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.
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.Originally Posted by richard
just look around a bit and you will find more than enough to keep you busy for quite a while...
greetings
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tired...
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Richard. Is there a coverup regarding the 9/11 attacks being perpetrated by the U.S. Government?
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.
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]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?(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]
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote