talked about topic on the Structural Engineers forum!

[Engineer]

here is the link

http://www.istructe.org/forum/forum.asp?FID=1

[Stefan]

Engineer,
Do you post on that forum? Perhaps you'd like to invite the members there to this event which the London 9/11 Truth Group are soon to put on:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=9272

And engineer and engineering student will be presenting their findings on varied aspects of the 9/11 events, with a question and answers session to follow.

[Graham]

asI am reluctant to sign up to yet another message board, can someone please ask on there about the conductivity of the steel? as steel is an excellent conductor of heat, how much of the rest of the structure would have to heat up, before the section required to weaken for collapse, would have got hot enough.

cheers.

[Snowygrouch]

A moot point,
According to NISTS own data NONE of the samples they tested showed ANY permanent microstructural changes due to heat.

This means that none of them even went into the "tempering zone" for any length of time. This directly implies temperatures of under about 400 degrees C to be conservative. Only about 3 of 98 exterior column sections paint tested showed temps above 250 degrees C (same on the few core sections they paint tested).

So heat sink or not....NIST was totally unable to offer ANY empirical evidence of temps above 400 degrees (but would only admit this to apply to temps below 650 degrees or so).

However anyone who knows about steel if you say "no microstructural changes" will know what this means re: the temps reached. Of course it varies depending on the actual steel in question; for the core ASTM A36 (I believe for the most part; just off the top of my head).

BTW according to NIST`s own graphs 400 degrees would reduce the strength by about 17%. (at 250 its well under 10%).

Calum

[Bongo]

It is a shame that the IstructE thread degraded into nonsence accusations and name calling.

A typical example of why the truth movement has still not suceeded in its task. Great going guys I see you have built up a lot of respect on that one

[spiv]

I thought it interesting that in the whole thread there seemed to be only two or three engineers who were arguing vociferously in support of the 'official' 911 theories, many kept (as is usual) quite silent. So has it given the many who don't post something to think about?

Well, who knows. But it must be realised that when a professional person holds a viewpoint, and this is then demonstrated to be wrong, it is very difficult to face up to it and admit that one was wrong. This means, in my opinion, that room must be given for a person to digest the facts and turn themselves around. It would be nice to think that professional engineers can come up with the correct answers at all times. I rather suspect that not many have even given the collapses of the twin towers much thought, and so have just been channelled along with the media brainwashing.

But, whatever one may think and feel, reducing any arguments to namecalling will not help. Just think how you would be feeling if, in your own area of specialism, someone 'came in from the cold' and tried putting all your own professional beliefs on their head.

[blackcat]

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!

Looks like we are getting somewhere at last.

[QuitTheirClogs]

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth - Petition:

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7.

http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php

[rik st albans]

A small step for mankind; an ENGINEER has changed his mind!

Welcome to Mr. Darryl Ward (a former skeptic).


http://www.istructe.org/forum/thread.asp?tid=877&fid=1&cid=

[rodin]

[quote="rik st albans"]

[scubadiver]

I wrote a brief letter to the Independent after they published a picture of the demolition of four nuclear power station stacks asking why the media have never paid attention to the collapses of the twin towers.

I didn't get a reply.

[rik st albans]

http://www.istructe.org/forum/thread.asp?tid=877&fid=1&cid=

[BiosBlake]

Rik, do you know if the engineers decided to take this to their technical forum? I noticed just before the webmaster locked the thread that Phil Wardle indicated that they would be doing so.

Also quite pleased that I managed to get my last reply to 'Mr Robinson' before we were locked out, I really think he shot himself in the foot with his last few posts.

[rodin]

First may I apologise for my first post in this thread. It was somewhat curt and gave the wrong impression. I have read more than 50% of the surprisingly long thread at the Engineers' site. It boils down to the free-fall of the towers.

[spiv]

Rodin, I cannot agree more with you, the impossibility of free-fall (in the context of the official explanations) has already been discussed time and time again , not only on this forum (I have myself made this point here about the free-fall on several occasions), but on others.

Yes, free-fall is the proof that the towers just could not have collapsed for the reasons told us in the 'official' explanation.

But maybe we need to also understand the difficulty those who have perhaps not studied physics have in getting their own heads around this 'proof' of the falsehood of the official explanations.

See a similar thread here
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=9698&highlight=

[rodin]

That is why the proof must be as lucid as possible, so that a critical mass of people can fully appreciate the full implication.

911 was a controlled demolition and murder
This waould be impossible without governent collusion

Quite a dawning of reality that would be for most.

Once the penny has dropped, the discussion moves on to how far, how deep. But the penny has to drop.

I am not thinking of converting joe public. Rather 2.2 and up science/maths/engineering/law/anything students and academics (initially). Will we every be able to force the tabloids or even broadsheets to come clean on this? I doubt it, since it proves they are complicit - probably held in check by Freemasonry, which itself seems to be hooked into the Zionist agenda since the Rothschild sponsored the illuminati scam.But all of that can come later.

For a 2-pronged attack on fantasy I suggest

911- physics impossible!

and

Where does house price inflation come from?

The 2 are intimately connected.