1000 Architects and Engineers Question Official 9/11 Story - Washington Times Article

[CanuckMA]

Several of the people on the list are top engineering professors at major universities.

But are they structural engineers?

An electrical engineer is no more qualified to comment on this than a taxi driver.





Wait, I take that back. The taxi driver may be a foreign trained structural engineer.:uhyeah:

 

[kaizasosei]

Well, i do wonder what would have happened if those buildings came down sideways. Don't know the exact dynamics though.


j

 

[Stac3y]

These are all straw-men of what they are actually saying. Think about it for a minute. Why would a trained professional argue something so obviously wrong? The truth is that they don't argue these straw men. The media would have you think that this is what this group is actually saying. Have you read any of the papers published by this group? They are all on the website.

Because there are an awful lot of well-educated professionals who, despite their amassed knowledge, are still STUPID. Sorry to put such a fine point on it, but I know many people with Masters' degrees who haven't got the common sense or intellectual capacity of a cinder block. Knowledge and intelligence just aren't the same thing.

 

[Archangel M]

And education isnt a talisman against mental illness and flawed decision making. Look at that female prof who recently went on a shooting spree. Looks like she may have killed before this event too.

The "appeal to authority" thing runs all over this thread.

 

[Carol]

And education isnt a talisman against mental illness and flawed decision making. Look at that female prof who recently went on a shooting spree. Looks like she may have killed before this event too.

Amy Bishop absolutely killed before. She shot her brother twice with a pump-action shotgun, which lead to his death. The controversy isn't that she was the shooter, the only controversy is how two shots from a pump action shotgun can be considered an "accident".

(Hint: her mom was on city council at the time)

IMO that is one of the reasons why PE's are licensed. Its not just the education for the exam, the license is something that could be taken away should the decision result in injury or death.

I looked at the site, they aren't looking for structural engineers, or even licensed PE's. They are looking for engineering professionals :wavey: or people that speak or write well. :wavey:

Hey I could join up, I'm an engineering professional. In addition, I can speak and write quite well. Think they'll kick me to the curb for not having the right kind of engineering background?

 

[Archangel M]

Amy Bishop absolutely killed before. She shot her brother twice with a pump-action shotgun, which lead to his death. The controversy isn't that she was the shooter, the only controversy is how two shots from a pump action shotgun can be considered an "accident".

(Hint: her mom was on city council at the time)

IMO that is one of the reasons why PE's are licensed. Its not just the education for the exam, the license is something that could be taken away should the decision result in injury or death.

I looked at the site, they aren't looking for structural engineers, or even licensed PE's. They are looking for engineering professionals :wavey: or people that speak or write well. :wavey:

Hey I could join up, I'm an engineering professional. In addition, I can speak and write quite well. Think they'll kick me to the curb for not having the right kind of engineering background?

Sign-up see if you get in.

Except then you get to boost their tin-hat popularity contest.

 

[Makalakumu]

The "appeal to authority" thing runs all over this thread.

It certainly does!

 

[jks9199]

So, how many people would have to consider these questions legitimate before you would give it a second thought? What would it take to make you question the official story? What is your personal threshold?

My personal threshold is simple. Debunk the people I KNOW who saw a plane crash into the Pentagon. Debunk the clear documentation that 2 planes flew into the World Trade Center. Show me how a conspiracy of scale necessary could be carried out in the real world. The World Trade Center was a complex, inter-related set of structures. The impact of two large planes, with mostly full fuel tanks and no attempt to slow down played havoc with those structures. The collapse of the buildings then further damaged the surrounding structures.

And, don't forget, none of the structures were brand new. They'd endured decades of winds and other stresses prior to 9/11/2001. And we're only assuming that all the materials used were even to spec initially...

Occam's Razor suggests to us that the most likely explanation is the simplest; to construct a workable conspiracy theory requires that you invent and add lots of complexity and insert new problems. But, of course, we cannot prove there was no conspiracy; it's impossible to prove a negative, and the reality is that if you buy into the conspiracy theory, anyone who tries to debunk it becomes part of the conspiracy.

 

[Archangel M]

"Appeal to Authority"

Here it makes sense. Structural Engineers are the guys with the Authority/Knowledge to determine what happened to the WTC.

Not some assorted conglomeration of disciplines with no verification as to expertise or even validation of WHO they really are.

 

[jks9199]

For new agencies and the government to take notice, you're going to need an authoritative, qualified entity to get on board and convincing them is going to require REAL evidence. Everything that I've read - as a Structural Engineer - seems kind of silly to me that these people don't know how those things are explained. Such as the collapse of Building 7 or the "explosive sections of concrete." To ME, those things are not only normal, but to be completely EXPECTED in such an incident. Particularly when considering the subsurface conditions on the island of NYC. I'm surprise more buildings weren't catastrophically damaged

Not only are some of the things reported normal to materials in that sort of stress -- but what else was legitimately in that building? Was there any cooking facility that could have had gas tanks exploding? Other similar materials... or combinations of cleaners and other office chemicals?

I've had a fair amount of training and experience in investigating motor vehicle crashes. That's included viewing high-speed footage of what goes on in controlled crashes -- as well as quite a bit of training on the dynamics of the crash. I've worked scenes that literally seemed impossible, until I sat down and worked through each event and how it compounded into the next, leading to the final resting positions. Based on that experience and training, I have to trust the large number of people who have appropriate training who say that the crashes, and nothing more complex, caused the buildings to collapse.

 

[Makalakumu]

Structural Engineers are the guys with the Authority/Knowledge to determine what happened to the WTC.

There are many structural engineers that are part of this group. Look at the list I posted. Count them for yourself...

Also, a form of the Appeal to Authority argument is Credentialism. I don't think you want to live in a world where the only people that can speak or that people listen to are the people who are "qualified" to speak.

I'm not saying that education isn't important, but one can certainly take it too far.

 

[Makalakumu]

My personal threshold is simple. Debunk the people I KNOW who saw a plane crash into the Pentagon. Debunk the clear documentation that 2 planes flew into the World Trade Center. Show me how a conspiracy of scale necessary could be carried out in the real world. The World Trade Center was a complex, inter-related set of structures. The impact of two large planes, with mostly full fuel tanks and no attempt to slow down played havoc with those structures. The collapse of the buildings then further damaged the surrounding structures.

And, don't forget, none of the structures were brand new. They'd endured decades of winds and other stresses prior to 9/11/2001. And we're only assuming that all the materials used were even to spec initially...

Occam's Razor suggests to us that the most likely explanation is the simplest; to construct a workable conspiracy theory requires that you invent and add lots of complexity and insert new problems. But, of course, we cannot prove there was no conspiracy; it's impossible to prove a negative, and the reality is that if you buy into the conspiracy theory, anyone who tries to debunk it becomes part of the conspiracy.

The no-plane and space weapon theories that are out there have made a lot of the more reasonable things people have said seem less credible via guilt by association. None of the people in this group are arguing those things.

Also, based on the expertise of the group, I think one can safely say that building design, materials, and stress limits were taken into account. Based on what I have read, it certainly has been.

Lastly, Occam's Razor is relative. People shade and apply where ever they see fit. Occam (I think) himself warned us of this. That's why it's just a general rule of thumb.

 

[Makalakumu]

Look at the most simple reason why it can't work.

To do a controlled demolition, you need to precisely place shaped charges on support structures.

In a building, those structures are buried behind walls.

So crews would have had to come in to the building when it was empty - impossible in an office building, there are always people working inthere.

Cut holes in walls, place and wire the charges, patch and paint the walls and be done before anybody notices.

Imagine for a moment that incontrovertible evidence exists that the WTC complex was demolished with explosives. It wouldn't matter how hard it was to rig the buildings, because we have evidence that the event really did happen.

This is the problem with this argument. It's a logical fallacy.

And regarding the famous building 7 argument. Do you know what kind of structural damage was caused by the ground vibration and air displacement of the 2 towers colapsing?

Please elaborate? I've seen the seismic data, btw. I understand that all of the buildings were rooted in the crystalline schist that underlays that particular part of Manhattan. I understand what kind of energy could be released in a gravitational collapse and that actually has been measured. So, what do you think? How would you think it made a difference? How would you know if it made a difference?

 

[MBuzzy]

Imagine for a moment that incontrovertible evidence exists that the WTC complex was demolished with explosives. It wouldn't matter how hard it was to rig the buildings, because we have evidence that the event really did happen.

This is the problem with this argument. It's a logical fallacy.

Which fallacy?

A few people have mentioned the argumentum ad veracundum (appeal to authority)....The problem with that fallacy is that it is only an appeal to authority if the person being cited does not actually have the authority being attributed to them. Example: If I say "My structural engineer professor said that republicans are better than democrats, therefore it must be true." Then it is a fallacy, I am arguing that something is true simply based on his authority as my professor. But, if I say that "My Structural Engineering professor told me that the net force on every body in a system to equal to zero." well, that isn't a fallacy....he happens to BE an authority on the subject.

Please elaborate? I've seen the seismic data, btw. I understand that all of the buildings were rooted in the crystalline schist that underlays that particular part of Manhattan. I understand what kind of energy could be released in a gravitational collapse and that actually has been measured. So, what do you think? How would you think it made a difference? How would you know if it made a difference?

I'm not following here, so are you saying that the seismic impact had no effect on the building? how about other debris? Do we have deterministic evidence as to what external factors acted on the building? Such as falling debris, etc?

Those buildings were rooted on a very complex system of unpilings and caissons. Concrete is VERY strong in compression (the force that most commonly acts on buildings), but very weak in tension and impact. The impacts on the ground and resulting subsurface resonance would have seriously damaged on the integrity of subsurface supports. Those supports are tied to the superstructure of the building through joints at the ground level, so anything that impacts those supports ends up affecting the integrity of the entire building. I don't need any proof that the impact of the other buildings falling effected the superstructure of the surrounding buildings, just the same that I don't need proof that an apple falling off of a tree in the woods falls at 9.8m/s/s.

 

[Archangel M]

9/11 truthers = Psychology not physics.

 

[Makalakumu]

Which fallacy?

That's a different fallacy. I can't remember the name.

A few people have mentioned the argumentum ad veracundum (appeal to authority)....The problem with that fallacy is that it is only an appeal to authority if the person being cited does not actually have the authority being attributed to them. Example: If I say "My structural engineer professor said that republicans are better than democrats, therefore it must be true." Then it is a fallacy, I am arguing that something is true simply based on his authority as my professor. But, if I say that "My Structural Engineering professor told me that the net force on every body in a system to equal to zero." well, that isn't a fallacy....he happens to BE an authority on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

The point of this fallacy is to point out the excuses for ignoring premises/evidence. You can be an authority and argue with an authority and commit an appeal from authority. Check out the logical definition.

In this thread's case, we have the an appeal from authority, we have an appeal to what is popular, we have special pleading, etc.

Most of the 9/11 debunking and 9/11 truth movement are engaged in that kind of argument.

What it comes down to is what people have actually found and what has actually happened. What people need to do, in this case, is have the guts to consider the total pool of evidence.

I'm not following here, so are you saying that the seismic impact had no effect on the building? how about other debris? Do we have deterministic evidence as to what external factors acted on the building? Such as falling debris, etc?

Yeah we do and it's all being plugged into a computer model with various assumptions that are being questioned by experts. NIST refuses to release their computer modeling assumptions to the public.

Those buildings were rooted on a very complex system of unpilings and caissons. Concrete is VERY strong in compression (the force that most commonly acts on buildings), but very weak in tension and impact. The impacts on the ground and resulting subsurface resonance would have seriously damaged on the integrity of subsurface supports. Those supports are tied to the superstructure of the building through joints at the ground level, so anything that impacts those supports ends up affecting the integrity of the entire building. I don't need any proof that the impact of the other buildings falling effected the superstructure of the surrounding buildings, just the same that I don't need proof that an apple falling off of a tree in the woods falls at 9.8m/s/s.

It's all conjecture and you don't really know anything unless you've actually taken a look at the site and analyzed all of the available evidence. How much energy was released by the collapse? How much damage was actually caused?

Did you know that the NIST has said that the collapse of all three buildings occurred because of fire damage alone? Did you know that the NIST had to introduce and artificial 43 inch sag into their computer model in order to initiate the failure of the floor and column system? There is no physical evidence to support the artificial sag.

Also, did you know that there is no explanation for the "global collapse"? After the first floor fell, we have no explanation as to why the next floor fell and NOBODY can explain why they fell at free fall speed. Even NIST claims that the collapse occured at free fall speed. There is also ample evidence that these scientists faked it for political reasons and the could lose their licenses over it.

Here's what I can do, I can send the link to this thread to some of the people involved and I can see if they will contribute. We have at least three structural engineers participating in this thread and I would think that these people would jump at the chance to present this info to people in the profession.

Let's see what happens and see how things progress.

 

[Makalakumu]

9/11 truthers = Psychology not physics.

Do you actually have something constructive to add to this discussion?

A statement like that is trollish at best.

 

[Marginal]

Here's what I can do, I can send the link to this thread to some of the people involved and I can see if they will contribute. We have at least three structural engineers participating in this thread and I would think that these people would jump at the chance to present this info to people in the profession.

Let's see what happens and see how things progress.

Wouldn't that just be more appeal to authority? How does this only work one way?

 

[Makalakumu]

Wouldn't that just be more appeal to authority? How does this only work one way?

Nope. We are just attempting to see what the people in the article have to say about the matter.

As far as the appeal to authority goes, well, it certainly goes both ways, I posted this article to see if the fact that credentialed folk could convince other credentialed folk. The evidence existed before the credentialed folk knew about it. This whole discussion rests on an appeal to authority.

Isn't it funny how the world works...

 

[Makalakumu]

Do you actually have something constructive to add to this discussion?

A statement like that is trollish at best.

Never mind, I took that personally.