9/11: Looking for Truth in Credentials: The Peculiar WTC “Ex

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur</a> 
 
• Non sequitur (absurdism), comment which is humorously absurd or has no relation to the comment it follows; a statement so foolish, or illogical that can not be responded to (e.g. "Hot enough for you?") 
The relation ship between your comment and the 9/11 thread does not follow 
Because you have never met one single person blah blah blah 
Has no relevance to Milton’s post 
 
 
pride goeth... 
 
 
 
 
 
--- "And God said: 'Let there be Satan, so people don't blame everything on me. And let there be lawyers, so people don't blame everything on Satan." 
 
* George Bu

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens</a> 
if not Non sequitur then Modus Tollens 
logical falacy of some sort 
--- "And God said: 'Let there be Satan, so people don't blame everything on me. And let there be lawyers, so people don't blame everything on Satan." 
 
* George Bu

The people who issued the report by the society of engineers were not all the engineers in the society, it was just a few people. This is how organizations are controlled by the ruling class, you have formal organizational structures then you only have to control those few people at the top of the organizational structure.
H.F. Wolff, you don't bother to dispute what I wrote about what the society of engineers report writers did, instead you turn what I wrote into an attack against all engineers. Yet you said nothing when Dr C threw the comment about lousy welding being a possible cause of the collapse of the towers. You think that the welds were not certified to meet specifications drawn up by professional engineers?

4 Canada the entire building concrete and all being turned into dust is not explained to my satisfaction by collapse either. I just watched a building being brought down in Las Vegas on TV a couple of days ago and being Vegas they first set off fireworks and down it came. What was chilling was the clouds of dust appearing, mushrooming and flowing out from the site in precisely the same speed and manner as we all saw on 911 and a million times since. If these visual clues are the tradmark of building collapses from structural failure I wonder if there are videos of said structural collapses that will put the demolition "Misconception" to rest.

A thought on how short our collective memories can be is a look at where the issue of global warming was one year ago in the public sphere and a look at the folks who made the claims (with requisite credential for hire) that global warming wasn't a problem. Here we are on the heels of the big glogal warming flip flop, debating whether or not folks with the right titles or credentials could possibly lie and just how probable that is. And while the MSM, Harper, Bush have turned instanly green 360 style, no one is holding the naysayers accountable for their false lead.

I love the "Sherlock" quote too BTW guys, a personal fav. I use to ferret out missing items around the house. "It couldn't possibly be there" or "it's not there cause so n so says it's not" doesn't play half as well as the "Sherlock logic" :-)

Dr. Caleb 
 
Thanks for taking the time to actually look at some of that stuff. It really requires more detail to flesh out that information. I just threw it out there in case anyone was interested. There is never a shortage of views on this topic. That’s for sure. 
 
I don’t really expect to convince anyone. It takes more than a few shortcuts to do that. 
 
For me the destruction of WTC7 was what tipped the balance in my thinking on this subject, from just foreknowledge by the administration to active involvement by elements within the administration, military and private industry. 
 
Most of the top researchers of 911 don’t rely on the physical evidence when presenting their cases. (Mike Ruppert in his remarkable book “Crossing the Rubicon” and the books and writings of Michel Chussodovsky “America’s War on Terrorism” are a couple that some to mind) I think the smoking gun is the weight of all the evidence. It’s simply overwhelming. 
 
I certainly respect your views although my views differ. 
 
You may find this link to an interview with a Danish demolition expert as he views the destruction of WTC7 without knowing what building it was, of some interest. I found it fascinating. I know, not another #$^%&*@( Link! …….. Oh well. I’ll quit now. 
 
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I</a> 
 
Thanks 
 
Mike 
Winnipeg

"You got kinda ganged up on there huh? "

Yea, touchy subject. :-{

"It was lots of things that are treated to be fire retradent so would smolder out in some cases."

Ahh! Yes, jet fuel ingnited anything capable of burning at first, but I see a common misconception there. Things that are 'fire retardant' do burn. They are 'retardant' to keep them from burning for as long as possible, not so that they never burn. Get it hot enough, and anything burns.

"I can see a section collapse and realistically that is where I could see it ending but if I push it as far as I can it can never get to the ground and be as ground into dust the way one building did. AND THEN THERE WERE TWO! "

The way those buildings were designed, the outside wall was what held everything up. Like a cardboard box, they were very strong on the outside, mostly empty space on the inside. The outer walls were held up by a 'coat hanger' kind of structure on the roof. Basically a triangle going from the outer walls to the 'core' at the center.

When planes took out the outer support wall, all the weight of the walls was placed on the 'coat hanger' on the roof. The fire weakened the steel that bound the outer wall to the core and held up the concrete of the floor above. Those beams sagged, and finally gave way (the 'explosions' many claim to hear and see). With the minimal support from the floors gone, the 'coat hanger' on the roof finally gave way and everything came down.

As for just one or two stories failing, that is nearly impossible. One story of a building could never be designed to hold the weight of all the stories above it. Once you 'kick the legs' out of one story, 'catching' what's left would be an impossible feat. The towers were hit somewhere around the 80th story? They were 110 stories? Imagine the weight of dropping a 30 story building 10 feet. And as the stories above and below it collapse, the moving mass is that much heavier.

It will turn concrete back into powder, twist steel and mangle wood to dust.

"My mind cannot get around that picture. It is just unbelievable. And that they both came down basically in the same way even though they were not hit the same way?"

That's a tricky concept to understand for some. The roof of your home is falling. It is always in freefall. The freefall is counteracted by the walls of your home. Every building that is built is the same way. Every floor is in freefall, and take the walls away, they come down. That is why demolition works so well. Take out all the support on the first floor, and the weight of the other floors falling on each other does most of the work for you.

The second building hit was the first to fall. If you look at the videos, you'll see the second plane actually take out some of the supports on the other side of the building, so it had far more structural damage than the first building. Two sides were unsupported, and the load on the 'coat hanger' was much greater. Not surprising then that the 'coat hanger' on the second building hit failed sooner. And it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that two buildings with nearly identical damage that were constructed in nearly identical ways both failed in the exact same way.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

"What was chilling was the clouds of dust appearing, mushrooming and flowing out from the site in precisely the same speed and manner as we all saw on 911 and a million times since." 
 
That's exactally what should convince you that the buildings collapsed. The dust is not caused by the explosions, it is caused by the weight of the building crushing the concrete within. 
 
Concrete may seem very strong to us puny humans, but it really is just a hardened paste. Hit it with enough force, and it will go back to being a powder. 
 
"If these visual clues are the tradmark of building collapses from structural failure I wonder if there are videos of said structural collapses that will put the demolition "Misconception" to rest." 
 
'Demolition' is intentional structural falure. You will see concrete dust from just about every demolition there is. 
 
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr2TFLlA3jA">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr2TFLlA3jA</a> 
 
I doubt all the demolition video in the world could convince anyone of something they are not willing to accept. I know that when a building fails due to structural weakening due to fire, it tends to lean to one side and tip. But that is a specific design of a building. The twin towers were designed in an entirely different manner. 
 
There also have been some buildings that burned for hours and didn't collapse. People point to those and say 'well why did the twin towers collapse?'. You might as well ask 'why doesn't my car fly?'. It wasn't designed as a plane. The twin towers were designed to be an open floor structure. A building that burnt in europe a couple years ago didn't collapse because it was a completely different design. 
 
Building 7 was supposedly brought down by structural failure. But diesel fuel stored in the basement, behind a 12 inch concrete barrier, causing the beams on the entire building to fail at exactally the same time? Yea, I don't buy that.--- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

No biggie man. It's a passionate subject. That's why I hesitate to comment on it.

Everyone is convinced their take on it is the right one, and all we end up doing is going in circles.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

"Dr C, the society of professional engineers proved nothing other than that they were a part of the cover up." 
 
Only to those who want to hang on to the myths this event has created. Many would rather believe some kid who made a model out of toothpicks, instead of people with many years of designing and building things for a living. 
 
"They couldn't get a physical model to demonstrate the official collapse theory so they made a computer model and would not allow anyone to examine the data entered into the model or the programming." 
 
That the problem with using a scale model to deal with structural simulations. You just can't simulate some things at small scale. 
 
Feel free to run their numbers for yourself. 
 
<a href="http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/wtc.php">http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/wtc.php</a> 
 
"They then passed judgement on their no peer reviewed creation and said that it proved the official collapse theory." 
 
No peer review? That is the whole idea behind an 'Engineering Society'. It was reviewed many times, by many engineers. 
 
"Yet you said nothing when Dr C threw the comment about lousy welding being a possible cause of the collapse of the towers." 
 
Nope. See, I'm not a civil engineer. And as I said above, one beam does not make a pattern, and poor welds is just an alternate idea I had.--- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

Milton,

Production welds are NOT certified by Professional Engineers!

Here's what happens(At least in Ontario and Quebec in which jurisdictions I have many years of experience):

1) a new weld geometry or metallurgy is identified for a project (design engineer mutters to himself: "S***t, we've never welded a joint like this before" :-)

).
2) a Welding Engineer designs the joint details, selects the weld consumables, establishes the weld procedure, and sets up the weld tests and procedure qualification test.
3) weld procedures and weld consumables are tested by sample welding. These welds are examined by radiographic and metallurgical means, and must meet established criteria. Test results are obtained and evaluated by certified technicians and the Welding Engineer. The Welding Engineer then produces Weld Data Sheets and Procedure Qualification Records which list the welds and all welding parameters to be used on that particular joint type.
4) the welders or welding machine operators are tested and certified.
5) production welds are made by certified welders and examined by non-destructive means: radiography and magnetic particle examination usually for structural joints
6) These tests are carried out by NDE (certified Non-Destructive Examination) Technicians, not Professional Engineers, in accordance with approved NDE procedures.
7) Only if problems in welding or quality are identified does the Welding Engineer become involved. On large or complex welding projects the Welding Engineer may reside at the job site or in the manufacturing plant.

The Professional Engineer's licensing body has absolutely no authority telling the Professional Engineer how to do his job. They prescribe the legal requirements as to how the Professional Engineer conveys his certification to public documents. For example: A Professional Engineer is guilty of professional misconduct if he were to certify and seal any engineering document NOT authored by himself or under his direct supervision. That's the law. Then there are language requirements as to what the certification covers, and what governmental regulations apply and have been complied with.

In the absence of knowing what Professional Engineer or business to turn to for specific engineering services the public or government agency may turn to the licensing body and get the names of people or businesses that listed their field of expertise. These names would be given to the inquiring party which then chooses who to work with.

Often times business relationships have existed between various parties for years and one chooses a firm or person that has one's confidence.

In conclusion you may wish to turn your attention to the fact that the physical evidence of 9/11 was destroyed before detailled examination could be carried out. With incomplete information you get incomplete or erroneous reports. Remember the GIGO principle: Garbage in - garbage out.

Having said all that I concur that some of the opinions voiced as to the reasons for the collapse, are pure rubbish. An example would be those opinions regarding the melting of the structural steel, or weakening of the steel by temperatures exceeding 2000 degrees F. Again, I have first-hand experience with liquid fuel fires and the temperatures achieved.

H.F. Wolff

And *that* is today! The Twin Towers were built in the 70's, at the standards in the 70's!

The Tacoma Narrows Bridge was built to every standard of that current era, but it still failed because of something totally unknown at the time - the effects of wind!

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

A flawless hit but for one catastrophic fault:

The WTC were specifically designed to take plane impacts, that was one of their main design features.

The Boeing 707 is a plane comparable in size to the 767, although roughly 30 tons heavier; the 707 being faster.

Any difference in impact force due to increase in mass would have been offset by the fact that the 707 was faster.

F = M x V

That hasn't changed since the creation of the Universe.

A building designed to take the impact force of one aircraft should, by any logical standard you care to use, be able to withstand the force generated by the impact of another aircraft of similar characteristics.

While engineering standards may change, the Laws of Physics do not.

---
'When you have eliminated the impossible, what ever remains, however improbable, must be the truth'.
- Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes.

From this page: 
 
<a href="http://www.apegga.com/Applicants/Engineers/peng_general.html">http://www.apegga.com/Applicants/Engineers/peng_general.html</a> 
 
At the bottom, the link to the code of Conduct: 
 
<a href="http://www.apegga.com/About/ACT/pdf/Act.pdf">http://www.apegga.com/About/ACT/pdf/Act.pdf</a> 
 
Part 5 
Discipline 
Definitions 
42 In this Part, 
(a) “conduct” includes an act or omission; 
(b) “investigated person” means a professional member, licensee, permit holder, certificate holder or 
member-in-training with respect to whose conduct an investigation is held under this Part; 
(c) “practice of the profession” means practice of engineering, practice of geology or practice of 
geophysics, as the case may be. 
 
. . . . 
 
Liability to others 
80(1) The relationship between a permit holder or certificate holder engaged in the practice of engineering, 
geology or geophysics and a person receiving the professional services of the permit holder or certificate 
holder is subject to this Act, the regulations and any other 
 
... 
 
 
Believe me Dio, a major part of Engineering training is the study of the law surrounding that profession. By act, or omission I can be held responsible personally under the Criminal Code of Canada (or whatever juristiction I am in) as to the safety of the public with regards to my conduct. 
 
If my act or omission cause the death of others, I can be personally held responsible for their deaths. And anyone else who also signed off on my designs can be. 
 
There was a case of a pedway design that was approved by engineers, but the construction team took 'liberties' with the actual build. If cause a flaw that led to the collapse of the pedway, killing many people. The engineers were cleared, but the construction supervisor and inspector were held responsible for the deaths. 
 
These Civil Engineers take very seriously putting their name to this work, if only as a simulation. Every Engineer wears on their pinky finger an 'Iron Ring' given in a ceremony known as "The Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer". It is to remind of of our humility, and that our decisions can be life and death. The 'Iron' in the ring is from a bridge that collapsed in 1907 due to negligence and killed many construction workers. 
 
<a href="http://www.ironring.ca/">http://www.ironring.ca/</a> 
 
New rings are Stainless Steel, not Iron, but many of the original rings are 'grandfathered' to new engineers upon the death of the original engineers.--- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

"The WTC were specifically designed to take plane impacts, that was one of their main design features." 
 
Yes, and they did, long enough for most people to get out of the buildings. Considering they were also designed to take an *accidental* hit from a smaller plan with no fuel (and less intense fire), they did pretty well. 
 
At the time they were built, the effects of the plane disintegrating and removing all the fire proofing from the beams was not even considered. The 767 was built from different materials than the 707, those materials (carbon fiber, high strength aluminum) fragmented. The 767 also travels faster, making it able to reach the inner support columns (the hijackers had them at full speed, not the landing or takeoff speed of a 707), where a 707 wouldn't have. 
 
<a href="http://web.mit.edu/civenv/html/people/alumni_newsletters/sept_11/index.html">http://web.mit.edu/civenv/html/people/alumni_newsletters/sept_11/index.html</a>--- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

Wolff

Just curious.

Is it possible for an orange flame fire, with a temperature of approximately 930 C, to heat steel to it's structural failing point?

From what I recall, steel usually begins to melt at roughly 1350-1400 C.

You can add 930 degree heat to a block of iron all day, and it's temp will never rise above 930 C.

Heat, as far as I am aware, doesn't act like that.

---
'When you have eliminated the impossible, what ever remains, however improbable, must be the truth'.
- Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes.