[quote]Vegita wrote:
Wait, yea this is your friend again right? The metalworking engineer or something?[/quote]
???
Why should he back up his shit? It’s obvious these guys don’t have the credentials. they want to make money selling dvds. Many credible people from many sources have debunked these whacky theories, but you fellows persist.
At least Makavali is an architect, someone with technical knowledge of this. The rest are guys that listen to Alex Jones.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Why should he back up his shit? It’s obvious these guys don’t have the credentials. they want to make money selling dvds. Many credible people from many sources have debunked these whacky theories, but you fellows persist.
At least Makavali is an architect, someone with technical knowledge of this. The rest are guys that listen to Alex Jones.[/quote]
Fine don’t back anything up, and join the chourus of people who sing on the internet who are ignored. I don’t really care. If you want to be credible and change peoples minds, you might actually have to do a little supporting.
Mak, it may not have been you who had the know it all metalworking or engineer friend, if not I apologise, my mistake. That part was pretty much just jesting with you anyways, the rest of the post however is serious and you didn’t want to address any of that?
V
Ok sorry I have to do this but I’m going to start this for Mak and Tom. I’ll let you two “debunk” my evidence since it’s pretty clear you two don’t have anything to bring to the table to support your claims.
Danny Jowenko â?? Proprietor, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V., a European demolition and construction company, with offices in the Netherlands. Founded 1980, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie is certified and holds permits to comply with the Dutch Explosives for Civil Use Act and the German Explosives Act. Jowenko’s explosives engineers also hold the German Certificate of Qualifications and the European Certificate for Shotfiring issued by The European Federation of Explosive Engineers.
- Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07:
Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.
Danny Jowenko: Yes, that’s right.
Jeff Hill: And I’ve come to my conclusions, too, that it couldn’t have came down by fire.
Danny Jowenko: No, it – absolutely not.
Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?
Danny Jowenko: Absolutely.
Jeff Hill: Yes? So, you as being a controlled demolitions expert, you’ve looked at the building, you’ve looked at the video and you’ve determined with your expertise that –
Danny Jowenko: I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn’t be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.
Jeff Hill: OK, 'cause I was reading on the Internet, people were asking about you and they said, I wonder – I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement of what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire. I said, “There’s no way that’s true.”
Danny Jowenko: No, no, no, absolutely not.
Jeff Hill: 'Cause if anybody was – Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , “Oh, it’s possible it came down from fire” and this and that and stuff like that --.
Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, “No, it was a controlled demolition”, you’re gone. You know?
Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you’ll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?
Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That’s the end of your – the end of the story.
Jeff Hill: Yeah, 'cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, “Pull it” in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn’t – didn’t want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously 'cause they knew what happened and they didn’t want to say it.
Danny Jowenko: Exactly . http://www.pumpitout.com
Kamal S. Obeid, BS CE, MS CE, SE, PE â?? Licensed Professional Structural and Civil Engineer, State of California.
- Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
“Only recently have I begun to examine the structural collapse of the buildings. Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well-planned and controlled demolition.”
Ali Mojahid, BS CE, MS CE, PhD Civil and Architectural Engineering, PE, SI â?? Licensed Professional Engineer, States of Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Licensed Special Inspector / Threshold Inspector, State of Florida. Licensed Building Inspector, Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI).
Extensive experience in structural design, structural analysis and structural building elements combined actions under severe weather, torsional loads, windloads for numerous projects including sport arenas, airport concourse and cargo buildings, hotels, condominiums, high-end residential and commercial buildings. Extensive forensic engineering experience on numerous projects after hurricanes Andrew, Charlie, Frances, and Katrina. Over 20 years of experience as a structural and forensic engineer.
- Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"Just another conspiracy against some groups of people for the US administration to beat the war drums. How can a building just collapse onto itself without having controlled explosions inside the building?
Let me ask a few questions pertaining to if it was not a controlled demolition.
Most of high-rises are designed such that the lower frame members take most of the loads of the building above them. So as we go down on any building the frame members get stiffer and bulkier. So what happened in WTC? The lower frame members were not taking the loads of building above them or what.
Secondly the designs normally carries an F.S of 1.44-2.5 depending on the material used, meaning the members will not yield under 1.44-2.5 times the loads it is designed for. What happened here…can the government explain?
The high-rise when properly designed have a lateral stability and are braced properly which redistribute the loads if some members even fail.
In this case , from the videos of crash we have seen, it is clear that the airplanes hit one side of the tower, which could have caused serious damage to structural members, The member forces must have been redistributed unless the plastic yield point was reached and the members gave in. Again then since the accident was a non-symmetrical, so the top portion of WTC must show leaning on the weak side before collapse. Which is not the case.
A building never collapses like this under this phenomenon. Even a finite element method analysis of the building collapse does not show that the building will collapse within few minutes of such a catastrophe.
The building must have been designed to take the lateral sway forces of wind and redistribute the loads to other members, so why did it not happen in the case of this accident?
Seeing various video footage make me think that the controlled demolition started from top to bottom, as if it would have started from bottom, the building collapse pattern would be different than the current."
William Rice, BS CE, MS CE, PE â?? Licensed Professional Engineer, State of Vermont. Worked on structural steel and concrete buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia for two of the nationâ??s largest building construction companies; the Austin Company and the George A. Fuller Construction Company. Former Professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses for over 20 years.
- Essay Vermont Guardian 3/1/07: "Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11. …
The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newtonâ??s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.
Even if Newtonâ??s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn’t exist.
Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and “debunks” the message rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days for the presidentâ??s 9/11 Commission to start an “investigation” into a tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commissionâ??s investigation also didn’t include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the “unusual and unprecedented” manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed. http://www.vermontguardian.com
- Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"About a year ago I became aware of the unprecedented collapse of WTC Building 7 and the Twin Towers at free-fall speed. Professor Steven Jones’ video lecture was a stunning revelation and a wake-up call. My experience and further research confirmed the uncomfortable facts as presented by Professor Jones.
I also found it disturbing that most politicians seem to have little interest in exploring any theory other than the official jetliners / fires-caused-the-collapses theory. I was told the following in a response letter from one of our representatives in Washington: "Regarding conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, a number of theories questioning the events that occurred on and before September 11, 2001 have circulated.
They are patently false. Several videos have been posted on the internet on this subject, and they too are false."… “The 9/11 Commission, a bipartisan group of nationally respected individuals, evaluated all relevant testimony and documents related to the events and provided a detailed account of what actually happened on that fateful morning.” However, this “nationally respected” 9/11 Commission failed to include some very important facts and testimonies in their report even though they had to have been aware of them. For example, the 9/11 Commission Report completely omitted the unprecedented collapse of Building 7.
Many of the facts and theories that engineers have learned in such courses as structures, physics, chemistry, metallurgy, etc., have held true for longer than the hundred-year history of structural-steel-framed high-rise buildings and they held true on 9/11/01. Only controlled demolition could have provided the types of building collapses displayed three times on that fateful day."
Rick Fowlkes, BS CE, MBA, PE â?? Licensed Professional Engineer, States of Arizona and California. Professional structural engineer with over 38 years experience with commercial, residential, and industrial engineering designs, including design of electrical power plants, substations, and transmission line structures. Owned and operated his own consulting engineering business since 1983.
- Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
“The truth has not been told up to this point, but the evidence brought to light by the Architects and Engineer’s for 9/11 Truth is compelling proof that a more thorough investigation is indicated.”
Hans De Jonge â?? Mechanical engineer (diploma 1966), structural engineer and civil engineer concrete and steel (diploma 1972). 20 years experience as a structural engineer. Currently adviser and technical controller on a house-building project.
- Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
“In January 1970 I visited the Twin Towers under construction as a student structural engineering and was impressed by the sophisticated design and the new (for me) building philosophy of the huge inner columns and the outside steel frame leaving an enormous office space without any column on every floor. The impact of one airplane cannot damage this large structure very much because the support is instantly re-arranged to the undamaged support system. The total collapse is therefore technically impossible.”
Edward E. Knesl, MS Eng, PE â?? Licensed Professional Civil and Structural Engineer, State of Arizona. Thirty five years of domestic and international experience in commercial and transportation projects, including: Structural Design and Analysis, Construction Administration and Management, Plan Review, and Special Inspection.
- Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor bellow.
We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.
The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn’t know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from?"
Joseph Testa, BS CE, PE â?? Former Civil Engineer, Department of Transportation, State of New York. Former Licensed Professional Engineer, State of New York. Experienced with Highway Design, Drainage Design, Pedestrian access Design, Metals Engineering and Structural Steel Quality Assurance. Provided quality assurance for structural steel used in New York State bridges, and analyzing and designing repairs for deteriorated and otherwise damaged metal bridges.
- Comment 2/6/06: " I’ve worked in structural steel for years and I’ve studied major structural collapses. I don’t believe the collapse witnessed was possible due to the planes and ensuing fires alone. I don’t believe the core verticals would have buckled as they apparently did, unless first taken out from below. I don’t claim to know who might have been responsible, but a preponderance of eyewitness testimony supports secondary [explosive] devices.
IMO, nobody knows what really happened, despite countless claims of certainty on both sides of the aisle. …
Ideally, we need to see an accurate scale model, or at the minimum, an accurate detailed computer simulation & recreation to show that such a complete instantaneous failure of the central vertical columns is even possible."
Nathan S. Lomba, BS CE, PE, SE, M.ASCE â?? Licensed Professional Civil Engineer, State of California. Licensed Professional Civil and Structural Engineer, State of Idaho. Experience ranges from custom residential to heavy industrial structures.
Major project involvements include: Lead civil/structural engineer on a $700 million project for the U.S. Air Force; structural design engineer for a 41,000 sq. ft. Pulp Machine Building; and Resident Engineer on a 550 MW Natural-gas fired power plant. Member, American Concrete Institute (ACI). Member, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute (SEI). Professional Member, American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). 39 years experience.
- Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading?
The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. â??Ifâ?? you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and â??ifâ?? you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.
Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft.
Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flamesâ??just as the handle on a frying pan doesn’t get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.
Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, â??ifâ?? the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side.
The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one sideâ??much like the topping of a tall redwood treeâ??not a concentric, vertical collapse.
For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the causes for the structural failures. "
Dennis J. Kollar, PE â?? Structural Engineer. Licensed Professional Engineer, State of Wisconsin.
- Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
“For me the most convincing aspect that the 911 collapse was a controlled demolition is the recorded explosions on the 9/11 Eyewitness DVD. The explosions, along with the uniformity and totality of the collapses, when added to the 100’s of so-called coincidences on, before and after that day, add up to more evidence of a Government involved crime than has convicted most people in our prisons today.”
David C. Avina, BS ME â?? Project Construction Manager. 15 years of heavy utility and industrial construction experience. 5 years of operations experience. 10 years of project engineer experience in the construction of large utility power plants and industrial process facilities. Experienced with all phases of construction practices and procedures from demolition, civil, structural, mechanical electrical controls, and through startup and commissioning.
- Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
“Based upon the analysis of the telecast video reports, interviews of on site personnel and witness testimony, including that of the building lease holder and also those other reports provided by independent engineering observations, I am of the firm understanding that the collapse of the World Trade buildings 1, 2, and 7 were not caused by a plane impact, nor was this collapse caused by a fire from the fuel from the alleged plane impacts.”
Erwin De Jong, MS Mechanical and Structural Eng â?? Aerospace and Structural Engineer.
- Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: “From a technical point of view it is not explainable that a steel structure sinks down into its own footprint with obviously no resistance after intense fires or even a plane crash.”
Edward S. Munyak, BS ME, MS Eng. Mgmt., PE â?? Licensed Professional Mechanical Engineer and Fire Protection Engineer, State of California. 20 years experience as a Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs. Contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities. Member, Board of Directors, Northern California - Nevada Chapter, Society of Fire Protection Engineers. Currently Fire Protection Engineer for the city of San Jose, CA, 10th largest city in the U.S.
- Presentation at the 2007 National Fire Protection Association World Fire Safety Conference “High Rise Buildings and Large Fires - Structural loads & thermal strain - What can happen” 6/4/07:
"We will find that the government investigations into building collapse [at the World Trade Center] must consider controlled demolition as far more probable since fire effects collapse could never be duplicated. …
-
The concentric nearly freefall speed exhibited by each building was identical to most controlled demolitions.
-
The aircraft impact and fire severity effects were magnified in the NIST reports.
-
Collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7 were not caused by fire effects. …
The NIST fire results proved that the fire loading in WTC was consistent with all building code assumptions and that the steel frame temperatures were not even close to the critical temperature of steel 593 degree Centigrade. Analysis also showed that the fire in WTC 2 [South Tower] was almost under control and running out of fuel when it suddenly and totally failed in less than one hour.
Analysis further shows that the fire was oxygen starved hence not nearly at hot as other high rise fires. The official reports and conclusions had many technical distortions and obfuscations of the excellent research input in arriving at a flawed, politically driven conclusion of building performance."
-
Editor’s note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission’s “full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.” Watch the collapse video here. And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.
-
Presentation to the Northern California - Nevada Chapter, Society of Fire Protection Engineers 4/21/06: "A steel frame building with the mass of WTC 1 or 2 could have partial structural collapse after aircraft impact only if the heat output was at least 100 times the heat release rate of the accountable fuel load and ventilation conditions in the south tower.
This fire would need to involve every floor from impact floor to the roof with most windows broken and providing plenty of oxygen as in the Edificio Windsor fire in Madrid.
This most severe fire would need to burn for at least 12 hours before loss of strength from heat; and thermal strains from expansion and contraction caused partial collapse." http://www.ncnsfpe.org
- Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"I have collaborated with a research chemical engineer (P.E. in CA also) and he has worked with NIST reports that positively show that the jet fuel contributed very little to the duration of the fires and that in fact all the fires were very weak in historical perspective. They were oxygen starved as evidenced by the black smoke. If you dig deeper into the NIST reports they confirm that steel temperatures were low.
I presented for continuing education credits at the NFPA World Safety Conference in Boston, MA 6/4/2007. My presentation showed that all three WTC “collapses” have no resemblance to any previous high rise fire, full scale fire tests in the UK involving much higher steel temperatures, or computer simulations using finite element analysis. "
Mikos S. Fabersunne, BS Eng, PE â?? Licensed Professional Mechanical Engineer, State of California. Hazardous Substances Engineer with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (oversight of seismic hazard study of industrial wastewater treatment plant; design of piping system; construction oversight, database development). Formerly Mechanical Engineer with the California Energy Commission. Over 25 years as Licensed Professional Mechanical Engineer.
- Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"The nearly free-fall velocity and the symmetrical path of collapse of Building 7, the confined footprint of the building’s debris, the lack of any external force applied to the building’s exterior are suspicious.
Coupled with these factors, a visual comparison of the collapse with that of buildings being leveled by professional, controlled demolition suggests that the cause officially attributed to the failure (weakening of the structural members due to fire) is exceedingly unlikely. The true cause was likely an intentional, controlled demolition using explosive thermal charges typically employed for such purposes.
The failures of WTC Buildings 1 and 2, likewise, are suspicious due to the inherent design strength of the buildings’ cores to withstand aircraft impact; the relatively low temperature of a kerosene fire v. the temperature required for structural steel failure; the presence of subterranean molten steel, suggesting that a high-temperature cutting material was employed (“thermate” or a derivative); the debris cloud, which resembled that from an explosion; and like Building 7, the near free-fall velocity of collapse.
Together these factors suggest that the cause of collapse was an intentional deployment of a professionally designed and executed demolition process utilizing systematically and remotely detonated, thermal cutting charges strategically situated throughout the buildings on key structural support members and their joints."
Should I continue? Where do we go from here? Let the thread die with no response or debunking only to have some of you make the same ad-homenim attacks and baseless comments? Here I have provided statements by professionals in the demolitions, construction, engineering and architecual fields which support the idea that a new investigation is needed.
Also I just wanted to throw in one more thing. The comment was made, I don’t know by who, that the people who are in support of a new investigation are simply doing so to take money out of my and other conspiracy theorists pockets for thier own gain. I really don’t think Charlie Sheen needs any of my or anyones money. I’m sure someone will just make another baseless character attack on him, but so be it.
V
Nothing? Well maybe someone will feel more up to it tomorrow?
V
Are these guys demolition experts? Meaning, have they ever brought down a structure this size? In a controlled demolition? Or done some testing in a similar situation as the Towers?
Now again explain to me how an inside job could be accomplished when it takes a long time, over a week for a crew of guys to place charges in a buidling for a demolition. explain how no one will say a thing, or leak anything to the press.
Explain how the tallest building ever dropped was only 1/3 the height of the towers.
And you won’t have any answers. Stop looking for camels in the forests of Pa. when you here hoof beats. But you guys love Alex Jones and eat his stuff up. And for every expert you have cut and pasted from some whacko sight, there are legitimate scientists who think it is. But some of us think it’s a waste of time to get to involved in such a ridiculous argument to great of a degree.
So let’s just say you won. You get a cookie, send me your address and I’ll drop one in the mail. A good one too. And the rest of the world will still think you’re nuts and nothing changes.