The Twin Towers fell because...

[richard]

airplanes were flown into them. There were no bombs at the bottom of the building. There was no controlled demolition. If anyone disagrees with the NIST report on the collapse, please comment.

[amman254]

airplanes were flown into them. There were no bombs at the bottom of the building. There was no controlled demolition. If anyone disagrees with the NIST report on the collapse, please comment.

well actually about 99.99% of the content of this bullettin board are the comments you're looking for. the archives are full of such.

just look around a bit and you will find more than enough to keep you busy for quite a while...

greetings

[AuGmENTor]

airplanes were flown into them. There were no bombs at the bottom of the building. There was no controlled demolition. If anyone disagrees with the NIST report on the collapse, please comment.Ummmmm, we ALL disagree with the NIST report to varying degrees. Search here man. Are you asking to start trouble, or do you really want to know? It's all here. I wish I had seen this an hour ago, but I hafta run and go to work. The links are here.

[Chana3812]

Only a complete IDIOT still believes that jet fuel and impact brought down the towers.

Ask "Who controlled the demolition?" ..... then you will be starting down the right path.

[Eckolaker]

Steven Jones pretty much sums up the Controlled Demolition of both towers and building 7.

NIST's own report and tests show the steel in the buildings should not have failed. NIST only offers explanation for what initiated collapse but didn't cover what caused the entire building to collapse. NIST has yet to release a report on building 7. Their current tests and investigations are including the use of explosives to initiate collapse in building 7.

William Rodriguez is a living eyewitness of the controlled demolition and has given several vivid accounts of the events of that day. NYPD and NYFD know there were bombs in the buildings.

You're either completely ignorant or completely corrupt if you still believe the "official myth" about 9/11.

As everyone else has mentioned, this board is full of archives, just pick a topic and read.

If you have come in here in hopes of creating confusion, division, or sway one of us here out of what we already know is true, you would just be wasting your time.

[richard]

Only a complete IDIOT still believes that jet fuel and impact brought down the towers.

Ask "Who controlled the demolition?" ..... then you will be starting down the right path.

Hmmm, only a complete idiot would believe that. Well, no structural engineers accomplished in forensics have disagreed with the NIST report. In fact, those that have spoken on the subject have affirmed the NIST account. I do not believe that these gentlemen are idiots nor do I believe that they are all in on a conspiracy. I also wonder why you believe yourself to be such an expert on the matter.

I have continually heard from conspiracy theorists that the impact of the plane + ensuing fires could not have brought down the towers. I read the NIST report on the two towers, and have found nothing to disagree with. As a structural engineer myself, I've analyzed several buildings before and understand the information in the report.

Almost all the conspiracy sites I have been to have over-simplified and incorrect assessments for how the NIST report is wrong. They continually point out that other large burning buildings have burnt for much longer without failing, without even mentioning the detrimental effect of the World Trade Center's spray on insulation getting knocked off.

I should've been more specific in my question. I would like to know if any well-accomplished structural engineers involved in forensics have significant disagreements with the NIST report. I'm not referring to civil engineers who've touched on structures or physics professors. I'm not talking about demolition experts. I'm talking about structural engineers with a PhD, who specialize in analyzing failed buildings. There are plenty of them out there, but I haven't heard of a single one disagreeing with the NIST report. Trust me, they know way more about the subject than any physics professor. I don't have a closed mind on this subject. But before I give this conspiracy theory serious thought, I do insist that I hear from a valid expert on the subject and not just some random engineer whose points don't make sense anyway.

[Gold9472]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

Richard. Is there a coverup regarding the 9/11 attacks being perpetrated by the U.S. Government?

[Eckolaker]

Hmmm, only a complete idiot would believe that. Well, no structural engineers accomplished in forensics have disagreed with the NIST report. In fact, those that have spoken on the subject have affirmed the NIST account. I do not believe that these gentlemen are idiots nor do I believe that they are all in on a conspiracy. I also wonder why you believe yourself to be such an expert on the matter.

I have continually heard from conspiracy theorists that the impact of the plane + ensuing fires could not have brought down the towers. I read the NIST report on the two towers, and have found nothing to disagree with. As a structural engineer myself, I've analyzed several buildings before and understand the information in the report.

Almost all the conspiracy sites I have been to have over-simplified and incorrect assessments for how the NIST report is wrong. They continually point out that other large burning buildings have burnt for much longer without failing, without even mentioning the detrimental effect of the World Trade Center's spray on insulation getting knocked off.

I should've been more specific in my question. I would like to know if any well-accomplished structural engineers involved in forensics have significant disagreements with the NIST report. I'm not referring to civil engineers who've touched on structures or physics professors. I'm not talking about demolition experts. I'm talking about structural engineers with a PhD, who specialize in analyzing failed buildings. There are plenty of them out there, but I haven't heard of a single one disagreeing with the NIST report. Trust me, they know way more about the subject than any physics professor. I don't have a closed mind on this subject. But before I give this conspiracy theory serious thought, I do insist that I hear from a valid expert on the subject and not just some random engineer whose points don't make sense anyway.

First off...This is the internet son, we're all Structural engineers.

That said, I tend to agree with NISTs findings, although I disagree with their conclusion. NIST found several of the steel columns from both towers. The columns in question were all located on floors that had been impacted by the Jets and where the hottest fires had occurred. NIST said that none of the columns tested were have found to have been exposed to anything over 600 or so celsius. NIST also tested many of the floor/truss assemblies. All passed the required fire testing. Which is (If I recall correctly) to be exposed to over 1000 celsius for atleast two hours. The documentary "9/11 Mysteries" has video from the NIST tests you can see for yourself. Secondly, NIST has never once explained what caused both WTC 1 and 2 to completely collapse to the ground. They only attempted to explain what initiated "glabal collapse". Furthermore, I reidderate that NIST has yet to provide a report on bldg. 7 and their current investigation is using controlled demolition through explosive charges as a possible "global collapse" initiater.

FEMA in following the same hypothesis as NIST, said this hypothesis had a "low probability of occurrance".


On a side note: I have spoken to several Cal-Trans engineer's who privately do not believe the official story. Unfortunately in three years of attempts they have refused to go on record and let me bring a tape-recorder. Yes, these are engineers who decide if California freeways are properly fitted for Earthquakes.

[PhilosophyGenius]

Richard, what are you thoughts on this:


8:30 a.m.: FBI/CIA Anti-Terrorist Task Force Away From Washington on Training Exercise in California
USA Today reports that at this time, “a joint FBI/CIA anti-terrorist task force that specifically prepared for this type of disaster” is on a “training exercise in Monterey, Calif.” Consequently, “as of late Tuesday, with airports closed around the country, the task force still [hasn]’t found a way to fly back to Washington.” [USA Today, 9/11/2001] The US politics website evote.com adds that the FBI has deployed “all of its anti-terrorist and top special operations agents at a training exercise (complete with all associated helicopters and light aircraft) in Monterey, California.” So at the time of the attacks, “the chief federal agency responsible for preventing such crimes [is] being AWOL.” [Evote [.com], 9/11/2001]



(8:38 a.m.-8:43 a.m.): NORAD Personnel Mistake Hijacking for Part of an Exercise
When Boston flight control first contacts NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) to notify it of the hijacking of Flight 11 (see (8:37 a.m.)), personnel there initially mistake it for a simulation as part of an exercise. Lieutenant Colonel Dawne Deskins, mission crew chief for the Vigilant Guardian exercise currently taking place (see (6:30 a.m.)), later says that initially she and everybody else at NEADS thought the call was part of Vigilant Guardian. [Newhouse News Service, 1/25/2002] Although most of the personnel on the NEADS operations floor have no idea what the day’s exercise is supposed to entail, most previous major NORAD exercises included a hijack scenario. [Utica Observer-Dispatch, 8/5/2004; USA Today, 4/18/2004] The day’s exercise is in fact scheduled to include a simulated hijacking later on. Major Kevin Nasypany, the NEADS mission crew commander, had helped design it. Thinking the reported hijacking is part of this exercise he actually says out loud, “The hijack’s not supposed to be for another hour.” In the ID section, at the back right corner of the NEADS operations floor, technicians Stacia Rountree, Shelley Watson, and Maureen Dooley, react to the news. Rountree asks, “Is that real-world?” Dooley confirms, “Real-world hijack.” Watson says, “Cool!” [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006] NORAD commander Major General Larry Arnold, who is at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, also says that when he first hears of the hijacking, in the minutes after NEADS is alerted to it, “The first thing that went through my mind was, is this part of the exercise? Is this some kind of a screw-up?” [ABC News, 9/11/2002; 9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003] At 8:43 a.m., Major James Fox, the leader of the NEADS Weapons Team, comments, “I’ve never seen so much real-world stuff happen during an exercise.” [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006]



(9:00 a.m.): Northern Vigilance Operation Canceled; False Blips Purged from Radar Screens
A soldier monitors a NORAD radar screen. [Source: National War College]
For the past two days, NORAD has had fighters deployed to Alaska and Northern Canada. They are there for a real-world maneuver called Operation Northern Vigilance, tasked with monitoring a Russian air force exercise being conducted in the Russian Arctic all this week (see September 9-11, 2001). [NORAD, 9/9/2001] At its operations center deep inside Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado, NORAD is also reportedly at “full ‘battle staff’ levels for a major annual exercise that tests every facet of the organization.” Canadian Captain Mike Jellinek is one hour into his shift, overseeing the operations center, when he is contacted by NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), based in Rome, NY: The FAA believes there is a hijacking in progress and is asking NORAD for support. As the Toronto Star reports, “In a flash, Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what’s known as an ‘inject,’ is purged from the screens.” [Toronto Star, 12/9/2001] NORAD has the capacity to inject simulated material, including mass attacks, during exercises, “as though it was being sensed for the first time by a radar site.” [US Department of Defense, 1/14/1999] However, Northern Vigilance is a military operation, not a training exercise. [NORAD, 9/9/2001; US Congress, 3/11/2005] So presumably the “simulated information” is part of a NORAD exercise currently taking place, such as Vigilant Guardian (see (6:30 a.m.)). Therefore, many minutes into the real 9/11 attacks, there may have been false radar blips causing confusion among NORAD personnel. Additional details, such as whose radar screens have false blips and over what duration, are unknown. The Russians, after seeing the attacks on New York and Washington on television, will quickly communicate that they are canceling their Russian Arctic exercise. [Toronto Star, 12/9/2001; National Post, 10/19/2002]


(9:04 a.m.): Flight 175 Crash Leads to Confusion at NEADS; Some Think it is a Simulation NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) in Rome, NY, has just received a phone call informing it of the hijacking of Flight 175 (see (9:03 a.m.)), and several personnel have witnessed the plane crashing into the second WTC tower live on CNN. There is considerable confusion on the operations floor over whether the plane seen on TV is the hijacking they have just been informed of. Tape recordings capture NEADS personnel in the background trying to make sense of things: “Is this explosion part of that that we’re lookin’ at now on TV?” ... “And there’s a possible second hijack also—a United Airlines” ... “Two planes?” Someone comments, “I think this is a damn input, to be honest.” “Input” refers to a simulations input, as part of a training exercise. [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006] NORAD has the capacity to inject simulated material, including mass attacks, during exercises, “as though it was being sensed for the first time by a radar site.” [US Department of Defense, 1/14/1999] At least one military exercise this morning is reported to include simulated information injected onto radar screens (see (9:00 a.m.)). At the current time, despite the earlier crash of Flight 11, NORAD has yet to cancel a major exercise it is in the middle of (see After 9:03 a.m.). [Filson, 2004, pp. 59]


(9:09 a.m. and After): Numerous False Reports of Hijacked Aircraft
According to the 9/11 Commission, “During the course of the morning, there were multiple erroneous reports of hijacked aircraft in the system.” [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] Around 9:09 a.m., the FAA Command Center reports that 11 aircraft are either not communicating with FAA facilities or flying unexpected routes. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/2002] NORAD’s Major General Larry Arnold claims that during the “four-hour ordeal” of the attacks, a total of 21 planes are identified as possible hijackings. [Filson, 2004, pp. 71; Code One Magazine, 1/2002] Robert Marr, head of NEADS on 9/11, says, “At one time I was told that across the nation there were some 29 different reports of hijackings.” [Newhouse News Service, 3/31/2005] It is later claimed that these false reports cause considerable chaos. Larry Arnold says that particularly during the time between the Pentagon being hit at 9:37 and Flight 93 going down at around 10:06, “a number of aircraft are being called possibly hijacked � There was a lot of confusion, as you can imagine.” [Filson, 2004, pp. 55,122; Filson, 2004, pp. 55,122] He says, “We were receiving many reports of hijacked aircraft. When we received those calls, we might not know from where the aircraft had departed. We also didn’t know the location of the airplane.” [Code One Magazine, 1/2002] According to Robert Marr, “There were a number of false reports out there. What was valid? What was a guess? We just didn’t know.” [Filson, 2004, pp. 73]

NORAD has the ability to intercept any plane in America that goes of course within 5 minutes. Yet on 9/11 NONE of the planes were even close to being intercepted. Do you think these wargames had anything to do with that?

[richard]

I've read many of the papers that say the given explanation of the Towers falling is wrong, because I am intrigued by the growing popularity of this conspiracy theory. I've researched both sides. Every argument I've heard from the conspiracy believers has been either technically incorrect (blatantly), or an oversimplified argument neglecting several important aspects of structural behavior.

I just believe that, because of my knowledge of the structural engineering community, if there was a serious controversy here, I would certainly hear about it from a credible source. I haven't. The few disagreements there have been within the structural engineering community are related to how the stresses were redistributed. Both sides agree that the Towers could not possibly have stood with the heat loads experienced and a large amount of thermal insulation for the steel knocked off. For those of you that don't know, steel loses a very significant amount of strength and stiffness when it reaches high temperatures. Steel also buckles very easily when it has large unrestrained lengths. Steel truss to column connections provide very little (almost negligable) resistance when struck with ridiculously high impact loads, such as the those in the Towers experienced. In fact, the tower falling at a speed close to that of a free-falling object is expected under such loads.

I encourage you all to search for competent sources and observing both sides of the argument, instead of just searching for what you want to hear. That's what I've done and that's how I've come to this conclusion. However, I reiterate that I'm eager to hear a dissenting opinion from an accomplished structural engineer specializing in forensics if there is one.

[PhilosophyGenius]

Richard- How would you explain the collapse of WTC 7 and the way it feel straigt down in a matter of seconds? How would you explain the fact that Guiliani was warned to move away from the WTC because it was going to collapse before it actually did? (he said that in his own words)

And I hope you stick around this site.

[richard]

First off...This is the internet son, we're all Structural engineers.

That said, I tend to agree with NISTs findings, although I disagree with their conclusion. NIST found several of the steel columns from both towers. The columns in question were all located on floors that had been impacted by the Jets and where the hottest fires had occurred. NIST said that none of the columns tested were have found to have been exposed to anything over 600 or so celsius. NIST also tested many of the floor/truss assemblies. All passed the required fire testing. Which is (If I recall correctly) to be exposed to over 1000 celsius for atleast two hours. The documentary "9/11 Mysteries" has video from the NIST tests you can see for yourself. Secondly, NIST has never once explained what caused both WTC 1 and 2 to completely collapse to the ground. They only attempted to explain what initiated "glabal collapse". Furthermore, I reidderate that NIST has yet to provide a report on bldg. 7 and their current investigation is using controlled demolition through explosive charges as a possible "global collapse" initiater.

FEMA in following the same hypothesis as NIST, said this hypothesis had a "low probability of occurrance".


On a side note: I have spoken to several Cal-Trans engineer's who privately do not believe the official story. Unfortunately in three years of attempts they have refused to go on record and let me bring a tape-recorder. Yes, these are engineers who decide if California freeways are properly fitted for Earthquakes.

I doubt that everyone on this site is a structural engineer, and I don't understand why I should assume everyone is a structural engineer here just because it's the internet. But at least you've read the report, son. The NIST report on WTC 7 has not been published yet, but I have read the preliminary report. I admit that the failure of WTC 7 will be far more difficult to classify.

You say that several Cal- Trans engineers privately do not believe the story. That's fine, if they were to go public with it I'd be happy to read what they have to say. Once again, I have an open mind on the subject. I'm not knowledgable about the subject of military simulations: I prefer to analyze structural aspects rather than chase conspiracy theories. That's what I'm familiar with and that's what I'm interested in. If I came to the conclusion that the Towers may have fallen due to some other circumstance, then I will review other information regarding the conspiracy.

Please point out to me where in the report it says that none of the columns were heated to 600 degrees C. I didn't notice that.

The term "global collapse" means that the whole building fails. The NIST report reviews what initiated the global collapse. "Disproportionate collapse" refers to the whole building's collapse being initiated by the failure of a few critical elements. Such is believed to be the failure of WTC 7. I have no doubt that if demolition is a possible failure for the building, NIST will not neglect to explore that failure mechanism.

The trusses subjected to 1000 degrees C for two hours had their spray on insulation intact, unlike many of the trusses in the Towers after the collapse. The purpose of that test was to determine whether or not the trusses with the insulation on were up to code or not, which they were. As you know, being a structural engineer, there is no possible way that trusses without thermal insulation would be keep their original form if they were subjected to 1000 degrees C for two hours.

[richard]

I guess what you meant by that is that you don't believe I'm a structural engineer. Well, regardless of what you believe, I am a structural engineer, though I'm just starting out. I do have a Master's in Structural Engineering, but I still don't think I'm qualified to diagnose a disaster such as the World Trade Center. I took an earthquake design class in school, but I design in Texas, so we consider wind as a controlling factor instead. Neverless, earthquake engineering have little with the World Trade Center collapse. Earthquake loads are dynamic loads, and cause buildings to oscillate. Earthquake engineering is concerned with the natural period of the building and dampening the oscillations. The WTC Towers did oscillate a little bit, which knocked of some of the insulation, but that's about as much as it has to due with the towers. It might have something to due with the WTC 7 collapse, but I don't know about that yet. Anyway, have a nice day.

[Eckolaker]

I've read many of the papers that say the given explanation of the Towers falling is wrong, because I am intrigued by the growing popularity of this conspiracy theory. I've researched both sides. Every argument I've heard from the conspiracy believers has been either technically incorrect (blatantly), or an oversimplified argument neglecting several important aspects of structural behavior.

I just believe that, because of my knowledge of the structural engineering community, if there was a serious controversy here, I would certainly hear about it from a credible source. I haven't. The few disagreements there have been within the structural engineering community are related to how the stresses were redistributed. Both sides agree that the Towers could not possibly have stood with the heat loads experienced and a large amount of thermal insulation for the steel knocked off. For those of you that don't know, steel loses a very significant amount of strength and stiffness when it reaches high temperatures. Steel also buckles very easily when it has large unrestrained lengths. Steel truss to column connections provide very little (almost negligable) resistance when struck with ridiculously high impact loads, such as the those in the Towers experienced. In fact, the tower falling at a speed close to that of a free-falling object is expected under such loads.

I encourage you all to search for competent sources and observing both sides of the argument, instead of just searching for what you want to hear. That's what I've done and that's how I've come to this conclusion. However, I reiterate that I'm eager to hear a dissenting opinion from an accomplished structural engineer specializing in forensics if there is one.

Uhhh, do you just choose to decide what peices of evidence NIST presented are needed to fit the official story and which ones can be thrown out? How is that NIST could say none of the steel columns reached temps of over 600 celsius, yet you say fires were hot enough to cause steel deformation?

As I can agree that the Floor Truss assemblies were not designed to support the weight of the floors above, but this is what NIST used as the "global collapse" initiater. Plane impacts, fire-proofing removed, hot fires, floor assemblies sagged, top floors crashed down on lower intact floors, and on down, yada yada.

Now, NIST used a Shotgun blast to test how the fireproofing material would react to impacts from high velocity peices of metal. Now, not only did their test not really prove their theory, but it also suggest that both planes would have had to disintegrate into little peices in order for the same effect to be achieved. That said, this test on a hypothesis does not fit the evidence. Evidence of both planes recovered from ground zero after the attacks. In other words, the planes did not turn into "bird shot" after impacting the towers.

Essentially the fireproofing being largely removed is a "Straw man" agrument.

As for the towers falling at an expected free-fall rate without the use of CD, is well, ridiculous. Those were 110-story buildings. If each floor only resisted for 1/20th of a second thats still a huge time gap from virtual free-fall. Secondly, both towers were reduced to dust. Law of conservation of momentum son. You can't have progressive collapse and pulverization. Physics don't allow for it. In order for the towers to collapse at near free-fall speed the impacting floors would literally have to speed up.

Many here will sleep at night with a LIHOP scenario...I know better.

[PhilosophyGenius]

So Richard, what about the wargames and prior knowledge? Does that mean anything to you?

Stick around on this site, it'll be fun.

[Eckolaker]

Please point out to me where in the report it says that none of the columns were heated to 600 degrees C. I didn't notice that.
Well considering its a graphic in the main report, it should be easy to locate. Its actually a over-head floorplan view highlighting the structures. They made several graphics for each floor to not only show heat exposure but damage due to the plane impacts.


The trusses subjected to 1000 degrees C for two hours had their spray on insulation intact, unlike many of the trusses in the Towers after the collapse. The purpose of that test was to determine whether or not the trusses with the insulation on were up to code or not, which they were. As you know, being a structural engineer, there is no possible way that trusses without thermal insulation would be keep their original form if they were subjected to 1000 degrees C for two hours.

Negative, I suggest you view the videos of the tests and review the report. Pretty sure both scenarios were tested. Besides, Structural steel, as you know is given an ASTM rating before fireproofing would be added. Not to mention that a structural engineer would also not consider fireproofing when calculating load bearing under normal conditions, and what building code requires. Fireproofing is only added to decrease a specific columns exposier to fire should on occur in that area.


Furthermore, as you would agree the Floor Trusses only were responsible for bearing the load of that floor and the weight directly connected to its surface area. IE, people, office furniture, etc. Its also largely agreed that the building redistrbuted the load to the remaining intact intact steel box columns and curtain wall members where the planes initially entered the building. Like a pencil penetrating a misquito netting.

[richard]

I feel that I'm one against many here, and though it's fun, I don't have time to respond to all the arguments. First of all, the NIST report in NO WAY says that no column reached a temperature of 600 C. Also, the trusses and columns would fail anyway under much lower temperatures than that considering many of the supports on each floor are removed. The supports of the structure (columns, etc.) were not pulverized. The steel massive steel structure fell and went through the connections below like butter, there's no way those connections could provide 1/20 of a second worth of resistance. Also, NIST concluded that the fire-proofing was knocked off by a debris directly striking it (yes, this does knock of fire-proofing), and slight oscillations due to the airplane impact. NIST left the second element out of its assessment conservatively, because it had little definitive evidence on it. However, NIST does have pictures of trusses not believed to have experienced direct debris impact, but still have the fire coating knocked off.

I'm done for the day, gentlemen, it's been fun. Please, no animosity, I'm as interested as you in the WTC collapse. We just have different opinions. I look forward to more arguments tomorrow, especially if someone can give me information on a credible structural forensics engineer dissenting with the NIST diagnosis.

[Eckolaker]

I guess what you meant by that is that you don't believe I'm a structural engineer. Well, regardless of what you believe, I am a structural engineer, though I'm just starting out. I do have a Master's in Structural Engineering, but I still don't think I'm qualified to diagnose a disaster such as the World Trade Center. I took an earthquake design class in school, but I design in Texas, so we consider wind as a controlling factor instead. Neverless, earthquake engineering have little with the World Trade Center collapse. Earthquake loads are dynamic loads, and cause buildings to oscillate. Earthquake engineering is concerned with the natural period of the building and dampening the oscillations. The WTC Towers did oscillate a little bit, which knocked of some of the insulation, but that's about as much as it has to due with the towers. It might have something to due with the WTC 7 collapse, but I don't know about that yet. Anyway, have a nice day.

Pretty sure its largely accepted by Les Roberton and the likes, that the plane impacts transfer of momentum had little effect on the buidling itself, and the further away from the impact the less likely it would be noticed. Other then the sights and sounds created of course.

[Gold9472]

Richard. Is there a coverup regarding the 9/11 attacks being perpetrated by the U.S. Government?

[PhilosophyGenius]

Please, no animosity, I'm as interested as you in the WTC collapse. We just have different opinions. I look forward to more arguments tomorrow

Cool! Holla back Richard.

It could still be proven without a shadow of a doubt that 9/11 was an inside job with or whithout mentioning the towers.

[richard]

I don't know where that Leslie Robertson comment you brought up came from. I've seen him speak live, and he seems to be very convinced that his building fell due to the impact and heat from fires caused by fuel. In fact, he said that the buildings were designed for the impact from a Boeing 707. However, the jet fuels were not taken into account in the design, and had it been, the buildings would've probably been impossible to design. Yes, structural mastermind Leslie Robertson said this. Here's a link to the site, if you want more: http://www.lera.com/sep11.htm. Alright, now I'm really done for the day.

[beltman713]

Why would someone design a building to take the impact from a airliner an not consider the effects of the jet fuel?

[PhilosophyGenius]

Why would someone design a building to take the impact from a airliner an not consider the effects of the jet fuel?

Uber pwned!!!

[cottonzway]

Richard,

I have read what you have posted and to me it seems you have a cause of being “too smart for your own good” based on what you claim is you education background. We will assume you are whom you say you are (to be fair it’s the internet and well it’s fair to question anything someone says about themselves when it’s under some username on the internet) and that you have the background in engineering as stated.

The problem with a lot of highly intelligent and skilled people is they can only look at things in the realm of the qualifications. It’s hard to look past such obvious other things wrong that don’t involve science, physics, and engineering. There are parts to this whole equation that do not involve any of these things that you spent years of training on. These are the key issues to understanding what happened more then anything. It is paramount to look away from what you know and into the parts that your background won’t affect your ability to view this topic without a preconceived opinion.

Your “science” is not going to help you understand insider trading on American and United Airlines with put options , understanding what a Pentagon program called ABLE DANGER is and how the information there could have allowed FBI agents to stop those attacks (agents have quit their jobs and are suing our government over this), understanding OPERATION NORTHWOODS was a legit false flag terror plot that was thought up by high levels of the US government in the 1960’s to kill Americans as a pretext to war with Cuba, it won’t help you understand why FEMA was there on 9/10/01 with equipment ready to work, it won’t help you with the MANY war games going on that day that are public record, it won’t help you understand why NORAD stood down and our VP took shoot down orders away from generals 2 weeks prior to 9/11, it won’t explain why Sibel Edmonds has the most gag orders on here then anyone in US history, it won’t help you understand that Bin Laden had a fake tape of him shown saying it was him (obvious fake, a different man) yet the FBI does not list him as the suspect on 9/11 on their own website because there is no proof of it, it won’t help you understand why the hell something(anything) would be allowed to hit the Pentagon (the single most important building in our country who’s security should be above anything), it won’t help you understand that many of these claimed “Hijackers” are alive and were trained at military airbases, and I could go on and on.

My long point is if you are whom you say you are and not either some troll looking to cause problems or even someone working for the government to derail us/track people like us then I urge you to use that vast knowledge you have and put it to power. Understand all of those things I listed. Science will not help you understand those things. You can only understand them if you take the hours upon hours to look into all of those things listed to see if they are factual or just the rants of some dissident conspiracy theory nut. Whom ever did this are busted, exposed, and people who aren’t blinded by “no way, it couldn’t have happened that way…” know 9/11 is a total lie.

It’s your choice though if you want to understand that not all is well with this official story, Richard.

[cottonzway]

BTW if you are done for the day you don't have to reply to this. Just copy my 3rd paragraph into a Word file and look at it later. Then get back to me/us.

[BASE701]

Richard, I am also a new guy to this. I have hundreds of questions. One thing I know for sure is that 911 was a very strange and horrible day.

I began to question the "official story" after watching a video my father sent me of the WTC7 collapse. If you notice the perfect symmetry, the speed, and the precision that it fell, it leaves little doubt that either there was controlled demolition or an act of God. NIST cannot prove otherwise IMO.

I then learned how our air defense completely failed on 911. How was this possible? If I'm not mistaken, air defense had responded seventy-six times previously that year to aircraft. How in the world did four highjacked airliners go untouched? It makes no sense to me.

Alot of what I've learned so far is more common sense than science. Stricktly explaining the collapse of the towers is limiting your understanding of the entire story.

Please research my friend. Its quite fascinating.

[Gold9472]

Why would someone design a building to take the impact from a airliner an not consider the effects of the jet fuel? :notetosel :drive1:

[beltman713]

Yeah, I'm going to design an airplane to fly in all weather situations, but I'm not going to consider the effects of water on all it's systems.

[AuGmENTor]

Anyone ever wonder why they don't just make giant parachutes to deploy from the back of a distressed aircraft? Or why with fog radar technology being what it is, they don't make a plane so you CAN'T fly it into a bldg?

[casseia]

Actually, I thought that was the deal with the plane that crashed into the apartment building this Fall -- it was an airplane with a parachute, but the pilot didn't deploy it for some reason.

[AuGmENTor]

Actually, I thought that was the deal with the plane that crashed into the apartment building this Fall -- it was an airplane with a parachute, but the pilot didn't deploy it for some reason.Yeah but I mean the BIG ones. Seems like it would just have to be a really big chute is all.

[werther]

Why would someone design a building to take the impact from a airliner an not consider the effects of the jet fuel?

Kinda like why would someone design a box to house cockpit voice recordings made out of steel if jet fuel can burn through it.

[cottonzway]

Did you get around to reading my post Richard? Are you aware of what a posted? What are your thoughts of all of it?

[richard]

Sorry, I didn’t explain that well enough. Buildings are designed to resist load combinations on buildings (for example, 1.6L + 1.2D, L=live load, D=dead load). A terrorist attack with an airplane was not considered. The only reason Leslie Robertson designed the building for an airplane impact was because the Empire State Building was hit many years earlier. He decided to design for a large aircraft being lost in the clouds and moving slowly. However, this did not control the design of the building, because the maximum wind loads expected were much higher (wind loads for tall buildings are very high, especially in New York). This part of design was for live load.



Other members of the design team were responsible for calculations of the loads caused by fire/heat, T. These are included in other load combinations. I guess they just considered conventional fires, and not airplane fuel. Here's Leslie's opinion on the collapse again: http://www.lera.com/sep11.htm




Richard,

I have read what you have posted and to me it seems you have a cause of being “too smart for your own good” based on what you claim is you education background. We will assume you are whom you say you are (to be fair it’s the internet and well it’s fair to question anything someone says about themselves when it’s under some username on the internet) and that you have the background in engineering as stated.

The problem with a lot of highly intelligent and skilled people is they can only look at things in the realm of the qualifications. It’s hard to look past such obvious other things wrong that don’t involve science, physics, and engineering. There are parts to this whole equation that do not involve any of these things that you spent years of training on. These are the key issues to understanding what happened more then anything. It is paramount to look away from what you know and into the parts that your background won’t affect your ability to view this topic without a preconceived opinion.

Your “science” is not going to help you understand insider trading on American and United Airlines with put options , understanding what a Pentagon program called ABLE DANGER is and how the information there could have allowed FBI agents to stop those attacks (agents have quit their jobs and are suing our government over this), understanding OPERATION NORTHWOODS was a legit false flag terror plot that was thought up by high levels of the US government in the 1960’s to kill Americans as a pretext to war with Cuba, it won’t help you understand why FEMA was there on 9/10/01 with equipment ready to work, it won’t help you with the MANY war games going on that day that are public record, it won’t help you understand why NORAD stood down and our VP took shoot down orders away from generals 2 weeks prior to 9/11, it won’t explain why Sibel Edmonds has the most gag orders on here then anyone in US history, it won’t help you understand that Bin Laden had a fake tape of him shown saying it was him (obvious fake, a different man) yet the FBI does not list him as the suspect on 9/11 on their own website because there is no proof of it, it won’t help you understand why the hell something(anything) would be allowed to hit the Pentagon (the single most important building in our country who’s security should be above anything), it won’t help you understand that many of these claimed “Hijackers” are alive and were trained at military airbases, and I could go on and on.

My long point is if you are whom you say you are and not either some troll looking to cause problems or even someone working for the government to derail us/track people like us then I urge you to use that vast knowledge you have and put it to power. Understand all of those things I listed. Science will not help you understand those things. You can only understand them if you take the hours upon hours to look into all of those things listed to see if they are factual or just the rants of some dissident conspiracy theory nut. Whom ever did this are busted, exposed, and people who aren’t blinded by “no way, it couldn’t have happened that way…” know 9/11 is a total lie.

It’s your choice though if you want to understand that not all is well with this official story, Richard.



Thank you for the polite input. I am neither a government agent nor a troll trying to cause trouble. I don’t understand why everyone here is so paranoid about that, I would think that you guys of all people would understand the importance of listening to dissenting opinions. I don’t mean to sound “to smart for my own good,” but you must understand that this is my profession. Even if I try to explain structural phenomena in everyday terms, it will still come out a bit technical. I’m sure that if we were discussing philosophy I would sound quite stupid.



I know that you people find the two inseparable, but I intended to only discuss the failure of World Trade Center Towers, and not other aspects of the conspiracy. I’ve heard from countless conspiracy theory sites that the towers falling due to the airplane impact and resulting fires is impossible. I say that not only is it possible, but there is no way a steel building with that design can withstand temperatures like that with much of the insulation knocked off the steel members. Steel loses a significant amount of strength and stiffness under temperatures as low as 450 C, this is basic fire engineering knowledge. I don’t understand how all of you can disagree with the fact that a collapse like this IS POSSIBLE.



I know it sounds like I’ll only listen to people who are highly-qualified to speak on structural engineering. This isn’t true. If it was, I wouldn’t have read anyone’s arguments on this forum. If someone makes a good point to me that makes sense structurally, I don’t care what his/her qualifications are. I have listened to some of a Steven Jones lecture, but I admit I haven’t finished it. The thing is, when I hear explanations from structural engineers and members of NIST, the explanations make perfect sense to me. The explanations I’ve seen on conspiracy theory sites do not make sense. They make statements that defy basic structural engineering knowledge. I’m not going to continue to read about the failure from these sites, because so far it’s been a waste of time.



I’ve come to the conclusion that the Towers fell due to the airplane impact and resulting fires. Almost all of the structural engineering community agrees with the NIST Report. I believe that reports denying the possibility of a collapse like this are examples of people searching for a conspiracy and trying to use any facts they gather to prove their point regardless of whether they’re right or not.



However, you do bring up some good points on other aspects of the conspiracy. I know that the government can be involved in shady activity, and I do not find it infeasible that the government knew of the attack ahead of time and did not stop it in hopes of gaining public support for an overseas conflict. I haven’t disagreed with any other statements. I haven’t agreed with them either. I just don’t know yet, because I haven’t researched aspects of the conspiracy other than the Towers that much. This will be more difficult for me to research, because I am unfamiliar with the subject, and thus it will be hard for me to separate the worthy material from the BS (trust me, there is at least “some” BS out there). Anyway, you guys have a nice day, and remember to keep an open mind.

[BASE701]

Richard, I do have a question.

If you watch the towers fall, you will notice that they are pulverizing into dust above the impact zones. Was there enough weight and inertia to keep a domino collapse going at freefall speed when the floors above the impact zone had lost much of their density? Why did the perfectly intact floors below not slow the collapse down at all?

If you will notice, much of the matter was ejected outwards(over 300 feet) away from the lower floors. Did the steel skeleton of the upper floors(above the impact zone)provide enough weight to keep a domino collapse going?

If the domino collapse is true, why did the core of the tower not stay intact below the impact zone? Is it possible that the floor trusses tearing away caused the core to fail?

I am not a structural engineer so I have alot of questions.

[AuGmENTor]

Dammit Richard, stop turning out to be a nice guy. Way harder to not like you that way. You make more sense now that I have reread things a few times. I'm sorry (again) if I just torpeedoed you right off the mark. I am NOT a SE, so I listen to people who are.
But what about this. We'll take it for granted that the planes brought the twins down, just for the sake of argument. Now lets get about the business of researching the fact regarding our governments behavior in the months immediately prior, and those following 911. Personally, I could care less if the stay-puff marshmallow man ripped those bldgs down.
Lets ALL try to keep an open mind.

[AuGmENTor]

In addition to Bases question. How could it possibly be, that bldgs that were hit by planes trvelling at different speeds and hit in different locations (and some bldgs weren't hit at ALL) collapsed in an identicle manner three times? If the columns were not severed uniformly, wouldnt that result in a skewed collapse? I mean, if one had fallen slightly sideways, I could at least kinda buy it. but all three, in identicle fashions? cmon man, how can you look at that and not see there's something wrong with the picture?

[BASE701]

In addition to Bases question. How could it possibly be, that bldgs that were hit by planes trvelling at different speeds and hit in different locations (and some bldgs weren't hit at ALL) collapsed in an identicle manner three times? It is amazing that both towers fell identically when they were struck in such different places. Whoever designed them buildings has some explaining to do!!:)

[BennieBlancoFromBrooklyn]

It is amazing that both towers fell identically when they were struck in such different places. Whoever designed them buildings has some explaining to do!!:)

Not to be a dick, especially on my first post on this site, but what did you want them to do -- fall sideways?

Those structures are so heavy that once they start failing the only direction they can really go in is down. What's more suspicious isn't that they both fell identically -- it's that they both fell, period. So many different factors have to combine to make that kind of building fail, it's hard to imagine that they both failed in the same relatively short period of time.

[AuGmENTor]

Not to be a dick, especially on my first post on this site, but what did you want them to do -- fall sideways?

Those structures are so heavy that once they start failing the only direction they can really go in is down. What's more suspicious isn't that they both fell identically -- it's that they both fell, period. So many different factors have to combine to make that kind of building fail, it's hard to imagine that they both failed in the same relatively short period of time.Not to be a dick ON your first post (welcome btw) But it's because of the heaviness that would make me think that sideways is JUST how they would come down. When you cut down a tree, you cut a wedge out of it to make it fall sideways. That's a shitty paralell I know, but we dont have alot of high-rise bldg collapses to use as examples. Inertia would dictate that unless the supporting members were removed uniformly, and within milliseconds of one another, a sideways collapse would result. Go look at botched demolitions on google video and see how if those charges aren't planted and timed just so, they don't come down so straight. And I couldn't help but notice taht you never mentioned bldg seven. Well under half the size of the towers, and came down as straight as an arrow. Wasn't hit by a damn thing either.

[dtravni]

Richard - you said "I’ve come to the conclusion that the Towers fell due to the airplane impact and resulting fires. Almost all of the structural engineering community agrees with the NIST Report."

Please cite some verifiable sources - for without that, an assertion such as "Almost all of the structural engineering community ..." comes across as "faith-based" argumentation - intended to persuade rather than convince.

And while you're at it - I'd like to know what "Almost all of the structural engineering community ..." has to say about WTC7.

Should be fascinating.

[AuGmENTor]

Not to be a dick, especially on my first post on this site, but what did you want them to do -- fall sideways? Hey, Bernie? I came across something right HERE that says yes, I WOULD expect them to fall sideways.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/buildfall6.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/buildfall2.jpg (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/buildfall2.jpg)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/buildfall7.jpg

Here's what I consider an inferno (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html)

Thanx to SBG on this one... It was his post (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3409) I found this on. Why not stop by for a look Bernie?

[AuGmENTor]

What happened guys? We got past the initial hostilities, and had an open dialogue going. The heat get to much for ya? no pun intended.

[MrDark71]

Well Richard...after reading this you've only proved what a dick you are (not to mention dumb). Btw....Does the NIST report the statistical odds of 3 steel reinforced concrete buildings collapsing due to fire on the same day with yards of each other?

[geddo]

Finally a sane voice. Thanks Richard

[AuGmENTor]

Finally a sane voice. Thanks RichardRichard was taken to school, and sat down like a good little bitch... Are you man enough to try next? Oh wait, HERE's an idea... READ THE SHIT IN HERE, and then see if you stiil wanna play. My guess, you wont... You'll toss around some of the crap that YOU have chosen to swallow, and wonder why we haven't. None of you guys EVER come correct.

[werther]

word.