14-05-2011, 09:19 PM
I don't agree with Bazant's paper. He wrote it without carefully studying the videos. He was wrong. And we know that.
I am an architect. I began my career working for Emery Roth & Sons in 1970 when they were still working on the construction drawings for the Twin Towers. I am not a licensed PE but a NYS licensed RA. In fact, the engineering concepts are not beyond the grasp of most architects, but few do the engineering design for steel frames. I don't design steel structures, but use and work with a PE. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable knowing that other architects who DO design high rise steel towers such as PGE building
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Gas...c_Building
in SF and who spoke directly with Yamasaki about his design concept for the Twin Towers and agrees with virtually all of my explanation of collapse.
I approached 9/11 with skepticism about the official story which had holes large enough to drive a truck through. I found myself on the 911 Truth side questioning the OCT and supporting their demand for a new investigation. I then began to examine the "evidence" claims of the truth movement which supported their OWN explanation as to what happened to the towers. I found that many of their statements of evidence were incorrect and they are repeated over and over again by people who have not studied the structure or the videos carefully and that includes Gage and Wood et al. The truth movement is so convinced that since they were lied to by the officials EVERYTHING said they said is wrong, black is white and what they didn't even comment on is evidence of something nefarious.
I have now spent 2 years doing detailed study of the twin towers and as a result of my understanding, I am more convinced that most of the "explosive" 911 truth explanations are incorrect re the collapse phase. There may be use of engineered intervention in the pre collapse phase to kick off the gravitationally driven collapse. And that is just as horrific and troubling, though not as complex of a "conspiracy" as implied by the truth movement.
Research is ongoing.
I am an architect. I began my career working for Emery Roth & Sons in 1970 when they were still working on the construction drawings for the Twin Towers. I am not a licensed PE but a NYS licensed RA. In fact, the engineering concepts are not beyond the grasp of most architects, but few do the engineering design for steel frames. I don't design steel structures, but use and work with a PE. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable knowing that other architects who DO design high rise steel towers such as PGE building
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Gas...c_Building
in SF and who spoke directly with Yamasaki about his design concept for the Twin Towers and agrees with virtually all of my explanation of collapse.
I approached 9/11 with skepticism about the official story which had holes large enough to drive a truck through. I found myself on the 911 Truth side questioning the OCT and supporting their demand for a new investigation. I then began to examine the "evidence" claims of the truth movement which supported their OWN explanation as to what happened to the towers. I found that many of their statements of evidence were incorrect and they are repeated over and over again by people who have not studied the structure or the videos carefully and that includes Gage and Wood et al. The truth movement is so convinced that since they were lied to by the officials EVERYTHING said they said is wrong, black is white and what they didn't even comment on is evidence of something nefarious.
I have now spent 2 years doing detailed study of the twin towers and as a result of my understanding, I am more convinced that most of the "explosive" 911 truth explanations are incorrect re the collapse phase. There may be use of engineered intervention in the pre collapse phase to kick off the gravitationally driven collapse. And that is just as horrific and troubling, though not as complex of a "conspiracy" as implied by the truth movement.
Research is ongoing.