Engineers: Only Explosives Explain WTC Destruction

[wake_up_bomb]

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads...pdf?format=pdf

More than 700 architects and engineers have joined call for new investigation, faulting official reports

Lomba’s conclusion, drawn from his initial perceptions and validated by subsequent developments, is clear: “Even if, for the sake of discussion, we accept the hypothesis that the fire protection was damaged and the fires somehow weakened the steel frames, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.” Scott challenges his fellow structural engineers: “The building performance on 9/11 matched controlled demolition. It does not match fire-induced collapse. We have the expertise to discern this. Do we have the courage to broadcast it?”

For full article click here:

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads...pdf?format=pdf

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by wake_up_bomb

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads...pdf?format=pdf

More than 700 architects and engineers have joined call for new investigation, faulting official reports

Lomba’s conclusion, drawn from his initial perceptions and validated by subsequent developments, is clear: “Even if, for the sake of discussion, we accept the hypothesis that the fire protection was damaged and the fires somehow weakened the steel frames, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.” Scott challenges his fellow structural engineers: “The building performance on 9/11 matched controlled demolition. It does not match fire-induced collapse. We have the expertise to discern this. Do we have the courage to broadcast it?”

For full article click here:

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads...pdf?format=pdf

You mean those explosions nobody heard.

Explosions of the magnitude needed to bring down the buildings on 9/11 would have been clearly heard all over Manhattan and across the Hudson. They would have blown out windows in the twin towers and for many blocks around.

ps. how old is this - I thought AE911truth were up to around 1,600 members these days.

[skanny]

Originally Posted by labouysse

You mean those explosions nobody heard.

Explosions of the magnitude needed to bring down the buildings on 9/11 would have been clearly heard all over Manhattan and across the Hudson. They would have blown out windows in the twin towers and for many blocks around.

ps. how old is this - I thought AE911truth were up to around 1,600 members these days.

wow .... you still here spreading lies ladymousse?

you are way off mark its unbelievable with your thinking that every explosion gives a distinct bang, boom or rumble among others but this is the most ridiculous thing i have heard from you.

you have no basic grip on reality and you certainly dont know your arse from your elbow so stop talking about what you have no understanding of you halfwitted tube.

[wake_up_bomb]

Originally Posted by skanny

wow .... you still here spreading lies ladymousse?

You would have thought personal dignity would have kicked in by now considering he's never made one argument stick!

Please see:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=209231

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=209229

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by skanny

wow .... you still here spreading lies ladymousse?

you are way off mark its unbelievable with your thinking that every explosion gives a distinct bang, boom or rumble among others but this is the most ridiculous thing i have heard from you.

So we have silent explosions?

[macgyver1968]

Originally Posted by labouysse

So we have silent explosions?

Yes...they employed Hush-a-Boom(TM) brand explosives. They explode...but don't make any noise...unlike like these explosives:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

[bryan]

Originally Posted by macgyver1968

Yes...they employed Hush-a-Boom(TM) brand explosives. They explode...but don't make any noise...unlike like these explosives:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

These collapses don't make any noise, so they must have been caused by fires:

VĂ©rinage Compilation - Explosiveless Demolition - YouTube

VĂ©rinage Compilation - Explosiveless Demolition - YouTube

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by bryan

These collapses don't make any noise, so they must have been caused by fires:

VĂ©rinage Compilation - Explosiveless Demolition - YouTube

Nope, it even says it in the title .

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by bryan

These collapses don't make any noise, so they must have been caused by fires:

VĂ©rinage Compilation - Explosiveless Demolition - YouTube

A compilation of demolitions conducted using the French demolition technique of vérinage. This is achieved with hydraulics that push structural members out of alignment, allowing the top portion of a building to then demolish the structure below via gravity alone, without the use of explosives. Note that the collapses are rapid and produce copious dust.

http://www.opvitry.org/verinage.html

Translated:

This is a new method patented by the company FERRARI DEMOLITION
and successfully used since 1997. It consists of a building collapse on itself in a horizontal or oblique hydraulic thrust controlled remotely. Powerful cylinders begin to move the upper part of the construction by laterally displacing its center of gravity from the point of support. Directional movement causes the collapse of the building on itself.

Answers on a postcard as to how this would have been done at the twin towers, or whether there is any evidence that there is any kind of lateral displacement of the kind shown in the video.

I always wonder how many people arguing that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition have actually been to one. I have, a small one demolishing a couple of cooling towers. We were kept some distance away and it was still FUCKING LOUD.

[porridge]

Dont you love it when they point out the fucking obvious, like its some major revelation.

I believe he was just pointing out one way of destroying a building without explosives.

Another if the building is concrete are expanding agents, so who says there isn't something for steel?

If this guy can demonstrate how to cut steel in his spare time, what exactly could black budget military design to bring down a building?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q&feature=related

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by porridge

Dont you love it when they point out the fucking obvious, like its some major revelation.

I believe he was just pointing out one way of destroying a building without explosives.

Another if the building is concrete are expanding agents, so who says there isn't something for steel?

If this guy can demonstrate how to cut steel in his spare time, what exactly could black budget military design to bring down a building?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_...eature=related

I was joking, hence the ().

[porridge]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

I was joking, hence the ().

I was referring to Movings post Dont.

I will say tho, the buildings in the video were concrete & I agree with Moving about hydraulics & the WTC tower core & also this was no way any conventional demolition.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by porridge

I was referring to Movings post Dont.

I will say tho, the buildings in the video were concrete & I agree with Moving about hydraulics & the WTC tower core & also this was no way any conventional demolition.

Ahh no problem.

[bryan]

Originally Posted by moving finger

I always wonder how many people arguing that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition have actually been to one. I have, a small one demolishing a couple of cooling towers. We were kept some distance away and it was still FUCKING LOUD.

Sigh.

[bryan]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Nope, it even says it in the title .

So noise levels can't be used to determine whether a building was brought down intentionally or not.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[wake_up_bomb]

The point really is that:

"More than 700 architects and engineers have joined call for new investigation, faulting official reports".

"Even if, for the sake of discussion, we accept the hypothesis that the fire protection was damaged and the fires somehow weakened the steel frames, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.” Scott challenges his fellow structural engineers: “The building performance on 9/11 matched controlled demolition. It does not match fire-induced collapse. We have the expertise to discern this. Do we have the courage to broadcast it?"

Why on earth would they put their names forward if the entire concept could be completely disproven by a throwaway remark from someone with no credentials whatsoever?

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by wake_up_bomb

The point really is that:

"More than 700 architects and engineers have joined call for new investigation, faulting official reports".

Do get up to speed WUB - AE911truth are claiming 1,700 Architects and Engineers.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

still less than 1% of Architects and Engineers in the USA, Canada and Europe.

[wake_up_bomb]

Originally Posted by labouysse

Do get up to speed WUB - AE911truth are claiming 1,700 Architects and Engineers.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

still less than 1% of Architects and Engineers in the USA, Canada and Europe.

I'm well aware of that. Let me rephrase that to your satisfaction:

"More than 1,700 architects and engineers have joined call for new investigation, faulting official reports".

"Even if, for the sake of discussion, we accept the hypothesis that the fire protection was damaged and the fires somehow weakened the steel frames, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.” Scott challenges his fellow structural engineers: “The building performance on 9/11 matched controlled demolition. It does not match fire-induced collapse. We have the expertise to discern this. Do we have the courage to broadcast it?"

Why on earth would they put their names forward if the entire concept could be completely disproven by a throwaway remark from someone with no credentials whatsoever?

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by wake_up_bomb

I'm well aware of that. Let me rephrase that to your satisfaction:

"More than 1,700 architects and engineers have joined call for new investigation, faulting official reports".

"Even if, for the sake of discussion, we accept the hypothesis that the fire protection was damaged and the fires somehow weakened the steel frames, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.” Scott challenges his fellow structural engineers: “The building performance on 9/11 matched controlled demolition. It does not match fire-induced collapse. We have the expertise to discern this. Do we have the courage to broadcast it?"

Why on earth would they put their names forward if the entire concept could be completely disproven by a throwaway remark from someone with no credentials whatsoever?

Please explain in your own words what on earth you mean by "relatively concentric nature of failures".

I've usually come across concentric in terms of circles - like a dart board would be made up of concentric circles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ha...d_Bullseye.JPG

[wake_up_bomb]

Originally Posted by labouysse

Please explain in your own words what on earth you mean by "relatively concentric nature of failures"

I'm not qualified to critique that particular individual. There were some difficult words in there, which word didn't you understand?