Merged More proof of WTC demolitions/controlled explosives

[Arus808]

Kamal Obeid, C.E., S.E. -- Civil and Structural Engineer EXPOSE the 9/11 WTC Controlled Demolitions

Youtube videos?

Please provide their peer-reviewed articles in respected journals of their findings, their test results and their conclusions. Be sure that their articles do have chain of custody as to how they obtained their evidence, and how they conducted their tests.

otherwise....blah blah blah...nothing of substance...move along.

 

[beachnut]

Kamal Obeid, C.E., S.E. -- Civil and Structural Engineer EXPOSE the 9/11 WTC Controlled Demolitions


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WCcSHpvAJ8&feature=player_embedded

Richard Humenn Chief Electrical Design Engineer of the World Trade Center EXPOSE the 9/11 WTC Controlled Demolitions


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gJy7lhVK2xE

The crime of the century and the best you can do is post a nut who can't produce a paper to support his moronic delusion. You post lies made up by morons, you failed to take it to the FBI, because? it is nonsense.

You posted Mr Obeid talking, Mr Obeid says the biggest crime of the century, Mr Obeid is hiding evidence, or talking nonsense. Let me see, he is not in jail for withholding evidence on 911, so he is a liar.

You post nonsense, take no action, not going to the media; Because you have delusional nonsense. Have you tried to take your claims and "evidence" to the FBI?

 

[RedIbis]

Listening to that guy talk makes my head hurt. I realize he's trying to remove jargon from what he's talking about but with his lack of public speaking ability it really just comes out as gibberish.

Maybe that's because they're not trained speakers, they're trained scientists.

Gage, Jones, Griffin, none are particularly charasmatic speakers.

 

[beachnut]

Maybe that's because they're not trained speakers, they're trained scientists.

Gage, Jones, Griffin, none are particularly charasmatic speakers.

No, they lack knowledge and evidence. They failed. Else they would go to the FBI and expose the big inside job, but it is only inside their heads.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Maybe that's because they're not trained speakers, they're trained scientists.

Gage, Jones, Griffin, none are particularly charasmatic speakers.

Nor are they scientists.

 

[dafydd]

Maybe that's because they're not trained speakers, they're trained scientists.

Gage, Jones, Griffin, none are particularly charasmatic speakers.

Or competent thinkers.

 

[Thunder]

Richard Humenn Chief Electrical Design Engineer of the World Trade Center EXPOSE the 9/11 WTC Controlled Demolitions

right, cause electrical engineers know sooooooo much about architecture, engineering, and strength of materials.

thanks for the laugh.


by the way, why are you spending soo much time trying to convince JREF..and not the American people?

 

[dafydd]

Kamal Obeid, C.E., S.E. -- Civil and Structural Engineer EXPOSE the 9/11 WTC Controlled Demolitions


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WCcSHpvAJ8&feature=player_embedded

Richard Humenn Chief Electrical Design Engineer of the World Trade Center EXPOSE the 9/11 WTC Controlled Demolitions


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gJy7lhVK2xE

Yawn. Same old nonsense. Do you have anything new? These threads are getting boring,they proceed with all the inevitability of a Greek tradegdy. Or do I mean comedy?

 

[dafydd]

right, cause electrical engineers know sooooooo much about architecture, engineering, and strength of materials.

thanks for the laugh.


by the way, why are you spending soo much time trying to convince JREF..and not the American people?

The American people have suffered enough,the last thing they need is truthers bending their earholes. We can contain them here.

 

[The Big Dog]

Maybe that's because they're not trained speakers, they're trained scientists.

Gage, Jones, Griffin, none are particularly charasmatic speakers.

Bwahhaha!!!

Gage? Since when is a BS in Architecture a "trained scientist"? FAIL

Griffin? Since when is a PHD in Theology a Trained Scientist? FAIL!

Jones? Since when does a "trained scientist" believe in magically induced earthquakes? ULTIMATE FAILURE!

I would not pay any of these mutts $5 to paint my garage.

Red, how far you have slipped. If you are going to try for an appeal to authority, do try to pick individuals that don't take the short bus like these worthless douchebags.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Maybe that's because they're not trained speakers, they're trained scientists.

Gage, Jones, Griffin, none are particularly charasmatic speakers.

Then why haven't any of them put out an argument that stands up to fact-checking?

 

[Oystein]

Kamal Obeid, C.E., S.E. -- Civil and Structural Engineer EXPOSE the 9/11 WTC Controlled Demolitions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WCcSHpvAJ8&feature=player_embedded

Here is where Obeid speaks falsehoods, or without any personal qualifications:

1. 0:48 "That's a classic case of controlled demolition." - No. He has ZERO experience with controlled demolitions,. WTC7 did not exhibit an important characteristic of CD: A significant number of extremely loud BANG!!!!s at the onset of collapse
2. 1:20 "The building falls right into it's footprint" . FALSE. It fell way outside it's footprint and also outside its premises. It crashed into three neighboring buildings, and even on top (on the roof) of Fiterman Hall across the street. That is NOT "into footprint". AE911"truth" keeps repeating that lie, and they must be VERY aware after 4 years of pointing out that it is a lie.
3. 1:25-3:25: He discusses the mode of collapse starting with the exterior walls. That is the wrong sequence. It is well established from video evidence that the core collapsed first. Since we (including him) don't know from observation just how the core, and the attached floors, came down, it is simply impossible to make statements about how the no unbraced exterior wall should or should not have comne down.
4. 3:25-3:55: He merely speculates on how he would have placed and timed explosives; that's idle talk with no basis in fact or theory. A C.E. or S.E. is not an expert on how to explode buildings.
5. 3:57 "It's really the lower floors that start to fail" (he is talking about the exterior still) - FALSE. It was the core and the floors that started to fail, and the lower portion of the exterior followed late into the collapse.
6. 4:04 "The exterior columns ... at the bottom would have to be severed almost at the same time" - FALSE. The detailed analysis of David Chandler, followed up by similar work by NIST and femr2, shows that the exterior columns were NOT severed almost at the same time, but by and by during a period of up to 2 seconds before freefall was reached. Can't AE911"truth" stick to their own story? Chandler is a truther that AE911"truth" relies on!
7. 4:22-4:42: He mentions the old, no longer held theory of stored fuel contributing to collapse. Why was this not edited out? It is unimportant. The video is heavily edited. Keeping this in is a conscious choice, probably designed to confuse the listener.
8. 4:42 "The actual failure, controlled demolition, occurred by severing the columns at the lower floors simultaneously" - FALSE, see above.
9. 5:13 "That (the NIST hypothesis of failure of one column on the 12th floor progressing vertically, then horizontally) is a very unlikely scenario. You have to actually sever the columns on the lower floors" - bare-assed assertion, without even providing an argument.
10. 5:43 "In order for the column to fail ... you have to have several beams all around this column failing at the same time over four floors" - FALSE. They don't have to fail at the same time, it suffices if they fail in sequence. Once the girder has walked off, it won't return, and the bracing for that column is compromised. From that point on, there is no gurantee that the rest of the structure in that vicinity is safe.
11. 7:05 (after conceding, for argument's sake, that the core may have failed in progression, he now talks about the exterior again) "the redundancies are such that the face of the building bends and deflects and deforms and it doesn't fail" - utter NONSENSE. All the bracing of the north face in the east-west direction is provided through the floors. With the floors not bracing the wall anymore and instead pulling on it, failure is an absolute must. A steel frame wall, only several inches wide but 47 stories high, cannot stand on its own, the lightest wind breeze would cause it to fail. An internal collapse all the more.
12. 8:03 "I am not a thermodynamic engineer, but I can say from common sense..." HAHA. Do the math, run the sims. Fool. Thermodynamics of such complex events and structures doesn't lend itself much to common sense.
13. 8:10 "when you're heating a structural element - first of all: with the fireproofing and everything" - He didn't read or understand the NIST theory, or forgot what fireproofing is for. Fireproofing is rated such that it prevents significant weakening of the steel for a defined period of time. That means keeping it under a certain temperature where it gets too weak,. That temperature is much higher than the temperature that NIST determined to be sufficient for the long-span beam to expand enough to destroy the bolts and walk off. So the fireproofing simply was neither designed nor sufficienbt to deal with that problem.
14. 8:18: "You're not going to heat it uniformly throughout" - STRAWMAN. No-one say this happened or would be necessary
15. 9:27: "They did not have the benefit of reviewing the actual structural steel" - true, but neither will the new investigation that AE911"truth" feigns* to be calling for. This absence of evidence allows for some doubts in NIST's model, but does in no way invalidate it.
16. 9:34 "It was made to disappear" - that is a malevolent LIE, or the Poisoning the Well fallacy. He should know pretty well that the WTC7 steel members were not marked to allow easy identification, and that it was not feasible economically and politically to defer cleanup of the site until the entire puzzle of steel debris was solved.
17. 9:37 "At least, in the NIST report, you should make a huge issue about the lack of evidence" He asks for something he already got. NIST is very clear about the evidence they have and also about what's lacking.
18. 9:52 "This is the crime of the century" - INCORRECT. The collapse of WTC7 was only a collateral to the crime of the century. No-one attacked building 7, and no-one died there.

The rest of the interview is merely political opinion, I won't comment on that.

The only part of the interview that contains arguments I can't dismiss easily is between about 8:22 and 9:18, where he explains that expansion of beams would more likely lead to sagging than to shearing bolts off.


* I say "new investigation that AE911lies feigns to be calling for" because they have no intention of actually calling for such an investigation by submitting the "petition" to Congress, as they purport. After 4 years of not submitting, and no statement on intention, no-one should trust that this preamble "PETITION TO CONGRESS..." is anything but fraud.

 

[ozeco41]

A great critique Oystein.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I am still amazed that they think WTC7 is important enough to be deliberately demolished. To some it's almost as if everything else was a diversion for the 'real' attack on WTC7

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I am still amazed that they think WTC7 is important enough to be deliberately demolished. To some it's almost as if everything else was a diversion for the 'real' attack on WTC7

It's where the Cold War Twinkie^® snack cake repository was located. They couldn't find any other way to get rid of those things seeing as they have a shelf life of 1,000 years or more. That's also why you don't hear any explosions... the creamy filling is filled with tiny air pockets that acted kind of like a muffler.

(hey look, I can make up stupid stuff too!!!)