read more... :
Your evaluation is a complete fabrication of lies and mistruths
regarding the supposed facts and causes of the collapse of the WTC
towers that were [falsely] reported on the web site,
http://www.ae911truth.org/ .
In the sidebar of the web site the list of supposed causes are every one
a lie. The facts are not in evidence for each and every numbered item.
For example, in list [B] items:
"5. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel
decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust".
All? That's a lie. Not all the concrete was pulverized. You switch
answers by saying, "mostly to dust ".
Mid-air? What possible cause is there that was up in mid air and that
resulted in the pulverization in mid air that you [falsely] claim?
Nor was the steel decking pulverized. That is a lie.
Nor were the filing cabinets pulverized. They may have been dented,
ripped, and crushed beyond recognition, but they were not pulverized.
Nor were the people pulverized "mostly to dust". Human beings are mostly
water. At best when made into a pulverized stuff and combined with
concrete particles the result would be mud, and not dust.
"6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds".
If you are referring to the billowing white clouds that surrounded the
collapsing floors of the towers, you are right in saying that they were
massive. In the regions of the flames on the floors prior to the
collapse there were no "dust clouds", let alone "pyroclastic dust
clouds". During the plane crash through the building the fireball did
not itself produce dust clouds. That was caused by the fuel carried by
the plane, which was carried mostly right through and out of the
building where most of it burned outside.
The dust clouds were caused by the crushing of the gypsum wallboard that
was used to construct the interior partitions and shaftwalls, acoustic
mineral fiber ceiling tiles, mineral fiber fire insulation on steel
framing and decking from the upper floors, and, also, asbestos fire
insulation on steel framing and decking from the lower floors. The
amount gypsum in terms of weight was far greater than the fire
insulation and tiles. The failures of the floor beam connectors caused
the collapsing of the floor beam and concrete floor decking structures;
and the air between the floors was forced laterally where it carried
nearly everything that wasn't bolted down to the outside walls and
beyond. Most of the dust clouds were not due to wallboard heating; that
was only on the fire floors. Most of the gypsum partitions in the
buildings were not involved in fire, and even then the temperatures for
the wallboard, except in the areas of intense heat, would not have been
that high due to the insulating properties of the material. The grayness
of the white dust was due to shadows and the presence of other
materials, e.g., paper, paint, or steel studs. The white gypsum reflects
most of the heat and only absorbs heat at a slow rate. That's why they
use it.
The dust clouds were not "pyroclastic". The dust of crushed gypsum was
airborne as in a fluidized bed apparatus, and any hot particles would
have been mixed in with surrounding particles. No pyroclastic flows were
reported, and that is the fluid-like flow of hot materials. The dust
clouds were airborne and not primarily fluid.
Your citing of the web site implies a strong advocacy of the near total
amount of lies and falsehoods that were presented.
The site, furthermore, used nearly every one of the main fallacies of
logic in existence.
The main appeal was the attempt to get the reader to accept lies on
faith, that is, without facts and evidence, instead of relying upon the
reasoning mind of the reader to correctly evaluate the facts.
The second appeal was to gain the confidence of the reader and to get
him to join into a consensus regarding the lies presented. The reader
was being conned into accepting the false premises and into joining the
consensus. Ultimately, it is the consensus of feelings, according to
that strongly Platonic way of thinking, that represents the truth, and
not reason, facts and independent judgment by the unfooled individual.
Additionally, the reader is supposed to accept the sob-story as a reason
to accept and further the consensus. That is the fallacy of the appeal
to emotion, for example.
All engineers and architects who supported or endorsed that web site
should be viewed with extreme, and I mean extreme, skepticism due to the
lies and fallacies presented on the site. That evidence of support for
lies and lack of reason is hardly evidence leading to competent
professional practice.
Regarding the website, the reader should be highly skeptical. If someone
wants to learn what happened, ask a licensed professional engineer,
civil engineer, fire protection engineer, or structural engineer. Get
out all the questions you may wish, and test the replies against the
rational answers of the other engineers. Social consensus has nothing
whatsoever to do with the truth. Social consensus is not, itself, a
fact, Get the facts - not the lies.
Ralph Hertle
Post by Midexhttp://www.ae911truth.org/
Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!
279 architectural and engineering professionals
and 1028 other supporters including A/E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.
Architects, Engineers and all others may sign the petition!
We will post your name after verifying your A/E credentials --
and other info for non-A/E's. This may take a few days.
Thank you for your patience!!
Sign the Petition
To research and to disseminate the truth
of the 9/11 "collapses" of all 3 WTC high-rise buildings
to every architect and engineer
Why are Architects and Engineers Re-examining the WTC Collapses?
Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings that function
well and withstand potentially destructive forces. However, the 3 high-
rise buildings at the World Trade Center which "collapsed" on 9/11
(the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body of
evidence (i.e.controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the
scope of our training and experience.
In addition, the shock that hit us on that date from the repeated
attacks and staggering loss of life has limited our ability to
rationally evaluate what really happened. We therefore found ourselves
relying solely upon the judgment of outside "experts"...
read more...