There are 141,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers...

There are 141,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). I'm curious as to how many have stated that the WTC towers or Pentagon were destroyed/damaged for reasons other than being hit with 757s.

I suspect the number is tiny, but I'll happily be proven otherwise if the evidence supports it. To those of you who believe that demolitions, thermite, micro-nukes, space-based energy beams, whatever (anything besides a 757) brought down the towers and damaged the Pentagon:

How do you resolve the fact that your theory is not supported by the overwhelming majority of trained and experienced professionals?

[edit on 24-12-2008 by truthers are dumb]

Because most civil engineers work for the government (something like 50%) and vast majority of them would be fired if their boss found out they were saying things like "9/11 was a government psy-op". Why do you need a civil engineer to tell you what to think? It is plain as day that the Bush admin are criminals, so why do you think something like 9/11 could not be their doing?

I'm a civil engineering student with honors, and I believe the conspiracy theorist viewpoint on 9/11. You don't have to be an engineer to understand basic physics which can easily prove that the towers did not 'collapse' but were brought down with demolitions and thermate. And there is also much evidence of a high tech DEW (direct energy weapon) being used.

Can you provide stats on how many have actually studied the facts in any meaningful detail???

Are you a mind reader how do know their thoughts on the matter?

Can you tell me how many are afraid to lose the income and respect of their profession??? Now do you think they are encouraged or discouraged to follow the official explanation??

Originally posted by freakyty
I believe the conspiracy theorist viewpoint on 9/11.

Tell your professors that. Seriously. Better yet, use the resources of your university (which one BTW?) to do an independent study. Engineers LOVE proving other engineers wrong. Go for it.

Originally posted by freakyty
Because most civil engineers work for the government (something like 50%) and vast majority of them would be fired if their boss found out they were saying things like "9/11 was a government psy-op".

Are you telling me that of the 141,000 in that professional organization, plus all the ones who aren't members, plus all the civil engineers, demolitions engineers, architects, etc. around the world are just too cowardly to stand up and say that what "they" say happened isn't what really happened? That they believe that their current job, something they'll likely have for only a few years anyway, is more important than standing up against the greatest crime ever committed? You sure don't put much faith in people to do the right thing.

The bottom line is that the un#ingbelieveably vast majority (99%+) of experts say that the towers fell in a matter consistent with the official story AND many have put forth hard evidence and simulations to support it. How many conspiracy believers have put forth hard evidence? Oh right, Steven Jones "lost" the evidence.

Originally posted by freakyty
Why do you need a civil engineer to tell you what to think?

I happen to be an engineer several degrees over. I've got the education and experience to assess many of the claims. Most people however, do not. If there is one thing people don't learn in their schooling it's that experience counts. Experienced engineers, almost without exception, believe the 9/11 conspiracy claims to be bunk. The uneducated and unexperienced should listen to those who are educated and experienced.

Originally posted by freakyty
It is plain as day that the Bush admin are criminals, so why do you think something like 9/11 could not be their doing?

Irrelevant. 9/11 was not be their doing because the evidence does not support that claim. Simple as that. If the conspiracy had any meat to it then then the hundreds of thousands of qualified people around the world would say so. They haven't.

I suspect that your reasoning is backwards. You dislike Bush and thus want to pin any and every bad thing you can on him. As a result, you believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

You'll change your mind. It's just a matter of time. You'll look back on your silly belief in a few years with embarrassment. Don't worry - we were all young and stupid once.

[edit on 24-12-2008 by truthers are dumb]

There is a structural engineer that posts here by the username "Griff" who is a member of the ASCE.


The ASCE team responsible for the initial WTC investigation (a very small team, actually, and not the whole 141,000) was accused of corruption by a member of the FEMA investigating unit, or more accurately, a structural engineer who was contracted to independently work for FEMA as part of the BPAT. His last name was Astaneh-Asl, he's a tenured professor of structural engineering, and the Associated Press did an article on him where he claims he has been trying to verify the ASCE's models and claims for years but has only been able to disprove them again and again. This is the structural engineer's claim, not mine.

"Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a structural engineer and forensics expert, contends his computer simulations disprove the society's findings that skyscrapers could not be designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner," reports the Associated Press.

"Astaneh-Asl, who received money from the National Science Foundation to investigate the collapse, insisted most New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers."

The group are also under scrutiny for their investigation of the failure of New Orleans' levees during Hurricane Katrina.

www.propagandamatrix.com...


Note that the original source was the Associated Press, but Google no longer carries the original article, and oddly enough, I can't seem to find the original version anywhere. Maybe others will have more luck. For anyone who's read 1984, I'm reminded of the "memory hole."

It was only followed up with silence, which is effective enough considering so many people like "truthers are dumb" here.



Before it has a chance to rare its head, I'm not even going to get into the "whose theory is more popular" pissing contest. Historically, the popularity of any given theory has not been an accurate indicator of objective truth. Take, for example, all the "experts" that "debunked" Copernicus' theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun by insisting that if the Earth moved, all of our cities would come crashing to the ground. Or for a more recent version, the USS Maine was investigated 2 or 3 times, all coming to the conclusion that it was punctured from the outside, just to have all of that research overturned in the 1970's when it was finally proven that the explosion came from the INSIDE of the ship, and all of the previous investigations were farces.

If consensus is how you determine what is a "fact," then you are lost. Why do you think "sheep" is a common reference? Going by consensus is just following the herd. Relatively few people know the information at hand, and very, very few people have had access to the actual evidence. Most Americans are not aware of WTC7 collapsing on 9/11. So you are literally following an ignorant bunch for the most part.

[edit on 25-12-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by truthers are dumb


Your whole line of reasoning needs to be thrown out. In debate, appealing to authority is considered logical fallacy. Even if 141,000 of 141,000 civil engineers consider Bush to be completely innocent of any 9/11 mishandling, that is only extremely weak evidence.

Before coming to realize the likely truth about 9/11 (that the government at least allowed it to happen on purpose), I hated conspiracy theorists and conspiracy theories. After carefully evaluating all of the facts I had to accept that 9/11 was likely an "inside job" and instead of hating conspiracy theories I merely have a dislike of them.

If you are a professional engineer could you please take a look at this thread.

NIST Admits Free Fall Speed at WTC 7

I would sincerely appreciate your explanation of the 2.5 seconds of absolute freefall of WTC 7. It took a high school physics teacher to force NIST to revise their official report on the collapse of WTC 7.

How would you explain total free fall speed???

Mind you this is the official government explanation not a theory.

reply to post by truthers are dumb



You won't win many converts by being insulting to the members here.

So who should I believe.....
these guys
www.patriotsquestion911.com...

or some new guy?

and truthers are dumb writes:

You'll change your mind. It's just a matter of time. You'll look back on your silly belief in a few years with embarrassment. Don't worry - we were all young and stupid once.

You got that right!!




[edit on 24-12-2008 by whaaa]

Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!

557 architectural and engineering professionals
and 3000 other supporters including A&E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.

www.ae911truth.org...

Jan 1, 2007
Why are Architects and Engineers Re-examining the WTC Collapses?
— Editor

The years since 9/11/01 have given us the time and space to emerge from the hypnotic trance of the shocks of these attacks and to rationally evaluate the existing and new evidence that has become available.

www.ae911truth.org...

Quite a few Engineers, do not buy the 911 Official Story and are demanding a new investigation!
Read what some engineers are saying and then you determine who is lying, the Government or the engineers. I believe in these guys.

reply to post by whaaa


reply to post by Gonenuts


You guys should consider not catering to the logical fallacy, as truthquest pointed out.

The number of people who agree or disagree with any given theory is completely irrelevant to whether or not that theory is objectively valid.

Yes, there are plenty of engineers that are vehement on both "sides" of the issue. Even more engineers are unaware of the issues and details, and like I said, most people don't even know that a third skyscraper collapsed that day.

truthers are dumb, the only way I can reconcile your knuckleheaded post with your claim to hold multiple degrees is to assume that you are being paid to shill here.

Everyone else has already made chopped liver of your argument. The only other thing I can say is that we aren't as dumb as you seem to think we are.

Welcome to ATS newbie.

[edit on 24-12-2008 by ipsedixit]

posted by truthers are dumb
There are 141,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). I'm curious as to how many have stated that the WTC towers or Pentagon were destroyed/damaged for reasons other than being hit with 757s.

I suspect the number is tiny

There are 141,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). I wonder how many of those 141,000 have stated anything at all concerning 9-11? I wonder how many of those 141,000 have kept their big mouths shut and said nothing at all?

It would appear that approximately 140,900 ASCE Engineers or more have had no opinion at all and have never come out publicly supporting the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY. It could be seriously damaging to a career to have an opinion on 9-11, therefore approximately 140,900 ASCE Engineers or more have wisely kept their opinions to themselves.

The ritual is doing exactly what it was supposed to. Trap your mind.

posted by ipsedixit
truthers are dumb, the only way I can reconcile your knuckleheaded post with your claim to hold multiple degrees is to assume that you are being paid to shill here.

Everyone else has already made chopped liver of your argument. The only other thing I can say is that we aren't as dumb as you seem to think we are.

Welcome to ATS newbie.

One thread and 3 posts in 7 months of membership, and two of those posts are to this thread. With all the engineering threads this noobie stayed out of; this wild boasting claim is ridiculous, and sets off all the BS meters.

posted by truthers are dumb
I happen to be an engineer several degrees over. I've got the education and experience to assess many of the claims. Most people however, do not. If there is one thing people don't learn in their schooling it's that experience counts. Experienced engineers, almost without exception, believe the 9/11 conspiracy claims to be bunk. The uneducated and unexperienced should listen to those who are educated and experienced.

Why is it allowed to use offensive messages as username? This gets burned into the readers brain, consciously or unconsciously.

This is insulting everyone who is looking for truth and further discouraging and conditioning people new to these theories.

not so subliminal messages ftw

All I see from the OP is, "Hey all you idiotic Spherical-Earthers, don't you realize that all the smart people are positive of the fact that the Earth is flat"

Originally posted by truthers are dumb
There are 141,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). I'm curious as to how many have stated that the WTC towers or Pentagon were destroyed/damaged for reasons other than being hit with 757s.

i'm curious to how many of those 141,000 members have stated that the wtc towers and pentagon were destroyed solely by 757's.

got link?

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio

i'm curious to how many of those 141,000 members have stated that the wtc towers and pentagon were destroyed solely by 757's.

got link?

This might help some:

Some Peer Reviewed Papers in Engineering Journals

"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation" Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C., JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

"Dissecting the Collapses" Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. By: Quintiere, J.G.; di Marzo, M.; Becker, R.. Fire Safety Journal, Oct2002, Vol. 37 Issue 7, p707, 10p.

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. By: Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct2005, Vol. 131 Issue 10, p1066-1072.

Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse?; Newland, D. E.; Cebon, D. Journal of Engineering Mechanics; 2002 Vol. 128 Issue 7, p795-800, 6p.

"Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers" Clifton, Charles G., HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center; Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2003 Vol. 28, p601-625, 25p

Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires. By: Usmani, A. S.. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Jun2005, Vol. 131 Issue 6, p654-657.

Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks. Omika, Yukihiro.; Fukuzawa, Eiji.; Koshika, Norihide. Journal of Structural Engineering v. 131 no1 (January 2005) p. 6-15

The Structural Steel of the World Trade Center Towers. Gayle, Frank W.; Banovic, Stephen W.; Foecke, Tim. Advanced Materials & Processes v. 162 no10 (October 2004) p. 37-9

WTC Findings Uphold Structural Design. Post, Nadine M. ENR v. 253 no17 (November 1 2004) p. 10-11

"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations" Monahan, B., Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, and Andre Marshall "Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1" Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities Volume 21, Issue 6, pp. 414-421


Engineering Conference Papers

"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering" Marechaux, T.G. JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Abboud, N., M. Levy, D. Tennant, J. Mould, H. Levine, S. King, C. Ekwueme, A. Jain, G. Hart. (2003) Anatomy of a Disaster: A Structural Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapses. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 360-370

Beyler, C., D. White, M. Peatross, J. Trellis, S. Li, A. Luers, D. Hopkins. (2003) Analysis of the Thermal Exposure in the Impact Areas of the World Trade Center Terrorist Attacks. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 371-382

Thater, G. G.; Panariello, G. F.; Cuoco, D. A. (2003) World Trade Center Disaster: Damage/Debris Assessment In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 383-392



Fire Protection and Fire Modeling Papers

How did the WTC towers collapse? A new theory; Usmani, A. S.; Chung, Y. C.; Torero, J. L. Fire Safety Journal; 2003 Vol. 38, p501-533, 33p.

Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses. Fire and Materials, 29:4, July/August 2005. pp. 181 - 194. Chang, Jeremy; Buchanan, Andrew H.; Moss, Peter J.

"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings" Brannigan, F.L. Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

"Construction and Collapse Factors" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Corbett, G.P. "Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Collapse Lessons" Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Burgess, I.W., 'Fire Resistance of Framed Buildings', Physics Education, 37 (5), (2002) pp390-399.

G. Flint, A.S. Usmani, S. Lamont, J. Torero and B. Lane, Effect of fire on composite long span truss floor systems, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (4) (2006), pp. 303–315.



Fire Protection Conference Papers

"Coupled fire dynamics and thermal response of complex building structures" Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, Volume 30, Issue 2, January 2005, Pages 2255-2262 Kuldeep Prasad and Howard R. Baum

Choi, S.K., Burgess, I.W. and Plank, R.J., 'The Behaviour of Lightweight Composite Floor Trusses in Fire', ASCE Specialty Conference: Designing Structures for Fire, Baltimore, (Oct 2003) pp 24-32.

Jowsey et all, Determination of Fire Induced Collapse Mechanisms in Steel Framed Structures, 4th European Conference on Steel and Composite Structures, 10 June 05, 69-76

Usmani et all, Collapse scenarios of WTC 1 & 2 with extension to generic tall buildings, Oct-2006 Proceedings of the International Congress on Fire Safety in Tall Buildings



Related Papers

Interactive Failure of Two Impacting Beams Xiaoqing. Teng and Tomasz Wierzbicki. J. Engrg. Mech., Volume 129, Issue 8, pp. 918-926 (August 2003)

Use of High-Efficiency Energy Absorbing Device to Arrest Progressive Collapse of Tall Building Qing Zhou and T. X. Yu Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130, 1177 (2004)

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30:2, January, 2005. pp. 2247-2254. Baum, Howard R.; Rehm, Ronald G.

Reconnaissance and preliminary assessment of a damaged high-rise building near Ground Zero. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings. 12 :5, 15 December 2003. pp. 371 - 391. Warn, Gordon; Berman, Jeffrey; Whittaker, Andrew; Bruneau, Michel

"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center" Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A., The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48

John K. McGee et al, “Chemical Analysis of World Trade Center Fine Particulate Matter for Use in
Toxicologic Assessment”, Environmental Health Perspective (June 2003)

UC Davis Aerosol Study: Cahill et al., “Analysis of Aerosols from the World Trade Center
Collapse Site, New York, October 2 to October 30, 2001”, Aerosol Science and Technology,

Lioy et al, “Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center
(WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001”, Environmental Health
Perspectives, Volume 110 #7



Hope this helps you!

Originally posted by CameronFox
A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. By: Quintiere, J.G.; di Marzo, M.; Becker, R.. Fire Safety Journal, Oct2002, Vol. 37 Issue 7, p707, 10p.

I'm trying to find this article. Care to link to it?

Let me ask. Does Dr. Quintiere agree with NIST's findings?

reply to post by Griff


Hi Griff,

I don't have a link, sorry. If you would like, I can try to find a copy of it.

Anyway... Happy New Year!

Cam

(the paper was from 2002 prior to NIST final paper)

[edit on 31-12-2008 by CameronFox]