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

[Bill Mattocks]

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/02/pl_print_conspiracy/

Are you kidding me? [ event ] was a total sham! Think about it! Everyone knows that [ appeal to precedent ]. And have you noticed that [ ruling elite ] has started to act very strangely? They obviously don’t want this story getting out. I mean, what would happen if people began asking [ disturbing question ]? Well, they may be able to fool the sheeple, but the members of [ dedicated group of truth-seekers ] aren’t swallowing their story. Look, don’t take it from me; [ expert endorsement ] is convinced as well. But we have to act fast, because [ suggestion of imminent threat ]. I just wanted you to be aware of this, in case I disappear.

 

[Makalakumu]

Therefore, I reject those as logical possibilities. Yes, they could still be true, but absent actual evidence and a convincing reason why another agency (other than Al Qaida) would have instigated and pre-arranged the attack, I can't support those arguments.

A group of the top explosives experts in the world discovered signature explosive evidence in the debris.

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

This is why I said before, it doesn't matter how hard it could have been. If the evidence is there, as improbable as it seems, it happened. I realize this paper doesn't prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, but at least I can hope people can see a legitimate reason to question.

BTW - the e-mail is off, we'll see if anyone comes in to respond.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

A group of the top explosives experts in the world discovered signature explosive evidence in the debris.

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

This is why I said before, it doesn't matter how hard it could have been. If the evidence is there, as improbable as it seems, it happened. I realize this paper doesn't prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, but at least I can hope people can see a legitimate reason to question.

BTW - the e-mail is off, we'll see if anyone comes in to respond.

If the evidence is there, it may have happened. Not must. That's a frequent problem conspiracy buffs seem to share. Possible does not mean probable, and especially does not mean 'must have'.

 

[Makalakumu]

If the evidence is there, it may have happened. Not must. That's a frequent problem conspiracy buffs seem to share. Possible does not mean probable, and especially does not mean 'must have'.

I think in degrees of "may" have happened. Science doesn't "prove" anything. I agree with you on this point. Adding to this is an equally large problem where people refuse to even accept the possibility of certain explanations despite the fact that evidence does exist to give said explanations some merit.

The term "conspiracy buff" or "conspiracy theorist" is often use as a pejorative ridicule and shut down debate. I've seen it here and I've seen it elsewhere, especially in the Global Warming debate. It gets used to shut down alternative points of view by a larger group holding a more popular view.

 

[Bruno@MT]

A group of the top explosives experts in the world discovered signature explosive evidence in the debris.

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

This is why I said before, it doesn't matter how hard it could have been. If the evidence is there, as improbable as it seems, it happened. I realize this paper doesn't prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, but at least I can hope people can see a legitimate reason to question.

BTW - the e-mail is off, we'll see if anyone comes in to respond.

I just read the report. Actually, to be honest, I skimmed it and went to the conclusion, which I did read. I didn't see who collected the samples though, and there is no mention of independent verification and sampling I could have missed it or it could have been a stuy which was not repeated by anyone on independently collected samples.

They did mention all sorts of things indicating active thermite. Otoh, they also mention that they did not find similar things in debris of other demolition sites. So that does not automatically point to controlled demolition.

It would also be very interesting to calculate the amount of thermite which survived its alleged use. Because if it is that prominent in such small samples, given the wide distribution, that could be a lot, which would be strange if thermite had been ignited at some point or other.

And given that it was unburned in all samples, it suggests that there was no ignition at all. So it could be thermite which was on-site somewhere in one of the 3 buildings and got distributed by the implosion. There were reports of work being conducted in the towers shortly before the attack. That might be a source for it.

All in all, this report indicates that there are some more questions that need answers if it can indeed be independently verified, but that does automatically mean that something nefarious went on that caused the towers to collapse other than the jetliners and the fuel.

 

[JDenver]

My major problem is that building 7, not hit by any planes, also fell straight down. How does that happen? Some have supplied great explanations about the two towers and the kerosene softening the steel, but building 7? It wasn't even hit.

In a British interview directly after Sept. 11, the CEO of building 7 told them that he received a phone call from, I believe the fire dept., about how structurally the building was unsafe. He told them to 'pull it', a common term for demolishing the building. It fell about an hour later, not even enough time to lay the explosives. So....what exactly is going on there?

I dunno...the physical evidence would require that there be some further investigation for me.

Oh, plus this little dooozy for me - The U.S air force was conducting an exercise in hijacked planes flying over American cities. The date of the exercise? September 11, 2001. That doesn't strike anyone as odd?

 

[Archangel M]

All that "study" claims is that red chips were found that had traces of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. in them.

When a building full of all sorts of materials is struck by large aluminum planes full of fuel and catches fire; Im sure you can find all sorts of melted clumps of stuff with various things in them. Not to mention Im very skeptical of the legitimacy of their samples. Where, when and how did they get them?

AND...read WHO produced this "paper". It's right at the top.

1Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
2Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
3S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA
49/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA
5Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
6Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA
7International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA
Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in

YAWN!

 

[Archangel M]

This Neils Harrit is a whackjob..."nanotechnology thermite" indeed. This guy is a "truther" looking for evidence to support his preconceived belief. Hardly good science.

[yt]yJy_LdHMmaM[/yt]

[yt]ZcJ_HpFro-k[/yt]

[yt]6wbWepx1SAs[/yt]

 

[Archangel M]

http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/...howComment=1240512420000#c9075632420741694240

I'd like to address a couple points about Steven Jones and his latest farcical flights of fancy.

Finding Iron oxide and aluminum in a tower built from steel with an aluminum facade is not unexpected.. On top of that, there's nothing in this paper that's not been restated before in previous articles. This is a total recycle. They found Iron oxide (rust, the “red chips&#8221 and Aluminum. As already noted, all elements were present in large quantities in the WTC buildings.
Finding iron oxide and aluminum from the Twin Towers is like finding water in the ocean i.e. fully expected.

Also, the article’s reference to “Danish Chemists” is misleading.
Here's the actual article itself; published again at the Bentham Open Journals, a vanity publishing outfit based in... wait for it... Pakistan.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/co...001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Notice who the authors are…
Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, STEVEN E JONES, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen. ("truthers" all)

This is a rehash of Jones’ thermite theory that has been completely debunked already, and every one of the "authors" are members of various conspiracy groups and have had previous theories shot down in flames.

Google the names. While the OP tries to imply that this "group of chemists" are an independent study group, they are not.

The publisher is a pay to play vanity journal. (Open Chemical Physics Journal is the same company)
The only condition you must meet to publish in it is to send in your check. The owners of the journal cannot even provide a who-is of the peer reviewers. (“peer review itself is just the first step in authentication anyway). They are not even aware of the content they allow to be published. They just cash the checks. It’s a boiler room operation out of Pakistan. Jones himself has already been caught manipulating data to fit his “theory”. For example…

In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:
"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"
However when you look at the link he uses
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/n...age-right-area
You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states
"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."
Apparently, Jones felt this was not important enough for his readers to know. This just one of the deceptions he used, including photos and false claims about thermite “devices” that didn’t exist then, and still don’t.

He seems to be being a bit more careful here, calling the substance “thermitic material” which means simply, any substance that burns… Then his group goes into fantasy land about “Nanotechnologically produced “super-thermite”, a substance that only exists in theoretical research and his imagination. In fact, although a patent was issued in the late 90's for "nanothermite" full research on manufacturing and developing true nanothermite only began in 2008 under a program being funded by the DOD. Jones willingly confuses nano thermitic materials, used to enhance explosive reaction, and "nanothermite".

Here is the spectrographic signature for both military (top) and commercial thermite…

Element Weight % Atomic %
Carbon 5.18% 15.34%
Aluminum 24.78% 32.66%
Titanium 70.04% 52.00%

Element Weight % Atomic %
Carbon 5.13% 15.33%
Aluminum 23.50% 31.23%
Titanium 71.37% 53.44%

Below is a composite of the spectra from page 8 of Dr. Jones paper for the red dust and the spectra for thermite.
http://www.amazingrust.com/Experimen...mite_EDAX.html

The spectra for thermite extends only to 5 keV. Perhaps Dr. Jones is talking another, imaginary flavor of thermite, but he is using the elements found in thermite as he stated in the OP.

I would think a more reasonable hypothesis is that the trace amount of titanium observed in the samples came from another source. I'm sure among the computers and other office equipment in the WTC, titanium was present somewhere.

Or maybe from here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium
Quote:
"Titanium commercial aerospace requirements (including engine components such as blades, discs, rings and engine cases as well as airframe components including bulkheads, tail sections, landing gear, wing supports and fasteners) can account for a substantial proportion of the mass of modern aircraft, for example:

The four engines alone on the Airbus A380 use about 26 metric tons (57,000 pounds) of titaniumBoeing (including both the airframes and engines)

B787 – 134 metric tons (295,000 lb) of titanium
B777 – 59 metric tons (130,000 lb) of titanium
B747 – 45 metric tons (99,000 lb) of titanium
B737 – 18 metric tons (40,000 lb) of titanium"

The "red chips" are iron oxide, commonly known as rust, as has been shown in several other studies. There is nothing new in this "study", just an attempt to try another angle. After being laughed at for his "angle cuts" and imaginary "bundling devices" as well as his use of misleading photos he now is coming back with a new "find" that has been known about for years.

If you want evidence, reconcile the fact that there was no thermite severance of the steel columns. Literally thousands if not tens of thousands of pounds would be required as well as access to columns buried behind concrete walls while people were present in the buildings. Thermite burns vertically, not at an angle or horizontally. Also reconcile the fact that, if you continue to mistakenly think thermite is an "explosive", (which he seems to imply in his description of “nano thermite), why is there no evidence of such explosions left i.e. broken windows for blocks around, barotrauma, etc.

Regardless of what Jones and his misled gang find, the fact remains that there was no sign of thermite or explosive severance on the recovered steel, nor was there any other evidence of it's emplacement. This argument has been made over and over before; go do a search for it. It's the conspiracy peddling side that's yet to actually deal with the real evidence.

...


The elements that Jones reports finding have already been discovered by other WTC dust surveys, who for the most part don’t seem surprised by their presence. It seems that, in all cases, there are other WTC sources that can deliver far more of these elements than you would ever see from thermite/ thermate.

There’s also no clear evidence that the suspect elements are available in proportions that match what you’d expect from a thermite/ thermate reaction. And some products you might imagine would be produced, aren’t there at all.

Proof of thermite/ thermate, then? No. Just assumptions, and avoidance of alternative explanations for the presence of these elements. That’s just fine when you’re telling an audience what they want to believe, but convincing anyone conversant in the fields of explosives/incendiaries detection is going to take considerably more evidence than is displayed here. And that is disregarding ALL the logistics and problems of a "controlled demolition" in the first place...

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think in degrees of "may" have happened. Science doesn't "prove" anything. I agree with you on this point. Adding to this is an equally large problem where people refuse to even accept the possibility of certain explanations despite the fact that evidence does exist to give said explanations some merit.

I accept the possibility. But I also have an opinion, and that opinion is that there is nothing to this particular conspiracy theory.

The term "conspiracy buff" or "conspiracy theorist" is often use as a pejorative ridicule and shut down debate. I've seen it here and I've seen it elsewhere, especially in the Global Warming debate. It gets used to shut down alternative points of view by a larger group holding a more popular view.

Indeed. I was searching for a better term that was non-pejorative, and which recognized the fact that it seems some people are attracted to more than one conspiracy theory. I've noticed this, and I think many others have as well. I did not mean it to be insulting, but I also note that many who support this particular theory also support others.

It has also been my observation that people who hold to certain conspiracy theories seem to be rather fixed on the notion of their theory being correct; and to that end, if one line of reasoning does not pan out or is debunked, they more smoothly to the next. As long as the particular point supports their overall belief, they're OK with it. This to me seems the opposite of rational thinking, where one is willing not only to admit the possibility of being wrong, but the probability that they are, or even to abandon a theory when it becomes clear that the facts don't fit it.

It is difficult to not make certain comparisons. For example, although I hold you in high esteem and respect your intellect, I have to note that some aspects of 9/11 conspiracy theory resemble other conspiracy theories; for example, the Elvis Lives people. For them, it does not matter what evidence is produced that Elvis is dead; they have a need for him to be alive, and they'll grasp any theory that tends to support it, any shred of evidence, odd fact, or coincidence that seems out of place. The point for them is not the body of evidence that there is a body, so to speak, but the conclusion that Elvis still walks the earth.

No, I don't think that you believe Elvis is alive. But I have to make comparisons that seem valid - the idea that the belief is more important that the facts is common to both.

I generally don't get this involved in discussions with people who believe 9/11 was a hoax or a government conspiracy; I haven't the cycles to give up to this sort of thing. I accept that it could have happened the way they believe it did; but I assign that probability a low number, find that I can live with that, and continue on with my day. I can't be sucked into this sort of mind trap and continue to function.

 

[Archangel M]

"Adding to this is an equally large problem where people refuse to even accept the possibility of certain explanations"

Don’t be so open minded that your brains fall out.

It's possible that alien gremlins with death rays teleported into the WTC and cut support beams. And conspiracy theorist "scientists" could find (read create) evidence to prove it and print it in some pay to play Pakistani publishing house.

 

[Archangel M]

The Truth is OUT there.

 

[Makalakumu]

http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/...howComment=1240512420000#c9075632420741694240

While it's an interesting counterpoint, I don't think it's the final word. For one thing, he constructs a pretty elaborate strawman of what was actually found. But that's the problem when you argue anything on the internet. Anyone can say anything they want, for the most part, and not really be held accountable for it.

 

[Archangel M]

Whatever man. Look at the moonbats you are holding us as "experts".

 

[MBuzzy]

In this article's case we have a thousand engineering professionals including people with advanced technical knowledge who have really looked into the matter and have signed their names to a document, verified their credentials, and have put themselves on line.

Can you find a similar independent group that has done the same for NIST? That would be a comparable group and would actually act as a rebuttal for the article.

As I mentioned before, here is all that I need. Unfortunately, I don't have ASCE's full report, but I know that it is out there. I might spend more time looking later. ASCE is the American Society of Civil Engineers. THE professional organization for Structural and Civil Engineers. THE technical experts on the subject. They did an independent review and came to the conclusion that the buildings came down due to the impact of the planes, and the resulting fire.

I wish I had a good analogy of what ASCE is....but they are the people who TRAIN many Civil Engineers. Most of my continuing education comes from them. They organize conferences, publish papers, manuals, journals, tech reports, etc etc etc. THEY are the authoritative organization...and they think the planes did it. That's enough for me. Plus, I pay them a lot of money every year to be a member! haha (yes, bias)

 

[Archangel M]

In this article's case we have a thousand engineering professionals including people with advanced technical knowledge

...In fields like chemical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, etc. and "advanced technical knowledge" in fields that have nothing to do with structrual engineering, demolitions or anything to do with the matter. Man they have "Landscape Architects" in there FOR GOD'S SAKE!!

Not to mention that I have seen various reports that this "list" is unverified and it's possible to bluff your way onto.

First it was "we will get 1,000 licensed AND degreed architects and engineers." Then they settled for licensed or degreed architects and engineers, now all you need to be is an "engineering or architectural professional." Which appears to include anyone who works in an architecture or engineering office, draftsmen, office managers, etc...

There should be an investigation. I want an investigation as to why AE911 keeps shifting their goal posts about their membership.

 

[Archangel M]

As I mentioned before, here is all that I need. Unfortunately, I don't have ASCE's full report, but I know that it is out there. I might spend more time looking later. ASCE is the American Society of Civil Engineers. THE professional organization for Structural and Civil Engineers. THE technical experts on the subject. They did an independent review and came to the conclusion that the buildings came down due to the impact of the planes, and the resulting fire.

I wish I had a good analogy of what ASCE is....but they are the people who TRAIN many Civil Engineers. Most of my continuing education comes from them. They organize conferences, publish papers, manuals, journals, tech reports, etc etc etc. THEY are the authoritative organization...and they think the planes did it. That's enough for me. Plus, I pay them a lot of money every year to be a member! haha (yes, bias)

Government shills man..they are in on it...:shrug:

 

[Bruno@MT]

I wish I had a good analogy of what ASCE is....but they are the people who TRAIN many Civil Engineers. Most of my continuing education comes from them. They organize conferences, publish papers, manuals, journals, tech reports, etc etc etc. THEY are the authoritative organization...and they think the planes did it. That's enough for me. Plus, I pay them a lot of money every year to be a member! haha (yes, bias)

They must be in on it too...

I am not a member of such an organization myself, but I know their Belgian equivalents. If there is anything you can rely on, it's that if these guys publish papers, the mathematical and physical underpinnings are accurate. Still it won't change anyone's mind, because the 911 truthers have already made up their mind and are just looking for things to support their cause. the strategy seems to be to throw as much mud around as possible, and see if anything sticks.

I have stated my technical reasons for believing the official collapse story, and stated my reasons for not caring about the political / intelligence angle because I don't believe it is a massive conspiracy. Ergo, what happened behind the scenes is just the usual backstabbing / insider trading / taking advantage of things.

It seems the argument is going to be circular and intangible from now on in a hunt for proof of the negative. That is of course impossible. So on these words I bow out of this thread and bid thee goodnight.

 

[Archangel M]

If the conspiracy nuts were arguing that the hijackers were "assets" of some sort that were manipulated by the gvt..that would at least be plausable IMO.

First we have to believe in the controlled demo of THREE downtown NYC buildings with tens to hundreds of tons of "therimte/explosives" wired into them without detection. Not only did they have to be secretly wired they had to be timed to coinside with the strikes of the planes and perfectly synchronized and intert enough to not be ignited by the crashes and resultant fires. Not to mention the fact that the crashes had to be in a precise location of the building; otherwise the "show blow" wouldn't look right.

Then there is all the rest of 9/11...missiles launched into the pentagon...faked flight 93 crash/shoot down...all the investigators and people involved kept quiet????

And as to "professionals" and their sanity...

In the UK an MI5 employee thinks that the planes flown into the WTC were really missiles....we all saw planes because they were shrouded by holograms....

.....

....yeah...holograms.

Please. Go peddal that all this crazy elsewhere.

 

[punisher73]

Anyone here who has had to work with an architect in making a building actually happen? Only one time for me, and those guys don't know crap about the building structure or the mechanics of it running. They might come up with fancy ideas of making it look nice, but that's about it. You need OTHER experts to make it happen.

Saying an architect is an expert on structural loads and building structure etc. is like saying because I am a police officer, I am an expert on the law decisions of the US Supreme Court. Why would anyone buy that argument? They wouldn't, they would realize I had training in a specific area of law and it's enforcement, but NOT the training in other aspects of the law and interpreting it that a Supreme Court justice does.

Until the leading organization for structural engineers comes out and says that there are some errors in the official report, I'm not buying the story.