The AIA disowns Richard Gage "AIA" and few architect want to have anything to do with him.

[Steven Gaal]

And the evidence for these claims is? I contacted someone who graduated the same year from the same degree program as Ross he said it would NOT have especially prepared them to analyse the collapses. // END Colby

###################

Golly someone doing this type of research might be termed an intelligence operative.

[Len Colby]

And the evidence for these claims is? I contacted someone who graduated the same year from the same degree program as Ross he said it would NOT have especially prepared them to analyse the collapses. // END Colby

###################

Golly someone doing this type of research might be termed an intelligence operative.

True enough but that "someone" would be a paranoid conspiracy kook. This is not at all different from a truther contacting someone tied to their 9/11 research, unlike many truthers I didn't misrepresent myself and/or harass the person I contacted.

[Steven Gaal]

And the evidence for these claims is? I contacted someone who graduated the same year from the same degree program as Ross he said it would NOT have especially prepared them to analyse the collapses. // END Colby

###################

Golly someone doing this type of research might be termed an intelligence operative.

True enough but that "someone" would be a paranoid conspiracy kook. This is not at all different from a truther contacting someone tied to their 9/11 research, unlike many truthers I didn't misrepresent myself and/or harass the person I contacted.

++++++++++++++++++++++

AH heres the rub, you probably didnt investigate your informant enough to find if he has the proverbial AXE to grind.

1. Ross stole his girlfriend in college
   
2. conflict of interest: fellow works for USG (NIST,DOD,DOD subcontractor,Saudi's,ect)
   
3. intellectual jealousy
   
4. jealous Ross has higher paying job
   

[Steven Gaal]

Bridging the Psychological Gap

911blogger

Posted by jay howard on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 10:34am

This is an entry from my personal blog: murderformoney.wordpress.com. (Do not be alarmed, it is not entirely dedicated to 9/11, however, that was my impetus). After reading Phil Mole's article in http://www.skeptic.c...eptic/06-09-11/ , I felt compelled to fill in the gaps of Mole's piece.

Skeptics and Conspiracies

There is no consensus among skeptics, except by accident. And typically for different reasons. Skeptics are my people. I understand them. A real skeptic is not afraid to question authority, nor does a skeptic oppose an idea because it originates from an authority. Skeptics are professional doubters–not inclined to a supposition until reasons can substantiate it. It is the analysis of these reasons that sets critical thinkers apart from the advertising-prone masses.

Which is why it pains me to see skeptics defending the official narrative of the WTC collapses without turning a critical eye on the details at its core. There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of “truther” theories concerning the various aspects, and let me be clear: several non-official theories are far more outlandish than the official story. For instance:

1. The “No Planes” theory
   
2. The Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) theory
   
3. Any theory that denies the existence of Islamic terrorists hijacking planes
   
4. Any theory invoking “remote controlled” airplanes
   

There are more nonsense “truther” theories as well, but the point is clear: all theories must be judged on their merits against objective standards. The problem is that once a single “truther” theory is demonstrated to be false, that becomes ammunition to shoot down all “truther” theories, thus vindicating the official theory by default. This is called “ground clearing” and it does little to buoy the official theory, only to distract from actual analysis of the official theory.

The WTC7 collapse is, by far, the most powerful prima facie evidence against the official theory–pointing not to any particular conclusion, but most poignantly to the fact that something about the dynamics of the collapse of building 7 is not being understood or explained correctly by the experts commissioned to do so. For many skeptics of the official theory, the video of WTC7 collapsing at around 5:20 pm that day was the wake-up call to investigate further. Yes, WTC1 and 2 looked strangely energetic and not simply a “collapse,” but we could always chalk that up our collective lack of context of the scale of the destruction. WTC7, however, was never hit by a plane. It suffered falling debris from the north tower and fires on several floors, but as yet, there has been no good explanation for why the internal structure gave way–nor especially how it failed in the particular way it did: as if it had all supporting structures severed simultaneously. (That’s 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns failing on several floors at precise intervals such that the building fell at free fall speed for some amount of time greater than 0 seconds.) There is simply not a clear explanation of how even a multi-story fire, even over several hours could induce that type of failure.

And yet, there are skeptics who in good faith, attempt to dismantle any suspicion surrounding the WTC7 collapse. The article published in Skeptic Magazine (9/11/2006) by author Phil Mole (the conspiracist in me laughs) attempts to close the door on any doubts surrounding any government involvement of any aspect of the attacks that day.

Initially, Mole asks us to doubt the similarities between conventional controlled demolition (CD) and the collapses of WTC 1 & 2. He makes a case for structural damage as root cause of the collapses based on the disparity between CD and the WTC collapses and anticipates the response to his argument:

A conspiracy theorist may counter that the buildings were rigged to begin falling from the top down, but what are the chances that those planning such a complicated demolition would be able to predict the exact location the planes would impact the towers, and prepare the towers to begin falling precisely there?

The chances of predicting which floor the planes would hit is without argument so unlikely as to be impossible. Even if someone went through the trouble to wire the buildings, hope the aircraft get hijacked without incident, etc. how could they know which floor the planes would hit? But this is a lazy case for dismissal. It’s lazy because it assumes two things which aren’t very likely:

1. The planners were unable to predict that issue and plan for it, and
   
2. Technology does not exist to easily overcome this:
   

Remote control: A remote control detonator is much like a wire command detonator except without the wire. Its done by radio signal. The range of the transmitter and the number of frequencies it is capable of working on varies according to price. The receivers can be set to any frequency the owner wishes.

Radio detonation devices have been around for decades. Combined with emulation software, in the hands of a professional, they can play Beethoven on a structure. The ability to detonate from any given floor would be a requirement of this operation. What fool would leave that to chance? One thing can be postulated with confidence: if there was an actual plot to facilitate the destruction of the towers we can be sure it would be perpetrated by professionals. Mole’s case for dismissal is hardly serious.

But Mole’s just warming up.

The first plane struck the North Tower (Building 1) between the 94th to 98th floors and hit it head on, burrowing almost directly toward the core of the building. The second airplane struck the South Tower between the 78th and 84th floors, but sliced in at an angle, severely damaging the entire northeast corner of the building.4 Compared with the North Tower, the South Tower sustained damage that was both less evenly distributed and significantly lower on the building’s frame, requiring the weakened point to support more upper building weight than the corresponding crash site on the North Tower. This explains both the tilt of the building as it fell toward the weakened corner, and the fact that the South Tower fell first despite being struck after the North Tower was struck.

Here Mole speaks anecdotally to explain the 58 minute collapse of WTC 2–the last hit but the first to fall. And admittedly, 58 minutes seems a short amount of time. But so is the 102 minutes it took for Building 1 to fall. And even the 8 hours it took for WTC 7 to fall seems exceedingly fast and violent compared to the damage done. But this is just a feeling. The point remains: comparing the fall times of these buildings as “slow,” “medium” and “fast” does little to clarify the official explanation, nor, more importantly, does it help to clarify the mechanisms that actually caused the collapses.

Secondly, Mole employs an “is-ought” argument for nature of the destruction witnessed. This is indicative of an uniquisitive thought process that essentially says “well, of course it happened that way!” Even though the South Tower was the second building hit and was hit at an incidental angle compared to the North Tower, Mole makes a perceptional argument, saying in essence, “intuition does not serve us well in this situation because the South Tower, although hit later and less directly than the North Tower, was a more catastrophic blow by virtue of the asymmetrical damage–not in spite of it as would seem more in line with basic physics.” As in much of the NIST literature regarding the collapses, the theoretical cart is put before the forensic horse.

After giving birth to that turd of a non-argument, Mole moves on to the issue of the fire temperatures upon which so much hinges:

… most agree that the temperature probably reached 1,000° Fahrenheit and possibly higher than 1,800° F.

Flames of this temperature would be far short of the approximately 2800° F needed to melt steel, but they would have been sufficient to severely reduce the structural integrity of the metal.

My emphasis. This central tenet of the official story acknowledges that the only fuel sources in the WTC complex at the time in any real volume were hydrocarbon sources, wood, paper and plastics ignited by kerosene. With this acknowledgment comes the additional requirement that the fires be hot enough to cause the massive and violent structural damage we all witnessed that day. To this end, supporters of the official theory have made much use of misunderstanding the difference between gas temperature and material temperature. Mole is no exception:

Even if we assume temperatures of no higher than 1,000° F during the fire, we would still have more than enough reasons to expect damage severe enough to result in eventual collapse.

Temperature of what? After reading this, I cannot help but picture Mole in a wide-collar, polyester suit and a fake-ass smile waving a brochure for a “once in a lifetime opportunity”. No thanks, Phil. First and foremost, what temperatures is Mole referring to? Gas? Surfaces? It is poor science to say the least, to conflate the maximum temperature of a heat source with the maximum temperature of a material that may or may not have been exposed to that source. This point is so basic, I feel like making it explicit will insult your intelligence. Yet, Mole writes his piece with authority, as if his word puts the issue to bed once and for all.

Office fire simulations conducted by Underwriters Laboratories under the direction of NIST found that temperatures went above 1000F for only a few of the tests, and when it did, it could not sustain it for much more than 8 or 10 minutes. They used a variety of materials but through the course of testing found that the surrogate material combinations of wood, paper, plastic and hydrocarbon fuels were irrelevant to the outcome of the tests: a little over 1000F for about 10 minutes was simply as hot as they were going to get.

The one factor which affected the outcome most was material arrangement. Several simulations broke down the furniture and various surrogates into piles. Not surprisingly, the heat curve went higher, but for a shorter amount of time than the undisturbed, more fuel-scattered tests. The results support Eagar and Musso’s original estimates of a maximum gas temperature of about 1100F, but with the added knowledge that these temperatures could not have been sustained for more than about 10 or maybe 20 minutes at most.

Furthermore, NIST acknowledges early on that of all the steel they sampled (which amounted to approximately 1% of all the steel) the hottest exposure temperatures they could document were about 250C or just under 500F. Yet it seems Mole, as well as NIST, must presume the existence of higher temperature-exposed steel despite the fact that the only steel in the official record found to have gotten hotter was the mysteriously melted steel reported in the FEMA/BPAT Appendix C report:

Evidence of a high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near surface microstructure.

It is unclear why supporters of the official conspiracy theory are so incurious about these samples. Given that one sample is definitely from WTC 7 and the other sample is either from WTC 1 or 2, this cannot be dismissed as an isolated event. Given that there are first-hand account of molten steel, these samples seem to fall into the category of corroborative evidence for such. Unsurprisingly, Mole is neither willing to mention the FEMA/BPAT study nor take the accounts of eye witnesses seriously:

… the sources in question are informal observations of “steel” at Ground Zero, not laboratory results. To many people, any grayish metal looks sufficiently like steel to call it “steel” when speaking informally. To actually establish that the substance in question is steel, we need analytical laboratory results using atomic absorption (AA) or another suitable test.

It seems far more likely that the metal seen by the contractors was aluminum, a component of the WTC structural material that melts at a much lower temperature than steel and can look superficially similar to it.

My emphasis. But we do NOT need to take anyone’s word for the melted steel recovered by the FEMA/BPAT team, yet there is not even an acknowledgment of its existence by Mole. Why not? And how “superficial” is the similarity of molten steel to molten aluminum? And so, with a couple of passing comments, Mole washes his hands of any and all considerations of molten steel or iron.

So, I have to ask Phil Mole: Why didn’t you consider all the evidence surrounding molten steel and iron when you were dismissing the non-official accounts of what happened to the WTC complex? Why didn’t you consider the FEMA/BPAT report or the USGS report which contained evidence of extremely high temperature reactions? Why not take into account all the evidence before making a judgment in regard to the legitimacy of non-official theories of the collapses?

Until you make yourself clear, we can only assume.

I am not the first to respond to this, as it has been more than 2 years since the article first appeared in Skeptic Magazine, however, my objective was to make these issues accessible in a quasi-Socratic method, that is, by allowing the reader to make up his own mind when presented with unpolished facts.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Steven Gaal

[Len Colby]

TL:DR

What does this drivel have to do with this thread?

[Steven Gaal]

• List of Opticians and Optometrists in Recife Pernambuco Brazil
  www.townsoftheworld.com/Brazil/.../Opticians%20and%20Optometri...Cached
  You +1'd this publicly. Undo
  List of Opticians and Optometrists in Recife Pernambuco Brazil >> A complete list of all businesses involved with Opticians and Optometrists. All listings are ...
  ###################################
  ###################################
  

To this end, supporters of the official theory have made much use of misunderstanding the difference between gas temperature and material temperature. Mole is no exception:

^{Even if we assume temperatures of no higher than 1,000° F during the fire, we would still have more than enough reasons to expect damage severe enough to result in eventual collapse.}

^{Temperature of what? After reading this, I cannot help but picture Mole in a wide-collar, polyester suit and a fake-ass smile waving a brochure for a “once in a lifetime opportunity”. No thanks, Phil. First and foremost, what temperatures is Mole referring to? Gas? Surfaces? It is poor science to say the least, to conflate the maximum temperature of a heat source with the maximum temperature of a material that may or may not have been exposed to that source. This point is so basic, I feel like making it explicit will insult your intelligence. Yet, Mole writes his piece with authority, as if his word puts the issue to bed once and for all.}

^{Office fire simulations conducted by Underwriters Laboratories under the direction of NIST found that temperatures went above 1000F for only a few of the tests, and when it did, it could not sustain it for much more than 8 or 10 minutes. They used a variety of materials but through the course of testing found that the surrogate material combinations of wood, paper, plastic and hydrocarbon fuels were irrelevant to the outcome of the tests: a little over 1000F for about 10 minutes was simply as hot as they were going to get.}

^{The one factor which affected the outcome most was material arrangement. Several simulations broke down the furniture and various surrogates into piles. Not surprisingly, the heat curve went higher, but for a shorter amount of time than the undisturbed, more fuel-scattered tests. The results support Eagar and Musso’s original estimates of a maximum gas temperature of about 1100F, but with the added knowledge that these temperatures could not have been sustained for more than about 10 or maybe 20 minutes at most.}

^{Furthermore, NIST acknowledges early on that of all the steel they sampled (which amounted to approximately 1% of all the steel) the hottest exposure temperatures they could document were about 250C or just under 500F. Yet it seems Mole, as well as NIST, must presume the existence of higher temperature-exposed steel despite the fact that the only steel in the official record found to have gotten hotter was the mysteriously melted steel reported in the FEMA/BPAT Appendix C report:}

^{Evidence of a high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near surface microstructure.}

^{It is unclear why supporters of the official conspiracy theory are so incurious about these samples. Given that one sample is definitely from WTC 7 and the other sample is either from WTC 1 or 2, this cannot be dismissed as an isolated event. Given that there are first-hand account of molten steel, these samples seem to fall into the category of corroborative evidence for such. Unsurprisingly, Mole is neither willing to mention the FEMA/BPAT study nor take the accounts of eye witnesses seriously:}

Edited March 9, 2013 by Steven Gaal

[Len Colby]

I suggest you look up the meaning of TL:DR.

Yawn, an entry almost devoid of citations from an obscure anonymous blogger.

[Steven Gaal]

Fire Safety Researchers at Victoria University Disagree with NIST’s WTC 7 Report

Posted on March 15, 2012 | Leave a comment

Researchers Ian Thomas and David Proe of Victoria University in Australia commented on NIST’s analysis of WTC 7. They conducted several standard fire tests on composite beams and found several major items in the analysis to be conflicting with their observations. They

disagree with NIST’s final report.

PDF Attached: David Proe and IanThomas WTC7 Comments

Former NIST Fire Science Division chief and scholars challenge NIOSH WTC report and calls for peer-review:

PDF Attached: Fire Engineering fmr NIST cheif challenges NIOSH WTC report

[Len Colby]

The WTC collapses were certainly the most studied engineering failures in history and generated a great deal of interest among the engineering community. However truthers have yet to turn up a qualified engineer who has studied the NIST reports and rejects them. Gage has only 20 - 30 structural engineers; last I checked only 2 - 3 claimed experience with buildings more than 2 - 3 stories tall but none of those gave any indication they'd read the reports. "Troy from West Virginia" called various signatories and asked them if they had read them and they either said no or failed to give straight answers.

As to Quintiere (from your link), he

"... made it clear, however, that he is not a supporter of the theory that the towers were brought down by preplanted explosives. He alluded to the assertion by the proponents of the explosives theory that smoke puffing out all around the building was caused by setting off an explosive charge. Quintiere said it was more likely that the cause was one of the floors falling down.

The research done by Quintiere and his students contradicts the NIST report conclusion that there would have been no collapse if the fire insulation had remained in place. Quintiere suggests that an equally justifiable theory is that the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire, even with the insulation intact."

The Australians likewise while they question specifics of the report show no signs of doubting 7 collapsed due to fire.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Len Colby

[Steven Gaal]

The WTC collapses were certainly the most studied engineering failures in history and generated a great deal of interest among the engineering community. However truthers have yet to turn up a qualified engineer who has studied the NIST reports and rejects them. Gage has only 20 - 30 structural engineers; last I checked only 2 - 3 claimed experience with buildings more than 2 - 3 stories tall but none of those gave any indication they'd read the reports. "Troy from West Virginia" called various signatories and asked them if they had read them and they either said no or failed to give straight answers.

As to Quintiere (from your link), he

"... made it clear, however, that he is not a supporter of the theory that the towers were brought down by preplanted explosives. He alluded to the assertion by the proponents of the explosives theory that smoke puffing out all around the building was caused by setting off an explosive charge. Quintiere said it was more likely that the cause was one of the floors falling down.

The research done by Quintiere and his students contradicts the NIST report conclusion that there would have been no collapse if the fire insulation had remained in place. Quintiere suggests that an equally justifiable theory is that the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire, even with the insulation intact."

The Australians likewise while they question specifics of the report show no signs of doubting 7 collapsed due to fire.

###################

TL:DR

******************************* FAQ #11: Does the NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse prove that the skyscraper came down by fire? News- News Releases By AE911Truth Written by Chris Sarns, Richard Gage, AIA, and Gregg Roberts Wednesday, 13 March 2013 18:45

*************************************************************************************************************************************

No. The NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse does not even closely resemble the observations and actual video footage of the destruction in three main ways. A scientifically valid explanation of any phenomenon must account for the key observations.Moreover, a computer simulation does not constitute an explanation. It is merely a tool for determining and visualizing what might have happened if various assumptions are true.

NIST has refused to disclose the computer inputs of its mathematical models. This makes it impossible for anyone to check their work.

1. While NIST admits publicly that the building descended at “free-fall” acceleration, its computer simulation is not consistent with a building that is coming down in free fall.

NIST’s Final Report on the collapse of WTC 7 (NCSTAR 1A, p. 45) states that gravitational acceleration (free-fall) of the main roofline occurred. It began when the point NIST was using ^[1] as its marker on the video had descended about 7 feet*. In Figure 12-62 (NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 588) the roofline has descended about 10m /33 feet (NCSTAR 1-9A, p. 77) and the columns are still buckling in an irregular manner. Buckling columns provide resistance and would obviously prevent the building from collapsing at free-fall acceleration. The NIST computer model is clearly not simulating free-fall acceleration. Read more...

*****************************

Edited March 16, 2013 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

9/11 and Skeptic Magazine’s ‘Science’ of Controlled Demolitions ^{Written by Jeremy R. Hammond, Foreign Policy Journal Wednesday, 07 December 2011 15:20}

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/44-press-items/584-911-and-skeptic-magazines-science-of-controlled-demolitions.html

[Len Colby]

TL:DR

*******************************

Richly ironic since my post was only 257 words 118 of which were a direct quote from one of your sources and you regularly make posts which stretch out to several thousand words.

Also you seem intent on proving by point that very few qualified experts back Gage. He an architect of lowrise (1 - 3 story) buildings it most qualified of the bunch.

[Steven Gaal]

The NIST report is debunked here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

http://stj911.org/ryan/NIST_Responses.html http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/NISTandDrBazant-SimultaneousFailure-WTCCollapseAnalysis2.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/RFCtoNISTbyMcIlvaineDoyleJonesRyanGageSTJ.pdf

Popular Mechanics is debunked here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WULRQCgvsdE

[Len Colby]

So tell us Steve which of these supposed debunking are from qualified engineers?

[Steven Gaal]

Structural Engineer (ret.) Doyle Winterton

MohammedAzizullah Khan M Sc in Structural Engineering University of Sheffield Marine Structural Engineer

Barret Ambrose B.S. Structral Engineering Oxford Brooks University Structural Engineer

++++++++++++++

Scott C. Grainger, BS CE, PE – Licensed Professional Civil Engineer and/or Fire Protection Engineer in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Owner of Grainger Consulting, Inc., a fire protection engineering firm (23 years). Former Chairman, Arizona State Fire Code Committee. Former President of the Arizona Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers. Current Member of the Forensic Sciences Committee and the Fire Standards Committee of ASTM International (formerly American Society for Testing and Materials ). Senior Member, National Academy of Forensic Engineers.

•Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

============

Travis McCoy, BS Civil and Environmental Eng – Design Engineer working at a structural engineering firm and pursuing MS Structural Eng degree.

•Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"Based on my structural engineering background, I have several questions pertaining to the validity of the official report on why the buildings collapsed." http://www.ae911truth.org

"Approximately 50% of my work is forensic. I am licensed in 9 States. In addition to my forensic work, a good portion of my work is in the design of structural fireproofing systems.

All three [WTC] collapses were very uniform in nature. Natural collapses due to unplanned events are not uniform." http://www.ae911truth.org

++++++++++++++++

Hugo Bachmann, PhD – Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Author and co-author of Erdbebenbemessung von Stahlbetonhochbauten (Seismic Analysis of Concrete Reinforced Structures) (1990), Vibration Problems in Structures: Practical Guidelines (1995), Biege- und Schubversuche an teilweise vorgespannten Leichtbetonbalken (Structural Analysis of Linked Concrete Beams) (1998), Hochbau für Ingenieure. Eine Einführung (Structural Construction for Engineers. An introduction) (2001), Erdbebensicherung von Bauwerken (Earthquake-proofing Buildings) (2002).

•Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: "In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [swiss Federal Institute of Technology] - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."

English translation: http://www.danieleganser.ch

Original in German: http://www.danieleganser.ch

============

Jörg Schneider, Dr hc – Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former President, Joint Committee on Structural Safety, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Elected member of the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences. Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering.

•Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: " In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [swiss Federal Institute of Technology] - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."

English translation: http://www.danieleganser.ch

Original in German: http://www.danieleganser.ch

============

Mario Fontana, Dr Sc CE – Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, Institute of Structural Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former Director of the Steel Construction Division, Geilinger AG. Author of more than 40 papers on structural engineering.

•Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: "We simply don't know what exactly happened in WTC 7," said Mario Fontana, sitting Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction at ETH-Zurich. At conferences of structural analysis experts one has discovered only very little on the collapse of WTC 7. It is at least thinkable that a long, on-going fire could have caused the collapse of the building, according to Fontana."

English translation: http://www.danieleganser.ch

Original in German: http://www.danieleganser.ch

============

Kamal S. Obeid, BS CE, MS CE, SE, PE – Licensed Professional Structural and Civil Engineer, State of California.

•Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"Only recently have I begun to examine the structural collapse of the buildings. Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well-planned and controlled demolition." http://www.ae911truth.org

============

Charles N. Pegelow, BS CE – Licensed Civil Engineer (Structural), State of California. Over 25 years experience in structural design and analysis and project management of major construction projects, including large steel structures.

•Essay 9/25/06: "The FEMA / Kean Commission Report was a flawed investigation. ...

In addition to the firemen calling the Commission a cover up, there are the victim's family organizations that are saying the same thing.

The commission did gather many experts but did not provide them with the full information they needed. FEMA hampered and distorted the investigation of the professionals they hired.

In conclusion, FEMA / Kean Commission Report was a flawed investigation and it needs to be reopened.

An open, independent of the Federal Government, public inquiry into the attacks should be set up under an independent judicial body with power to subpoena evidence." http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org

============

Ali Mojahid, BS CE, MS CE, PhD Civil and Architectural Engineering, PE, SI – Licensed Professional Engineer, States of Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Licensed Special Inspector / Threshold Inspector, State of Florida. Licensed Building Inspector, Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI). Extensive experience in structural design, structural analysis and structural building elements combined actions under severe weather, torsional loads, windloads for numerous projects including sport arenas, airport concourse and cargo buildings, hotels, condominiums, high-end residential and commercial buildings. Extensive forensic engineering experience on numerous projects after hurricanes Andrew, Charlie, Frances, and Katrina. Over 20 years of experience as a structural and forensic engineer.

============

Arthur Nelson, MS Structural Eng, PE – Licensed Professional Engineer, State of Massachusetts. Structural Engineer since 1986. Involved in design of hundreds of steel structures, though none have been involved in airplane collisions.

•Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"Official story appears deficient in that it does not account for squibs, failure mode, chemical composition of demolished steel and temperature. Finding a non-political investigatory panel has thus far proven impossible." http://www.ae911truth.org

============

William Rice, BS CE, MS CE, PE – Licensed Professional Engineer, State of Vermont. Worked on structural steel and concrete buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia for two of the nation’s largest building construction companies; the Austin Company and the George A. Fuller Construction Company. Former Professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses for over 20 years.

•Essay Vermont Guardian 3/1/07: "Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11. ...

The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.

Even if Newton’s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn't exist.

Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and "debunks" the message rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days for the president’s 9/11 Commission to start an "investigation" into a tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission’s investigation also didn't include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the "unusual and unprecedented" manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed. http://www.vermontguardian.com

============

Rick Fowlkes, BS CE, MBA, PE – Licensed Professional Engineer, States of Arizona and California. Professional structural engineer with over 38 years experience with commercial, residential, and industrial engineering designs, including design of electrical power plants, substations, and transmission line structures. Owned and operated his own consulting engineering business since 1983.

•Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"The truth has not been told up to this point, but the evidence brought to light by the Architects and Engineer's for 9/11 Truth is compelling proof that a more thorough investigation is indicated." http://www.ae911truth.org

============

Hans De Jonge – Mechanical engineer (diploma 1966), structural engineer and civil engineer concrete and steel (diploma 1972). 20 years experience as a structural engineer. Currently adviser and technical controller on a house-building project.

•Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"In January 1970 I visited the Twin Towers under construction as a student structural engineering and was impressed by the sophisticated design and the new (for me) building philosophy of the huge inner columns and the outside steel frame leaving an enormous office space without any column on every floor. The impact of one airplane cannot damage this large structure very much because the support is instantly re-arranged to the undamaged support system. The total collapse is therefore technically impossible." http://www.ae911truth.org

============

Cynthia Howard, M.Arch, AIA – Past President of the New England Chapter of the AIA. Past President and Board member of AIA Maine. Former Board Member of the Boston Society of Architects. Licensed Architect, States of Maine and Massachusetts. 30 years in private practice, including Preservation Planning for municipalities, agencies and historic societies and Energy-efficient historic restoration and new construction projects, concentrated in coast and mill communities. Architectural education MIT (Masters), and Harvard Graduate School of Design, (taught course Developing Historic Properties). Studied Structural Engineering under William LeMessurier at MIT.

•Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"I believe that it is physically/scientifically impossible for the heat from the burning planes to have caused the collapse. If the steel had failed by heat, as has been claimed, the building would have deformed.

The speed of the building's collapse, indicating no resistance as it fell, further indicates that only carefully placed and timed detonation devices throughout the skeletal structure could account for the sudden implosion of the towers into their footprints.

The only plausible reason for collapse of WTC 7, which was not hit by any plane, is similarly, timed explosives within the building." http://www.ae911truth.org

===========

Joseph M. Phelps, MS CE, PE (ret) – Structural Dynamicist, Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Life member, ASCE. Former member of the Marine Technology Society, the American Society for Oceanography, and the Society of Photo-optical Instrumentation Engineers. Founder of Phelps/ABC, an engineering and industrial marketing firm. Former Commissioner of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.

•Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth "Research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government's official story about the attack on the Pentagon."

============

Edward E. Knesl, MS Eng, PE – Licensed Professional Civil and Structural Engineer, State of Arizona. Thirty five years of domestic and international experience in commercial and transportation projects, including: Structural Design and Analysis, Construction Administration and Management, Plan Review, and Special Inspection.

•Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor bellow.

We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.

The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from?" http://www.ae911truth.org

============

David Scott, AMICE, CEng, MIStructE – Consulting Structural Engineer. Founding director of a structural and architectural design practice in Perthshire, Scotland. 20 years experience in building design.

•Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode. Lack of aircraft debris at Pentagon site leaves official story in tatters." http://www.ae911truth.org

============

Nathan S. Lomba, BS CE, PE, SE, M.ASCE – Licensed Professional Civil Engineer, State of California. Licensed Professional Civil and Structural Engineer, State of Idaho. Experience ranges from custom residential to heavy industrial structures. Major project involvements include: Lead civil/structural engineer on a $700 million project for the U.S. Air Force; structural design engineer for a 41,000 sq. ft. Pulp Machine Building; and Resident Engineer on a 550 MW Natural-gas fired power plant. Member, American Concrete Institute (ACI). Member, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute (SEI). Professional Member, American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). 39 years experience.

•Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. “If” you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.

Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.

Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse.

For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the causes for the structural failures. " http://www.ae911truth.org

ect ect ect