A Day in the Life: 5/30/8 - C
prez
Date: May 28, 2008 3:37:41 PM GMT-05:00
To: 9-11 NeXuS <9-11-...@yahoogroups.com>, PA Patriot <p-a-
pat...@yahoogroups.com>, We People
<WeThePeopleCoa...@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Structural Engineers have definite opinions about the
collapses
Numerous structural engineers now publicly challenge the government's
account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11, including:
A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the
design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise
offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission
and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building
Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers
were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this)
Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss
university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on
9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition
(translation here)
Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in
Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:
"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"
Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in
Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
"Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about
10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why
would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in
about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft
or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified
for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the
composition of the dust."
Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:
"WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire
and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only
case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world.
The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the
cause?"
Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues:
"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing
symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any
other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there
is no other plausible explanation!"
Mills M. Kay Mackey, structural engineer, of Denver, Colorado, points
out:
"The force from the jets and the burning fuel could not have been
sufficient to make the building collapse. Why doesn't the media
mention that the 11th floor was completely immolated on February
13th, 1975? It had the weight of nearly 100 stories on top of it but
it did not collapse?"
David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland, argues:
"Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced
collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . ."
Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California, states
"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
flamesjust 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 sidemuch like the topping of a tall redwood
treenot 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."
Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona,
writes:
"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 below.
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 ?"
David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California
Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)
Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin
Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)
Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer
William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont
Technical College
See this website and this website for further additions.
There are many other structural engineers who have questioned the
government's account in private. We support them and wish them
courage to discuss these vital issues publicly.
__._,_.___ <serv.gif>
========================================================================
=======================================================