Thursday, June 14, 2012

1700 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

There are now 1700 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. One could say that this constitutes a small minority of the total number of current architects and engineers, which is true. A more interesting question would be what percentage of architects and engineers are against 9/11 "Truth" ("Truth" in this case would refer to an alternative version of events than the official version). And a still more interesting question would be what percentage of those architects and engineers who are against 9/11 "Truth" have examined the evidence presented by 9/11 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 "Truth?"

But if my criterion for when to challenge the Consensus is accepted (and as yet nobody has challenged my criterion), if even one architect or engineer challenged the official version of 9/11, this would be grounds for us to challenge the official version, also. Given that there are 1,699 additional experts that challenge the official version, so much stronger are the grounds for us to challenge it as well.


Anonymous said...

You might want stop counting and come back to reality, psycho

Bilbo said...

Hi Anon,

It's clear that you are not able to refute the evidence that AE911/Truth presents for controlled demolitions of the WTC buildings.

All you have left is the ability to call me a "psycho."

The word "psycho" carries with it the connotation of somebody dangerous to others (as in the movie, "Psycho"). That suggests that you see me as dangerous. That suggests that you are afraid. But I haven't threatened you or anybody else. So what are you afraid of? The truth?

Anonymous said...

Wow you really are friggen nuts. Every claim made by you nutbags has been thoroughly debunked, look. Try using google.

Bilbo said...

Every attempt at debunking AE9/11 Truth has been thoroughly debunked. The fact that you use terms like "nutbags" indicates that you you've run out of intelligent things to say.

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:

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:

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."

Bilbo said...

Hi Albury,

A few points:

Regarding WTC 7, we have a symmetrical collapse of a steel framed high rise building at near or actual free-fall acceleration. The only previous experiences of this happening is in controlled demolitions. No other cause has ever resulted in this type of collapse. When controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko saw the video of #7's collapse he concluded that it was a controlled demolition. When he was told that it was WTC 7 and happened on 9/11, at first he was skeptical. But he never changed his mind that it was a controlled demolition. As far as I know, no other controlled demolition expert has commented on #7.

Now according to David Chandler's analysis, for about 2.5 seconds there was actual free-fall acceleration. I showed you his video explaining this last time. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it wasn't free-fall. We still need an explanation for a collapse that even a controlled demolition expert said was controlled demolition. NIST offered an explanation: a slow smoldering fire caused a column to collapse, which led to additional columns collapsing, followed by the entire building collapsing. And they presented a computer animated video showing what this would look like. The animated video doesn't really look like what we see in the actual videos. But more importantly, NIST refuses to release there computer data by which they came up with their theory. This is not science. In science, you release your data for public analysis by other scientists. So NIST has given us an unscientific explanation for the collapse of #7.

In addition to this, we have metal collected by FEMA from #7 that shows degradation that is consistent with being burned by thermate. We have no other acceptable explanation of what would cause this. It's been suggested that the sulfur in dry wall could have caused this, but experiments show that it wouldn't.

In addition, we have extremely heated conditons in the ground beneath #7 that lasts for weeks that suggests a exothermic chemical reaction is occurring, This would be consistent with a reaction involving large amounts of a thermitic material.

As to WTC 1 and 2, no in AE9/11Truth makes the claim that they fell at free fall acceleration. What they do claim is that their fall was at constant acceleration, with no "jolt" from the upper parts of the buildings hitting the lower parts. If the collapses had been caused by the upper parts hitting the lower parts, there would have been jolts that would momentarily slow the falls' accelerations. There were no such jolts. This means that the resistance one would normally expect in such impacts did not exist.

Not sure about the pyroclastic dust clouds. But it doesn't play a large part in persuading other architects and engineers that controlled demolitions took place.

Likewise with the amount of concrete turned to dust.

I doubt anyone has seen a controlled demolition that has left molten metal in the ground for months. The question is, what would cause it? The only likely answer is thermitel And why would NIST try to deny the molten metal's existence? Because if they admitted its existence, they know the only explanation would be thermite.

Interesting point about access to the core columns from the elevator shafts. I'll see what I can find on it.

I don't believe the perimeter columns started falling first. Yes there were spires left. I've suggested it was because the column's steel was thicker toward the bottom, and therefore it took longer for the thermite to burn through them.

Albury Smith said...

In science, theories are corroborated with research and evidence, not simply by attacking other hypotheses. C/D experts have weighed in on all of the WTC collapses, and only Jowenko has X-ray vision that works on grainy video footage with no audio. If One-Trick Chandler thinks all support must be removed in order for acceleration indiscernible from g to occur, he could easily prove that absurdity by doing his same analysis on this known C/D: (turn up the audio and learn something)
Video of the Landmark Tower implosion is commonly put alongside the WTC 7 collapse videos by the 9/11 "truth movement" to show the same rate of descent, and BOTH have many floors that are collapsed solely by gravity.
Box Boy's "800 engineers" have now had NEARLY FOUR YEARS to do their own ANSYS and LS-DYNA modeling, and haven't even STARTED. It wouldn't provide a shred of evidence for explosives, but real engineers on our planet wouldn't need to look at someone else's work first; they'd model on their own and then compare the results. NIST and many other sources have provided all of the necessary data, but are prevented from releasing COMPLETE input and results files by a provision in the NCST Act.
If experiments show that the corrosion on the 2 small FEMA samples can be duplicated with explosives or incendiaries, DO THEM and present it for peer review. You've obviously never seen what incendiaries do to iron and steel. If "thermitic material" keeps steel molten for months, light some up and PROVE IT. What known C/Ds have ever left molten steel behind for even a second, let alone ~100 days? The debris fires were obviously hot enough to melt lead and aluminum, and no scientific analysis accompanied any of the anecdotal GZ accounts of the molten metal.
"Pyroclastic dust" that doesn't burn paper is pure BS, and your "researcher" didn't even bother to calculate the concrete volumes in the collapsed portions of the WTC buildings, or posit any method for turning it all to dust, let alone a reason. Gypsum from the GWB and core board was the main source of dust in all 3 WTC collapses - not concrete. Real C/Ds of steel-framed buildings only cut steel. [duh]
If you don't believe that the towers' perimeter columns failed first, you haven't watched any of the collapse videos, and if you don't know why WTC 7's collapse was fairly symmetrical, you haven't looked at the framing layout and details, or aren't knowledgeable enough to understand them.

Bilbo said...

Hi Asbury,

Are you saying that other CD experts have weighed in on #7? Where?

Chandler is basing his conclusion on accepted science. In order for free-fall acceleration to occur there must be no resistance. For almost 2.5 seconds there was free-fall acceleration in #7. That means for 2.5 seconds there was no resistance. Chandler is not saying that the entire collapse was at free-fall acceleration. Since the entire collapse takes at least 6.5 seconds, that would means at least 4 seconds were not at free-fall acceleration. I don't know if Chandler has analyzed the Landmark Tower (or other CDs) in the same way.

What provision of the NCST act prevents NIST from releasing the data? I guess AE911/Truth could present a computer analysis of where the explosives would have to be placed. I think they nailed it down to between the 6th and 13th floors.

So if we burn some steel columns with thermate and they look like the pieces that FEMA found, would that be evidence for CDs?

I guess I could ask you to show that molten aluminum and lead would remain molten for 100 days.

I've watched videos of the collapses of #1 and #2. There was even analysis (I think by FEMA) that the antenna in the North Tower begins to descend first, which would mean the core columns started falling first.

Bilbo said...

So far, I have this experiment that tested the idea that the steel was corroded by gypsum board, diesel fuel, aluminum, and office fires.

Albury Smith said...

It's Albury, not "Asbury," so simple reading skills may be part of the problem here. Chandler's entire hypothesis is that free fall can only occur when there's no resistance, and competent and honest physicists, engineers, etc. understand that there isn't MEASURABLE resistance when ~150,000TONS are falling, opposed only by columns that are mostly sideways, as the WTC 7 exterior ones were from t=~1.75 to t=~4 seconds, well after the interior had collapsed. Once again, Landmark Tower had many floors that either had no charges planted on any column, or very few, so analyzing the stage-by-stage fall rates would easily disprove his bunk. Here's where his "accepted science" belongs if he wants more than his quarter hour of fame:

Two little nondescript pieces of corroded steel, only 1 of which was thought to have been part of WTC 7, would not be all of the evidence found after 81 columns were cut multiple times with explosives, and no explosive or incendiary would produce that effect anyway. Debris fires burned for ~100 days, and the proof that they kept aluminum and lead molten is in the anecdotal accounts as well as temperature readings, which no one I know has questioned. What is very questionable is that it was STEEL, but NIST has not rejected that slim possibility either. They primarily studied the causes, and they do not include the melting of steel in any of their WTC collapse hypotheses.

Brent Blanchard and Mark Loizeaux are two very prominent C/D experts who find the explosives "theory" asinine, and there are undoubtedly more here:

If others besides Jowenko have X-ray vision that works on grainy video with no audio, please feel free to enlighten me.

READ NCSTAR 1A and the NCST Act instead of asking me what's in them. LOOK AT AND TIME any WTC 7 collapse video if you think Box Boy's 6.5 seconds is honest. If he found one that shows the bottom floors clearly enough for 1/10 second accuracy, and didn't take at least 8 seconds, he hasn't shared it with us.

Don't "guess AE911/Truth could present" anything; they haven't so far, and I've already suggested a number of things they could present. Blowing up one of these would be a good start:

Albury Smith said...

Good grief. Jonathan Cole showed what DIDN'T cause that corrosion, and later did some ridiculous experiments that went to completely impractical extremes to show that incendiaries can burn sideways with enough contraptions rigged to the steel. Do you really believe that a mess of molten steel on the ends of columns pulled from the debris could possibly have been mistaken for mechanical breaks?

Bilbo said...

So first, we are agreed that the only experiments done so far in regard to the gypsum board suggest that it is an inadequate explanation?

Second, I was looking for expeiments with thermate. But yes, I believe Cole showed how to cut steel columns sideways. If I remember correctly, his "contraption" didn't look impractical at all. So other than "impracticality" are you willing to accept that as evidence that a thermitic material could have caused the destruction of the steel that FEMA found? Or should I continue to look for more experiments?

Ah yes, we're back to your old standby objection that observers would have noticed the mess of molten steel on the ends of the columns. And we know they didn't why? Because nobody said they noticed it, of course! If you're paid to haul away steel as quickly as you can and not to ask questions, then I doubt you "notice" things, either. And since FEMA wasn't given access to most of the debris, they wouldn't notice, either. You've got to come up with something better than this argument from silence, Albury.

Bilbo said...

Hi Albury,

One of your comments was in held up in spam. I just saw it and published it. Sorry about the "Asbury." Typo.

Bilbo said...

I just finished re-watching the The Great Thermate Debate. Yes, Cole shows that thermate would make the steel look very much like the steel that FEMA found. I would say that your demand that 9/11 Truthers do experiments to show this has been met.

And the mechanisms Cole finally devises don't look at all impractical. Further, he shows that cutting the bolt-heads wouldn't have left much signs of thermitic attack. And I think that weakens your argument from silence.

Bilbo said...

I also watched Mark Loizeaux's interview in the BBC piece regarding #7. If I remember correctly, he makes 5 points:

1) It would have taken months to set up the CD.
2) The walls would have to have been torn out where explosives were placed.
3) Because of (1) and (2)
4) When the explosives went off, it would have broken all the windows.
5) There would have been leftover signs of explosives in the rubble (blasing caps, wires, etc.).

(1)I know that Danny Jowenko explained the CD of #7 by suggesting that the owner had a CD crew place the explosions on 9/11 after the first two towers came down. Jowenko wasn't a 9/11 Truther, so he didn't think there was some big gov't. conspiracy. He thought the owner of #7 just wanted to get additional insurance money, rather than try to repair all the damage. Anyway, the point is that we have one CD expert disagreeing with another about how long it would take to rig the explosives. Now I found a website that pointed out that Loizeaux said that it took a crew of 12 people about 24 hours (I think that was the number) to place all the explosives in the Hudson building. So Loizeaux seems to contradict himself and agree with Jowenko on how long it would take to set the explosives.

(2) Now would all the walls need to be torn into? I'll have to look into that.

(4) If thermite or nano-thermite were used for the charges, instead of high explosives, would all the windows bust out? I'm willing to bet they wouldn't.

(5) I seem to remember Blanchard saying something about leftover evidence wouldn't be as obvious with thermite. And if remote control were used, there wouldn't be as many wires, either.

So other than (2), I think we can dismiss Loizeaux's testimony.

Bilbo said...

Whoops. I forgot to finish
(3) Because of (1) and (2) the CD of #7 couldn't have been done without people noticing.

Bilbo said...

As far as Chandler's free-fall, yes,no measurable resistance. That means at least none of the core columns still standing that would have provided resistance for that 2.5 seconds. And the question is what happened to the core columns? NIST provides a mysterious explanation, for which they refuse to release the data they used to come up with it. The NCST Act: How long a document is this? Does it require NIST not to release the data? Does it specifically say, "NIST, do not release the data that you used to figure out how WTC 7 came down"? Or is it a matter of interpretation? And is the NCST Act so broadly worded, that it can cover whatever contingency should come up, so that a gov't. agency can use it as an excuse to prevent the release of information?

Bilbo said...

To the anonymous poster who wants to post a comment to Albury: If you spell his name correctly, I will post your comment.