Do we have another Truther engineer.....

[Architect]

...and apparently a well qualified one at that? I came across this gem at LCF:



Cole K (used to use handle "colek")
http://209.85.48.11/html/team_icons/blue.gifhttp://209.85.48.11/html/team_icons/blue.gifhttp://209.85.48.11/html/team_icons/blue.gif

Group: Members
Posts: 191
Member No.: 830
Joined: 2-November 06


http://209.85.48.11/style_images/1/spacer.gif
Why the towers fell: Two theories

By William Rice

Posted March 1, 2007

Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.

I was particularly interested in the two PBS documentaries that explained the prevailing theories as determined by two government agencies, FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology). The first (2002) PBS documentary, Why the Towers Fell, discussed how the floor truss connectors failed and caused a "progressive pancake collapse."

The subsequent 2006 repackaged documentary Building on Ground Zero explained that the connectors held, but that the columns failed, which is also unlikely. Without mentioning the word "concrete," the latter documentary compared the three-second collapse of the concrete Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building with that of the Twin Towers that were of structural steel. The collapse of a concrete-framed building cannot be compared with that of a structural steel-framed building.

Since neither documentary addressed many of the pertinent facts, I took the time to review available material, combine it with scientific and historic facts, and submit the following two theories for consideration.

Please do not quote referenced documents in full. The guidance is to select a relevant paragraph, and the link.
http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/...winTowers.shtml (http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml)



It seems to me that the fellow's opinions are unencumbered by a number of important issues, not least the NIST report, and repeats a number of old canards. What surprises me is that a professor of structural engineerig would say such a thing.

As a matter of interest, is Vermont Technical College a university-level institute?

[WildCat]

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy is very, very old and hasn't practiced in many years.

[MarkyX]

After the 1993 car bomb explosion destroyed columns in the North Tower, John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but "the building structure would still be there."


Uh what? Wasn't Leslie E Robertson the head structural engineer?

[WildCat]

The only references to a "William Rice, P.E." that I can find outside of this paper is for a hydrologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife services in Anchorage, Alaska.

[Architect]

Yamasaki and engineers John Skilling and Les Robertson worked closely, and the relationship between the towers' design and structure was clear. Faced with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extended across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers appear from afar to have no windows at all.


http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm


But moving on, it appears that his original article resulted in some flak:


Author responds to 9/11 critics
This is in response to Jeremy Young’s letter posted in the Vermont Guardian (March 9) questioning my knowledge of basic physics.
It would seem that politics often supersedes science when one tries to determine what really happened on 9/11.
From my perspective as an engineer, the following statements can only be explained by the use of explosives. However, these facts seem to be either “debunked” or ignored by those who would have us avoid questioning the safer, more comfortable, and less thought-provoking official crash-and-burn theory.
I would like to question the prevailing theory by asking Young, or anyone, for reasonable alternative explanations to the following statements:
• Only explosives could have caused the pulverization of the WTC buildings’ concrete into dust.
• Only high temperature explosives could create the molten metal that lingered for several weeks under the debris of those three WTC buildings. These documented temperatures of the molten metal were much hotter (by over several hundred degrees Fahrenheit) than any temperatures that could possibly be provided by the 9/11 jet fuel/kerosene fires.
• Only explosives could propel heavy steel beams/columns more than 300 feet away from the Twin Towers. According to basic projectile physics, this is well beyond the range that can be accomplished by the prevailing crash-and-burn theory.
Finally, I reaffirm my knowledge of physics and of Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum. Overcoming the stationary inertia would slow down the collapse.
Moreover, Newton’s Law is immaterial when compared to the resistance provided by the massive supporting structural steel framework of each Tower. Each of the Twin Towers’ collapses would have had to compress and destroy about 100,000 tons of structural steel framing and do it in a collapse duration of only ten seconds. Without explosives this is impossible and has never happened in the 100-year history of structural steel buildings.
William Rice, P.E.
William Rice is a former professor at the Vermont Technical College in Randolph, and wrote a piece in the Feb. 28 issue of Vermont Guardian.


http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/Mar23Letters.shtml

[Architect]

I don't want to get accused of ad-hom attacks (if it is indeed) but just to note in passing that the Vermont Technical College does not appear to be a university level establishment, but more in line with a UK polytechnic (showing my age there, eh?). Which would mean that, in British terms, he's a lecturer, not a professor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Technical_College


Incidentally my father was a practicising engineer when WTC was built and is thus, obviously, retired. He doesn't seem to have any problem with the collapse hypothesis, so I'm not sure that age is any mitigating factor for our "professor".

[T.A.M.]

A structural engineer who simply reproduces the truther mantra is no better than a highschool graduate who does the same.

Wanna impress us Mr. Rice, produce a paper on the subject, with your correct (to NISTs alleged incorrect) calculations and science within...otherwise, you are just an educated fool rather than an uneducated one.

TAM:)

[ref]

Uh what? Wasn't Leslie E Robertson the head structural engineer?

Actually John Skilling was more of a head guy, but he died in 1998, so naturally Leslie Robertson is the man commenting these issues. They worked together for the same firm.

[uk_dave]

You obviously missed the last strategy meeting we had at Big Owls house.

Basically, some there expressed concern that the lack of professional support for the 'truthers' claims was beginning to make people suspicious and could reveal our '911 Academic Suppression' program, so it was decided that we would allow one solitary, slightly iffy, structural engineer to come forward with some easily debunkable claims.

That way we can pretend that our hands are clean and have not pressured any professionals into keeping quiet because we can point to this chap as an example of a professional engineer enjoying the freedom to express his dissent with our cover story.

Oddly, another item which was discussed was the apparent over accounting of the funds for the 911 Academic Suppression plan. Either we have a secret benefactor or there hasn't been any expinditure from this fund. But we all agreed that that would just be absurd......

[CHF]

William Rice seems like a complete know-nothing.

Only explosives could have caused the pulverization of the WTC buildings’ concrete into dust.Cuz Lord knows a 40,000 ton falling mass couldn't do it.

Only high temperature explosives could create the molten metal that lingered for several weeks under the debris of those three WTC buildings.I'd love to hear what kind of explosive produces molten metal weeks after it is detonated.

[Architect]

I've had a good look and I can't see any sort of detailed paper with Rice's arguments presented, as usual. None of them seem to want to set down a detailed argument, Ross aside (and we all know the problems with that).

[uk_dave]

William Rice seems like a complete know-nothing.

Cuz Lord knows a 40,000 ton falling mass couldn't do it.

I'd love to hear what kind of explosive produces molten metal weeks after it is detonated.

No, it's high temperature explosives, see...ok let me explain it in simple terms, if a bit of metal loses heat at 1 deg per hour as it cools, then for it to remain molten for weeks after you just have to extro... extraplate....extrapopulate... work backwards and calculate how hot the metal would have to be when the explosives went off, common sense innit?

I aint doing the calculations for you, but it must have been billions of degrees which can only mean that thermonukes was used. QED

[ktesibios]

The phrase "high temperature explosives", used in this context, is straight outta the Steven Jones catechism.

So are most of his other claims. The whole thing gives off a distinct odor of turning-in-a-term-paper-downloaded-from-the-Internet.

Even if they weren't a load of fetid dingo's kidneys, that's a Hell of an example for an educator to set.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Thought that name sounded familiar:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76052
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2390991

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Cuz Lord knows a 40,000 ton falling mass couldn't do it.


Judy Wood publishing "Giant Cartoon Anvil" theory in 3...

2...

1...

[Architect]

Thought that name sounded familiar:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76052
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2390991

When I read a post like that, I always worry that I participated and then forgot...... :eek:

[Hamradioguy]

Vermont Technical College is a highly regarded school and the courses are rigorous (I did some recruiting there when I wroked for Sprague Electric). Note that while they offer a BS in Science the Engineering degree is at the Associates level.

I don't specificaly recall Professor Rice, and I believe he may well be retired- Don't think he's teaching there now. Most of the contacts I had back then at VTC are now retired, but I'll ask around.

When I see someone who should know better refer to pools of molten metal as being byproducts of explosives I cringe. I've been using exposives for years and I sure don't recall ever seeing pools of molten metal as a result. But hey, what do I know?

[AZCat]

http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm


But moving on, it appears that his original article resulted in some flak:


http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/Mar23Letters.shtml



It's interesting that Rice completely ignores the point made by the letter writer (here is the link to the letter (http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/Mar9Letters.shtml) ) about momentum:


Rice does not understand calculus-based physics, which is most of physics for that matter. Newton’s law of conservation of momentum is not violated in any way shape or form with a free-fall collapse of the twin towers. Newton’s second law, as stated originally, is that force is equal to the derivative of momentum with respect to time. Momentum is defined (loosely) as mass times velocity. This means that the derivative and thus force is dependent on any change in mass as well as velocity. Since the collapse of the floors in the towers represents a change in mass as well as velocity, this is a sort of reverse rocket problem (in rockets mass is usually decreasing as you accelerate).


Now, supposing one floor of the WTC tower(s) collapsed onto the floor below. Let’s also suppose that the floor beneath it has sufficient inertia (stationary momentum) to slow down or even nearly stop the floor above it before failing itself. That means that both floors combined now have more velocity than the first floor when it broke free (since the first floor started from a dead stop), and since there are two floors, the falling floors have more mass. More mass and more velocity mean more momentum than one floor falling. When more momentum hits the third floor down, there’s even less resistance to further collapse, meaning less velocity lost, and more mass added. This happens again and again and again. With such huge masses hitting each other in a way they were never designed to, it wouldn’t take long at all to get complete freefall.


instead stating (in classic truther-ese (http://forums.randi.org/Finally,%20I%20reaffirm%20my%20knowledge%20of%20ph ysics%20and%20of%20Newton%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s%20Law %20of%20Conservation%20of%20Momentum.%20Overcoming %20the%20stationary%20inertia%20would%20slow%20dow n%20the%20collapse.)):

Finally, I reaffirm my knowledge of physics and of Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum. Overcoming the stationary inertia would slow down the collapse.

Moreover, Newton’s Law is immaterial when compared to the resistance provided by the massive supporting structural steel framework of each Tower. Each of the Twin Towers’ collapses would have had to compress and destroy about 100,000 tons of structural steel framing and do it in a collapse duration of only ten seconds. Without explosives this is impossible and has never happened in the 100-year history of structural steel buildings.

:rolleyes:

[PhantomWolf]

Finally, I reaffirm my knowledge of physics and of Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum. Overcoming the stationary inertia would slow down the collapse.

Moreover, Newton’s Law is immaterial when compared to the resistance provided by the massive supporting structural steel framework of each Tower. Each of the Twin Towers’ collapses would have had to compress and destroy about 100,000 tons of structural steel framing and do it in a collapse duration of only ten seconds. Without explosives this is impossible and has never happened in the 100-year history of structural steel buildings.

Great gadzooks, how much incorrect bovine matter can you get into one quote?

[AZCat]

Great gadzooks, how much incorrect bovine matter can you get into one quote?

Considering that he's supposed to be a registered civil engineer I'd consider it Stundie material, save for the March post date.

[Travis]

Finally, I reaffirm my knowledge of physics and of Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum. Overcoming the stationary inertia would slow down the collapse.

Oh, I think I'm bleeding out of my ears. He reaffirms knowledge of Newtons Law but refuses to apply it. Now that is stubborn.

Moreover, Newton’s Law is immaterial when compared to the resistance provided by the massive supporting structural steel framework of each Tower.

Alert the media! No... alert peer reviewed journals and the Nobel committee! Someone has finally found a place in the universe where physics do not apply and it was in Manhattan, right under the nose of several esteemed universities, the whole time!

Each of the Twin Towers’ collapses would have had to compress and destroy about 100,000 tons of structural steel framing and do it in a collapse duration of only ten seconds.

Wasn't the steel frame already under compression just from the static load? Why does he talk of steel framing in a traditional sense when the WTC was a tube in a tube design? Tearing trusses away from the perimeter and core is easier than destroying all of the framing in a traditional framed building.

[gumboot]

If ever we needed more evidence that knowledge is not an insulator against stupidity...

-Gumboot

[Architect]

Vermont Technical College is a highly regarded school and the courses are rigorous (I did some recruiting there when I wroked for Sprague Electric). Note that while they offer a BS in Science the Engineering degree is at the Associates level.




Humour us Brits, Antipodeans, and others and pretend that we have an entirely different higher education system from the US.

1. Is the College a University level establishment?

2. What the heck is an Associate level degree? Is that "Diet BSc"?

[gumboot]

Humour us Brits, Antipodeans, and others and pretend that we have an entirely different higher education system from the US.

1. Is the College a University level establishment?

2. What the heck is an Associate level degree? Is that "Diet BSc"?



From what I gather "college" in the USA refers to tertiary level education.

Here in New Zealand, "college" can be secondary or tertiary. For example my sister went to a "college" at both secondary and post-grad tertiary level.

-Gumboot

[einsteen]

Yeah, I also wanted to add that (although I'm no debunker), often conservation of momentum is used but that is only valid in a closed system, i.e. no external forces, but there is g of course resulting in a force on each particle. This is indeed basic Newtonian mechanics and how could someone with his qualifications not know that?

[westprog]

William Rice seems like a complete know-nothing.

I'd love to hear what kind of explosive produces molten metal weeks after it is detonated.

I find it difficult to believe that he's any kind of engineer. He seems to have no grasp whatsoever of the forces involved.

[PhantomWolf]

Yeah, I also wanted to add that (although I'm no debunker), often conservation of momentum is used but that is only valid in a closed system, i.e. no external forces, but there is g of course resulting in a force on each particle. This is indeed basic Newtonian mechanics and how could someone with his qualifications not know that?

You know, you might not be, but you keep this up and it might rub off. At the least you can get your Govt Shill badge. ;)

[JimBenArm]

Humour us Brits, Antipodeans, and others and pretend that we have an entirely different higher education system from the US.

1. Is the College a University level establishment?

2. What the heck is an Associate level degree? Is that "Diet BSc"?
I don't know about whether this is a University-level establishment, but an Associate Degree is basically a two-year degree. So "Diet BSc" would be a good description. If this is the highest level engineering degree they offer, then they are probably along the lines of a community college, definitely not University level. But, I don't know that to be the case.

[PhantomWolf]

Sounds like what we'd call a Diploma

[Architect]

Sounds like what we'd call a Diploma

Yup. It's Diploma. And he's a lecturer in our parlance, not a Professor.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Humour us Brits, Antipodeans, and others and pretend that we have an entirely different higher education system from the US.

1. Is the College a University level establishment?

2. What the heck is an Associate level degree? Is that "Diet BSc"?
In the US, a 'university' is made up of 'colleges', ex. the University of Akron (which I attended) had a 'College of Engineering', 'College of (pre) Medicine', etc

Regarding the degrees:
Associate degree = 2 years
Bachelors = 4 years
BS = Bachelors of Science
BA = Bachelors of Arts
etc

[PhantomWolf]

Collages here are generally Secondary School, years 8-12 (I think.... I still think of them as Form 3-7.) Some few tertiary institutes are called colleges as well, most notably Teacher's College. Otherwise we have University, Techincal Institutes (PolyTechs) and PETs (Private Education and Training).

Diplomas are a 2 year course (National Cert Level 6) and mostly gained from Polytechs or PET's. Below them are 6 month courses for National Cert levels 2, 3 and 4, and a full year course for Level 5.

Degrees are exclusively University domain and are 3+ years (4 for Hons) for a Bachelors then on top of that can go for Masters and PhD. We call a Bachelor of Science a BSc.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Collages here are generally Secondary School, years 8-12 (I think.... I still think of them as Form 3-7.) Some few tertiary institutes are called colleges as well, most notably Teacher's College. Otherwise we have University, Techincal Institutes (PolyTechs) and PETs (Private Education and Training).

Diplomas are a 2 year course (National Cert Level 6) and mostly gained from Polytechs or PET's. Below them are 6 month courses for National Cert levels 2, 3 and 4, and a full year course for Level 5.

Degrees are exclusively University domain and are 3+ years (4 for Hons) for a Bachelors then on top of that can go for Masters and PhD. We call a Bachelor of Science a BSc.
Yeah, here your colleges are called High School. Quick breakdown:
preschool < 6 yr olds or so
kindergarten = 6 or 7 yr olds
1st grade -> 6th grade = Elementary school
7th & 8th grade = Junior High or Middle School
9th -> 12th grade = High school
Undergraduate = not yet having a degree but working towards one
Graduate = having a degree and working towards a Masters

Also, to clarify my previous post:

university = [college of engineering, college of science, college of arts . . .]
college of science = [dept of biology, dept of chemistry, . . .]
dept of chemistry = [profs, secretaries, other faculty associated with that field, . . .]

So, when I was attending it would break down like this:
I was in the College of Science, attending the University of Akron, as an undergraduate, working on my BS in Computer Science.

[chipmunk stew]

1st grade -> 6th grade = Elementary school
7th & 8th grade = Junior High or Middle School
9th -> 12th grade = High school
Nitpick:

1st grade -> 6th grade = Elementary school
7th & 8th grade = Junior High school

or

1st grade -> 5th grade = Elementary school
6th grade -> 8th grade = Middle school

(at least here in PA)

[Architect]

In the UK universities have Faculties, not Colleges. Colleges are generally the next tier down on the academic ladder.

Only universities have professors, as it it denotes an exceptionally high academic standard and will normally be linked to issues such as research.

In England, undergraduate degrees last 3 years and in Scotland they last 4. Bachelor of Science is BSc, Bachelor of Engineering is BEng. Master degrees are common and usually require an additional 6 to 9 months of study, depending upon the university.

As with America (I should imagine), some courses require postgraduate study; medicine, architecture, and so on. Hence my qualification is BSc(Hons) BArch.

Colleges do not offer degrees, although I note in passing that a number of colleges used to (but were made into universities about 15 years ago). Colleges generally offer a range of second and third tier qualifications such as HND/ONDs (Diplomas), NVQs or other day release courses, and even school-level qualifications for mature students.

I believe that in Englandshire they have 6th form colleges, which are some sort of secondary school (ie 18 year olds), together with grammar schools. But we dont have them in Scotland, so I really can't comment.

Now to go back to the earlier points, what I was trying to establish was whether our engineer was a University level professor - in which case his comments and poor analysis would be quite shocking - or rather a local techy college teacher.

[Minadin]

Yeah, here your colleges are called High School. Quick breakdown:
preschool < 6 yr olds or so
kindergarten = 6 or 7 yr olds
1st grade -> 6th grade = Elementary school
7th & 8th grade = Junior High or Middle School
9th -> 12th grade = High school
Undergraduate = not yet having a degree but working towards one
Graduate = having a degree and working towards a Masters

Also, to clarify my previous post:

university = [college of engineering, college of science, college of arts . . .]
college of science = [dept of biology, dept of chemistry, . . .]
dept of chemistry = [profs, secretaries, other faculty associated with that field, . . .]

So, when I was attending it would break down like this:
I was in the College of Science, attending the University of Akron, as an undergraduate, working on my BS in Computer Science.

At my university, and most of the ones I know of around here, only the largest / broadest archetypal departments are called colleges. For instance, I graduated from the University of Kansas, School of Architecture and Urban Design. My buddy Steve graduated from the University of Kansas, College of Liberal Arts, with a degree in education.

Also, generally, around here, if an institution by itself is called a college, it's a smaller school, with lower enrollment and fewer choices of degrees - i.e. it might not have a school of pharmacology, or a law school. However the degrees might be just as good, and in some cases more prestigious, than the degrees from a university. There is a slight stigma about the word college, still, but that's just because they tend to offer a less broad range of curriculum. Consequently, several of the private colleges around here have changed that part of their name to university in the past dozen years or so, presumably to help with enrollment.

[T.A.M.]

Canada:
---------
Age < 5 = Pre-school
Age 5-6 = Kindergarten
Age 6-9 = primary (G1-G3)
Age 9-12 = Elementary (G4-6)
Age 12-15 = Junior High (G7-9)
Age 15-18/19 = High School (G10-12 or 13 depending on which province)

Technical Colleges = offer Diplomas in Technologies (2 or 3 year)
Universities = offer BA/BSc, Master, PhDs, MDs, etc....

Here, I think our equivelent to the Associates Degree is a Diploma (I have one in Electronic Engineering Technology That I obtained about 15 years ago, prior to medicine).

TAM:)

[Hamradioguy]

The Associate's degree offered by Vermont Technical College is indeed a two year degree. (Essentially grades 13 and 14 following high school.) However, given the curriculum and the level of instruction, most hiring corporations consider a VTC two year graduate to have the rough equivalent of learning as a four year graduate at the average four year university which awards a Bachelor's degree. VTC graduates are highly sought after and virtually 100 percent of them get job offers in industry. Most- apparently with at least one exception- of the professors at VTC are not woo-woos.

Be interesting to see the results of Professors Rice and Woods comparing theories.

[Architect]

One has to wonder about the structures course.

Anyway, your biased because your fae Vermont. Betcha yer actually an alumni! :p

[rwguinn]

The Associate's degree offered by Vermont Technical College is indeed a two year degree. (Essentially grades 13 and 14 following high school.) However, given the curriculum and the level of instruction, most hiring corporations consider a VTC two year graduate to have the rough equivalent of learning as a four year graduate at the average four year university which awards a Bachelor's degree. VTC graduates are highly sought after and virtually 100 percent of them get job offers in industry. Most- apparently with at least one exception- of the professors at VTC are not woo-woos.

Be interesting to see the results of Professors Rice and Woods comparing theories.

I'd like some evidence to back this up. I can't believe a design/analysis/engineering course of study in 2 years, when it generally takes 4.5 to 5 years to become "book competent"
I can believe they would be competent as component designers who work with Engineers (basically, fairly sophisticated draftsmen), or "Designers"--which i define as "those yahoos who keep adding mass to my structure without adding any benefit other than aesthetics"

[Hamradioguy]

One has to wonder about the structures course.

Anyway, your biased because your fae Vermont. Betcha yer actually an alumni! :p

Nope- just did a bit of recruiting there some years ago. Won't say where I got my undergrad degree or that would really destroy any credibility I might have.

[WildCat]

Don't go to High School... go to school high.
[/stoner]