Monday, January 9, 2012

1,650 Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth

When I first found the website Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, back in September of 2008, 470 of them had signed the petition that doubted the official explanation of the destruction of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001. That number is over 1,650. The fact that the number of building experts for 9/11 truth continues to increase doesn't prove that 9/11 Truthers are correct, but it does suggest that perhaps the evidence is at least worth looking at. You can go to their Evidence Page to check it out.

26 comments:

Albury Smith said...

I think it's time to investigate some of the bizarre and absurd claims made by Richard Gage, not the three WTC hi-rise collapses on 9/11, since they've already been thoroughly investigated by much more qualified, competent, and honest people. The NIST scientists and engineers were only able to time the top 18 stories, or 242', of the collapse of WTC 7's facade, and determined that it took 5.4 seconds, yet Gage and others in the 9/11 "truth movement" claim that the entire 610' collapse only took ~6.5 seconds. Did the other 368' fall in just over 1 second? How is he even able to give us a time to the nearest 1/10 of a second for the entire collapse when NIST couldn't because buildings in the foreground blocked the view of video cameras?
How can he claim that the towers nearly free fell when the loose, airborne debris from their upper stories was obviously falling much faster than the collapse zones, and began hitting the ground while at least 40 stories in each one were still intact? The North Tower was only down to the height of WTC 7 when debris from the upper stories first hit the ground. Was g miraculously increased on 9/11? They fell in ~15 and ~22 seconds respectively, nowhere near the ~9.25 seconds that free fall would have taken:

http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/40/qLShZOvxVe4

yet he begins every presentation with his near free-fall claim. He's also claimed that the dust clouds from the collapses were "pyroclastic," but there are no reports of anyone's skin being instantly peeled off, and he's claimed that the fires in WTC 7 were minor, totally contradicting these NYC eyewitnesses:

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

How could his claim that 400,000 yards of concrete were turned to fine powder be true, when there was less than 100,000 yards of concrete above grade in both towers combined? Does he know how to turn 400,000 yards of concrete to fine powder with explosives without leveling NYC?
Has he ever seen a controlled demolition that left molten metal in the debris for months? Has he ever seen one that didn't leave even one explosively-cut column in the debris? Since he claims that explosives were planted in the core columns to start the collapses, and that it was done from elevator shafts, has he even looked a floor plan of the cores above the 78th floor sky lobby? There were only 6 regular elevators above there, plus a freight and 2 express elevators, and they were only near 6 of the 47 core columns. Several of those were in the paths of the planes, and the perimeter columns collapsed first, so he's not even making sense, especially considering the fact that 30 or more stories of core framing stood 15-25 seconds after each tower's main collapse was over.
We should investigate the nonsense coming from Richard Gage, as well as his "engineers."

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3834688&postcount=12

Bilbo said...

Hi Albury,

Sorry I didn't get to a computer yesterday. Good questions. I'll see what, if any answers I can offer.

Bilbo said...

Perhaps we could begin with David Chandler's youtube video here.

Bilbo said...

Or his pdf.

Albury Smith said...

Timing a collapse proves that gravity works; an ET (or partial one) has nothing to do with what caused it, as the One-Trick Pony could easily demonstrate by doing the same over-analysis on video of real hi-rise C/Ds, unless he thinks every column in them is also cut. To put this in better perspective, he's claiming that 24 of these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY
each weighing 730#/lineal foot, were all instantly and silently cut multiple times with explosives, along with 57 more columns weighing 500#/lineal foot, and no one noticed even one column end in the debris that didn't appear to be cut with a band saw.
Chandler should see about getting a spot on Letterman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB-uK4akI2Q
Gage could drop some cardboard boxes on each other as the opening act.

Bilbo said...

Albury: ...and no one noticed even one column end in the debris that didn't appear to be cut with a band saw.

How do you know that?

Albury Smith said...

If explosively-cut columns had been found in the WTC debris, it's a pretty safe bet that many of the ~40,000 different people who worked on the cleanup there for nearly 8 months would have noticed and mentioned it. What the 9/11 "truth movement" has instead is Steven Jones's photo of a column that was cut by ironworkers with an oxyacetylene torch, gray slag and all. If you think that's what's left after explosives go off, you've never seen slag.

Bilbo said...

Albury: If explosively-cut columns had been found in the WTC debris, it's a pretty safe bet that many of the ~40,000 different people who worked on the cleanup there for nearly 8 months would have noticed and mentioned it.

Interesting argument from silence. We know that 40,000 people worked at the cleanup site...how? And we know that they would have paid attention to the condition of the columns...how? And we know that they didn't mention it...how?

Bilbo said...

And do we have any mention from any of the supposed 40,000 witnesses as to the condition of the columns at all?

Albury Smith said...

We have no mention from you on how steel columns weighing 730#/lineal foot and having 4.9" flanges are secretly cut with explosives. If you'd like to believe that they'd have appeared to have been cut with a band saw, or that the cleanup workers, structural engineers, firefighters, etc. at the site for ~8 months were all blind and stupid, that's your prerogative.

Bilbo said...

Albury: We have no mention from you on how steel columns weighing 730#/lineal foot and having 4.9" flanges are secretly cut with explosives.

The evidence suggests that thermitic materials were used.

If you'd like to believe that they'd have appeared to have been cut with a band saw, or that the cleanup workers, structural engineers, firefighters, etc. at the site for ~8 months were all blind and stupid, that's your prerogative.

First, you haven't explained how you know there were 40,000 cleanup workers.

Second, you haven't demonstrated that any structural engineers were able to inspect the steel columns and beams. Since, next to controlled demolition experts, they would be the ones most likely to notice that there was something strange about the columns, that would be a very important thing to demonstrate.

And I imagine firefighters were more interested in finding the bodies of their fallen comrades.

But ask yourself the question: If there was nothing strange about the columns, then all sorts of people from the 40,000 should be coming forward to refute the claims of 9/11 Truthers. Where are they?

Bilbo said...

But since we are discussing whether the columns had been cut, instead of crushed, I think the most overlooked piece of data is the video of the North Tower Spires, columns near the bottom of the tower that had not yet fallen. We are able to see some of them fall over, apparently displaying that they had been mostly, but not completely cut through. This would be consistent with a thermitic charge that had failed to cut through the thicker steel that the columns were composed of near the bottom of the building. This would not be consistent with the view that the weight of the upper building was crushing everything underneath it. Why weren't the spires crushed? Why were they still standing?

Albury Smith said...

How many FDNY and others at GZ are in your 9/11 "truth movement," since loads of suspiciously-cut columns would certainly have been noticed, photographed, and reported, and most people just ignore nonsense from people like Gage? The exact number of cleanup workers is hardly relevant, but there were SEs from the PANYNJ, FEMA BPAT, NSF, SEAoNY, and other organizations, as well as experienced demolition workers from CDI and other controlled demolition firms, and representatives from Protec Services, Inc., although even a blind man would have spotted explosively-cut steel.

I've never seen any evidence to suggest that "thermitic materials were used," but I do know that sulfur, rust, aluminum, silicon, etc. "reminded" someone of nanothermite, despite the fact that no one ever bothered to provide any exemplars of it for comparison, or demonstrate how painting explosives on vertical steel surfaces cuts through them. If you'd like to know why ~40 stories of core framing stood for 15-20 seconds after the main tower collapses ended, look at the framing plans for them. A much better question, considering that 236 of the 283 columns in each one were more than halfway outside of the living spaces and in plain sight, is how they were secretly blown up with explosives while people were looking right at them. There are other questions in my first comment that need some consideration too.

Bilbo said...

How many Structural Engineers inspected the steel before it was hauled away?

Albury: I've never seen any evidence to suggest that "thermitic materials were used....

Your explanation for the red-gray chips? For the orange molten metal pouring from the South Tower? For the molten metal under all three towers that lasted for weeks?

If you'd like to know why ~40 stories of core framing stood for 15-20 seconds after the main tower collapses ended, look at the framing plans for them.

You wouldn't happen to have a copy on you?

Albury Smith said...

The molten metal that was briefly seen pouring from the burning NE corner of the South Tower was right where the fuselage of UA 175 wound up, so was either aluminum or possibly lead, since there were numerous UPS battery backups throughout the building. Given that the collapse started at the SE corner well after that occurred, and the molten metal didn't cause anything near there to collapse, what's your explanation for it?
The red-gray chips were most likely paint, but the "researchers" who allegedly found them provided no exemplars of anything for comparison, and simply said that sulfur, rust, aluminum, and silicon "reminded" them of something or other. Since no steel framing showed any signs of being explosively cut, I'm wondering what they thought it did. I also know of no explosives or incendiaries that keep metal molten for weeks, so I'd attribute that to the well-documented debris fires, fueled by normal office contents.
A good overview of the details of the tower framing, including framing plans and partials, is in FEMA 403, as well as in NCSTAR 1:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf or:
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017
I don't have an exact count of all of the SEs and other engineers, or scientists and other investigators, etc. at the site after 9/11, but I did list some of the agencies that sent them. Evidence of explosive cutting of steel would hardly have required experts to spot, however.

Bilbo said...

Sorry for the delay, again, Albury. Busy yesterday.

The problem with the molten metal pouring from the South Tower being aluminum is that molten aluminum appears silver in daylight. NIST admitted this, but suggested that the orange color was from other material being mixed in with it, such as office furniture. As far as I know, the only person who has done experiments to see if this could account for it is Stephen Jones. And the results of his experiments would indicate that the aluminum should still appear silver. So that leaves lead UPS battery back ups. You think there would be that many located in one place?

...the molten metal didn't cause anything near there to collapse, what's your explanation for it?

I believe the South Tower started to lean over at that location soon afterwards.

...The red-gray chips were most likely paint....

Paint that explodes? Let me know where I can get some.

...Since no steel framing showed any signs of being explosively cut....

You base this on the assumption that all the rescue workers would have noticed if the steel had been explosively cut. I seriously doubt that most people would know what explosively cut steel would like. But I'm willing to bet that they would know what a controlled demolition of a building would look like.

I don't have an exact count of all of the SEs and other engineers, or scientists and other investigators, etc. at the site after 9/11, but I did list some of the agencies that sent them.

Do we have their reports of the condition of the steel framing?

Thanks for the links to the framing plans.

Albury Smith said...

There are a LOT more problems trying to connect that one isolated event in one tower to a controlled demolition hypothesis, including the fact that the collapse did not start there, but at the SE corner ~208' away, and well after that small flow of metal was seen. Steven Jones is caught lying constantly, and is not the only one who's looked into whether aluminum will glow red or orange when contaminated with carpeting, etc:

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

There were 110 floors (above grade) and 236 perimeter columns in each tower, and this flow of metal was only seen in an area of raging fire at the exact location of UA 175's fuselage, so I think the conclusion's pretty obvious.

We only have Jones, Harrit, and their friends' word for it that these "red-gray chips" explode, and that sulfur, rust, silicon, and aluminum "remind" them of an explosives, since they didn't bother to provide any exemplars, but it clearly didn't sever any steel, since that type of cut would have been impossible for even an inexperienced laborer to miss, and the steel was handled by ironworkers and inspected by engineers. Jones showed photos of a column cut diagonally by an acetylene torch and called it evidence of his "nanothermite," or whatever, so that should give you some idea of how credible he is.

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/stevene.jones'thermitethermateclaims

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/canofficefirescauselargesteelcolumnsandb

His pal Harrit claims that more than "100 tons" of conventional high explosives like RDX were used in addition to the "nanothermite," and that's enough to fill up 4 tri-axle truck beds. There wouldn't have been much left of NYC if he were correct.

http://ct911truth.org/911_movies/niels_harrit_interview_rt_i.html (at 1:30 in video)

Bilbo said...

Albury,

Befoe we go any further, are you retracting argument that the steel beams and columns weren't explosively-cut, because nobody said they were?

Albury Smith said...

I'm retracting nothing I said. There were no explosives involved in any WTC collapse on 9/11.

Bilbo said...

In that case, Albury, I think you need to support your assertion that most people would recognize explosively-cut steel. Also, you need to support your assertion that structural engineers were able to inspect the steel before it was hauled away.

Albury Smith said...

I've posted numerous reasons for not believing Richard Gage, and you apparently accept his bunk without question, but want me to prove that columns blown apart by explosives don't look anything like ones that are broken in collapses, and that the PANYNJ, SEAoNY, FEMA, NSF, and other agencies had engineers at GZ practically from the beginning? I'm beginning to see why you're in the 9/11 "truth movement," but this paper by Brent Blanchard of Protec Services addresses some of your questions:
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Here's some information on the work of Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl of Berkeley and the NSF:

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/world-trade-center-collapse-field.html

NIST has some of the WTC steel in storage in Hangar 17 at JFK, and at their Gaithersburg, MD facility, and it was selected by engineers sent there to investigate.

Bilbo said...

Hi Albury,

A while ago you stated:

If explosively-cut columns had been found in the WTC debris, it's a pretty safe bet that many of the ~40,000 different people who worked on the cleanup there for nearly 8 months would have noticed and mentioned it.

You have not presented evidence that there were 40,000 involved in the cleanup. You have not presented evidence that any of them would have known what explosively-cut columns would look like.

Now you give the report by Protec and one structural engineer. Protec argues against a controlled demolition, and claims to have thousands of pictures. One would think that if they had pictures of the steel columns, that they would show them and say, "See, no signs of explosively-cut columns." Instead, all they offer is hearsay evidence.

The SE who did investigate makes no mention of what the steel columns looked like. Certainly this would have been important in determining exactly how and why the towers fell. One can reasonably doubt that he saw much of the steel columns at all.

So your argument that there was no explosively-cut steel remains very much unsupported. And therefore of very little merit.

With that in mind, we can turn to the evidence that Gage and others have presented.

Albury Smith said...

I "turn[ed] to" the "evidence" that Box Boy presented in my very first post here 10 days ago, and you've addressed almost nothing in it. Should I assume that you agree with me that he's a chronic liar and a total incompetent?

Bilbo said...

Hi Albury,

I don't think Richard Gage is a chronic liar and totally incompetent. However, before we argue anymore, I think it is far more important that we be friends than that we agree with each other about 9/11. You are obviously a very intelligent person who has already looked at a lot of the evidence and decided that the official version is correct. And I respect you for that. So if you want, we can continue to discuss and argue about the evidence, but only if you promise that we will still be friends, even if we disagree with each other. And if you don't want to argue anymore, I will still respect you and your intelligence.

Anonymous said...

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2011/09/13/911-truth-critics-do-they-have-a-case/

as evidenced by his inordinate amount of official spin regurgitation, ( a quick google for albury smith 911 will show a history of his commenting on every blog concerning 911, posting the same lies, distortions and obfuscations ad nauseam, 24/7 ) this shows that he is either paid to do this or has severe mental disabilities, as pointed out by most everyone who has the misfortune to have ever crossed paths with the unflushable turd, and is as obvious as is the explosive destruction of the 3 towers that day.

the only people who would argue against a transparent, unfettered independent investigation into the events of 911 are those with a vested interest in supressing the truth.

there is irefutable evidence that the events of 911 did not happen as we are being told,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jazdG3-ZETM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iND-b8Q3jc


but despite that, and despite not being asked, albury will continue to offer his unqualified, anonymous opinion, as if he is some sort of final arbiter of truth, in relation to ANYTHING to do with 911. a self proclaimed expert..

its so pathetic, if it wasnt for the fact that on the backs of the lies of that fateful day, hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children have been killed, civil and constitutional rights have been shredded, and the world has been subjected to a never ending war of terror, it would be funny.

This video puts to rest ALL of alburys arguments and shows exactly why 911 needs a proper investigation.
Professor Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) – 10 Years After 9/11 The Official Account Does Not Add Up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fUT7XgLiTY

Anonymous said...

http://www.darkmoon.me/2012/911-bombshell-%e2%80%94-the-truth-about-911-will-destroy-israel/comment-page-2/#comment-16627

albury running away from common sense and logic again

the official fairy tale of 911 doesnt stand up to scrutiny, nor does albury smith 911 gormless shill, stupid little chicken man..