The first exam, Fundamentals of Engineering, covers mathematics, chemistry, physics, and engineering sciences. The second exam, Principles and Practice of Engineering, requires the applicant to solve engineering problems in his discipline plus problems in four other disciplines. The difficulty of these tests have been equated to passing ten final exams on the same day. The data covered on the tests requires the applicant to draw upon knowledge that has been accumulated over an entire college and professional career.
One of Pat's regular commenters "GuitarBill" makes the argument that AE911Truth only represents 0.23% of the the US scientific and engineering community based on a number of 600,000. First off, he only bases this figure off the number of architects and engineers who have signed the petition, which ignores the other 10,000+ signatories that are credentialed. This figure also ignores other 9/11 truth groups with large numbers of credentialed people signed on to their ideas such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.
Of course there is some overlap and I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make, but it would make one. Regardless, and most importantly, a failure to condemn the official story should not be viewed as an endorsement of it. One should also not assume that all individuals have been exposed to the relevant information, as the "BuildingWhat?" campaign has proved with Geraldo, this is certainly not the case. And there is no way to calculate how many have the guts to take a public stance on such a controversial matter. As AE911Truth civil engineer Jonathan Cole has stated, "there is a good reason that there is no group called 'Architects and Engineers that support the official story.'"
So I've just taken a look over at ae911truth.info to see if Mr. Joseph Nobles has been up to anything recently. His latest addition to his site concerns a post by someone on the JREF forum on a thread titled "Why do you still believe that a collapse due to fire wouldn't be possible?". I was ready to write a quick response to this, but looking through the thread I quickly saw that someone had already responded to it. Poster "Sivan Kurzberg" posted this excellent response, which I've reposted here with some of my own comments in red, some links:
1 - Steel does lose strength at high temperatures. Where was it ever claimed otherwise? You need to prove those temperatures though. Absolutely. And NIST hasnot done this.
2 - The fire protection were removed from the truss on the floors where the impact occurred. This is speculation that's never proven. Exactly how much was removed and exactly how? Exactly how much was needed to remain to keep the building up longer than an hour or until it was completely evacuated? What's more, fireproofing is only good for up to 2-3 hours.Other skyscrapershave burned over 5 hours and have not collapsed.
3 - It is not necessary to remove all fire protection to make the structure susceptible to fire. See number 2
4 - The failure of a structural element can cause the failure of others. Sure, but will it bring on sudden rapid global collapse of the entire structure? It may, but we haveno examplesof this outside of controlled demolition.
5 - Progressive collapse does exist. Sure. But not sudden rapid global collapse complete in a matter of seconds like what was witnessed three times on 9/11. The only real progressive collapse caused by firewas everything one would expect: localized, asymmetric, and nowhere near free fall rate.
This thread is not about evidence of controlled demolition nor NIST findings. It's about arguments that support the claim the towers (WTC 1 and 2) couldn't have collapsed due to fire. It's still unprecedented and unproven. This is the problem. I couldn't agree more.
Sivan Kurzberg also mentioned something that debunkers have yet to do:
"What the debunkers will never be able to show is the sudden global collapse of an entire high-rise complete in a matter of seconds. Especially of a building only on fire for about an hour."
Looking through the thread more, I was surprised to see that poster "Patriots4Truth" posted several of my videos from my "9/11 Un-debunked" series in response to debunker claims. Poster "Grizzly Bear" had some thoughts on my videos. Once again, I've reposted that here with my comments in red with some links:
A quick comment while I'm on break...
Fires Insufficient To Cause Collapse Mister citizen assumes the only fuel available for the fires was the jet fuel. It's a repeat of the "no steel over 600oF" claim which itself is based on a bastardization of the NIST report's conclusion. Given his premise is incorrect, his video is of little to no relevance. I do not assume that jet fuel was the only source of fuel, and I never will. The point of my video was to show that the amount of fuel in each of the Towers was smaller than debunkers had portrayed in the past. This is supposed to be a crucial difference between the fires in the Towers and other skyscraper fires. Clearly jet fuel would have created higher temperatures than office material.
Buildings Built To Withstand Airplane Strikes Quote: When the WTC towers were built there was extensive controversy over their safety in emergencies. The NYC Fire Department protested, as did a host of other agencies and professional associations. The buildings were constructed in bulk and height far in excess of what municipal construction and zoning codes allowed. However, the Port Authority, a quasi-governmental agency with exceptional powers inherited from the regime of Robert Moses, was specifically exempt from compliance with municipal codes. The real estate, construction and finance industries were powerful supporters of the project.
Aside, I add that in 30 some years of examining buildings in New York, I have found none, zero, which are fully compliant with municipal building codes. It is a terrible, little reported scandal of the city in which it is considered to be bad business to fully comply with codes.
Speed Of The Collapse Was Too Fast Why the speed issue is always brought up is beyond me... Once the collapse initiated it was collapsing regardless of whether it took 10 or 30 seconds... Mr citizen obviously cites the commission report, which for whatever reason truthers to this day still hold the absurd belief it was intended to be a engineering report as opposed to a bipartisan investigation concerning what lead to the attacks happening, not determining how or why the towers failed. This is pointless rambling. I only cited the Commission Report to make clear that the official investigators were the first to make claims of "10 seconds."The speed issue is very important, and it has been shown the the fall rates of the Towers were at the very leastconsistent with controlled demolition.
The First Steel Framed High-Rise Fire Collapses "First time in history" is a bowl of laughs... To claim this requires an absolute bastardization and ignorance of steel material properties and general design case studies. His opinions being based on such faulty premises renders his video irrelevant. Exactly how is my video irrelevant? Debunkers find itunacceptableto compare other high-rise skyscraper fires to the Towers and Building 7, but comparing them tobadly built toy factories and elementary schoolsis just fine. The only steel structures debunkers apparently do think are comparable are structures that have collapsed from fire, with none of them being steel skyscrapers.
Throughout the thread some JREFers brought up Building 5's partial collapse from fire, which they seem to think supports the "fire can cause collapse" theory. Here's the reality.
WTC Collapse This was a regurgitation of all the videos in your list preceding it. None of which had any reasonable argument made against them.
WTC 7's Collapse Is Still A Mystery This comment was pretty stupid, considering only "on-tenth" or so of WTC 1 & 2 each were burning. Makes me genuinely curious if he's ever seen a building up close while it was on fire. However, as I've already shown, Building 5 was almost fully engulfed and performed much better.
He also believes the smoke emanating from WTC 7 was not from WTC 7... similar to the DRG/Jones claim that the smoke instead came from WTC 5... Which is what I do claim. He completely ignores the photoswhich show the exact same thing happened to WTC1.
Apparently his "mystery" is part of his faulty premise... and this video is also not relevant to any degree. It is relevant because debunkers still cry claims of"25% scooped out!"or"there were fuel tanks in the building!"As long as debunkers keep making these claims, I see it as very relevant.
patriots4truth, these videos are little more than psuedoscience and regurgitation. I would be interested if you can offer your own argument instead of offering a regurgitation of 2006 from unqualified individuals. Thank you. These arguments clearly are groundless, andJREFers themselveshave been shown to be nothing but psuedoskeptics.
Hopefully, this will put what the Truth Movement believes in better perspective for the debunkers.
And according to Joseph Nobles, there's a lie on every page. I have just recently looked through the website myself, and while I admittedly have some differences with it, Mr. Nobles seems to think that almost everything on the site is either false or misleading. Mr. Nobles' responses to the evidence pages at Building What? are, as we will see, very misleading and false.
Free Fall Collapse
Mr. Nobles claims that NIST actually explained what caused the period of free fall in Building 7's collapse.
It has been demonstrated several times why this explanation is complete nonsense. NIST merely implies that the alleged buckling of the floors caused the free fall, without offering any sort of analysis into exactly how the buckling caused it in the first place. Basically, we are being told that "NIST said 8 floors buckled, and it fell in free fall for 8 stories, so the buckling must have caused the free fall." That is a lot like saying "2 is a number. 1 is a number. Therefore, 2=1."
Dr. Shyam Sunder himself admitted that free fall means an object has "no structural components below it." And yet now NIST is telling us that buckled columns led to free fall. Buckled supports is a long way from "no supports."
NIST Collapse Model
According to Mr. Nobles, NIST's computer models accurately simulate the collapse of the building.
If Mr. Nobles had bothered to pay attention to the video posted on that page, he would have seen that both models--the one with and without structural damage--are very different from the actual collapse.
Even assuming that the "curtain wall" would have added some stiffness, the models still show the building collapsing in a different manner in terms of direction and rate. Neither of NIST's simulations even show the entire collapse, so how can it be possibly determined if they are accurate or not?
This topic is especially interesting, as I recently addressed this issue raised by Mr. Nobles in great detail. He offers his own sentiments about how sulfur evaporates at 445°C.
Given the fact that it has been determined that the steel was attacked by a liquid slag containing iron, oxygen, and sulfur, it would seem to indicate that the sulfur was chemically mixed into whatever sulidified the steel, rather than just evaporating in the air. Mr. Nobles once again avoids the issue of there being no plausible natural explanation for the sulfur in the building, as evidenced by his omission of the next part of this page, which reads:
"The fact that sulfur evaporates at a low temperature, 445° C, along with the very low levels of elemental sulfur in office buildings appears to preclude the possibility that the eutectic could have formed as a result of a slow sulfidation process in the debris pile.”
Explosive Residues
This section is quite remarkable, as Mr. Nobles offers a now very old explanation for the red/gray chips.
This has been refuted SEVERAL times.
I would be very interested if someone could find me a can of exploding primer paint. I asked my local Home Depot if they had any, but they said they didn't. Guess they must have been out of stock.
Regardless, Mr. Nobles features this comparison picture as evidence.
I came up with a good analogy for this.
Notice that his picture shows paint from the WTC was heated to over 650°C. The chips Dr. Jones found ignite at around 430°C.
Eyewitnesses
According to Mr. Nobles, even if there were witnesses to explosions, it doesn't matter because there are apparently no explosions in any of the collapse videos.
First of all, the actual "sounds of explosions" are not necessary to warrant an investigation into if they were used.
But the fact is, sound evidence for explosions has been found.
Foreknowledge
Mr. Nobles then criticizes the page on the foreknowledge of Building 7's collapse.
"The majority of FDNY members did not rationally conclude, on the basis of direct perception of damage to the building, that it was in danger of collapse; they accepted that it would collapse on the basis of what they were told."
Mr. Nobles lastly claims that there was nothing suspicious about the rapid clean-up of the WTC debris.
I'm sorry if the removal of the debris doesn't bother you Mr. Nobles, but it bothered others, including people who don't think the buildings were demolished.
Minute 7:18
Mr. Nobles closes with saying that the videos of Building 7's collapse featured on Building What? don't feature the penthouse collapse or audio. Well, the collapse of column 79 and the penthouse is problematic enough itself, and here's a video that does feature audio of the collapse, and it doesn't exactly sound quiet.
A couple of weeks ago Mr. Joseph Nobles posted a response to my debunking of his posts on the thermal conductivity of the WTC steel and the corroded steel samples. And on Tuesday, he posted a request to me that I correct myself.
Well obviously this upset me quite a bit. How dare Kevin Ryan cherrypick his info and trick me like that. Fortunately, I managed to get a message from Kevin Ryan about this issue. Here is what he wrote:
"If the question here is referring to my "Bush Science Reaches Its Peak" article on the WTC 7 report, and I think it is, then note that I did not say that NIST didn't "include a factor of thermal conductivity" in its model. You only have to read the article to see that the NIST manipulation I referred to had the set the thermal conductivity to zero, which is quite different than omitting it altogether. The fact that NIST set the thermal conductivity to zero in that instance is very clear and supported by the references given in my paper. As an analogy, if someone sets your thermostat to zero, that doesn't mean there is no temperature in your home, correct? Even if they set it to zero Kelvin (absolute zero), temperature would still be a factor (quite a substantial factor for you actually)."
So yes Mr. Nobles, NIST did include thermal conductivity as a factor. But because they set the conductivity to zero or near zero, they might as well have not included it at all.
Further distortions in the NIST report on thermal conductivity are also noted by Jim Hoffman in his critique of the NIST's report on the Twin Towers.
"NIST apparently ignored thermal conduction within its model of the steel structure. Since steel is a good conductor of heat, and the steel in the Twin Towers' structures was well connected, their massive steel structures would have drawn heat away from the parts that were exposed to fire. The Report describes a model of "The Fire-Structure Interface", and describes the computation of heat transfer between the air and the steel structure, but it does not mention the conduction of heat along spans of the steel structure.(p 131-2/181-2) The suspicion that NIST simply ignored the conduction of heat within the steel is corroborated by the Report's disclosure that they used heat transfer tests on isolated steel elements to calibrate their model.(p 134/184)"
As for the corroded steel, Mr. Nobles barely offered any reasonable response at all.
That's the problem Mr. Nobles. You claim that it was corroded after the collapse. But as I already pointed out, the people who actually examined the steel stated that it is "possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."
Mr. Nobles continually makes the argument that since whatever corroded the steel only approached 1000°C, it could not have been thermate, since thermate burns much hotter. What Mr. Nobles doesn't realize is that thermate can be formulated to burn at varying temperatures based on the quantity of the elements in it. A calculation for how the eutectic mixture could have approached 1000°C has been worked out by Jerry Lobdill in discussing the molten metal flowing out of WTC 2:
"Now consider the problem of the molten metal flowing from the 82nd floor of WTC 2. Some have suggested that this metal was the eutectic mixture of Fe and S. Let’s discuss that possibility. We assume that the steel that is cut from the columns is essentially pure Fe. It is melted and mixes with the thermate reaction products and then flows away by gravity. As the mixture cools, if the original molten mix was at S less than 31.4%, Fe begins to crystallize out. This increases the S% in the remaining mix. As the cooling continues, the S% increases until it reaches 31.4%, and this remaining molten eutectic mixture solidifies at 994 C (or 988 C, depending on which measurement you believe). So unless the original S% was 31.4%, the molten mass is crystallizing out solidified Fe as it flows downhill and cools. When, in the cooling process, the molten mass reaches the eutectic composition, it also reaches the eutectic temperature. At that temperature the remaining liquid gives up its latent heat of fusion and crystallizes as a microscopically heterogeneous solid with a (macroscopically) 31.4% S, 68.6% Fe composition. Once all the material has solidified the entire mass resumes cooling. We thus have a plausible explanation of why the material flowing from WTC 2 was orange-hot liquid (~1000 C)."
There are clearly many variations of thermite, thermate, and other incendiaries that can be formulated to reach higher and lower temperatures, as pointed out by Dr. Steven Jones.
"Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate."
At the end of Mr. Nobles' response he offers a very obvious non-response to my other points.
First of all, yes, I did have to point out to you that the steel came from Building 7. Your first post on the topic mentioned nothing about Jonathan Barnetts's statement.
"I'm out of town most of the time of late so I have not been doing much 911 research these days. However, I did have a look at the video. I must say that I'm very impressed with Mr. Cole's experiment - nice job! It certainly looks convincing with regard to how the experiment was carried out and I'm very happy to see someone test something I suggested a few years ago.
I am prepared to admit that my initial proposal as to how steel was sulfided during the 911 events needs to be modified. Certainly it looks like diesel fuel, gypsum, concrete and aluminum alone are not going to do it ....." -Dr. Frank Greening
Dr. Greening has suggested other natural causes of the sulfidation, but he acknowledges that his previous theories have been refuted.
This is the point I keep trying to get across to Mr. Nobles. If nothing natural inside the building could have corroded the steel, then obviously something unnatural must have been placed inside the building to cause it. Debunkers have presented several explanations for the corrosion of the steel. Well, the explanations have been put to the test. The experiment has been done. The burden of proof is now on the debunkers to show that something natural could have melted and corroded the steel.
Well, I corrected the errors Mr. Nobles, just like you wanted. But of course, it turned out I wasn't the one needing correcting.
Side note: Special thanks to John-Michael Talboo and all his contacts for their help.
Update:
Joseph Nobles has responded to the above (sort of). He still insists that NIST adequately included thermal conductivity in their reports. I still see evidence of fraud in the reports, but this matter could be completely resolved if NIST would release their modeling data for review. And he ignored my sections on the eutectic steel, except for his claim that I didn't correct him about where the steel came from. Decide for yourself:
The Difference Between "Speed" and "Acceleration" The first point Mr. Nobles makes is one I happen to agree with. It is clearly more appropriate to say "acceleration" rather than "speed" when discussing the issue of free fall. However, I have often felt that trying to determine if the WTC fell at free fall acceleration is in itself somewhat misleading. If we are trying to establish whether or not the buildings were controlled demolitions, then the question really should not be "did the buildings fall at free fall?" The question should be "did the buildings fall in time intervals consistent with controlled demolitions?" That of course begs the question of whether or not buildings destroyed through controlled demolition fall in free fall. More on this will be discussed below.
Rate of Collapses Mr. Nobles features this photo to demonstrate how the debris coming off from the Towers is falling faster than the Towers themselves.
While the debris is certainly falling faster than the actual collapse, the wave of the destruction appears to be keeping up with the majority of the debris. David Chandler has outlined this characteristic of the collapses very accurately.
Sure, there was a much shorter gap between the two events than with Building 7. But clearly the idea of sections of the roof falling in a demolition before the main structure is not unheard of.
Oddly, Mr. Nobles refers to the main structure of WTC 7 as a "portion" of the collapse. That makes it sound like it was a very small part of the building that collapsed. The east penthouse could be more accurately described as a "portion."
Measurements of the Fall Rates
Mr. Nobles attempts to demonstrate that the rate at which the buildings fell has already been well accounted for by several sources. He first cites a statement made in NIST's FAQ on the WTC, ignoring the fact that nowhere in NIST's report do they explain the actual total collapse of the buildings. As 911research.wtc7.net points out:
NIST's assertion that the Tower's intact structure was "unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass" is absurd:
-It requires us to believe that the massive steel frames of the towers provided no more resistance to falling rubble than air. -It ignores the fact that most of the rubble fell outside the towers' footprints, and hence could not contribute to crushing. -It is unsupported by any calculation or logical argument.
Mr. Nobles then cites the work of Bazant et al. He refers to Bazant's work as providing "more rigorous calculations" and that his papers have been published in "respected scientific journals." However, several refutations to Bazant's work have been written over the years. Two refutations have even been peer reviewed and published in the same journal Bazant's papers have been published in. Those can be viewed here and here.
"It is clear that that the top section itself must be disintegrating. Otherwise the top section would have extended far into parts of the building that are clearly as yet unaffected by the collapse."
And video evidence confirms this.
Mr. Nobles makes some mention of the fact that portions of the cores of both Towers remained standing after the collapses. However, video evidence shows that the remaining core of the South Tower included neither north nor west columns.
And there was hardly anything left of the North Tower's core.
Despite Mr. Nobles' claims to the contrary, the rate at which the Towers fell is greatly at issue.
The Fall of WTC 7
Mr. Nobles lastly attempts to refute many arguments made about the collapse of WTC 7. Mr. Nobles believes that the main structure of WTC 7 also did not fall in 6.5 seconds. He features this diagram to illustrate this point.
I've never particularly liked using pictures to track the fall of any of the buildings. I feel that the videos speak for themselves.
Mr. Nobles makes quite a remarkable statement in regard to the collapse of the building.
"As shocking as it may be to our inexperience in large buildings falling, this is how quickly buildings of this size fall when they begin to collapse."
Oh really? If that's the case Mr. Nobles, then why did these buildings, all known controlled demolitions, take as long and even longer to fall than Building 7? Considering the fact that all these buildings are shorter than Building 7 and supposedly fire, not explosives, brought Building 7 down.
Mr. Nobles has clearly not explained the collapse anomalies of the Twin Towers and Building 7. Nothing will ever accurately explain what happened to those buildings until a new investigation is finally launched. One thing is for sure though: fire cannot cause a steel framed building to fall at the incredible rate at which the WTC fell in. The only example of a top-down progressive collapse initiated by fire is one in which a 13 story building took 10 seconds to partially collapse.
Recently, a debunker offered a unique criticism of the thermite issue that I've never seen before. I'd really appreciate if you could address and debunk his criticism. That would really help the truth movement.
the debunker added - "And something not mentioned there is that he did not test the combustion of the substance in an inert atmosphere. Thermite has its own oxidizer, so test it in a oxygen free environment and it might help to prove that it is indeed thermite. Why don't you ask them why they refuse to run this simple test?"
I would really appreciate it if you could address these concerns. Thank you."
Thanks for the compliment. I wrote one of the authors of the paper and shared your comment with him, here is his reply:
We ran the test the way we did because the literature described a previous test of nanothermite that was run in an ordinary atmosphere. If we had run it in an inert atmosphere, we would not have been able to compare apples to apples in terms of the energy released.
We agree that the test you are describing should be run by someone. We did our study on a shoestring budget as pro bono work, and there are many tests that we have not been able to run yet. It would be nice if others would pick up the ball and do some tests rather than continuing to ask us to do everything. I'm not saying that every one of our critics should perform such tests, but those who have the qualifications and the interest in the topic should consider investing a little more than they have been investing so far to get to the bottom of what really happened on 9/11.
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN OPINION, BUT NOT YOUR OWN FACTS.
Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and Ron Craig, explosives and Hollywood special effects expert locked horns in their second live radio debate in two years. The exchange was hosted by Richard Syrett of The Conspiracy Show. LISTEN TO THE DEBATE NOW.
While no data is available yet for listenership numbers, we do know that the show could be heard from Thunderbay Ontario to the Carolinas....from Maine to Minnesota, NYC, Chicago, Washington and all points in between. Also, the program is offered as a podcast, so it will be available on iTunes as a download. It's the most downloaded show on the radio station – Zoomer Radio from Ontario. The show will also be broadcast on TV - http://www.theconspiracyshow.com/
After brief introductory statements, the debate began right away with two very different views of reality on display. Gage's comments were based on observations that the three WTC towers did not suffer a natural collapse as a result of plane impacts and fires, but came down due to an engineered explosive destruction. Craig, on the other hand, asserted the belief that the plane strikes delivered three times the kinetic energy that the buildings were designed to withstand, that the construction was faulty, and that there was "no signature of explosions".
Craig also mentioned that the plane strikes would account for much of the pulverization of the concrete - without additional explanation as to why up to 30% of the powder blanketing Lower Manhattan was composed of finely ground concrete.
The debate proceeded with Ron Craig's denial of what we consider to be observed facts of the building's explosive destruction. He denied the existence of concrete dust as well as the iron spheres found in the dust samples by USGS and RJ Lee, and offered no explanation for the creation of the spheres. He denied that there were red/gray chips in the WTC dust – suggesting that they were planted by the scientists and somehow slipped past the peer-review process.
We believe that he is entitled to his opinion, but not to his own version of the facts.
Craig hinges his argument on the assertion that many tons of precisely placed explosives would hardly damage the stout columns or make a large enough signature blast to be heard for miles. He believes that, if it existed, he would be aware of any higher-tech explosive comprising nano-thermite. “No boogie man here.”
When the issue of “fire initiated collapse” was raised, Gage pointed to the fact that this type of collapse has never happened before or after 9/11, but only three times - on that one day. Craig countered with a video reference to the Delft building consumed in fire which sustained a partial collapse.
The discussion of fire opened up the evidence of moltn metal found weeks after 9/11 in the debris pile. Craig simply denied its existence, though photo, video, and eyewitness evidence suggests otherwise. Once again we feel that Mr. Craig is entitled to his opinion, but not to his own facts.
Please listen to the debate. The commercials have been cut out from this MP3 file, so the resulting length is about 1 ½ hours.
And please let us know what you think and how you feel our debating technique as well as our content can be improved. We have a few more debates coming up in the next months – at KBDI Denver PBS TV in March – tentatively with physicist/mathematician Dave Thomas from the New Mexico Tech Institute. And then, tentatively, in London at Oxford hosted by former Parliamentary George Galloway.
Related Info:
"When the issue of 'fire initiated collapse' was raised, Gage pointed to the fact that this type of collapse has never happened before or after 9/11, but only three times - on that one day. Craig countered with a video reference to the Delft building consumed in fire which sustained a partial collapse."
A demolition company actually destroyed the Delft building, check the comments here.
