Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
joc

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

3,684 posts in this topic

Man the list of architects, and engineers is up to 1700. Wow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1700 architects and engineers. All basically focused along the same points of questioning. The same points that have been meticulously gone over in peer-reviewed papers. All parroting Richard Gage.

That's why I singled out Richard Gage.

This is a quote from Rick Siegel...the Filmer of the video I posted:

You know, I don't go for the official story because it's got so many holes. And I can't really go to much for those radical stories 'cause they got...they're so shocking it drives me nuts. So, ...but I know there's grains of truth in everything there..and...it just would take somebody who's knowledgable, take the materials and actually do it...but would the Americans listen, would the world even listen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1700 architects and engineers. All basically focused along the same points of questioning. The same points that have been meticulously gone over in peer-reviewed papers. All parroting Richard Gage.

That's why I singled out Richard Gage.

So you either read the conclution of each and everyone of them, or you know them all personaly, or you are talking outta your ass. Hmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All Socrates.junior can do is point and say...see...here is a list of debunkers....

Socrates.junior? Where is your logical mind trying to answer any questions? Aren't you at all curious how a collapsing building can produce huge chunks of concrete hitting buildings 600 feet...two football fields away...? It seems to me like you just refuse to think.

If you paid any attention to what I'm posting, you'd know it wasn't a list of debunkers. Sorry, I forgot...it isn't a pretty picture. My bad.

Wait, I thought you said that the towers were pulverized? Now there's huge chunks of concrete? Is that consistent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you either read the conclution of each and everyone of them, or you know them all personaly, or you are talking outta your ass. Hmmm

Uh, yeah, their silly little petition thing. That's kind of the point of a petition...that it is a uniform piece of inquiry. Not terribly tough to understand.

Please, just read the links.

EDIT: You know...the evidence that no one seems to want to read. I mean, I know that the literacy rate is getting lower, but that's no excuse.

Edited by socrates.junior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me tell you exactly what you are looking at. You are looking at the South Tower in the process of being demolished...The top of the building is falling away from the rest of the building...but then..somehow...it mysteriously stops and goes straight down with the rest of the building. This is indicative of demolition controlled explosives.

With all of the weight of the upper level focused on a small area at the hinge point, which was not capable of supporting the added weight, there was no way the top of the building was going to topple over to the side and the only path was straight down. Look at it like walking on thin ice until you fall through the weakest surface layer.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AKA, qualified people are the people to ask about their craft.

Only a few days ago you dismissed my professional observations as "anecdotal evidence". Seems you're not too consistent with your approach. The above quote of yours only appears to apply to those who say something you agree with.

As it goes, I don't think you're wrong about this. Just thought I'd point it out.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not. None of it really makes any sense. Three buildings dropping like that? One that wasn't even hit... And just collapsing straight down so fast. How does that happen? Where has that ever happened before? Lots of buildings have had fires...none have ever spontaneously collapsed.

On the contrary, the steel structure of the Windsor building during a fire collapsed due to the fire. Only the concrete core was left standing.

windsor7.jpg

In Thailand, steel frame buildings collapsed due to fire.

Fire in Thailand toy factory leaves 210 dead: No alarms or fire escapes in buildings that collapsed within 15 minutes as 4,000 workers changed shifts

The fire broke out on Monday afternoon, and quickly engulfed the factory's four four-storey buildings, which collapsed only 15 minutes later.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/fire-in-thailand-toy-factory-leaves-210-dead-no-alarms-or-fire-escapes-in-buildings-that-collapsed-within-15-minutes-as-4000-workers-changed-shifts-2322362.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... the Buildings could never have fallen as they did unless they were wired for demolition.

A very short video to counterpoint your assertion:

9/11: Were Explosives Used?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you paid any attention to what I'm posting, you'd know it wasn't a list of debunkers. Sorry, I forgot...it isn't a pretty picture. My bad.

Wait, I thought you said that the towers were pulverized? Now there's huge chunks of concrete? Is that consistent?

The towers were pulverized...but as they were falling chunks of the building mysteriously found their way...600 feet or meters...approximately two football fields away with enough force to significantly damage the buildings they hit.

Now...please explain to me using the law of physics which you seem to know so much about....exactly how does that happen when a building is just collapsing in on itself? And please...don't regurgitate Sky's ridiculous claim of parts of the building ricocheting. We are talking about a significant force to propel large chunks of concrete 2 football field lengths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very short video to counterpoint your assertion:

9/11: Were Explosives Used?

Very interesting. But it doesn't refute anything. There are alot of differences. First, look at the amount of debris that these buildings left behind...compared to the debris left behind from WTC. Second, none of these buildings were built like the WTC with a main core of Steel. These buildings were built to withstand a Boeing 707 direct hit....and they did. The fires were not raging inside the buildings...they were pretty much contained. So how does the Vernage effect take place there?

On the contrary, the steel structure of the Windsor building during a fire collapsed due to the fire. Only the concrete core was left standing.

windsor7.jpg

In Thailand, steel frame buildings collapsed due to fire.

Where was the raging fire in the WTC?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The towers were pulverized...but as they were falling chunks of the building mysteriously found their way...600 feet or meters...approximately two football fields away with enough force to significantly damage the buildings they hit.

Now...please explain to me using the law of physics which you seem to know so much about....exactly how does that happen when a building is just collapsing in on itself? And please...don't regurgitate Sky's ridiculous claim of parts of the building ricocheting. We are talking about a significant force to propel large chunks of concrete 2 football field lengths.

Why is it "ridiculous"...? While I wouldn't personally use the word "ricochet", the basic idea is correct... one piece of rubble / debris hits another piece of rubble / debris and both go off at different angles. With a big enough "chunk" there would be sufficient forces in play to send that "chunk" a good distance away.

Just because you can't grasp the basic physics of it doesn't mean that it can't happen or that it is "impossible" or "ridiculous".

Cz

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it "ridiculous"...? While I wouldn't personally use the word "ricochet", the basic idea is correct... one piece of rubble / debris hits another piece of rubble / debris and both go off at different angles. With a big enough "chunk" there would be sufficient forces in play to send that "chunk" a good distance away.

Just because you can't grasp the basic physics of it doesn't mean that it can't happen or that it is "impossible" or "ridiculous".

Cz

Please explain to me then using basic physics, how that happens. I'm not saying at all that pieces of the building didn't ricochet out...but with an upward trajectory that would carry them 200 yards? Yeah, explain how that happens...please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please show evidence of this "upward trajectory" you claim. If its in this 2-hour video you've posted, then just give the time it occurs as I have no interest in viewing the whole thing.

Beyond that, do you think it impossible for steel to bounce or to have elasticity?

Also... why do you assume that all of the building fell straight down? Are you claiming that it is "impossible" or "ridiculous" that debris could have fallen at angles or peeled off the structure in such a way that would have it land on something some distance away?

Cz

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting. But it doesn't refute anything. There are alot of differences. First, look at the amount of debris that these buildings left behind...compared to the debris left behind from WTC. Second, none of these buildings were built like the WTC with a main core of Steel. These buildings were built to withstand a Boeing 707 direct hit....and they did. The fires were not raging inside the buildings...they were pretty much contained. So how does the Vernage effect take place there?

The engineers built the WTC towers strong enough to absorb a strike by a B-707, but they failed to take into an account an impact dislodging the fire protection for the steel structure, which exposed the unprotected steel structure to temperatures high enough to weaken steel. The temperatures didn't need to be high enough to melt steel, but just high enough to weaken the remaining undamaged steel columns to the point of failure.

Looking at it this way, let's say that a 100 pound weight is supported by four legs, each capable of supporting 35 pounds. One leg was struck and taken out, which leaves the 3 remaining legs supporting the 100 pound weight with 5 pounds of additional strength to spare, however, add heat that saps 20% of the strength from each of the remaining 3 legs and you will eventually have a collapse.

The aircraft damaged much of the supporting steel structure and temperatures were high enough from the fires that were in the range to weaken the remaining steel structure. The proof that high temperatures from the fires initiated the collapse of the WTC buildings can be determined by the fact the WTC buildings began to buckle in the minutes prior to their collapse, which was a clear indication that fires were slowly weakening the steel structures to the point of collapse and the remaining structures could only absorb so much of the overhead weight and explains why WTC2 collapsed before WTC1, and remember, WTC1 was struck first, but was the second building to collapse because it supported less overhead weight than WTC2. Let's take a look at the following picture and notice that WTC1 is supporting less overhead weight than WTC2.

.

525px-World_Trade_Center%2C_NY_-_2001-09-11_-_Debris_Impact_Areas.svg.png

Where was the raging fire in the WTC?

In the areas where they were struck.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with hearing things from 'professionals' is that they'll say different things.

Two of my buddies brothers are pilots in the airforce, one says he could've done it with the same amount of training those guys supposedly did, the other one thinks there's no way someone could've jumped into the seat of jet and done it.

There is no way they have the same Aviation experience as John lear.

John Lear, a captain for a major US Airline has flown over 160 different types of aircraft in over 50 different countries. He holds 17 world speed record in the Lear Jet and is the only pilot ever to hold every airline certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration. Mr. Lear has flown missions worldwide for the CIA and other government agencies. A former Nevada State Senator candidate, he is the son of William P. Lear, designer of the Lear Jet executive airplane, the 8-track stereo, and founder of Lear Siegler Corporation.

He's one of the most experienced pilots in the world.

Ah, John Lear. The man who obviously lost touch with reality a long time ago. Good guy to have in your corner. John Lear is talking completely out of his ass.

Yes, actors are always my first source for investigations.

Mmmmm wrong. Please read the link.

Hmmmm which architects, pilots, and engineers? Yes, because I'm not a raving lunatic, I do know more than John Lear...but you've provided no one else.

I provided a whole truckload of engineers.

Provide proof of architects engineers and pilots? LOL

Google or youtube the millions of results you will get. lol

You can list your examples, if I listed mine I'd get banned from UM for spamming as it would take up thousands of posts. lol

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way they have the same Aviation experience as John lear.

He's one of the most experienced pilots in the world.

Provide proof of architects engineers and pilots? LOL

Google or youtube the millions of results you will get. lol

You can list your examples, if I listed mine I'd get banned from UM for spamming as it would take up thousands of posts. lol

Now here's the thing for me, if I'm not to trust the government, why trust one man because of his fancy credentials. I will say I'll take his word more so over my own, I don't know if someone could or couldn't do it, if he says it couldn't be done then I defer to him because of his experience in that field. If other professionals also want to have their say, with their own data, with their own credentials, I'll also read and listen, because I have no first hand experience in this. There's no credibility in the world of conspiracies, IMO.

Edited by Hasina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only a few days ago you dismissed my professional observations as "anecdotal evidence". Seems you're not too consistent with your approach. The above quote of yours only appears to apply to those who say something you agree with.

As it goes, I don't think you're wrong about this. Just thought I'd point it out.

Um, I wasn't aware of your professional status in the field. "Worked with" being a very loose term for anything. My bad.

The towers were pulverized...but as they were falling chunks of the building mysteriously found their way...600 feet or meters...approximately two football fields away with enough force to significantly damage the buildings they hit.

Now...please explain to me using the law of physics which you seem to know so much about....exactly how does that happen when a building is just collapsing in on itself? And please...don't regurgitate Sky's ridiculous claim of parts of the building ricocheting. We are talking about a significant force to propel large chunks of concrete 2 football field lengths.

Oh those crazy laws of physics. If you give me a size and distance, I can do some back of the envelope calculations as to possible explanations. As far as any other explanation would go...I guess you wouldn't read if I linked anything about momentum, or energy. It's a shame.

Did any reading of any of those reports yet? Or still working on heart and soul?

EDIT:

Provide proof of architects engineers and pilots? LOL

Google or youtube the millions of results you will get. lol

You can list your examples, if I listed mine I'd get banned from UM for spamming as it would take up thousands of posts. lol

I don't know about millions. I'm sure you would get millions of Google results...but I'm sure you realize that's hardly the same as the number of experts supporting you. That number would be about 1700, as far as I noticed. Toeing the party line of an attention-grabbing wing-nut.

I don't need to list examples of people who agree. I merely listed their conclusions based on the evidence.

Edited by socrates.junior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, I wasn't aware of your professional status in the field. "Worked with" being a very loose term for anything. My bad.

Oh those crazy laws of physics. If you give me a size and distance, I can do some back of the envelope calculations as to possible explanations. As far as any other explanation would go...I guess you wouldn't read if I linked anything about momentum, or energy. It's a shame.

Did any reading of any of those reports yet? Or still working on heart and soul?

Have you watched the video yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got 23 minutes in...then realized that their were much better things to be doing than listening to wild-eyed speculation. As frenat said, tell me when they mention the rain of concrete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got 23 minutes in...then realized that their were much better things to be doing than listening to wild-eyed speculation. As frenat said, tell me when they mention the rain of concrete.

Well, at least you gave it a shot. Just so you know, I am not a Conspiracy Theorist. I am just not convinced that what we were told is exactly the truth.

This video doesn't really prove anything. But..when I watch those buildings come down...I'm just left with a genuine wtf feeling that hasn't gone away in 12 years.

Sky posted a video about the Vernage Effect that they use in France. Good stuff. Very informative. And I can see how that could have been the case. But it still leaves me wondering how...why...? And not just the buildings coming down...the decade after has left more questions open than it has answered.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now here's the thing for me, if I'm not to trust the government, why trust one man because of his fancy credentials. I will say I'll take his word more so over my own, I don't know if someone could or couldn't do it, if he says it couldn't be done then I defer to him because of his experience in that field. If other professionals also want to have their say, with their own data, with their own credentials, I'll also read and listen, because I have no first hand experience in this. There's no credibility in the world of conspiracies, IMO.

I see it this way. What does he have to gain from this? Nothing, he has no books to sell, he hasn't made any money from this and he has even suffered for it. The government has blocked him from being able to get work as a pilot and he was even removed from wikipedia. lol Why would they remove him from wikipedia? lol

What does the government gain from this? A very long list.

There is different theories on this whole thing, but in the simplest form, if the government themselves did it, they sure as hell let it happen without trying to stop it.

There is loads of evidence that shows they knew it was coming.

Also if Al Qaeda really did it and the US government really meant what they said in all those speeches etc then why did they support Al Qaeda in Libya and help them overthrow Gaddafi, giving them their own country. Same thing is now happening with Syria. Surely if the Government really cared for the people they wouldn't support Al Qaeda in anyway?!

The fact is Al Qaeda is their creation (proven fact) which they use.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is Al Qaeda is their creation (proven fact) which they use.

Absolutely – this has been demonstrated by historical events, CIA/Western/Al Qaeda double agents, CIA infiltration of Al Qaeda, FBI whistleblowers and even noted by bin Laden. The very concept of Al Qaeda as a coherent terrorist 'organisation' was created in the U.S. court and bin Laden alluded it a Western term that he does not specifically identify with. I can provide reliable source material in support of all this. I think it no coincidence that large majority of the 9/11 hijackers (15 of the 19) were not the lifelong, diehard Jihadists we would perhaps expect, but actually Western adapted citizens who presented themselves at bin Laden’s doorstep only in the year or two prior the attack... it was a setup/entrapment. It surprises many to know that an element of the CIA were well aware of at least two of the future hijackers (2 of the 4 not alluded to above), the terrorist connections and danger they posed and their residence in the U.S. long before 9/11, yet actively and persistently over a period of months prevented law enforcement action against them despite FBI protestation – now why might the CIA protect terrorists like that? This isn’t ‘conspiracy’ material, it’s FBI testimony, congressional record, commented on by Senators and former politicians and even contained in part in the 9/11 Commission report. It’s quite an extensive background topic to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers of which too many are unaware (mainstream news outlets understandably quiet, preferring their witch-hunt in support of U.S. foreign policies).

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely – this has been demonstrated by historical events, CIA/Western/Al Qaeda double agents, CIA infiltration of Al Qaeda, FBI whistleblowers and even noted by bin Laden. The very concept of Al Qaeda as a coherent terrorist 'organisation' was created in the U.S. court and bin Laden alluded it a Western term that he does not specifically identify with. I can provide reliable source material in support of all this. I think it no coincidence that large majority of the 9/11 hijackers (15 of the 19) were not the lifelong, diehard Jihadists we would perhaps expect, but actually Western adapted citizens who presented themselves at bin Laden’s doorstep only in the year or two prior the attack... it was a setup/entrapment. It surprises many to know that an element of the CIA were well aware of at least two of the future hijackers (2 of the 4 not alluded to above), the terrorist connections and danger they posed and their residence in the U.S. long before 9/11, yet actively and persistently over a period of months prevented law enforcement action against them despite FBI protestation – now why might the CIA protect terrorists like that? This isn’t ‘conspiracy’ material, it’s FBI testimony, congressional record, commented on by Senators and former politicians and even contained in part in the 9/11 Commission report. It’s quite an extensive background topic to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers of which too many are unaware (mainstream news outlets understandably quiet, preferring their witch-hunt in support of U.S. foreign policies).

Well even Hillary Clinton confirmed it in a live TV interview. lol

You should post some stuff though, for some weird reason people still don't believe it even after Hillary stating it. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at least you gave it a shot. Just so you know, I am not a Conspiracy Theorist. I am just not convinced that what we were told is exactly the truth.

This video doesn't really prove anything. But..when I watch those buildings come down...I'm just left with a genuine wtf feeling that hasn't gone away in 12 years.

Sky posted a video about the Vernage Effect that they use in France. Good stuff. Very informative. And I can see how that could have been the case. But it still leaves me wondering how...why...? And not just the buildings coming down...the decade after has left more questions open than it has answered.

verinage always collapses from the middle, there is as much mass at the top crushing the mass below. the nroth tower, the tp 10% was supposed to have crushed the bottom 90%, there is a measurable jolt in the verinage demolitions which even bazant says is required fro crush down. there was no jolt with the north tower.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.