9/11 Allgemein

JSanderO
Graduate Poster

JSanderO's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,436
I had the experience of being a volunteer for AE911T and then rather quicklyu made a board member in late 2009. I was only a volunteer for a few months at most. Gage wanted me on his board because I was an senior NY architect.

I immediately ran into trouble. When I began as I volunteer I was trying to help Gage organize his group. It had none... no mission statement, no "business plans", no org chart and so on. It was very insular and Gage held all the power, controlled the funds with Tom Spellman... The whole thing from the inside was not what people on the outside thought/think is was/is. I got involved because I was genuinely interested in understand how the building came down.. and I thought architects and engineers might explain it.

I asked a lot of questions and pointed out some bad thinking in their bullet points. AE was not interested in explain the collapses... and not interested in being factually accurate. Most of the bullet points are incorrect or mean nothing and certainly not what they claim they do.

I was asked to sign a statement that I believed nano thermite was used to destroy the towers. I refused. I saw a lot of dirty laundry and was rather quickly ejected from the board and the group in a manner which was not consistent with their own bylaws... SO they held a secret board meeting which i was not at... brought in Kevin Ryan to pack the vote and at the next meeting first agenda item I was tossed out.

AE911T is a really a scam... a cult and Gage has himself a new career, pays himself way more than he could make or did make in the private sector. They do no research.. they exist to to exist and make money to fund Gage.

I don't understand how they've managed to survive as long as they have maintaining the apparently credibility that they do without being "demolished" for the scammery. I was accused of being a spy, a CIA plant.. a cognitive infiltrator and more. What a pathetic operation.

I left them, did my own research and satisfied my curiosity about how those buildings collapsed. The actual details of the mechanism(s) will likely remain unknown with certainty because of the lack of data. But it's clear that those fire, mech damage and those designs meant they were doomed. The details are naval gazing and a waste of time as far as I am concerned. All models and theories are built on too m ay assumptions and too little data... so the debate may never end.

Did NIST make mistakes? Sure they did. Does it matter? Probably not because the fact remains that 19 nuts flew planes into those towers and fire and mech damage and those rather unusual designs were not able to resist. Probably most ardent supporters and leaders believe their own prattle or are so invested in it that they can't back down. A few realize the truthers have nothing and just go away and get on with their lives. And a few remain to debate the fanatics.

Not much will change. Gage needs to be exposed for what a faker he is.

And this suits Gage and the few who are milking this for ego and cash. Of course there are people who are simply not trusting the gov and so they will go with those who claim the gov pulled one over on them. Most of these people are not technically competent to know the physics or the engineering issues on even a basic level. They are easily swayed by Gage's marketing and PR. And this is no different from the old snake oil salesmen selling nothing.

I believe they've cooked their books, likely violated financial laws/ tax reporting and so forth... but they are so insignificant no one wants to waste the resources to shut them down... and ironically it would reinforce the paranoia of the truthers. Judy Wood is clearly a loose canon and all sorts of nut surface with bizarre theories which truthers seem to think of as the next best thing to sliced bread.

Balthasar70 schrieb:Interessanter Blick hinter die Fassade von AE911truth
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=278724

Why the World Trade Center collapsed: an interview with Asif Usmani, professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Edinburgh

There is no consensus on the exact cause of the collapse amongst experts in the field. In general the causes espoused by the various experts have a bias towards their own expertise.

This view is contrary to elementary mechanics (inertial forces exerted by moving masses can be orders of magnitude greater than their static weight, which is primarily what building structures are designed to resist).

Based on my theory the cause of collapse is identical for both towers, namely fire, but the exact mechanisms of initiation could be different. Given that WTC2 was impacted lower down, it had roughly double the load above it so it makes sense that it collapsed earlier and it also had apparently more extensive impact damage (with corner columns severed).

Can you please explain us what caused WTC7 to collapse?

Asif Usmani: Again there is no consensus on the actual mechanism. I am not fully convinced by the explanation provided in the NIST report.

Generally speaking, is it possible to distinguish a natural collapse from a controlled demolition based on the time the building takes to collapse completely?

Asif Usmani: It should be possible to distinguish as the collapse mechanisms could be
very different. In a controlled demolition one could theoretically make a building collapse in an infinite number of ways, some of which may look like a natural collapse.

As mentioned earlier, with the proviso that I have no knowledge of explosives, it may technically be possible to carry out demolitions that look natural. However it would never work the first time on a specific building exactly as planned, ...

Asif Usmani: The collapse of building is a complex phenomenon, you cannot write a simple formula for it.

As mentioned earlier there is no consensus in the scientific community, being humans even the scientific community has its biases. The best one can say is that most people believe that fires caused the collapse. Some people think that the damage caused by the aircraft in combination with the fire caused the collapse.

How did the tragedy changed our understanding of fire safety measures for tall buildings, and the relative regulations?

Asif Usmani: So far nothing much has changed.

Balthasar70 schrieb:Sprengungen -Blödsinn. Komplett ignorierst.

Asif Usmani:Clearly the logistics of all this makes this theory entirely implausible.

However it would never work the first time on a specific building exactly as planned, because of the enormous number of uncertainties in the highly chaotic and unpredictable process of a building collapse. The only way it could work is if they made replicas and tested the demolition scheme extensively first. Clearly the logistics of all this makes this theory entirely implausible.

ER_win schrieb:Seine Aussage man müsse aber Sprengungen an replizierten Strukturen extensiv testen, damit sie prinzipiell so funktionieren, wie sie geplant wurden, sehe ich durch eine Vielzahl von gelungenen Abrissen als widerlegt an.

Rho-ny-theta schrieb:Schöner kann man sich selbst eigentlich nicht widersprechen...

ER_win schrieb:The only way it could work is if they made replicas and tested the demolition scheme extensively first.

ER_win schrieb:However it would never work the first time on a specific building exactly as planned

ER_win schrieb:Und ich sage, die stimmt nicht, wenn man sich eine Vielzahl von controlled demolitions ansieht. Da wurden sicher die strukturellen Gegebenheiten in Planungsrechnungen für die Sprengungen berücksichtigt, aber keine Repliken der abzureissenden Gebäude gebaut.

Rho-ny-theta schrieb:
Schöner kann man sich selbst eigentlich nicht widersprechen...

ER_win schrieb:da weiss ich nicht welche Fakten dafür sprechen. Sprengungen sind nicht 100% planbar - da sie im Detailverhalten chaotischen Prinzipien folgen - soweit bin ich mathematisch ganz bei ihm.

@ER_win
....es ging darum, dass man kontrollierte Sprengungen testen muss um sie so aussehen zu lassen wie einen natürlichen Einsturz, nicht um Sprengungen im Allgemeinen.

However it would never work the first time on a specific building exactly as planned

Bei "normalen Gebäuden" besitzt man natürlich Erfahrungswerte und Modelle aus der Vergangenheit. Bei der Strutktur des WTC könnte ich mir jetzt nicht vorstellen, dass es dazu eine Art Äquivalent gibt/gab.

ER_win schrieb:die GANZE Fachwelt ist sich einig...