Phillips:60 Architects Support WTC7 Controlled Demolition Theory

Originally posted by GwionX
I think that goes to show-on that site -Anyone can be whatever they want to be, without any credential checking at all.

WOW. There's a first for everything I guess. I actually agree with you GwionX.

And what do you mean about you'd be more subtle? Do you mean trying to disrupt information like a true debunker?

Has anyone verified the credentials of those contracted by the NIST/FEMA/ASCE/etc . or do you just believe what you are told Ginowx?

Originally posted by GwionX
I agree some of the juvenile additions are out of line.

I would have been more subtle.

I think someone might have been already - eg Norman Foster, Architect
London, London

Norman Foster, or Baron Foster of Thames Bank to give him his full title, is the UKs most famous architect and one of the most successful in the world. Don't you think if he believed that the collapse was suspcious he might have said something by now? The guy has his own press office and the ear of many world leaders.

I suspect if he hears his name is on that site his lawyers will soon be talking to ae911truth.org and threatening all manner of righteous fury.

The list is meaningless.

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
I suspect if he hears his name is on that site his lawyers will soon be talking to ae911truth.org and threatening all manner of righteous fury.

The list is meaningless.

How could he sue? All the site would have to do is show the other members ie..Osama Bin laden, NY, NY.

The list is meaningless until they verify their members. It's pretty sad that they have to verify their members just because of some childish behavior of some "debunkers". Pathetic.

from my view,
even if all the names were certifiable, top notch engineers/architects
the whole endeavor will only ammount to another "exercise in futility"

the movement needs clout and money & probably needs set up
as a non-profit org. which can give the public solid evidence
via real or computer models of all 3 collapses.

Amazing isn´t it....

Anyway, the list of names seems to be "sane" now....

I agree that participants would need to have a credential check to make sure they are who they claim they are...

It looks impressive as is.

Originally posted by St Udio
from my view,
even if all the names were certifiable, top notch engineers/architects
the whole endeavor will only ammount to another "exercise in futility"

the movement needs clout and money & probably needs set up
as a non-profit org. which can give the public solid evidence
via real or computer models of all 3 collapses.

every journey begins with one step.
one foot in front of the other.

loose change has loose change, now, and they started with nothing more than chutzpa and a good idea.

While their list of unverified names looks impressive, you have to wonder about some of the claims they are making and how many of them subscribe to all these claims.

Griff for example, do you really believe any of the following?

www.ae911truth.org...

7. Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate).

They are really strectching with that one, while molten metal was seen by a few sources., I don't recall ever seeing a source claim that there were literally TONS of molten metal. CDI does not believe in the controlled demolition theory, so it seems strange that they would report TONS of molten metal that somehow is only made by " an incendiary cutting charge such as thermate"?? Thermate is a substance, not the name brand of a cutting charge.

Also, unless the molten metal was steel, then there are many other possible sources other than incendiary cutting charges." Fire comes to mind.

8. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

Sulphur is now a "chemical signature of thermate"? Sulphur was present in the acres of drywall, so why not call it the "chemical signature of sheetrock." Secondly, since when was thermate "high tech", IIRC it has been around since WW 2, or at least since the Vietnam war. I wouldn't call forty year old technology "high tech".

And seriously, wouldnt aluminum oxide be a better "chemical signature of thermate"?

en.wikipedia.org...

The products are aluminium oxide, free elemental iron, and a large amount of heat.

4. Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, at the upper 7 floors seen in the network videos

Broken windows is what we see. Disingenous people compresses the image and sees squibs.

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

They use that for both 7 and the two towers.

There were no pyroclastic clouds. Had there been, the death toll would have been much higher as that giant cloud would have been burning and melting people all over Manhattan.



If they can't get the basics right, then it really doesn't matter who they claim for members. If your message is a lie, who cares how many degrees belong to the liar.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
While their list of unverified names looks impressive, you have to wonder about some of the claims they are making and how many of them subscribe to all these claims.

Griff for example, do you really believe any of the following?

www.ae911truth.org...

7. Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate).

No. That side show is something huh? That's why I am a part of the org. If they are going to tell untruths, then they are not looking for truth in my book. I am looking for truth. If that truth points in the direction of the official story, so be it.

I find others on the other side have a different agenda. I'll leave it at that.

CDI does not believe in the controlled demolition theory, so it seems strange that they would report TONS of molten metal that somehow is only made by " an incendiary cutting charge such as thermate"?? Thermate is a substance, not the name brand of a cutting charge.

First, I believe tons was quoted by CDI. Not sure and I'm not going to do the research. But, yes, thermate is a substance. But the incindiary device used with thermate doesn't have a name. So, thermate incindiary device doesn't throw up red flags with me as it does you.

Also, unless the molten metal was steel, then there are many other possible sources other than incendiary cutting charges." Fire comes to mind.

Huh? Please show us all how an open fire creates molten steel. Please just try.

Sulphur is now a "chemical signature of thermate"? Sulphur was present in the acres of drywall, so why not call it the "chemical signature of sheetrock."

Because the amount of sulfur couldn't have come from sheet rock. I mean come on. Sheet rock? Yes it has sulfur in it. But, can you show me ANY test that concludes that sulfur from sheet rock imbeds itself in steel? Yeah, didn't think so.

Secondly, since when was thermate "high tech", IIRC it has been around since WW 2, or at least since the Vietnam war. I wouldn't call forty year old technology "high tech".

Oh, so, now when it suits you, you call "it's not new tech"? Give me a freakin break.

And seriously, wouldnt aluminum oxide be a better "chemical signature of thermate"?

Since aluminum oxide is a ceramic and is the essence of saphires, I don't know what you're getting at?. Who knows. Look it up.

Broken windows is what we see. Disingenous people compresses the image and sees squibs.

No. Disingeneous people claim it was compressed air. Which has been PROVEN to only be twice as much when the collapse was at 55 stories. How did the "squibs" happen when the collapse was only 2-10 stories?

There were no pyroclastic clouds. Had there been, the death toll would have been much higher as that giant cloud would have been burning and melting people all over Manhattan.

Typical "debunker" speak. The clouds DID show signs of pyroclasticy. If you deny that, then I have nothing left to say to you.

If they can't get the basics right, then it really doesn't matter who they claim for members. If your message is a lie, who cares how many degrees belong to the liar.

Since I have found no lies, your statements here are bunk.

Originally posted by Griff
First, I believe tons was quoted by CDI.

IIRC no one ever said that they saw literally tons of molten steel, I could be wrong. My first red flag would be that the source given by them is another conspiracy site.

But, yes, thermate is a substance. But the incindiary device used with thermate doesn't have a name.

Then why do they specifically call thermite a cutting charge?

www.ae911truth.org...

(no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)

Thermate is not an incendiary cutting charge. What else could they possibly mean by that statement?

If they were talking about a bullet, for example then they would say bullet. They would not describe a bullet as "some sort of projectile device such as gunpowder."

Huh? Please show us all how an open fire creates molten steel. Please just try.

Please reread what I said.

"Also, unless the molten metal was steel, then there are many other possible sources other than incendiary cutting charges."


I did not say that open fire creates molten steel, but that there are other sources for molten metal that is not steel, than "an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate."

Because the amount of sulfur couldn't have come from sheet rock. I mean come on. Sheet rock? Yes it has sulfur in it. But, can you show me ANY test that concludes that sulfur from sheet rock imbeds itself in steel? Yeah, didn't think so.

Again, all I said was that sheetrock contains sulfur, and there are many other things that contain sulfur. So it is silly to call sulfur " A chemical signature of thermite", as if it's presence would be strange or unexpected.

The actual "chemical signature" of thermite would be the end product of the chemical reaction.

en.wikipedia.org...

A thermite reaction is a type of aluminothermic reaction in which aluminium metal is oxidized by the oxide of another metal, most commonly iron oxide. The name thermit is also used to refer to a mixture of two such chemicals. The products are aluminium oxide, free elemental iron, and a large amount of heat.

Emphasis mine.

Aluminum oxide is the end result of a thermite reaction, not sulfur.

Oh, so, now when it suits you, you call "it's not new tech"? Give me a freakin break.

What? I was responding specifically to the claim on that site that a 40+ year old mixture is "high tech."

www.ae911truth.org...

Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

This is a patently false claim.

Since aluminum oxide is a ceramic and is the essence of saphires, I don't know what you're getting at?. Who knows. Look it up.

I did. It is also the end result of a thermite reaction.

Disingeneous people claim it was compressed air.

I was specifically talking about their claims on building seven, which are broken windows.

The clouds DID show signs of pyroclasticy. If you deny that, then I have nothing left to say to you.

Oh really?

Which signs did they show? The cloud part?

en.wikipedia.org...

A pyroclastic flow (also known as a nuée ardente) is a common and devastating result of some volcanic eruptions. The flows are fast-moving fluidized bodies of hot gas, ash and rock (collectively known as tephra) which can travel away from the vent at up to 700 km/h. The gas is usually at a temperature of 100-800 degrees Celsius. The flows normally hug the ground and travel downhill under gravity, their speed depending upon the gradient of the slope and the size of the flow.

So, please Mr. Engineer, tell us which part of this resembles the dust clouds at the WTC?

Is it the fluidized bodies of hot gas, ash and rock? I don't think so, and it certainly wasn't 100-800 degrees celcius.

Hey, if you have a different definition please share it, you could be right, but now the only thing I see in common is the shape.

If they can't figure out that there were no volcanoes involved on 9-11, then I could care less what kind of PHD they have.




[edit on 31-5-2007 by LeftBehind]

Well done Griff! Takes courage to put your name to something you belive in, even if it cant be proved. You get my vote for way above, take care.

Originally posted by Griff
How could he sue? All the site would have to do is show the other members ie..Osama Bin laden, NY, NY.

He could sue if he asked them to remove his name and they didn't. Maybe Bin Laden will sue as well, as it might be damaging his good name by being associated with such a site

The list is meaningless until they verify their members.

Well they haven't verified the members, so it's meaningless.

It's pretty sad that they have to verify their members just because of some childish behavior of some "debunkers". Pathetic.

And you know who is putting the false names on the site? It's the internet - there are about 6 billion suspects. It could be some bored 12 year old, or it could be some "pathetic" believer who wants to make it look like Norman Foster supports their "cause".

Originally posted by LeftBehind

The clouds DID show signs of pyroclasticy. If you deny that, then I have nothing left to say to you.

Oh really?

Which signs did they show? The cloud part?

en.wikipedia.org...

A pyroclastic flow (also known as a nuée ardente) is a common and devastating result of some volcanic eruptions. The flows are fast-moving fluidized bodies of hot gas, ash and rock (collectively known as tephra) which can travel away from the vent at up to 700 km/h. The gas is usually at a temperature of 100-800 degrees Celsius. The flows normally hug the ground and travel downhill under gravity, their speed depending upon the gradient of the slope and the size of the flow.

So, please Mr. Engineer, tell us which part of this resembles the dust clouds at the WTC?
Is it the fluidized bodies of hot gas, ash and rock? I don't think so, and it certainly wasn't 100-800 degrees celcius.
Hey, if you have a different definition please share it, you could be right, but now the only thing I see in common is the shape.

The shape is the main thing in common, it's a basic flow form when you have one fluid flowing under another as the bottom flow is of a higher density than the top flow.

This results in the turbulent flow of gas and dust that we know and see as a pyroclastic flow. In this case, it just wasn't so hot, but nevertheless it flowed just like one. If you want to see one you could try running a hot bath and pouring cold coloured water, maybe with sand or similar suspended in it, and watch how it flows. It's a similar thing.

In fact, from the wiki article you quoted, it linked here:

In fluid dynamics, a gravity current is a primarily horizontal flow in a gravitational field that is driven by a density difference. Typically, the density difference is small enough for the Boussinesq approximation to be valid.

Gravity currents are typically of very low aspect ratio (that is, height over typical horizontal lengthscale). The pressure distribution is thus approximately hydrostatic, apart from near the leading edge (this may be seen using dimensional analysis). Thus gravity currents may be simulated by the shallow water equations, with special dispensation for the leading edge which behaves as a discontinuity.

Gravity Current

Originally posted by LeftBehind
IIRC no one ever said that they saw literally tons of molten steel, I could be wrong. My first red flag would be that the source given by them is another conspiracy site.

You could be right. I can't find a quote that says tons but I have found a video of a firefighter stating that there were pools of molten steel flowing like lava. I would assume that's a great deal of steel and the site probably went with that. Since there is no way to tell how much. How much do you think the "meteorite" weighs? Would that be close to a ton? If so, then the statement "tons of molten steel" would be correct since the meteorite had to be molten to form.

Here's the video.

www.informationliberation.com...

Then why do they specifically call thermite a cutting charge?

www.ae911truth.org...

(no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)

Thermate is not an incendiary cutting charge. What else could they possibly mean by that statement?

Here's a video of a thermite cutting charge.

www.youtube.com...

What else would you like them to call it?

If they were talking about a bullet, for example then they would say bullet. They would not describe a bullet as "some sort of projectile device such as gunpowder."

Your analogy would work better if you said "some sort of projectile device such as lead". Since the lead is what makes the bullet and not the gunpowder. Because the thermite incindiary device is made of thermite.

Plus, it's a brand new site. They will probably update it. But, I feel the same concern that they would put that up there as an absolute. Engineers and architects should know better than to use absolutes.

"Also, unless the molten metal was steel, then there are many other possible sources other than incendiary cutting charges."


I did not say that open fire creates molten steel, but that there are other sources for molten metal that is not steel, than "an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate."

OK. My mistake in misreading your post.

Again, all I said was that sheetrock contains sulfur, and there are many other things that contain sulfur. So it is silly to call sulfur " A chemical signature of thermite", as if it's presence would be strange or unexpected.

The actual "chemical signature" of thermite would be the end product of the chemical reaction.

en.wikipedia.org...

A thermite reaction is a type of aluminothermic reaction in which aluminium metal is oxidized by the oxide of another metal, most commonly iron oxide. The name thermit is also used to refer to a mixture of two such chemicals. The products are aluminium oxide, free elemental iron, and a large amount of heat.

Emphasis mine.

Aluminum oxide is the end result of a thermite reaction, not sulfur.

Since the site doesn't say ANYTHING about thermite, what is your point? Other than to confuse the uneducated?

What's the end result of thermate? I believe it is sulfidated steel. Like I said before, please show us how gypsum board atomically imbedds itself into steel from just office fires. If that was the case, wouldn't every steel building on fire collapse because of the rapid corrosion of the steel from the sulfured gypsum?

What? I was responding specifically to the claim on that site that a 40+ year old mixture is "high tech."

www.ae911truth.org...

Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

This is a patently false claim.

What does the age of a substance have to do with it being called high tech? Would you call a nuclear device high tech? We've had them since the 40's. That's 70 years now. But according to your logic, nuclear weapons aren't high tech. Whatever.

I did. It is also the end result of a thermite reaction.

Since we are talking about thermate, your arguements are bunk. Sorry. Disengenious people claim thermite when we are actually talking about thermate.

I was specifically talking about their claims on building seven, which are broken windows.

I guess there is no discussion with someone who has closed their mind.

Which signs did they show? The cloud part?


The flows normally hug the ground and travel downhill under gravity, their speed depending upon the gradient of the slope and the size of the flow.

Yup. I was talking about the appearance of the clouds.

So, please Mr. Engineer, tell us which part of this resembles the dust clouds at the WTC?

Nice with the attack. Mr. Engineer in deed. At least I'm open about my name and occupation. I have asked you several times what your occupation was and have been ignored. So, what's your qualifications? Base training at Quantico doesn't count.

Hey, if you have a different definition please share it, you could be right, but now the only thing I see in common is the shape.

That's what I was saying. But, your right in that they weren't pyroclastic flows in the definition sense of the word.

If they can't figure out that there were no volcanoes involved on 9-11, then I could care less what kind of PHD they have.

But yet, you adhear to People like Dr. Greening who have been proven false in their "pancake" collapse theories? I guess when it suits your needs you care.




[edit on 31-5-2007 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
And you know who is putting the false names on the site? It's the internet - there are about 6 billion suspects. It could be some bored 12 year old, or it could be some "pathetic" believer who wants to make it look like Norman Foster supports their "cause".

And you know who put it up there? Have you contacted Mr. Foster to see if maybe HE was the actual one to place his name there?

Architects (Degreed & Licensed) Architectural Professionals (Degreed)
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA

Scott Page, M. Arch / Designer
Berkeley, CA

Don Gibbons, Architect
Pleasant Hill, CA

Jeffrey Tam, Architectural Professional
Oakland, CA

Jeff Arnold, Architect
Orinda, CA

Oscar Cisnero, Architectural Professional
Antioch, CA

John Cole, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA

Elwin Wong, Architectural Professional
Oakland, CA

David Crawford, Architect
Walnut Creek,

CA Henri Tso, Architectural Professional
Walnut Creek, CA

Haluk Akol, Architect & Structural Engineer
Lafayette, CA

Arthur Stopes, Planner
Berkeley, CA

John Eisenhart, Architect
San Diego, CA

Ken Huthcinson, Architectural Professional
Eugene, OR

Joe Bellows, Architect
Martinez, CA

Jan Leits, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA

John Howland, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA

Michael Reuter, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA

Eric Douglas, Architect
Howard Beach, NY

Chris Jung, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA

Peter Hendrickson, Architect
Santa Rosa, CA

Tim Clark, Architectural Professional
Albany, CA

Osvaldo Valdes, Architect
New York, NY

Jason Wilkinson, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA

Lily Livingston, Architect
Oakland, CA

Wendy Sitler, Designer
Berkeley, CA

Chris Swigert, Architect
Oakland, CA

Dominique Roddier, phD, Naval Architect
Berkeley, CA

Jim Bedinghaus, Architect
St. Petersburg,

Florida Karlene Gullone, Architectural Professional
San Francisco, CA

Christian Mungenast AIA, Architect
Arlington, MA

Dave Heller, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA

Kurt Worthington, Urban Planner
San Francisco, CA

Engineers (Degreed & Licensed) Engineering Professionals (Degreed)
Ken Kious, Electrical Engineer
Walnut Creek, CA

Gregg Brazel, BSCNE, Constr. Engr'g
Evanston, IL

J. Marx Ayres, PE, Mechanical Engineer
Santa Monica, CA

Ted Muga, BSCE, Civil Engineer
San Diego, CA

Robert Nielson, PLS, Land Surveyor
Walnut Creek, CA

Kevin Ryan, BS Chem., Certified Quality Engineer
Bloomington, IN

John F. Shanahan, PE, Electrical Engineer
Rancho Cucamonga, CA

Ken Jenkins, BS Carnegie Melon, Electrical Engineer
San Rafael, CA

John Shinn, phD., Chemical Engineer
Pleasant Hill, CA

John Rexroat, Mfr. Engineer
Walnut Creek, CA

Doug Plumb, B. Eng, B. Eng. - Electrical
Toronto, ON

Christopher Backus, BS, Mechanical Engineering
Redmond, WA

Jason Griffin, BS, Civil Engineer
Washington Dc,

Source: www.ae911truth.org...

Here's the list of members today. I see no mention of Mr. Foster. Am I missing something?

why cant anyone just accept the fact that middle eastern scumbags hit the towers? and thats it? why all this BS about charges and this and that, for christsake, its almost as if you people are searching for a reason to exonerate these terroristic acts, and its beyond me why you all aren't as pissed as i still am, rather blame the US government with ridiculous claims.

i can recall a time in history not too long ago where liberty wouldn't simply roll-over and show its belly the first sign of trouble, rather the free nations would raise up and defend the institution of freedom with blood if need be, seems we've become a complacent hive of overfed pussies with no desire to fight, only complain and point fingers internally.


you who enable these claims are all an embarassment, and whoever authored these initial conspiracy theories is a complete jerk-off coward spreading disinformation

Originally posted by blueyedevil666
why cant anyone just accept the fact that middle eastern scumbags hit the towers? and thats it?

you who enable these claims are all an embarassment, and whoever authored these initial conspiracy theories is a complete jerk-off coward spreading disinformation

So much for denying ignorance.

If you believe the official story then you have to believe the laws of physics took the day off on 9-11.

oh good response...yet another case of 'standard' force fed BS by the liberal left, what proof do you have aside from theoretical garbage?

let me guess:

a cryptic video off youtube showing what? burning debris caused by the impact of a multi ton missle loaded with jet fuel?, ya that doesn't burn hot at all.

oh or maybe a lackluster dissertation from a jerk like Icke?

think for yourself and simple physics would most likely outline exactly what occured when a jet that big hits a building at 200+ mph.

Originally posted by blueyedevil666
oh good response...yet another case of 'standard' force fed BS by the liberal left, what proof do you have aside from theoretical garbage?

let me guess:

a cryptic video off youtube showing what? burning debris caused by the impact of a multi ton missle loaded with jet fuel?, ya that doesn't burn hot at all.

oh or maybe a lackluster dissertation from a jerk like Icke?

think for yourself and simple physics would most likely outline exactly what occured when a jet that big hits a building at 200+ mph.

Please enlighten me on how the laws of physics took off that day.....funny how you use the exact term ive heard everyone else use in the past 6 years.

Originally posted by blueyedevil666

Originally posted by blueyedevil666
oh good response...yet another case of 'standard' force fed BS by the liberal left, what proof do you have aside from theoretical garbage?

let me guess:

a cryptic video off youtube showing what? burning debris caused by the impact of a multi ton missle loaded with jet fuel?, ya that doesn't burn hot at all.

oh or maybe a lackluster dissertation from a jerk like Icke?

think for yourself and simple physics would most likely outline exactly what occured when a jet that big hits a building at 200+ mph.


Please enlighten me on how the laws of physics took off that day.....funny how you use the exact term ive heard everyone else use in the past 6 years.

Wooooo stop the press everyone 'Sherlock Homes' here has ended the 9/11 debate once and for all

Researchers at the Nuclear Control Institute, a lobby group based in Washington DC, estimate that the engines of a 179-tonne Boeing 767 travelling at 850 kilometres an hour could penetrate at least a metre of reinforced concrete.

Yes granted that's why there is a huge hole in one side and the core is supposedly damaged yet the building stood for over an hour and fell symmetrically when there is evidence to support it couldn't of 'imploded' so easily. I will direct you to the links if you wish if not then... Go back to burying your head in the sand and lashing out against any other idea that brings evidence, discussion and an opportunity of learning to the table will you.

If you can't stomach or entertain any other notion except that the fabled terrorists suddenly pulled this off yet have never managed to replicate anything on American Soil like it again and it's amazing how there is so many terrorist groups in the world yet the ones funded by the US themselves are the ones that turn out to be the purportraitors if you are even to believe the official story .



[edit on 31-5-2007 by SR]