The Prof/Engineer list that truthers always talk about.

[Mick West]

Astaneh appears in part 4 of this documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO2M-oUY9wc&list=SPEABB3C7CE3B27ABE&index=8

Specifically at 4:27 and also at 9:56 here, where he's at Fresh Kills discussing the stripping of fireproofing, and softening of the steel.

​

The buckling demo at 10:50 is quite illustrative as well.

 

[George B]

Astaneh appears in part 4 of this documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO2M-oUY9wc&list=SPEABB3C7CE3B27ABE&index=8

Specifically at 4:27 and also at 9:56 here, where he's at Fresh Kills discussing the stripping of fireproofing, and softening of the steel.

​

The buckling demo at 10:50 is quite illustrative as well.

Excellent video . . . However, still seems counterintuitive that the remaining non-fire damaged floors would not offer substantial resistance . . . especially the core columns . . .

 

[Mick West]

Excellent video . . . However, still seems counterintuitive that the remaining non-fire damaged floors would not offer substantial resistance . . . especially the core columns . . .

The floors themselves would get stripped away from the columns, which would then buckle with their lateral support reduced.

It's not like the top portion of the tower was a solid block of steel. If the core columns momentarily held out, then the majority of the top of the tower is still falling, stripping floors.

You can kind of see it in the videos, like with the "spire" that remained upright for a while. It's practically half the height of the building.

​

In the Sauret footage you can see vertical elements on the right just below the collapse floor that don't start to fall until some time after the collapse wave has passed:

​

 

[Mick West]

Building code discussion split to:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1136-WTC-Were-the-buildings-up-to-code

 

[slenderbeam]

This group's arguments are weak.

Architects for one, should really not be commenting on structural failure mechanisms.

 

[Ron J]

No plane reconstructions (standard practice for any plane-crash, including terrorist actions) was ever conducted in the case of any of the four planes to have crashed that day.

It is rather difficult to reconstruct two 767's which disintegrated upon impact with the Towers. I remember watching a TV show long ago in which someone displayed a piece of one of the planes, but would doubt that with what was found in the debris of the Towers, that either of the planes could have been pieced back together again.

 

[Rafterman]

The American Institute of Architects doesn't like the group very much!

I was at the AIA convention in San Francisco a couple of years ago and these [people] had a booth. Can't say they got much foot traffic from the thousands going through the trade show floor. Frankly all six of them looked like [...].

And the point above is very valid - the 1,700 or so in the group is an insignificant percentage of practicing architects and engineers worldwide. The AIA alone boasts a membership of more than 100,000, 120,000 members in the ASME, the IIIE has almost a half million members, etc. etc. Not to mention hundreds of thousands if not millions of engineers and architects who aren't dues paying members of societies.

Frankly, one could find 1,700 people who believed pretty much anything up to including that I have flaming squirrels shooting out of my ass thrice daily.

 

[Oxymoron]

This group's arguments are weak.

Architects for one, should really not be commenting on structural failure mechanisms.

If there arguments are weak, why not debunk them?