Did you join with your fellow architects in examining the facts regarding the events at WTC? Likely not. I'm sorry, but the 3000+ architects and engineers who question NIST and the rest of the official story carry far more weight and credibility in my book than you do. As one who has done a career in aviation, I know that the official story regarding the aviation aspects are pure nonsense. AE911 Truth has shown the official story regarding building collapse to also be pure nonsense.
I cant wait to see jcarlilesiu's website, and check out some of the cases he claims to have provided 'expert witness' testimony.
You first. Please post detailed information about you, where you live, your phone number.... We will wait.
I fully understand that you wish to remain anonymous. However, you've made several unsubstantiated claims, insulted those who post well sourced overwhelming evidence contradicting and/or questioning the official 9/11 story and have yet to post anything that remotely challenges all that evidence despite your claim that you're "highly educated" on the subject of 9/11 and "a licensed architect in several states, holding degrees and certifications in building design and forensic structural failure, mostly utilized for Insurance claims and court actions serving as an expert witness." So as an anonymous poster making such claims, why should anyone believe anything you post on this subject?
If I had a penny for every time some joker came out here in 911 debates promoting and bragging about themselves over the course of the last 20 years to create a false image of authority like your post I'd have several million. All that and no website, I have tears in my eyes Im laughing so hard. This section is chocked full of issues regarding 911 and you cant seem to find so much as one to debate. truly amazing.
Let me try to help you. I don't owe you ****. I don't have to respond in the format, or with the information or perspectives you desire, I dont have to give you personal information.... You dont get to frame the discussion how you feel it should be. Your narssicism is showing. Get over yourself and you ridiculous perspectives. I can find anybody in the street that will taught any conclusion I desire. That doesn't make them valid. You want discussion, give me a perspective that you hold. I think the report is accurate, that planes hit a couple buildings causing significant structural deformation, damage, and effected critical load pathing in conjunction with weakening the steel modules of elasticity resulting in failure. Let's start there.
Thats right, you didnt owe anyone the BS line you posted in a lame attempt to impress us you carry some level of real authority either, but you did and now you back down, just like that. Neither do you get to frame the arguments. You make me laugh! Come out here bragging about your credentials that you cant even back them up then after all that bragging accuse me of being a narcissist, get serious. Project much? Whats accurate about it? Planes did not impact wt7 Please provide your full analysis so we can compare it to Huxleys. Oh and tell us which modules you feel had weakened elastic Thanks in advance, expert.
Take note he started this expert level debate by saying precisely nothing. 100% equivocation. You wont find any credentials, its all BS.
JCarl, did you know that the demolition industry has discovered that nukes, thermate, rdx, linear/shaped cutter charges are hands down 'the' most effective method to weaken modules of elastic and cause failure? We are off to a great start!
You "think"? That's your "expert" analysis? One sentence? Can you prove the contents of your sentence? "Thinking" is not an analysis or even a hypothesis. 1. What "report" do you claim is "accurate" and where in the "report" does it say that? Please provide proof in the form of a thorough analysis. Note that if you're referring to any of NIST's reports, quite a bit of data and several models are not publicly available because according to NIST, making these available would "jeopardize public safety". So how did you conclude the "report" is "accurate" absent all that key information? 2. There were 3 towers that were globally destroyed on 9/11, not a "couple buildings". What are you talking about? 3. All 3 towers were globally destroyed at unimpeded free fall and near free fall acceleration through their own massive structures with no discernible hesitation. How is that possible in a plane impact/damage/fire or combination event where the vast majority of the structure was unaffected/undamaged? 4. Please point out what is not valid with Ansgar Schneider's analysis/hypothesis and conclusion: Post #363 ( http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/page-15 ). 5. Please point out what is not valid with Dr. Leroy Hulsey's draft paper: https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7 and computer models. All the data and methodology is available. Just some very basic questions for you because as usual, all you've done so far is post unsubstantiated/unsupported claims. Of course you owe no one anything so you can avoid answering any or all my questions but all that would do is make your "thinking" just that (i.e. hot air).
So the hundreds of cameras that captured the planes hitting the towers from multiple perspectives all over lower Manhattan were artificial even considering all the different owners of the cameras? And the families that lost love ones on the flights? They are all a setup?
Yes, the official report that was backed up by science and analysis. You would prefer to just simply discredit its findings because somebody else claimed the data wasn't valid using their own data as justification? *rolls eyes* You clearly know I was speaking about the twin towers. It's how structural design works. The planes didnt hit the top floor. When failure occured at the impact location, several floors collapsing uniformly into the floor plate of the affected floor severely overloaded the design limits of the floor below. Buildings are not designed to accommodate impact loads. Buildings, and their structural system are designed based on statics, that is the physics based calculations of supporting loads statically with huge amounts of potential energy if failed. An impact load, caused by the collapse, magnifies the reactions on the structural system exponentially resulting in immediate failure, intensifying as more load is applied to each floor below. Sorry, mobile version doesn't give post numbers. That was easy. Funding $316,153 (provided by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth) So, this research team was given hundreds of thousands of dollars, by an organization that is clearly biased, and you expected unbiased conclusions? You really think you got it all figured out and attack anybody that doesn't tow the crazies line about setup. Ok, I have had enough of the basement laboratory mad scientists. You all have fun with your little fruit loop party.
As I predicted, equivocation, conjecture, unsupported opinion and not so much as one provable FACT regarding the wtc demolition in that whole post, oh and he even claims a conspiracy against NIST, and anyone who does not work for free has to be biased liars, except NIST of course, they get paid several magnitudes more to falsely report the event to the public and thats just jim dandy a-ok! Carl the only thing you missed in that post is using more technical terms like massive, and inferno. I guess I have to admit I have become a bit impatient at the amateur levels these guys sport out here.
I think you need to look in the mirror. You've managed to attack/insult every single person who contradicts and/or questions the official narrative on 9/11. Here's my assessment based on your posts. You do not have the background you claim you have. I never heard of an architect who doesn't use a computer (see your answer to question #4). Furthermore, none of your answers are based on any scientific research and answered in a professional manner, never mind science based. It is also false that you are "highly educated" on the subject of 9/11. If that were true you would be familiar with everything I posted in the links I provided in this section of the forum. It's obvious as a poster who's been a member of this forum for almost 10 years you haven't read any or very little within those threads. They are loaded with hundreds of links to tons of 9/11 research. One would think you would be eager to participate in the discussions prompted by those threads. Yet you show you have no idea who Ansgar Schneider is and what his analysis is all about. You've also managed to conflate WTC7 with the twin towers on more than one occasion. You haven't shown that you have any familiarity with Dr. Leroy Hulsey's study or his draft paper and knee jerk dismissed it because he was paid by AE911T to conduct the study. You claim NIST's report, despite key data not publicly available to anyone outside of NIST, was backed up by science and analysis, whose, NIST's? If you're referring to independent scientific analysis, you haven't cited any or how that's possible given the missing data. In fact, as one who has really done extensive research over the last decade and a half, I've never come across any legitimate scientific study that backs NIST. Both the Weidlinger and ARUP studies disagree with NIST's WTC7 collapse initiation hypothesis and Popular Mechanics was not any kind of scientific study at all, it was strictly meant as a hit piece on "conspiracy theorists". There's much more here but I believe I've come across more than enough from your posts. Sorry but you've been exposed.
Im not the one with a black eye in that exchange! In fact its another bullseye for koko! You know the old saying the bigger they brag the harder they fall. I never pay any attention to self claimed accreditations, I only listen to the subject matter that comes out of their flap trap, thats what tells me the level of education and experience someone has, and sorry to say Bob pulled BS soap box you were standing on right out from under you.
18 years later and there are still anonymous posters who try to contradict legitimate experts who have done meticulous research and analysis and written peer reviewed papers, pretending they know better. They all eventually resort to such sophisticated terms as "troofer" and "conspiracy wacko" because using insulting labels is their best argument. This one sounds so professional: NIST didn't even bother with the twin towers, they admitted that in a footprint and later claimed the "collapse was inevitable". That was their professional assessment, paid for by Congress. NIST should have hired this guy, he at least can explain the whole shebang in a couple of paragraphs. As for WTC7, the entire building dropped at free fall uniformly so I guess the above isn't applicable but who's going to notice omitting that little problem? After all, if it works for the twin towers it must also work for WTC7 so no need to duplicate the "analysis". And oh yeah, Hulsey's model shows that for that to happen, all the columns would have to be removed simultaneously, which anyone with half a brain could figure that out without Hulsey. But the guy was paid by AE911T to come up with what anyone with half a brain already figured out long ago, except of course one poster who is a "licensed architect in several states, holding degrees and certifications in building design and forensic structural failure, mostly utilized for Insurance claims and court actions serving as an expert witness.". And who exactly are all those 3,237 AE911T verified architects and engineers and who is Dr. Leroy Hulsey? Just a bunch of "conspiracy wackos" of course, don't pay attention to anything they claim.
Lol. Ok dude, you won the internet fight. You avoided the point about "no planes". You are here to win internet fights, not have a discussion. That's why your own perspectives are never up for discussion. Really? You don't think there were airplanes involved? Really? Congrats. You can win the internet fight. I don't give a ****.
So you believe WTC 7 proves the entire thing was... what? A setup? An inside job? What? Secondly, WTC 7 was an active building during the incident. If you are going to believe Hulseys theory, then thousands of people missed massive amounts of explosives being brought into there building, hundreds of feet of wiring, massive amounts of selective demolition, all for weeks leading up to the collapse? Lastly, AE911Truth doesn't have 3,237 architects and engineers. They have a couple hundred, out of tens of thousands. The rest of the people are people holding titles like "Facility Maintenance Engineer" which is little more than a handyman and custodian. Anybody can sign their log through the website, put any title in, and be added to the list. Unless you see, RA, AIA, or SE after their name, they don't count.
Oh? How massive expert? Oh? How massive expert? Not like you did below What a pile of . There was no point, this is so far above your paygrade you need the hubbel to see it. Looks more like you are here to demonstrate how to heckle other members and flood the threads with bullshit.
You claim to be an architect, stick to that bullshit story you told us and give us your 'expert' analysis of Hulseys work or simply concede that you cant. Of course option 3 you can continue to dodge the point hoping to distract me so I forget about it, but I have a pretty good memory so that not likely to happen either, so cough it up, expert.
Isn't it obvious what it was? Anyone with a pair of functioning eyeballs and a brain can see the multiple videos of WTC7 and understand it didn't drop in its entirety, uniformly and into its own massive structure strictly due to fire alone, oh except one guy who claims he's an "architect" and an expert in "forensic structural failure". Anyone who has your claimed qualifications can read the NIST report and the detailed evaluations of the NIST report by multiple experts who have real qualifications and should be able to understand what kind of ridiculous and impossible hypothesis NIST invented. If the only possible way such a massive structure can be fully destroyed in that manner is by removing all of its columns simultaneously, what does that tell you? It was fire? And if it wasn't fire, what does that tell you? And if NIST conducted a 7 year study and came up with the ridiculous nonsense they concocted, what does that tell you? Do you need to be a rocket scientist to figure all this out? If you read and understood Hulsey's study, you would know that nowhere does he ever mention demolition or explosives. You don't seem to understand the first thing about his study, his objective or his draft report and you show that quite clearly. His final PEER REVIEWED paper should be published shortly. YOU as an alleged "expert" had full access to all of Hulsey's work and could have/should have reviewed it yourself. A guy with your claimed qualification would have jumped at this because it's right up your alley and one of the most unique events of a lifetime for someone like you to study. So you had every opportunity to PEER REVIEW his work, especially since YOUR other claim is that you're "highly educated" on the subject of 9/11. And BTW, you still have that opportunity. Just who do you think you're fooling? Even if that's true and you obviously invented that because you have no possible way of vetting all the signatories at AE911T, don't you think a "couple of hundred" architects and engineers, some of whom have written detailed peer reviewed papers contradicting NIST is highly significant? How many peer reviewed papers have been written by experts in support of NIST's WTC7 analysis? Exactly ZERO (0). In fact no one can because unlike Hulsey, NIST refuses to release all their data and models. But what they did release Hulsey used NIST's own data to prove their hypothesis and conclusions are not possible. Actually it's YOU who doesn't count. You are just an anonymous poster trying to pretend you're someone who's qualified to contradict REAL experts who have authored quite a few papers on the subject. Unlike you, they are not anonymous and have the relevant background and qualifications. Those 3,237 architects and engineers signed a PETITION to investigate the 9/11 events because they're not stupid and haven't swallowed the official BS.
That wont resurrect your already self-destroyed credibility, but if it makes you feel better we understand.
