The Dumbing Down of AE911Truth, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
Christopher 7
Active Member
It is not necessary for a structural engineer to be a "tall" building expert.
There are several fire protection engineers.
Daniel Brogan, AIA - BS Fire Protection Engineering; MBA
Scott Grainger, P.E. & Forensic Fire Protection Engineer
Brian Thompson, PE - Master of Science, Fire Protection Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Brendan Murphy - BS Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland
Not true. The White House under Obama received petitions all the time including unlocking cell phones (144k+) and building a Death Star.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_(petitioning_system)?wprov=sfla1
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
Except tall building specialization is exactly the area of expertise that would allow one to best evaluate the structures at issue here. There are multiple professional societies, many journals, countless books, and even more peer reviewed academic articles devoted to this specialty. It is not a niche. It is a major area of structural engineering. The failure of AE911Truth to find even one practitioner in this field who supports them should tell you all you need to know about the strength of their claims.
Re your fire "experts" --
--Daniel Brogan appears to have written only about wild fires and nothing about fires in structures. Not a relevant expert.
--Scott Grainger does consulting work primarily related to fire safety systems in buildings (mostly fire doors, fire suppression system pipes, and, according to him, 10% of his work relates to passive fire protection on steel). Based on his specialization on fire hoods, it seems he mostly does fire code consulting for restaurants in Arizona. There is nothing on his website or the video he did for AE911Truth that indicates he has ever work on the fire suppression systems in a tall building. But we'll be generous and go ahead and count him as an "expert" for you, though not in the same league as the Ph.D. fire scientists who worked on the NIST report or the Aegis Insurance litigation expert reports.
--Brian Thompson does fire code consulting work in Puget Sound, Washington. There is even indications that his engineering firm, AEGIS Engineering, worked on some projects involving tall buildings. Wow. Have we found the unicorn? Not so fast. Here is his "endorsement" of AE911Truth in full:
Unanswered questions and doubts! Damning stuff. Still, we'll be generous and count him as an expert for you.The lack of the FEMA team's ability to conduct a proper investigation of the original collapse conditions, the explanation developed by the FEMA team, and the subsequent contradictory conclusion by NIST, raised questions. In an effort to answer these questions, I have researched various information and data compiled by others. My research has left these questions unresolved, and reinforced my doubt in the official story regarding the cause of collapse for both WTC towers and Building
---Brendan Murphy does not seem to have an online profile of any kind related to work in a fire science field as I cannot find anything online that speaks to his professional career other than the statement he wrote for AE911Truth, which says absolutely nothing analytical or interesting about fire science and makes silly conclusory structural engineering claims:
Not going to count him as a relevant expert based on that, sorry.If a building is designed to withstand a plane impact, then it will. I have too much respect for the engineering field to argue that fact. Fire does not cause structural failure of that magnitude. Maybe a fire will cause a wooden shed to fall, but not a skyscraper at free fall speed. An asymmetrical structural failure (as the NIST report states for WTC 7), cannot cause a symmetrical collapse. The building would have tipped over."
So that's not exactly an All Star cast of relevant experts overall considering that there are at least tens of thousands of tall-building specialized structural engineers and fire scientists in the world who more directly and substantively work in these fields, is it?
But--you know what--for the sake of argument, let's pretend these gentlemen are all great fire science experts with relevant experience with tall buildings who actually truly believe and support AE911Truth's claims based on their own independent analyses. Here's how your revised definition of "controversy" now reads: "a disagreement with proposition that is voiced by less than 0.01% of those with directly relevant expertise and less than 0.0001% of those with some expertise in tangentially related subjects." Wow, you sure convinced me that there is a big controversy here that the MSM is covering up!
In case it isn't clear to you, this is why AE911Truth is embracing memes to pivot from trying to convince experts (where they have utterly failed) to trying to convince laypeople (where they've also largely failed by any reasonable measure of public opinion, but can still gather enough support to raise money).
Last edited:
Christopher 7
Active Member
What has been explained? Do you think gravity can eject multi-ton framing sections 300 to 500 feet sideways?Here's the latest one. Basically ignoring years of having this explained to them, and just going with ... what? First impressions? Gut feelings?
It's bemusing.
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
Can you identify any specific piece of falling debris whose path cannot be explained by the (i) the way in which the portion of the building to which it was previously attached failed as the top portion of the tower dropped into it, (ii) energy generated as the piece fell once dislodged by the top section of the building, and (iii) the collision(s), if any, it had with other pieces of the structure on the way down? If you can actually pinpoint any energy that cannot be so explained, you'd have an argument. Incredulity is not an argument.
(Mick, feel free of course to remove this if I am verging towards being off topic. This is just one of those topics that can spill into all the others.)
Christopher 7
Active Member
For starters, your suggestion the a piece of framework at rest or falling straight down can be accelerated sideways hundreds of feet by another piece of framework falling straight down is absurd.
David Chandler has clocked sections of framework being ejected from the towers from 45 to over 70 mph. Gravity cannot do that. And that's not incredulity, it's understanding the basic laws of physics.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHnLlwqiu0A
Inti
Senior Member.
Of course gravity can cause some elements of a collapsing structure to be thrown sideways. When the structure is very large, so are the energies. Combine that with sideways toppling effects on larger sections, those energies can be diverted sideways, just as the top of a ladder falling over moves sideways as well as down.
Ever seen a stack of cans fall over in a store? Some fall outward and can shoot surprising distances sideways. Surely that is “obvious”?
But how do you believe those sideways motions were caused? Directly propelled by explosive charges? Without the sound of those charges being “obvious” to every witness? Have you ever heard charges detonating in a city environment? It is unmistakable.
Inti
Senior Member.
That is definitely the fallacy of incredulity, combined with an appeal to imaginary “laws” of physics. When large rigid segments of the building are falling and tilting and toppling and colliding with other parts, the well known effects of levers and of inelastic collisions can translate downward motion into rapid sideways vectors. That should be obvious.
Oystein
Senior Member
Do you think explosive demolition charges can?
What has been explained is that the walls toppled over and thus some of its panels ended up at some distance from the footprints.
It can be computed rather easily that, for explosives to do what AE fantasizes ("lateral ejection"), it would require far upwards of 20 pounds of high explosives per ton of steel just to move it - more to cut it loose. Such huge charges would leave massive imprints on the sound record and on the steel.
There "obviously" were no shockwaves of such magnitude.
Christopher 7
Active Member
Hogwash
Yes
1:25 “A huge explosion now raining debris on all of us. We gotta get out of the way!”
1:43 "We heard a very loud blast explosion. We looked up and the building literally began to collapse before us.
1:52 "We heard a loud explosion and at that point the building collapsed"
1:56 "At that point we heard a "boom". I looked up and just saw the building coming at us."
2:11 "There was another major explosion, the building itself, literally the top of it came down."
2:17 "All of a sudden you here an explosion and you could see the building starting to collapse."
2:48 “We could hear a rumble which was about five seconds long, preceding the actual collapse. And then a boom when each of those towers collapsed.”
2:57 “Just seconds ago there was a huge explosion and it appears right now that the second World Trade Tower has just collapsed
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUXGhLrDqb0
Christopher 7
Active Member
The laws of physics are not imaginary. The law of gravity pulls things straight down. Things falling straight down cannot make the objects they may strike accelerate sideways at speeds of 45 to over 70 mph.
Colliding with what parts? The framework below was bolted together. The falling debris outside was ahead of the interior collapses so it could not impact anything. Debris falling inside the building could not tear exterior wall sections loose and hurl them hundreds of feet.
Hogwash
Please post a source for that claim.
Last edited:
Inti
Senior Member.
I did not say the laws of physics were imaginary. I said that you are claiming that there are imaginary and unsubstantiated alleged "laws" that allegedly prevent downward motion under gravity from being translated sideways. And as for inelastic collision, see any billiard table.
"Colliding with which parts"? "..bolted together"? Are you really claiming that the forces involved in a collapse would be incapable of splitting sections of the building's components apart? If so, it is unsuprising that such obvious motivated reasoning has failed to convince many peiople over the years
And you are really deny that debris could be can be flipped sideways in a complex collapse? And yet you appeal to the "obvious" in other cases.
When a trebuchet threw a missile sideways in past warfare, it was translating downward movement powered by gravity into extensive sideways movement. When a larger element of the collapsing building flips over because it is struck by falling debris on one end, what is to prevent it from throwing other elements sideways?
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
In your linked video Chandler is just estimating the speeds of objects and does not provide any analysis as to whether those speeds could result from the fire-induced collapse of the building. That's not what I asked for and is an insufficient basis to prove your point. If you want to prove that an object was ejected by something other than the forces unleashed by the fire-induced collapse of the building, then you need to calculate the energy of that object based on its size and speed and then show that such energy would not result from the forces we can see acting upon that object as seen in the video (e.g., gravity and the forces imparted by the impact of other objects, both directly and indirectly on systems to which that object is attached). In other words, Chandler's observations that objects were moving at certain speeds tells you nothing about what caused those speeds, let alone implies those speeds had only one possible cause.
And, putting aside the fact that neither your nor Chandler provide any analysis as to the cause of those speeds, we know that if explosions of chemical explosives had imparted the forces that caused those speeds to obtain, then there would necessarily be certain audible and visual evidence that those explosions actually happened, which is not the case, no matter how much you may try to twist testimonials of the event (which are of course the result of people describing an incredible event as best they can through analogies, as people are wont to do) to substitute for actual video and auditory evidence.
This just all brings us back to the same point--there is nothing about the collapses that makes them appear to obviously be controlled demolitions and much about them that makes them appear to obviously not be controlled demolitions. AE911Truth's silly memes and you get it exactly backwards.
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
he's talking about the parts in/on the actual building, not the bits already on the outside.
(the last one is a horrible meme. isnt that wtc7? its only 50 stories tall. so we're looking at a dust cloud consisting of 60 stories worth of building? obviously it would be big.)
WTC debris ejected laterally has been discussed in another thread.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-wtc-multi-ton-steel-sections-ejected-laterally.1739/
Don't talk about it here.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-wtc-multi-ton-steel-sections-ejected-laterally.1739/
Don't talk about it here.
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
It's also bemusing that this particular new meme runs directly counter to AE911Truth's perennial favorite (and always silly) claim that, because the WTC buildings collapsed into their own respective footprints (which obviously did not happen, but that's never stopped AE911Truth from running with it), the collapses must have been a controlled demolition. Did no truther notice that the claim has now apparently completely flipped right before their eyes to be that, because WTC buildings did not collapse into their own respective footprints, the collapses are obviously a controlled demolition? You can't make this stuff up.
Christopher 7
Active Member
I am saying that framework falling straight down cannot cause another piece of framework to be accelerated to 45 to 70 mph.
Sections of framework are not billiard balls on a table.
Of course not. I'm saying that the debris falling straight down must first break the interlocking external frame apart first. Falling debris has no lateral force.
No
No, a trebuchet uses centrifugal force.
For a piece of framework to flipped over by another piece of falling debris, it must first be broken loose, in which case both pieces are falling and there is no force exchanged between them.
This "piece of framework ejecting another piece of framework sideways" theory ignores the fact that falling pieces of framework must first break apart the framework below, using up much of the kinetic energy of the falling piece of framework. And at that point, both pieces of framework are falling so there is no force exchanged between them.
This theory also ignores the fact that the interlocking exterior framework is vertical. It can be pushed outward and fall but there would be nothing falling on it from above because all the falling debris would already be past that point.
Christopher 7
Active Member
Correct
See my response to Inti in post #100.
There is no other explanation for the sound of explosions that many witnesses heard at the beginning of the collapses. Numerous witnesses said that the explosion occurred before the collapse started.
Your claim that they were all mistaken is simply not credible.
The towers were obviously blown up. I have explained why your "lever" ejection theory is not viable in post #100.
And even if your "lever" theory could happen, it could not possibly account for the lateral ejection of multi-ton sections of external framework being ejected sideways at speeds up to and exceeding 70 mph.
That leaves explosive as the only possibility.
Christopher 7
Active Member
The debris being ejected laterally is the point of the meme being discussed in this thread. See post # 86.
Last edited:
Christopher 7
Active Member
That is exactly what you did. AE911Truth does NOT claim that all three buildings collapsed into their own footprint, just WTC 7.
Christopher 7
Active Member
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
I see. I'm pretty sure they have done that at some point, but perhaps I am conflating what they've said with what their supporters have said.
So let's accept that AE911Truth makes a distinction and considers the fact that WTC7 fell "into its footprint" (it didn't but let's put that aside) to be evidence that it was destroyed in a controlled demolition, while it considers the fact that the twin towers did not fall into their own footprints (true!) to be evidence that they were destroyed in controlled demolitions. Do you not see the problem here? I guess everything, even two completely contradictory things, can be evidence for controlled demolitions if you want to believe, which brings us back to the inanity of the memes.
By the way, you should definitely read the thread on lateral ejections that Landru helpfully linked and discuss that issue further there if you have any questions. Your incredulous claims on that point have already been thoroughly debunked at length in that thread.
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
no wtc7 in the foreground.
deirdre
Senior Member.
they quote it in an old brochure (but then the old brochure contradicts itself on that issue too.
“AE911 proves that a free fall of these steel structures into their own footprint is a story without merit and a challenge to common sense.” Osvaldo Valdes, Architect
page 2 of brochure 2008 https://web.archive.org/web/20080920225418/http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/brochure_080425.pdf3. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris outside of building footprint.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
@ Christopher 7 I am curious about what is informing your ideas about the destruction of the 3 WTC towers. There is a lot of material available on the web... the NIST "official" explanations/study... AE911T's videos and "theories"... articles like the nano thermite and iron microsphere's of Neils Harrit... the videos like Loose Change... the discussion forum such as MetaBunk or the 911FreeForums.... reports from the lawsuit... Hulsey's reports... and on and on and on. I have read most of these (at least the executive summaries, seen them... and researched some basic physics.
I do not see a compelling case that the buildings were taken down by controlled demolition. I don't even have much doubt. The larger conspiracy theories are not the least bit credible. Truth engineers have been shown to be incorrect.
Sure if one wears some sort of blinders they will get a limited view of what happened and what explains it.
If you research you will find the credible non CD explanations which follow from hijacked planes hitting the two towers.... and unfought fire and mechanical damage undoing all three buildings.
It's all been pretty much settled.
I do not see a compelling case that the buildings were taken down by controlled demolition. I don't even have much doubt. The larger conspiracy theories are not the least bit credible. Truth engineers have been shown to be incorrect.
Sure if one wears some sort of blinders they will get a limited view of what happened and what explains it.
If you research you will find the credible non CD explanations which follow from hijacked planes hitting the two towers.... and unfought fire and mechanical damage undoing all three buildings.
It's all been pretty much settled.
Christopher 7
Active Member
They did say that early on but I corrected that statement over a decade ago with the quote referenced below and had them add "mostly".
AE911Truth says that WTC 7 fell MOSTLY in it's own footprint which is consistent with what NIST said.
The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building. NIST 2004 progress report on WTC 7 appendix L, page L-33
There is no problem here. WTC 7 was a classic building implosion with most of the debris landing within the original footprint of the building. Whereas WTC 1 & 2 were exploded, ejecting the bulk of the debris outside the original footprint. It's the explosive nature of WTC 1 & 2 with multi-yon framing sections being ejected laterally at speeds up to 70 mph that reveals them to be controlled demolitions. A gravity collapse cannot do that, your denial notwithstanding.
I will read the thread but it's clear from what I have read here that your claim of debunking is a fantasy.
The thread I linked to suggests otherwise.
benthamitemetric
Senior Member
Mostly. Got it. AE911Truth is drawing some very rigorous, empirical distinctions by employing such qualifiers in their updated materials.
So, anyway, we have two completely different types of demolitions, neither of which followed any known precedent demolition technique, but each of which is still *obviously* a controlled demolition just based on visual appearance alone according to AE911Truth. That's not going to convince me, but, then again, I'm not the target audience for these silly memes. (You and our pocketbook are.)
Good to know you've predetermined your conclusion. But, regardless of your desire to keep a closed mind, the thread in question directly addresses your arguments at great length. There is nothing you've said here that hasn't been said by the truthers who came before you there, probably because you and they are all basing your beliefs off the same AE911Truth nonsense. If you actually look at the issue from first principles, however, it's easy to understand how and why the pieces of the towers fell as they did, and there is not a single piece that a truther has been able to identify out of the thousands caught on tape that cannot be so understood. But feel free to prove me wrong. I'll wait and see if you have anything to add to that thread once you've made your way through it.
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
i cant get a google hit on that quote. can you provide the link?
Christopher 7
Active Member
The NIST report on WTC 7 is a fraud and a farce. I studied it extensively and wrote a 5 part series about it:
The NIST report on WTC 1 & 2 stopped at collapse initiation. The have no explanation for the total collapse.
NIST admits that they cannot explain the collapse
page 3 “NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability"
page 4 “… we are unable top provide a full explanation- of the total collapse"
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/NISTresponseToRequestForCorrectionGourleyEtal2.pdf
No worries mate. Believe what you will.
No
I suggest that you are the one wearing blinders.
I have not seen any credible explanations for the demolition of all three buildings except for controlled demolition.
Inti
Senior Member.
Single pieces of debris have no lateral force. As soon as they start to collide, the downward force can be translated in lateral directions by collisons and flipping effects.
Untrue. All of the energy comes from the downwrd motion of the counterweight on the short end of the lever. Centrifugal effects are not true forces,(they are sometimes called imaginary or emergent forces, like coriolis effects, for that reason. They simply constrain and redirect the enertial motion from other sources, such a gravity. In this case the contraints of the arm and sling change the direction of the projectile, but the energy by the falling weight is altered in direction. In just the same way, collisons between objects in a turbulent collapse can easil;y cause such redirections, as disussed below.
That would only be true in the very unusual case where every iece becomes detached simultaneously and evenly at every part, and all pieces start to accelerate downwards at the same instant. But in the real case, upper parts of the buildinng became detached and fell into lower parts, creating a chaotic mass or highly irregular shapes, which would inevitable tilt and tumble. We can see sections tilting over as they fall in the videos.
Three instances of effects that would make sections rotate are;
(a) when a vertical element is hit at the top, while the bottom is still attached or supported by lower elements and it does not completely crumble. In that case, it will tilt sideway, like a toppling ladder. The upper part cannot continue to move straigh down so it is forced to flip sideways , translating a substantial part of the downward kinetic energy sideways;
(b) if a move horizontal section hit a still-attached or slower moving section off . In this case this introduces a rotation to some parts, which is what makes things flip sideways during a collapse of multiple objects. Drop a book held horizontally and half over the edge of a desk. It will flip over and riotae as it falls, Now if you trace the motion of any outer part of the book's mass, it has a substantial lateral motiuon. And if it struck smaller obejects while rotating, , it is clear that they would be projected sideways.
c) The freely falling parts would in many instances rebound and some of teir subsequant path would be deflected sideways.
This "piece of framework ejecting another piece of framework sideways" theory ignores the fact that falling pieces of framework must first break apart the framework below, using up much of the kinetic energy of the falling piece of framework. And at that point, both pieces of framework are falling so there is no force exchanged between them.
Again, this assumes the utterly unrealistic situtaion that all of the higher components feel straight down, and that none have any sideways motion or are involved in collisons. Anyone who has watched mulitple objects falling knows that this is an improbably state of affairs.[/QUOTE]
Last edited by a moderator:
Inti
Senior Member.
The short version of my last post is: tilting, bouncing, colliding, rotating movements are to be expected when big massess are coming apart and falling chaotically, from any ccause. These are clearly enough to explan the lateral movement of parts of the buildiong.
Last edited:
mjl
New Member
ae911truth asked the AIA three or four times to support their quest, and they always failed miserably.
Below is the result from the last try in 2017:
And I also know the common response on this: the AIA members must have been misinformed or extorted or any other kind of conspiracy. Anything but the simple fact that they find ae911truth's claims unconvincing.
SR1419
Senior Member.
Would not a collapsing building make very loud sounds that given the context of the day might be mis-construed as "explosions"? Many people heard many "bombs" throughout the course of the day but when it the smoke cleared- so to speak- were actually things like falling people, falling elevators, exploding propane tanks etc... What does a fully loaded 80 storey office building sound like when it collapses? What does it sound like when one story drops on to the storey below? Why is it silent at the moment of collapse? Also, how did any explosives survive the plane impacts and resulting fires?
Last edited:
Money4Nothing
New Member
I find it interesting to discuss the layperson's access to engineering understanding. In unusual circumstances such as the collapse of WTC, you really do need specialty experts to rely on, because the scenario is simply too complex for intuitive understanding. Tropes such as "gravity goes down not sideways" reveals a lack of actual understanding of things.
You can't just grab someone who is an architect or mechanical engineer and believe that they have a full understanding of this type of event. I work with brilliant mechanical and structural engineers, who design large industrial steel structures, and even they can't intuitively explain every mechanism behind the tower collapse without spending some real time analyzing it. Lay people just don't get how complex engineering can be. As an EE I battle misunderstandings about things like smart meters, cell phones, 5G, and EMI conspiracy all the time, and it's nearly impossible to gain a foothold in someone's understanding who only wants to intuit a surface level conclusion.
We are talking about an explosion of high momentum jet fuel at the top of a skyscraper, an unprecedented event resulting in a chaos of forces, temperatures, stresses, and pressures. Try setting off any series of controlled explosions at the top 20% of a structure and see how successfully you manage to bring it down. It's most certainly not "obvious" that controlled explosions caused the collapse of the towers. And none of the previous attempts at explaining the observations were the least bit convincing.
You can't just grab someone who is an architect or mechanical engineer and believe that they have a full understanding of this type of event. I work with brilliant mechanical and structural engineers, who design large industrial steel structures, and even they can't intuitively explain every mechanism behind the tower collapse without spending some real time analyzing it. Lay people just don't get how complex engineering can be. As an EE I battle misunderstandings about things like smart meters, cell phones, 5G, and EMI conspiracy all the time, and it's nearly impossible to gain a foothold in someone's understanding who only wants to intuit a surface level conclusion.
We are talking about an explosion of high momentum jet fuel at the top of a skyscraper, an unprecedented event resulting in a chaos of forces, temperatures, stresses, and pressures. Try setting off any series of controlled explosions at the top 20% of a structure and see how successfully you manage to bring it down. It's most certainly not "obvious" that controlled explosions caused the collapse of the towers. And none of the previous attempts at explaining the observations were the least bit convincing.
Gamolon
Active Member
Can you provide a photo or screen capture showing one of these multi-ton framing sections that is seen being ejected sideways at 45 to 70 mph up to 500' away?
Also, sideways can mean many things in this case. Are you saying that a multi-ton framing section was ejected sideways, staying practically horizontal with the ground, to a distance of 500'? Below is a markup with those approximate distances.
Similar threads
