• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Lest we forget. Do you see that WTC tower disintegrating?

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I took a look at the book and spot-checked one section beginning on page 62.

The author asserted that the two main towers came down without damaging other buildings around them. That’s completely false. There’s plenty of photographic and witness testimony to the contrary.

She also makes much of the seismic signature of the collapse, assuming that the initial part of both collapse events (one, a classic pancaking event, the second, and peeling apart along with pancaking) would cause a significant seismic reading before the mass of the debris hit the ground. Based on that false assumption, she makes much of the rate of free fall from that height (measuring the wrong thing) and compares the event to seismic records of controlled demolitions. A controlled demolition creates an initial seismic event because of explosions at the base of the supporting columns all the way up the structure.

It is clear she is not an engineer (she claims a BA in engineering, but an engineer has to go through an on-the-job training process and take an examination). It is also extremely clear she does not understand logic or analysis.

I am not an engineer myself, but I have worked closely with engineers, architects and construction professions for more than two decades as a technical writer, translating engineering lingo and concepts into everyday English.

The few pages of the book I reviewed were laughably bad, and I wouldn’t place any faith in this person’s analysis.

You are right. You are not an engineer. And apparently not a good reader either. Unlike you, I have read almost the entire book, double checking where I could. She clearly has done her homework.

Everyone is welcome to their opinion. But I do hope others here read more than a few pages, or stabbing here or there looking for ammunition, not understanding.
 

AustinC

Well-Known Member
You are right. You are not an engineer. And apparently not a good reader either. Unlike you, I have read almost the entire book, double checking where I could. She clearly has done her homework.

Everyone is welcome to their opinion. But I do hope others here read more than a few pages, or stabbing here or there looking for ammunition, not understanding.
Stop reading these trivial books and just read your Bible. The towers fell by God's ordained decree. Live with that and move on. That was over 20 years ago.
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You are right. You are not an engineer.
There is no indication that she is either. Having earned an undergraduate degree in civil engineering (primarily mathematics and basic engineering principles) is not the same thing as being a competent engineer. That’s not how things work.

Moreover, her list of credentials reeks of someone inflating their authority by listing things such as “B.S.” and “M.S.” after her name. In the professional engineering world, one simply lists themselves as being a P.E. (Professional Engineer) and perhaps a Ph.D, if they have elected to earn one.

So it’s clear she has not been, nor is, a practicing engineer. One can teach engineering students certain subjects without being a PE.

Earning degrees is less of a measure of ability as it is a matter of persistence. One has to practice engineering to become a good engineer. The real world has a way to showing you when you are wrong. When engineers make mistakes or false assumptions, things fall down.

And apparently not a good reader either.
I’m enough of a reader to discern the logical and process errors she makes. Her credentials, whatever they are, do not prohibit her from making all sorts of simple errors and false assumptions.

Unlike you, I have read almost the entire book, double checking where I could.
I suspect it was a colossal waste of your time and brain cells.

Everyone is welcome to their opinion. But I do hope others here read more than a few pages, or stabbing here or there looking for ammunition, not understanding.
You made an assumption I was looking for ammunition. I looked at it with an open mind. I simply did what I do with many books making enormous claims — I spot check their ability to bring forth evidence and analyze it. Dr. Wood made a mess of some relatively simple analysis (a pet I am competent to assess), so I have no confident in her ability to analyze areas where I have no competency to assess. In other words, if she can’t handle the easy things, how can she handle the difficult things?
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Moreover, her list of credentials reeks of someone inflating their authority by listing things such as “B.S.” and “M.S.” after her name. In the professional engineering world, one simply lists themselves as being a P.E. (Professional Engineer) and perhaps a Ph.D, if they have elected to earn one.

Your swipe at her again shows that you just cannot think straight. She did not "inflate her own authority". That was from an introduction I read on a different website. Those are her credentials, including a Ph.D. (which you overlooked), but she did not toot her own horn.

BTW, if her credentials were not mentioned then someone - probably including you - would cite that lack of credentials as part of your critique.

Anyway, I am done discussing this with you. If the official story makes perfect sense to you then have at it.
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Your swipe at her again shows that you just cannot think straight.
Far from it.

She did not "inflate her own authority". That was from an introduction I read on a different website. Those are her credentials, including a Ph.D. (which you overlooked), but she did not toot her own horn.
I overlooked nothing. I reviewed her website, including her biographic information, and I tried to find evidence that she was a registered engineer on the engineering rosters of every state where she has lived/worked — those rosters are public records and I have routinely checked them for years as part of my career. There is no record of her every being a Professional Engineer or even an EIT (Engineer in Training). Just because you are unfamiliar with such things doesn’t mean everyone else is ignorant as well.

Regarding Ph.Ds, I have known more than a handful of Ph.Ds who have a hard time processing information in areas that they do not have direct expertise. In technical fields, many Ph.Ds do not have training in logic, so they can make mistakes, especially if they have a theory and are looking for evidence to support it.

BTW, if her credentials were not mentioned then someone - probably including you - would cite that lack of credentials as part of your critique.
You’re talking to the wrong person about that. Good evidence and logic always trumps credentials in my view. Credentials add weight to an argument, but they do not trump evidence or logic.

Anyway, I am done discussing this with you. If the official story makes perfect sense to you then have at it.
You haven’t really discussed anything, you have just attacked me for not affirming the expertise of this person based on a simple analysis of two claims — that the two towers did not damage other buildings (false); and that seismic data would accurately record the entire collapse timeline. Pancaking building components and contents during free fall (in midair) would not be recorded on a seismograph. The seismograph would record the impact against the ground. Comparisons to the seismic record of the Kingdome implosion are not a valid comparison because of the explosives used at ground level and the very different way the building collapsed.

It’s like the old joke that it is not the fall from a high place that kills you, it’s the sudden stop.

Your expert does not recognize her error, telling me that she is definitely not the right person to do a forensic engineering analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Center complex. Forensic engineers have to understand how all of the engineering systems work together, along with the unique circumstances of the site and the events leading to the failure interact.

Very few things about the World Trade Center site were “normal” or typical, from the unique construction, to the changes in building code regulations during construction that cause fire insulation standards to change, and the nature of the attack.

This has been carefully researched by real, experienced engineers and the whole thing makes sense and matches the evidence.
 

atpollard

Well-Known Member
A personal story on the WTC.

I attended the New Jersey Institute of Technology - School of Architecture (graduating with a B.ofArch) and studied Structures (I - IV) under an engineer that happened to work on the team that designed the World Trade Center. As a result, we took the 9 minute train ride to visit it and discussed its construction at some length.

Ultimately, the WTC fell because Boeing created the 747. The design team was aware that an airplane once flew into the Empire State Building (an accident) so the possibility that an airplane full of fuel could crash into the Tower was considered during the design. The WTC was designed to withstand a crash from the largest airplane THEN KNOWN. It was after this initial design that Boeing created the staggeringly larger 747 family of aircraft. Had the 747 been built before the WTC, the fire-proofing on the WTC Towers would have been designed for the greater impact and greater quantity of fuel and would have survived the attack on 9/11.

It really was an extraordinary construction. Supported by a central core with a 3D space frame that allowed vast open offices. The Sheetrock for the fireproofing had to be tightly fit around these round members of the 3D trusses, so they hired artists to fit the complex shapes around the trusses with minimal joints.

Something few people mention was the generally “worthless” nature of the area between and immediately around the buildings. First, it was a vast empty concrete plaza with nothing in it. It’s only real purpose was to walk across and admire the buildings as sculpture. One walked across it quickly, because the building funneled unpleasant winds through the empty “concrete canyon”. As “Architecture” (spaces created to serve people), the ground floor was a complete failure. A common legacy of “skyscraper architecture” in general.

However, it was a grand, impressive piece of urban sculpture making an emphatic statement of power and wealth.
 

Wingman68

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
There are 3,000 architects along with investigators and leading forensic structural engineers that have proven 911 was caused by demolitions. See architects and engineers for truths site here.

They provided all the evidence to Barr and he remained silent and did NOTHING with the information. In April of 2020, Bar refused to release documents citing national security concerns.

Here is the extensive 4 year computer modeling data that brought down building 7. It wasn't fire and debris or exploding diesel, it was the near simultaneous destruction of every support column.

The report, models and 900GB of open data can all be found there.

This video should be seen by everyone. It's not tin foil hat BS. It's from the first responders that were there and engineers that have studied the evidence. It was originally streamed live on Sep 11, 2019, the 18th anniversary of the September 11th attacks presented by 9/11 first responder Christopher Gioia, a commissioner of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District in New York. He introduced the father of Bobby Mcilvaine. Bobby is one of the victims that was killed by some sort of blast before the towers were even hit by planes. His body was in the morgue well before the towers came down. Here's his father giving testimony to what happened to his son

Here's the BBC video reporting on the collapse of building 7 before it actually collapsed.

Fireman describe hearing explosions

Trump shortly after 9/11 saying a plane by itself without some kind of aid should not have been able to penetrate the steel beams. He reminds people of the structural strength of the building and how it survived a bombing at its foundation.

Larry Silverstein where he says , "They made the decision to pull it"

Multiple view points of building 7 collapsing in it's own footprint with no structural resistance slowing it down.

Here is the side of building 7 that took the brunt of the damage. Surface damage along with burning office equipment was supposedly enough to bring down building 7 with the same efficiency as vaporizing every support column within a second of each other.

At the 3:17 mark of this video, there is a building with MAJOR structural damage MUCH worse than building 7 and it doesn't just collapse neatly in on itself, vaporizing into dust. It sways and then topples over in a rolling motion. Buildings don't just collapse conveniently in their own footprint, reduced to ruble and dust within seconds with out expertly planned intentional intervention.

The first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) is where steel loses about half its strength.
Steel will melt at 1510 degrees C (2750°F). That kind of heat should be able to incinerate humans instantly, how then were there testimony from survivors at or near the impact site?

Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.

Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying:

"We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower:

"The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."

Ling Young was in her 78th floor office:

"Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."

Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.

So if it wasn't planes alone that brought down the towers, then what did? Engineers for truth mention that thermite residue has been found in all the samples of debris they have been able to study. Thermite is NOT a naturally occurring compound it is a manufactured pyrotechnic composition of metal powder and metal oxide. When heated or chemically reacted, it allows metal to be cut through like a hot knife through butter. It turns metal into molten liquid. Interestingly enough there are pictures and video of liquid metal spewing out the sides of the building and fire fighters talking about how they saw pools of molten metal under neath the towers before it collapsed. The heat register was so high that satellites still picked up thousand plus degree temperatures a month after the collapse. Click Here for a short 7 min video on the topic

There's also reports that there was "maintenance" going on for many months prior to the collapse. It is suspected that this is when the thermite could have been placed in key locations throughout the buildings. Here is a decent video where the work going on prior to the collapse is covered

Here is the official NIS report admitting the presence of what appears to be molten metal.

Photographs, as well as NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius (900 degrees Fahrenheit) and 640 degrees Celsius (1,200 degrees Fahrenheit)—depending on the particular alloy—well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning."

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

We know that government lies about diseases, the safety of vaccines, Jan 6th, Trump, impeachment, phone calls to Ukraine, FBI reports, staged assassination Whitmer plots etc.. so my curiosity is not really sated just because they say it was aluminum contaminated with burning furniture to explain the lack of silver appearance.

At the 2:10 min mark of the 7 min video above, Architect Bart Voorsanger examined one of the large "meteorite" sized objects of concrete metal and other debris that had fused together after they cooled, stating it was something they had "NEVER seen before in their lives."

Interestingly, the "official" government sponsored lead engineer of the NIST report John Gross stated there was absolutely no evidence or eye witnesses of the existence of molten metal at all in the short min video above(5:20 mark). Yet in that same video there are multiple eye witness testimonies by workers, fireman, first responders, contractors, engineers and others all reporting the very factual evidence of molten metal, dripping and running down walls, beam and rail ways. This was observed days, weeks and even a month after the collapse. Hot spots registered in the thousands 30 days after the fact.

The presence of molten metal is a FACT. No honest person should be denying that. The aluminum in a plane should produce a silver run off at the temperatures NIST reported, but they conveniently excuse it as debris filled embers that make it look like steel. The fact that eye witness state they saw pools of it weeks after the collapse does NOT bode well for the aluminum claim.

Aluminum has greater thermal conductivity than steel and is used as the metal of choice in heat sinks and radiators precisely because of it's heat transfer capabilities. It transfers and looses heat 15 times faster than stainless steel and roughly 7 times that of carbon Steel. If the aluminum was not being continuously heated by an outside source, it would not stay in a liquid state for weeks.

The "aluminum" seen pouring out of the sides of the trade towers would not remain liquefied days after the collapse. It's thermal conductivity characteristics would cause it to bind to whatever its touching and cool within minutes.
 
Top