Who, exactly, vetted or reviewed for publication the 9/11 and NIST reports?

[Subdivisions]

What was the procedure and who conducted the procedure for vetting and confirming that the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST reports were valid and suitable for publication?

[AZCat]

1. Regarding the NIST reports, it was the public.

The draft reports (the ones released for the comment period) were vetted by the National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee established for the World Trade Center Investigation.

[scott75]

6. This is all the info I could find on them...

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/bios_ncstadvcom.htm

I haven't heard much of them other than this. In the above link, it doesn't say they vetted anything, although it doesn't negate it either. It states at the top:
The National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee will advise the director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology on carrying out investigations of building failures conducted under the authorities of the NCST Act that became law in October 2002. That includes advice on the composition and function of investigation teams and other responsibilities under the Act.

The fact that they were appointees of the same administration that many suspect played an integral part in the events of 9/11 should give any weary person cause for concern, ofcourse. I have found a woman who addressed them in a meeting of theirs named Monica Gabrielle; she was Co-Chairperson of The Skyscraper Safety Campaign, a Widow of 9/11 and, as she herself put it to the Committee, "your conscience." She makes some very good points, which can be seen below:
http://skyscrapersafety.org/html/speaking_08262003.html

The only 9/11 Researcher who I know has made a reference to them is Kevin Ryan and even then, only in an endnote. He has a lot more to say about NIST and Underwriter Laboratories, the company he worked for before he was fired for daring to question the official story. His excellent work can be seen here:
http://www.ultruth.com/Kevin_Ryan.htm

[AZCat]

8. Skyscraper Safety Campaign is a pretty good group.

The same, however, cannot be said of Kevin Ryan. He is an idiot.

If you look at the National Construction Safety Team Act, one of the other responsibilities listed for the Advisory Committee is reviewing the reports issued under Section 8 of the Act (in other words, the NIST WTC Investigation Reports).

[Subdivisions]

10. It's nice to know that UL hires idiots to work for them. n/t

[AZCat]

12. They wouldn't be the only ones.

Just because he's an idiot (at least when it comes to 9/11 issues) doesn't mean he wasn't capable of doing his job at UL. If there was an issue of water quality/testing, I'm sure he is knowledgeable.

[Subdivisions]

14. So, you would question anything from him EXCEPT water

quality and testing?

[AZCat]

18. Shouldn't I?

If something falls outside his area of expertise, I wouldn't expect his opinion to carry any more weight than that of any other layperson.

[Subdivisions]

20. And, what is your expertise re: structural engineering relating

to the collapse of the three towers?

[AZCat]

23. I haven't ever claimed expertise in this area.

My opinion should be subject to the same scrutiny applied to Kevin Ryan's.

[Subdivisions]

26. So, what exptertise leads you to accept the NIST reports? Hearsay? n/t

[AZCat]

30. Who said I accepted the NIST reports?

As I have posted here a number of times, I have issues with the investigations and the subsequent recommendations of the NIST.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

36. Are we going to get into an internet pissing contest?

Are my credentials really that relevant? Will you 1) believe me, and 2) grant my opinion more weight because of my expertise? If the answer to both those questions is "no" then I see no point in shedding my anonymity.

[Subdivisions]

39. Noted that you deign yourself qualified to comment on the validity

of NIST reports versus the validity of Jones, et. al. You seem to accept the official study by NIST to some extent but outright deny the validity of Jones, et. al., and Ryan.

If that is the way you want to leave it, then no pissing contest is necessary.

[AZCat]

42. We are ALL qualified to comment on their validity.

This is the internet, where all opinions should be given the same degree of inspection. It's the ultimate democracy.

Sure, I might have more technical knowledge than others who post here, but my posts should stand on their own - no appeal to authority should be made (or required). Any criticism of Jones and Ryan (and, incidentally, the NIST reports) should be accessible to those moderately versed in technical language and concepts.

[lovepg]

188. Are we going to get in a internet pissing contest? Have you ever actually read..

One of these threads? I thought a pissing contest was the whole point of this forum because it certainly is not about discussion!

[AZCat]

191. One of the previous posts was deleted (the one to which I replied).

I think you might be missing the context of that remark.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. UL didn't hire him.

The water-testing company bought by UL had already done that. UL fired him when he used company email to lie about UL's testing of WTC steel assemblies.

[Subdivisions]

21. So, he lied? I'm a bit behind the Kevin Ryan curve. Please

show me where you get the idea that he lied. Thank you.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. I got the idea that he lied from his lies.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/loose-screw-3-kevin-ryan-of.html

Also:

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

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/RyanFraud1 add the .jpg to get to the lie Kevin Ryan told about Silverstein

More on Kevin Ryan at the bottom of this page:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/theyoughtaknowbetter:critiquesoftheinept

[Subdivisions]

31. So, is the fact that ASTM E119 steel was used in WTC 7 in dispute?

I spoke with two architectural engineers yesterday, in person, who said that this grade of steel was used in WTC 7 and that there was "no way in hell" (their words) that fire caused them to buckle or otherwise fail. Were they lying to me?

[Bolo Boffin]

32. Who said anything about WTC 7? Ryan was talking about the towers in the letter which got him fired.

For lying.

[Subdivisions]

38. My mistake then. So, was ASTM E119 steel used in the twin towers as well? Also,

it would appear that UL has no tolerance for dissent among its ranks. Isn't UL and independent entity from the U.S. government? Do they not tolerate opposing opinions within their own ranks? Was it Ryan's political message that got him fired or was it his opinion "regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel" that got him fired? If it was the latter, then how does UL arrive at its conclusions regarding the safety of anything, much less ASTM E119 steel?

[Bolo Boffin]

44. What got Kevin Ryan fired was representing his personal opinions as the company's.

That's called lying. That's why he was fired.

[Subdivisions]

47. Please, feel free to put that in context. I am missing where he

representated his opinion as the opinion of UL.

Thanks.

[Bolo Boffin]

48. I've already done that.

Please consult the extensive material linked to in post #27.

Thanks.

[Subdivisions]

50. I've got a lot going on right this minute. Could you please summarize. Thanks. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

51. So do I.

Take your time and don't respond until you've had a chance to catch up.

Thanks.

[Subdivisions]

52. You are the one in this thread calling Ryan a liar. But, whatever. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

57. And I've provided the necessary evidence to support that.

Like I say, feel free to not respond until you have a chance to review this evidence.

Or whatever.

[Subdivisions]

59. So, if UL did not certify the steel, then who did? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

64. I don't know. UL doesn't certify steel.

They certify steel assemblies. Do you understand the difference?

ETA: And it's a moot point. NIST found that the structural steel met or exceeded standards established by the building code and/or design.

[Subdivisions]

65. Yes, I understand the difference, boffin. And, the point is only

moot is one trusts NIST in this matter. Can you point me to NIST's analysis of what happened after the initiation of collapse?

[Bolo Boffin]

66. I don't think you're paying attention.

NIST said the steel met or exceeded the called-for standards. Do you understand that this is something that seemingly supports the notion that the towers' structural steel resisted the fires?

I'm sure you're quite aware that in the case of the towers, NIST only worked to discover the initiation of collapse. Once the mass of the upper section was in motion, there was little the underlying structure could do to resist that force.

[Subdivisions]

67. 'there was little the underlying structure could do to resist that force.'

Says who?

[Bolo Boffin]

68. Says math. n/t

[Subdivisions]

69. 'Once the mass of the upper section was in motion'

What mass was that and what happened to it?

[Bolo Boffin]

70. The mass of the upper section was the mass of the upper section.

The structural steel, the other elements of the building, the contents of the various floors. That mass.

It fell down.

[Subdivisions]

72. So, where would that mass be in this image:

[Bolo Boffin]

74. The mass has fallen down into that cloud of drywall dust in that picture.

The dust goes out, the mass goes down.

[Subdivisions]

76. So all that dust is from drywall, eh? That's really funny stuff there, bb. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

77. Most of it is, yes.

Ever worked with drywall? Try to take a guess as to how much was in the towers.

[Subdivisions]

85. I've been in steel frame building construction for in excess of 25 years. Also,

I have been inside the WTC towers. I do have an idea how much drywall was in there. And some of the dust is drywall dust. But not all of it. Also, your assertion that the upper section was a piledriver and is inside that dust cloud is laughable at best and an outright fabrication at worst.

You could never catch up to my experience when it comes to hands-on building materials and construction experience.

[AZCat]

97. Oh, really?

I respect your experience with steel frame building construction. I think engineers coming out of school today have way too little hands-on experience, and haven't learned the lessons you learn by building things (and tearing them apart). However, you seem to think that this knowledge has granted you the ability to claim "{Bolo Boffin's} assertion that the upper section was a piledriver... is laughable at best and an outright fabrication at worst" without providing some sort of substantiation. This is not true. Your knowledge of the construction of steel-framed buildings is one thing, your knowledge of dynamics another. Please support the claim you made in the above post.

[Subdivisions]

104. Dude, my substanitiation of that statement is that there is no "upper section"

in that image, or any other image taken past the point where each building's upper sections disappear. Those "upper sections" disappear rather quickly no matter which direction it is viewed from. Once those upper sections are gone, what is left to piledrive the buildings to the ground. To say that they are hidden in the dust is just ludicrous without substantiation on HIS part.

[AZCat]

114. Ludicrous?

You are the one who seems to be claiming that tons of building material just disappeared. That's veering into Judy Wood territory.

[Subdivisions]

117. Then, where is it? n/t

[AZCat]

119. Surely you're not going to play this game.

If it didn't disappear it had to go somewhere, right? Where's the logical place for it to go?

[SDuderstadt]

122. Oh, yes he is....

n/t

[lovepg]

199. Quick bring in the ridicule before his point can sink in!

[vincent_vega_lives]

198. Just because the upper section becomes compacted

and dispurses fraction of it's mass outside the perimeter of the building, doesent mean it lacks sufficent mass to collapse the rest fo the building given.

1. It is already in motion and gaining velocity and therefore energy.

2. The mass in motion is gaining mass with each floor collapsed and therefore gaining energy.

[lovepg]

211. If you can say it was just a fraction of mass that was dispersed outside the perimeter

Tell us then what was that fraction. Or is this just your "educated guess".
Back up your claim dude!

[Bolo Boffin]

106. Mass of the upper section

I believe you need to check your straw man.

[vincent_vega_lives]

197. Drywall and floor concrete

What do you think the source is?

[SDuderstadt]

82. Yeah, but...

Subdivisions is busy with the "declaration" he is working on, as well as a "report" he is compiling for all of us.

[Subdivisions]

86. Yes, I am. And your point relevant to this discussion is, except

to embarrass yourself and DU, that is?

[MrMickeysMom]

213. Oh, these silly little arguments of his are of little significance here...

... he's just constipated with the moment of trying to stomp you out.

[eomer]

71. That is what the UL spokesman said, but it looks to me like it was the UL spokesman who was lying.

The UL spokesman says that Ryan represented his personal opinions as the company's opinions in this letter that Ryan wrote to Frank Gayle, head of the NIST WTC team:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451 (about half way down the page)

Here is an excerpt from a newspaper article where the UL spokesman is quoted as saying that:

But his allegations drew a sharp rebuke from UL, which said Ryan wrote the letter "without UL's knowledge or authorization." The company told The Tribune "there is no evidence" that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers.

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.

Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm

I don't see anywhere in Ryan's letter where he represents his own opinions as the opinions of the company, so I believe it is the UL spokesman who is lying, not Ryan. But anyone can read the letter and form their own opinion.

[Subdivisions]

73. My opinion is the same as yours. Ryan didn't say his opinion was

shared by UL.

[Bolo Boffin]

75. Note Ryan's use of the word "we" in the letter that got him fired. n/t

[Subdivisions]

83. He was referring to the conclusion that "we" (UL) had established

that the steel met the requirements: "... that the samples we certified met all requirements."

"They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year." ... No complicity of Ryan's opinion in that statement except that UL and Ryan do agree that the steel met the requirments.

"Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2)." Does UL dispute that statement? Ryan references CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187. Does UL dispute this reference?

"I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers." This statement is valid on the grounds that UL had already established that the steel met the requirments. So, if they had already established that the steel met the requirements, then, yes, UL did agree with Ryan that fuel fires could not have caused the steel to fail, considering the fires would have had to have been in excess of 2000°F for a period of seven hours.

[Bolo Boffin]

84. The letter purports to be coming from UL and questioning elements of the NIST report.

Nowhere does Ryan make it clear that he is only sharing his personal opinion on the matter. It reads as an official letter stating UL's position in dealing with NIST. That's what it was intended to read as. Kevin Ryan deliberately represented his personal opinion as an official position of United Laboratories. For this lie, he was fired.

[Subdivisions]

87. Wrong.

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

...snip...



He established that it was he himself contacting Dr. Gayle directly. He does not say that he, together with Underwriters Laboratiories, are contacting Dr. Gayle. He goes onto say "They did not agree on the essential aspects of the story ("they" meaning UL). So, right from the jump he establishes that UL does not share his opinion.

[Bolo Boffin]

95. Hmm. You are participating in and defending Ryan's obvious factual inaccuracies now.

Ryan is emailing from his company email. Where does he have the authority to review the NIST's report at all? He's claiming an authority over the report that he didn't possess. He's not making anything clear at all. He is obsfuscating in the very first sentence. He is lying.

You are factually inaccurate when you claim otherwise.

Yes, Ryan is contacting Frank Gayle directly, but there is nothing in the letter that spells out that Ryan is not doing this in his official capacity at UL. In fact, Ryan takes pains to produce the opposite impression. He has "reviewed" the NIST team's report, he's "requesting" information from the CEO and the Fire Protection business manager, and he appears to imply that there is a significant level of dissent at UL over these reports -- "we all be patient", etc.

It's actually the case that Ryan was a crank, butting his nose into an area where he had no authority whatsoever. Point out the place in the letter where Ryan spells out his actual job, supervising the testing of water. He never does.

Of course, if Ryan had made all of this clear ("Hi, I supervise water testing in a company that UL just bought and I don't understand how what you're saying and what UL is saying matches up"), no one would have taken his letter very seriously, would they?

[SDuderstadt]

96. Exactly, Bolo...

Ryan should have contacted Gayle from his personal e-mail and left UL out of it. Even if I agreed with him, I would have fired him for misrepresentation.

[eomer]

127. And what do you think about UL's at best deceptive statements, arguably factual inaccuracies?

Specifically, what do you think about their claims that they tested no steel that was used in WTC?

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070919215921873

[Bolo Boffin]

129. I'm sorry - where is the evidence that they did test steel used in the WTC?

No, Ryan's word here doesn't cut it.

[eomer]

131. Well, it's he said, he said, isn't it?

That doesn't leave it as a resolved fact, as you would wish it.

[eomer]

133. Sorry, let me state it better.

Here is a quote of UL spokesman Paul Baker:

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm

UL did perform fire resistance tests on floor truss systems in 1969 and 1970.

See:
Figure A–45. Reports of 1970 fire endurance test of floor truss system with sprayed
thermal insulation (3-P)
in:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6ADraft.pdf

Is Baker being a stickler on the definition of "certify"? I'm not getting how his statement is truthful given these tests that UL performed.

[Bolo Boffin]

134. Hmm, do you understand the difference between "truss" and "truss system"?

Kevin Ryan is betting that you don't.

[eomer]

177. Absolutely I do understand that. I don't see what bearing it has on Baker's truthfulness.

Are you arguing that Baker's statement was truthful based on the technicality that they don't certify trusses because what they certify is truss systems?

[Bolo Boffin]

178. That's not a technicality. Words mean things.

You don't get to make up what words mean so you can bash NIST. Well, you can, but you're wrong to do so. That's called building a straw man. You're bashing him for saying something he didn't say. Don't start crying about "technicalities" because you can't read.

[eomer]

91. Well, that it is quite a stretch.

Clearly in some cases he is using the word "we" in the generic sense, meaning "we all" (another way of saying "these are the facts").

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

In another place in the letter he uses the word "we" to mean he and some of his colleagues, and specifically not upper managment of UL since they are referred to as "they":

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

In the following use of "we", he uses it to mean UL, but not in any way that implies anything about the views being of the company. He only says that the certification was by the company, not the view.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

In the overall context of the letter it is clear he is expressing his own views. To say otherwise is quite a stretch, at best, maybe even a lie.

I think it is pretty clear he was fired for expressing his own views, not for characterizing them as those of the company.

[Subdivisions]

92. Which makes Baker the liar, not Ryan. n/t

[AZCat]

110. Interestingly enough, Kevin Ryan filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against UL.

It did not go well for him. I don't know why UL fired him and I don't care. What I care about is the significant errors in his letter to NIST and his continued refusal to admit those errors.

[eomer]

128. Which errors? n/t

[LARED]

130. Here's one.

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours......

http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php

ASTM E119 does not certify steel components in any way shape or form that Ryan implies.

That just number 1. Ryan is a outted liar that has never recanted a single lie.

[eomer]

132. Which part specifically are you disputing?

UL did perform tests of floor truss systems in 1969 and 1970 that were 3-hour fire resistance tests under ASTM E-119.

See:
Figure A–45. Reports of 1970 fire endurance test of floor truss system with sprayed
thermal insulation (3-P)
in:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6ADraft.pdf

[Subdivisions]

135. Here, let me help you with that...

...snip...

"This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division, who is playing a prominent role in the agency investigation. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."

He added, "Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around (500 degrees) suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company."

Ryan declined to comment about his letter Thursday when reached at his South Bend home.

But his allegations drew a sharp rebuke from UL, which said Ryan wrote the letter "without UL's knowledge or authorization." The company told The Tribune "there is no evidence" that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers.

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.

Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.

...snip...

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm

Really, Mr. Baker? Then who is Grace Zonolite?

[SDuderstadt]

138. Do you know what an ASSEMBLY is, Subdivisions?

You don't seem to. Hint: an assembly is not a simple truss. Baker's statement is correct.

[Subdivisions]

141. 'An assembly is not a simple truss'... You think? Since I have been in

the business 25 years I think I know the difference between a truss (or bar joist) and an assembly. What you are not getting is this: The assembly that was in place, bar joist, decking, and concrete, was IN PLACE at the WTC on 9/11. That ASSEMBLY withstood the http://www.astm.org/Standards/E119.htm">ASTM E119 standard when UL tested it. That Baker attempts to deflect from the issue by singling out the truss means absolutely nothing since it was the ASSEMBLY that failed. The truss was not out there in mid-air all by itself, without the corrugated decking and concrete.

It was the ASSEMBLY that was tested in 1970 by Grace Zonolite and UL and it was the ASSEMBLY that failed on 9/11. Baker can't just throw a truss (bar joist) out there by itself and say that is not what was tested and what met the standard that day.

[SDuderstadt]

143. What Baker said makes perfect sense, dude...

UL doesn't certify steel...they certify ASSEMBLIES.

[Subdivisions]

145. AND IT WAS THE ASSEMBLY THAT WAS IN PLACE ON 9/11 AND FAILED

according to the official story. What about that don't you understand, dude?

Edited to add: When I say "failed", it's not because I believe that conclusion because I DON'T.

So, what about the testing of an assembly that UL certified as safe but then failed, according to the OCT, on 9/11? If the ASSEMBLY did indeed fail, then UL is at fault for certifying it in 1970. Baker deflects that fault by muddying the water.

You're acting as though that bar joist was hanging out there in mid-air, not attached to corrogated decking or the concrete, including tensioning tendons and rebar. It wasn't! It was part of the ASSEMBLY that UL tested!

[AZCat]

147. Not necessarily.

This is one of the areas of the NIST reports that has been disputed. They claim that on several of the columns the insulation (part of the assembly) was blown off by the impacts of the aircraft. They have some supporting evidence - photographs/video captures showing perimeter columns lacking insulation, impact testing - but it is not strongly supported. However, it is indeed possible that the removal of insulation played a significant role in the collapses, and I hope we all understand that un-insulated structural steel is far more vulnerable to elevated temperatures than insulated steel.

[Subdivisions]

152. Bullshit! That's a weak strawman. For that to have happened, you would have

to believe that the corrogated decking, which is welded in place TO EACH TRUSS AND EACH SHEET TO THE ONES ADJACENT, and the concrete would provide no resistance to any buckling of the trusses. You'd also have to assume that, despite the softening of the steel (as claimed), the steel was still rigid enough to not only pull the outer columns inward (or even snap the truss from the angle attachements) and from the core structure to initiate the collapse - rather than the truss simply sagging as it did in WTC 5. How does that happen?

[AZCat]

155. If you're interested in the behavior of the trusses...

I recommend reading and NCSTAR 1-6C: Component, Connection, and Subsystem Structural Analysis. The collapse sequence is outlined in NCSTAR 1.

[Subdivisions]

158. Dude, you're not getting it. Even if the trusses in an area failed, as the OCT

contends, it would just sag down (if it softened) and come to rest on the floor below. THERE WOULD BE NO CATOSTROPHIC FAILURE LEADING TO THE PANCAKE SCENARIO. The combined weight of everything on the floor that sagged (or even if it collapsed) would not be enough to compromise the integrity of the floor below it. The initiation of collapse as described by NIST is hogwash. Even if the floor in question did collapse, the load would be redistributed to the remaining structures, including the hat truss and core.

You guys are impossible. I'm done with this line of discussion. You guys don't know anything about real-world conditions of a building's structural state once it is built. So I struggle to understand why I even waste my time discussing it with you desk jockeys.

[SDuderstadt]

160. Maybe you should call up NIST and offer to educate them!

I'm sure they'll take your call.

[Bolo Boffin]

161. You can't even describe the NIST explanation correctly and...

...we're the ones who aren't getting it?

Pancake scenario - out. Gone. It's not part of the NIST explanation.

Yes, later on, when the building was collapsing, the floors were pancaking. They couldn't have avoided it. But collapse initiation? Not a pancaking explanation, not according to NIST.

[AZCat]

163. I don't think you paid attention when you read the reports.

You've misunderstood the failure sequence described by NIST, which might be why you think it's hogwash.

Acting pissy because we don't regard you as the ultimate authority on building structures is immature, as is trying to insult us by referring to us as "desk jockeys". Surely someone with 25 years experience constructing metal buildings is capable of refraining from such behavior?

[Bolo Boffin]

148. This is not correct.

Please read the NIST report again. Neither the truss assembly nor the trusses are said to have failed and caused initiation of collapse. Indeed, the NIST explanation depends upon the trusses and truss assemblies NOT failing.

[SDuderstadt]

150. Aren't you assuming that Subdivisions has even read...

the NIST report once?

[Bolo Boffin]

151. Hmm. I guess I am! n/t

[Subdivisions]

154. There ya'll go back to your usual tactics. The ASSEMBLY was tested. The

ASSEMBLY was in place on 9/11. UL tested the ASSEMBLY. The ASSEMBLY they tested FAILED on 9/11 (according to the OCT).

Yes, I have read the NIST reports. There's alot of information there. It's designed to hide the fact that the ASSEMBLY performed as it should have. Which means the collapse was initiated by some other means.

Look, I've built buildings with these systems. None of you can touch that knowledge and experience. Fire nor fire + airplanes could cause the total failure of those buildings. At most the damage from fire and planes would be localized. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the buildings' four corner columns plus the hat truss assembly on top of the core would have allowed for every other column around the perimeter of the buildings to be taken out over several floors and it still would not have collapsed as the load is transfered to the core. But then, you'll just diminish my experience just as you do every other person with any real-world experience in matters of steel-frame building construction - real-world experience you don't possess.

[AZCat]

156. Except it doesn't seem your experience is relevant when discussing loads...

under abnormal conditions. Have you ever done a load calculation?

[Subdivisions]

159. I've discussed loads eleswhere, dude. You guys don't know

what you're talking about and most of you have probably never been in a building as it is being built. You have never been part of a top-off ceremony. I have. Lots of times. For 25 years. When you've been as close to this type of construction as I have, then maybe you'll have something coherent to say about it. Until then, you're just behing the curve.

[AZCat]

164. Arrogance coupled with ignorance is always amusing.

So - back to my question: have you ever done a load calculation?

[Subdivisions]

169. No I haven't. And the people that did those calculations for WTC

did a brilliant job.

[AZCat]

172. Which ones - the original designers or the subs for the investigation?

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here.

[SDuderstadt]

165. Again, you should call up NIST and offer to help them....

come to think of it, maybe you could offer to help all the structural engineers who worked with NIST on the Reports. You obviously know more than highly educated structural engineers.

[Subdivisions]

168. There you go again with your irrelevant bullshit smartass remarks.

The structural engineers don't need my help and I don't know more than they do. They did just fine on their own on WTC.

I will not continue with your childishness.

[SDuderstadt]

171. And we won't continue with your silly claim of subject superiority based upon ...

your claim of 25 years of alleged construction expertise. That's how you got yourself in such a jam to begin with. You wouldn't get "irrelevant bullshit smartass remarks" if you wouldn't persist in trying to power your way through the debate with your goofy subject superiority bullshit.

Simple question: if your knowledge in this area is so great, why do so many structural engineers disagree with you on the facts?

[Subdivisions]

173. ...

"your 'claim' of 25 years of 'alleged' construction expertise." Oh, so now you are accusing me of being a liar.

I'm done with you. Goodbye.

[SDuderstadt]

174. Dude....you're an anonymous poster on a public discussion forum who...

is routinely wrong about engineering/construction matters that you try debate. You tried to, essentially "shut down" (also known as "psychic foreclosure" by parading your supposed credentials. The problem is that you are so wrong almost all the time, it certainly gives one reason to question your so-called credentials.

For the record, I still believe you owe both Bolo and AzCat a rather sheepish apology.

[Bolo Boffin]

157. OK, you're not paying attention again.

"The ASSEMBLY they tested FAILED on 9/11 (according to the OCT)."

Book, chapter, and verse, Subdivision. Produce the citation in the NIST Final Report on the towers that makes this claim. I'm not expecting verbatim. I'm expecting this claim, however.

Once again, the actual NIST explanation requires the assembly to NOT fail. Please let this get into your head. The assembly did not fail on 9/11. The NIST explanation NEEDS for the truss assembly to NOT fail.

I can go for smaller words if you need them.

[Subdivisions]

166. I will go back and look at it tomorrow. It's nearly 2am and I've had it

for today. If my argument is flawed based on what you're saying, then I will address it once I have a refresher. It is, however and irregardless of what you're saying, that the load would have been transferred to the remaining support structures, the hat truss, and the core, so that the building would not have collapsed.

[SDuderstadt]

167. Dude...you'd "had it" well before 2 AM your time....

which is what you get for talking out of your hat. Once you've had your "refresher", you owe both Bolo and AzCat an apology.

[AZCat]

170. Normally when someone makes claims like yours...

they take the time to provide a little backup. Perhaps when you look at this tomorrow you could take the time to do a few calculations to support your claim regarding load transfer? The NIST determined how much load was transferred via hat truss and floor systems between the core and perimeter columns for both buildings and their conclusions conflict with your claim.

[AZCat]

180. Kicking for Subdivisions. n/t

[AZCat]

185. Kicking for Subdivisions. n/t

[AZCat]

186. Kicking for Subdivisions. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

210. Kicking for Subdivisions. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

181. I have a hard time taking people who use words like...

"irregardless" (no such word) seriously, but that's just me, I guess.

[AZCat]

182. I know at least two engineers who use it.

It makes me cringe every time.

[SDuderstadt]

183. Well, "irregardless" of that...

are they good engineers?

[AZCat]

184. Depends on your definition of "good".

I think one of them is great, the other - not so much. But they are both definitely competent (at least within their areas of expertise).

[lovepg]

190. SD what happened to us???

I thought I WAS THE ONE YOU DIDN'T TAKE SERIOUSLY because of a misspelled word.
Now your not taking someone else seriously??? Oh my god your cheating on me!

[SDuderstadt]

200. Dude...I don't take you seriously because you ask stupid questions like...

why a breakaway light pole didn't somehow make the plane that hit the Pentagon veer off on a different trajectory. You could answer your own fucking stupid questions if you'd bother to learn how the world actually works as opposed to boring us all to death with your fucking stupid nonsense.

[lovepg]

201. Hey I talked to a commercial jet pilot who wondered the same thing...

And by the way it was FOUR poles a fence and a two ton truck.
But no need for you to be accurate when we had what we had.
SD how could you?

[SDuderstadt]

207. Do some fucking math to back up your nonsense...

and you might not be met with so much derision.

[SDuderstadt]

162. I'm betting you have no experience with,,,

skyscrapers or anything approaching the Towers or even WTC 7.

[AZCat]

140. Really.

Bolo Boffin asked you before if you understood the difference between certifying steel and certifying steel assemblies (post #64). You said you did, except the above post leads me to believe this is not true.

Here is a note I sent to another forum member who was asking about Kevin Ryan that might help clear things up:

Regarding the letter written to the NIST by Kevin Ryan, formerly of Underwriters' Laboratories (UL), (reference here) that prompted his dismissal from (and subsequent wrongful termination lawsuit of) UL, he makes a couple of important mistakes. He confuses the purpose of the ASTM E 119 testing done by UL (and ULC), and incorrectly references temperature-dependent properties of steel. Both of these flaws are significant.

When designing buildings, there are a couple of common approaches: the performance-based approach and the prescriptive approach. A performance-based approach looks at building performance as a whole, whether it's energy efficiency, ventilation effectiveness, structural response to an earthquake, or fire safety (to name a few elements of building design). Models are constructed (either scale or on computer) that analyze the behavior of the building under various conditions, and the efficacy of the design (and therefore the acceptability to the authorities) is judged according to the results.

The prescriptive approach is much simpler, but lacks the ability to take advantage of the synergy of various systems when applying for building permits or other certifications. The designer(s), instead of spending time modeling the entire building, assemble components that have qualified as acceptable on their own. These components are selected and combined according to a "recipe" of sorts, generally laid out by the relevant authorities.

Standard ASTM E 119 (link to description) is a fire performance testing method for use with the prescriptive approach. Building elements are tested independently under specified conditions and given a performance rating. A designer merely has to select an assembly that meets the required rating per the applicable building code. If he or she needs a separation between spaces (a wall or partition, for example) that has a certain fire rating, there are thousands of products to choose from that have already been tested and rated. The building itself does not need to be tested (whether by building partial or scale models in real life or in software). For example, NCSTAR 1-1D Section 3-4 lists the minimum fire resistance ratings for the WTC towers required by the authorities. It also states that "the materials or combinations of materials shall be in accordance with the specifications of materials used in the ASTM International (ASTM) E 119 test." (p.10)

For the WTC towers, the assemblies selected were listed by the manufacturer as having ratings determined per the current version of the ASTM E 119 tests (see NCSTAR 1-6A, Figure A-24 on p.163). Kevin Ryan, in his letter to NIST, states

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications.

It is important to note that in the case of the WTC towers structural steel, only the assemblies were tested per ASTM E 119, not the individual components themselves. This means the trusses were exposed to the test conditions with the sprayed resistive fire materials (SRFM) intact and the rating given was predicated on the installation of the trusses and application of the SRFM according to the manufacturer's specifications. Ryan seems to ignore the obvious problem that would occur if the SRFM were compromised. The behavior of un-fireproofed steel is significantly different from that of properly fireproofed steel (see, for example, the Equitable Life Insurance Building fire in 1912), hence the universal requirement for fire protection of structural elements. If the installation of the SRFM were faulty (a layer of rust may have inhibited adherence to the structure, causing eventual separation, or their may have been gaps where the contractor missed a spot) or if the impact of the aircraft dislodged sections of the SRFM the duration of safe performance by the structural members would have been severely reduced.

Ryan strangely references an article on maximum and minimum temperatures for forging steels, stating

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
...
5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB... (pg 11)
6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

It appears he is trying to argue that because the minimum temperature for forging steels is significantly higher than the temperatures to which the structural elements of the WTC towers were thought to have been exposed, any weakening of the structural steel would not have been sufficient to have contributed to the collapse of the towers.

While there might be some link between forging temperatures and the various strengths of steels (yield, ultimate tensile) I do not know what it is, nor did Ryan bother to explain whatever link he saw. NCSTAR 1-3D Chapter 6 covers the response of various steels to elevated temperatures (Figures 6-6 and 6-7 on p.135 summarize nicely) and it is clear from their research (and the research they reference) that much lower temperatures than the 1100 deg. C proposed by Ryan can have a significant effect on the performance of a steel member.

It is important to understand that the relationship between temperature, duration of exposure, and magnitude of load is not well understood by scientists. Initial increased temperatures could very well increase the strength of a steel member (dynamic strain-aging), but it is clear from the available data that eventually steel weakens when exposed to elevated temperatures - it's just a question of how long it takes. Predicting the structural response to a complicated event like the burning of the towers pre-collapse involves a lot of hand-waving because it's the only way to arrive at a solution. Nonlinearities like the effect of thermal stresses within a particular steel member are highly dependent on the specific conditions of the environment, but are virtually impossible to replicate.

Ryan's argument that the WTC towers could not have collapsed because of failure of structural steel in response to elevated temperatures is dependent on the two points I discussed above. While the rebuttal of these points in no way proves the failure was because of the fires, it does require that he produce alternative supporting points if he wants to make a convincing argument.

I wrote this a year ago and have not checked the links. I apologize if some have since gone dead. I hope this helps.

[AZCat]

34. They probably were not lying, but they certainly were ignorant.

This is not uncommon, even among engineers.

[Subdivisions]

35. Wow. I'll be sure to avoid tall buildings then. n/t

[AZCat]

37. Are they both licensed professionals?

If so, I'd be a little leery of their work, but it's not that big of an issue - most fire protection is prescriptive anyway.

[jberryhill]

58. Those are some unusual folks you spoke with

ASTM E119 is a testing protocol, not a grade of steel.

[Subdivisions]

61. Don't put any mistake of technical terminology or engineering expertise

on my part off on the architectural engineers with whom I spoke. I used the word "grade", they didn't.

[jberryhill]

137. Invite them to sign up with DU and post, then

It is difficult to hold a conversation with people who are not here.

Perhaps you'd like to have one based on what you know or believe, instead of someone who cannot accurately represent the position of others.

[Subdivisions]

144. I did not realize that anecdotal reference was against the rules. Also,

they don't have to defend their position on the matter to you or anyone else. It's not like these guys are my buddies, but I'll see if I can track them down, considering they are both from elsewhere in Texas, and see if they want to spend some time making their case here. But after what I've told them already of my experience in this very forum, I suspect they will decline. But, I'll ask anyway.

[Lithos]

192. Minor point

ASTM E119 is not a material specification, there is no such thing as ASTM E119 steel. ASTM E119 is a standard detailing how to conduct a fire test of a given structural arrangement. Ie, you design a test of a given structural design (wall, column, truss, etc.) per ASTM E119 and see if it passes or fails. Generally the developed rating is based on "hours" until failure with a pass being given if the design passes the needed number of hours. One of the problems with E119 is it is a very old standard which really has not changed much since the 1920s and has changed very little with respect to today's modern fires. One well known problem with this kind of testing is that these are perfect tests in that it only tests one thing - the fire - and assumes things such as the existence of fire coatings which are perfectly applied and intact or if the structure has seen any other damage.

The steel used at the WTC included ASTM A36 (36 ksi yield) for low stress areas and ASTM A242 (50 ksi yield) for areas of high stress. A variant of A242 is the better known A588.

L-

[Make7]

194. Actually the Twin Towers had an unusual number of different steel grades.

 

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201.pdf#page=117">http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1.pdf   (pdf page 117)
 

[Lithos]

196. Only a handful of standards are ever commonly used in structural construction

A36
A441 (and if memory serves me correctly, this has been effectively obsoleted in favor of A572).
A242/A578
A572/A606
A656
A514

Because yield will vary for these based on thickness, the ASTM standard will frequently provide different ratings based on thickness. I suspect that the 14 "grades" are nothing more than permutations of these few steel types (eg. A572 Gr 42, A572 Gr 50). Most of the International standards (JIS, etc.) also conveniently follow the same general groupings.

Now that I say that, watch the original WTC plans do something silly like specifying 4130, 4340, or some mil-spec type steel somewhere.

Back to my original point though, E119 is a testing standard which tests a sub-component and is frequently so loaded down with assumptions that with increasing design complexity it becomes less reliable and ending up mostly as a crude sanity check.

[Name removed]

189. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

195. Since you're determined not to make any sense...

[lovepg]

202. Why You feign ignorance of my point? Really you have no need to!

You told another poster his argument was invalid because he only posted a link to a video instead of summarizing it for you.
Because you had no sound on your computer. But you only posted a link what gives?
Don't you no according to BOLO rules that means your argument is invalid????

[SDuderstadt]

208. Dude...

no one is "feigning ignorance" of your point (whatever it is). Your writing is so poor, I suspect no one knows what the fuck you're talking about most of the time.

[Bolo Boffin]

209. I'm not feigning ignorance of your point. I honestly don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I told another poster when? Got a link?

[scott75]

175. I'm glad you believe the Skyscraper Safety Campaign is a good group...

Skyscraper Safety Campaign is a pretty good group.

I'm glad you think so. Let's take a look at what Monica Gabrielle, a Co-Chairperson of said campaign and a widow of 9/11 had to say to the National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee:

NIST has repeatedly assured us that all available materials requested have either been received or promised, with the exception of the City of New York. The SSC, in an effort to work with NIST to make sure all materials have been unearthed, has requested a list of documents and materials received to date. We were refused. Why?...

Since we are still reeling from the infamous BPAT study, which was produced behind closed doors with signed non-disclosure agreements, we are concerned that the role of this Advisory Committee may be relegated to being a spokesperson for NIST instead of adding their individual expertise to this investigation. If the Committee is to be a liaison with the public, then the current structure does not promote this. A reminder -- this investigation was to be open and transparent, letting the chips fall where they may. Sadly, the Federal Advisory Committee has not been formed the way we understood it would be - including the mandatory signing of confidentiality agreements. Shockingly, the hallmark of the infamous FEMA BPAT haunts us still!

Perhaps the time has come for another round of public hearings -- this time to include a hearing with interrogation, under oath, of those willfully withholding crucial information. Perhaps the time has come to stop the waiting game, become more assertive and begin using the power given to you by Congress, the power we, The Skyscraper Safety Campaign fought for. Yes, those two dreaded words -- subpoena power!

The above was written 2003. I found some more info about her over at Patriots Question 9/11, a site I definitely suggest you check out. Here's what I found out about her on that site's survivors page (http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html):

In 2005, in a congressional briefing testimony on July 22 of that year, she had the following to say:
"The recommendations presented by the 9/11 Commission, in the context of the report, seem sounds and should be passed into legislation. However, this report is far from complete due to time and funding limitations and stonewalling by the White House, the City of New York, and the agencies being investigated. We need further investigations into the events surrounding 9/11, especially in the areas of money laundering (cutting off terrorist funding) and continued debate regarding our foreign policy, not only in the Middle East but around the word."

The transcript of this testimony and her part of it can be found here:
http://www.vt911.org/McKinneyReport20050722transcript.pdf (she's on page 110).


In 2006, in the documentary 9/11: Press for Truth (http://www.911pressfortruth.com/), she had this to say:
"What we're left with after our journey is no answers, no accountability. And I've wasted four years of my life, trying my damndest along with the other family members to make sure this never happens again."


In 2007, in a muckracker report (whose link is apparently now dead), she had this to say:
"Addressing all these unanswered questions out there is about more than simply trying to quell conspiracy theories," says Monica Gabrielle, whose husband Richard died in WTC II. "It’s about making sure Americans are safe by revealing the unfettered truth about the failures. Because you can’t make recommendations on distortions, omissions, and half-truths, which is basically what the 9/11 Commission did."

The same, however, cannot be said of Kevin Ryan. He is an idiot.

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? Having read a fair amount of his material, included some peer reviewed work, I strongly disagree with your assertion.

If you look at the National Construction Safety Team Act, one of the other responsibilities listed for the Advisory Committee is reviewing the reports issued under Section 8 of the Act (in other words, the NIST WTC Investigation Reports).

Fine. But let's not forget what Monica Gabrielle said on the formation of this Committee. Specifically:
"...we are concerned that the role of this Advisory Committee may be relegated to being a spokesperson for NIST instead of adding their individual expertise to this investigation."

And, ofcourse, let's not forget this gem which she said a few years later:
"What we're left with after our journey is no answers, no accountability. And I've wasted four years of my life, trying my damndest along with the other family members to make sure this never happens again."

[AZCat]

179. It appears you're conflating the NIST reports with the 9/11 Commission.

Please try to keep them straight.

As for Kevin Ryan, it should be quite obvious why he is an idiot. Anyone who writes the letter he did and then fails to see the mistakes when they have been pointed out numerous times is not very bright, nor has his work since then been particularly noteworthy (see, for example, his tragic attempt at suing UL for wrongful termination).

Why would I want to check out "Patriots Question 9/11"? Have they produced anything substantive about the collapses? If it's just a list of people, I'm not much for appeals to authority.

[lovepg]

187. The public? You mean the same public you refer to as idiots when they disagree

with the NIST reports?
Hows that for circular logic? Unless they agree with the NIST report they cannot be capable of truly vetting the NIST report. LOL!

[AZCat]

193. I think you have your posters confused.

Please point out where I have referred to as idiots those who disagree with the NIST reports.

[hack89]

2. The 43 draft NIST reports were posted for a six week public comment period.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released a total of 43 draft reports documenting the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. These reports include the draft summary report on the Investigation of the WTC Towers, 8 project reports, and 34 supporting technical topic reports. Fifteen reports, including three project reports, were released on April 5, 2005.

These reports are being issued in draft form with a six-week period for public comment. Public comments will be accepted during the period commencing June 23rd and ending at 5 p.m. EDT on August 4th.

The public is welcome to comment on any of the 43 draft reports issued by NIST, totaling about 10,000 pages. NIST especially encourages public comment on the approximately 200-page draft summary report, which contains the principal findings and recommendations for changes to codes, standards, and practices. NIST will consider all comments received from the public on the 43 draft reports before they are issued in final form.

To ensure that your comments are properly considered, it is important that they be submitted in the appropriate format to facilitate review and disposition by the report authors. NIST will prepare a public summary of the comments received and their disposition in September when the final report is issued.

http://wtc.nist.gov/comments_submission.htm

[Subdivisions]

3. I'm looking for the public summary of comments...

Have a link handy?

[AZCat]

4. There are separate sets of comments for the WTC towers and WTC 7.

WTC Towers Comments

WTC7 Comments

I'm sorry, but they don't seem to have them compiled in one pdf - it's a bunch of separate pdfs for each commenter.

[Subdivisions]

9. Thanks. I'll be looking these over and I'm looking into the backgrounds

of the members of the NCSTAC.

[AZCat]

15. Do you have the list?

If you need a reference, they're listed in the preface of all the NIST companion reports.

[Subdivisions]

19. Yes, I have the list, thanks. I'll be compiling a report on each of the

members of NCSTAC as well as the NIST team. If I find that there are no glaring conflicts of interest or other motive, such as government funding and/or permitting/licensing of said members which could have been used to blackmail those members into cooperation, I will be a bit closer to dismissing a conspiracy to cover up any nefarious actions bringing down those three towers.

[AZCat]

22. There aren't *supposed* to be conflicts of interest, according to the Act.

The NIST was supposed to develop procedures regarding conflict of interest (see Section 2(c)(1)(A) of the National Construction Safety Team Act). I haven't seen the actual procedures, but violating them would be a big federal no-no.

Hopefully none of us are naive enough to think such conflicts of interest never happen. There are plenty of examples otherwise, unfortunately.

[Subdivisions]

25. I'm not interested in whether there was not *supposed* to be

conflicts of interest, or not, only whether there was, misfortune notwithstanding.

If I'm a structural engineer working for a company that is building bridges for Interstate highway overpasses for the USDOT (or other DOT) and said company is dependent on government funding for such a project, it might not be in my best interest to go against their version of events.

[AZCat]

28. Oh, I know.

I'm just saying that conflicts of interest would be against the law in this case, and specifically federal law.

Your example is a difficult one, but not that uncommon. The best-known example is the Morton-Thiokol engineer who blew the whistle on the booster failure for the Challenger space shuttle.

[Subdivisions]

41. Good example, if I recall that case correctly. One has to pay ones bills, after all. Furthermore,

the Act to which you refer could be nothing more than a smoke screen to be thrown up against any dissent of the official story. To wit: "Hey, structural engineer guy, I know you think you're bound by the Act, but play along and you'll never have to worry about it because only we will know. Wink, wink."

[AZCat]

45. It could indeed be so.

I think it's unlikely everyone would play along (see, for example, the behavior of the EPA under the Bush Administration) but I'm not going to discount the possibility.

[SDuderstadt]

78. " I'll be compiling a report on each of the members of NCSTAC as well as the NIST team"

Dude, do you think it's possible you take yourself just a tad too seriously? Between waiting for your "report" as well as the "declaration" you'll be making, we're all atwitter here.

[Subdivisions]

88. And this has what to do with the subject of this thread? Please stop

embarrassing yourself and DU with your silly and goofy diversions. I am a US citizen and I have every right to research those involved in the investigation of 9/11 and to report my findings. The "declaration" to which you are referring was mentioned in another thread and said "declaration" may be forthcoming, as I said there. Please do not continue to call me out on this comment (which is a clear violation of DU rules) made in a thread that essentially agreed with your side's contention that the publication of Jones study in Bentham Open is not good enough in terms of peer review publication.

[SDuderstadt]

93. Why don't YOU stop embarrassing DU?

What I find interesting is that you portray yourself as somewhat of an expert, whether you're touting your construction experience and claiming no one can match up to it or saying that you're now going to "investigate" the members of of the advisory board for the NCST.

Here's what's so interesting. You have proclaimed over time that the NIST report was essentially a fairy tale or could not be trusted because it was connected to the government. Then you construct this OP asking about the peer review process employed with respect to NIST. Now, the money question: If you're such a crack researcher and we should take you as an authority (given your alleged construction background), why don't you knw the answers to these questions before you ask them?

Have you actually ever read any of the NIST reports? If you did, did you look into what vetting processes were employed? If not, why not? If we're to take your criticism/scrutiny of NIST seriously, wouldn't we expect that you had researched these things?

And, I'm not "calling you out". I'm calling you ON your sometimes absurd claims and your more absurd pronouncements ("I'll be making a declaration soon"). If you don't like the way a public discussion forum works, perhaps you should start your own.

[Subdivisions]

107. Are you going to discuss the context of this thread or are you going to

continue to attack me personally, which is a violation of DU rules?

[SDuderstadt]

108. Show me how I have "attacked" you, dude....

I am calling you on specific things you have said here. That's not attacking you. Point to a single name I have called you. Can you?

[Subdivisions]

111. Are you going to discuss the topic of this thread or are you going to

continue to divert from it?

[SDuderstadt]

113. Your credibility (or lack thereof) is perfectly germane....

Again, I'd love for you to show me where I "attacked" you.

[Subdivisions]

116. Is that comment substantive to this thread? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

118. Yes, dude....

You posed a challenge (of sorts) in the OP and I am asking why you didn't know the answer to that question before now. You have repeatedly dismissed and/or ridiculed the NIST Report(s) over time, but it appears you didn't take the time to find out how they vetted their work. If we're supposed to take you seriously, I'm asking point-blank why you even had to ask the question.

[Subdivisions]

121. Do you have anything to say relevant to the topic of this thread? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

123. I am asking why you didn't know the answer to the question(s) you posed in the OP...

If, as I suspect, you can't answer the question(s), my question then becomes, "why should we take you seriously?".

Bonus question: Have you actually read the NIST reports?

[lovepg]

203. MY Guess is continue to divert!

[LARED]

99. Wow, those are some pretty high standards

I would hope you hold the same level of standards for the folks advocating the wacky theories you cling to.

[SDuderstadt]

101. Quit pointing out Subdivision's hypocrisy, Lared...

n/t

[Subdivisions]

109. Have you not seen my comments re: Bentham and Jones? n/t

[Make7]

238. Kicking for Subdivisions. n/t

[Make7]

239. Kicking for Subdivisions. n/t

[Make7]

240. Kicking for Subdivisions. n/t

[LARED]

5. Here you go; for WTC 7 public comments

http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/

[SDuderstadt]

7. Unfortunately, this won't shut the "truthers" up.

n/t

[Subdivisions]

13. Why?

Are the public comments contrary to the reports?

[jakeXT]

16. they commented on it

Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
ICC
NFPA
Hughes Assoc.
PANYNJ
Silverstein
Weidlinger Assoc., Najib Abboud
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi
Skyscraper Defense, Dan Goodwin
AE911Truth, James Gourley
AE911Truth, Richard Gage

[Subdivisions]

11. Thanks LARED. I'm going through these now. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

24. National Institute of Whores, Liars, and Cowards

(n/t)

[Subdivisions]

29. If my livelihood depended on government funding somewhere along

the line, I'm not sure I wouldn't toe the company line in order to keep food on the table and a roof over my head. That is why I'm am focusing my attention away from the collapses and toward the investigators of the collapses.

Perhaps I'm wasting my time by not accepting the official reports out-of-hand, but it's my time to waste.

[vincent_vega_lives]

40. Oh sure

of course anyone would be expected to "toe the line" in the case of MASS MURDER.

What's important is you and yours, ethics and morals be damnd. I'm sure everyone involved would do the same.

[Subdivisions]

43. But there's where you're wrong. IF it was me in that position, I'd

be blowing the whistle, job be damned, and I would deal with it. But, some people wouldn't. That is readily apparent.

[vincent_vega_lives]

46. Then why in the world did you type this???

If my livelihood depended on government funding somewhere along the line, I'm not sure I wouldn't toe the company line in order to keep food on the table and a roof over my head.

[Subdivisions]

49. Please forgive me. I'm multi-tasking here and as you can see this

thread is moving along pretty quickly.

What I meant to convey did not necessarily involve the deaths of thousands of people on 9/11 and, by extension, hundreds of thousands more in Irag and elsewhere.

- excerpt of personal experience redacted for privacy -

[AZCat]

53. Ahhh, contractors love that.

Nothing like having to redo welds, especially if it's something nice and expensive like Hastelloy.

The problem with inspections/commissioning is that if you let something inadequate pass it comes back on your head. My old boss got nailed on this fairly recently - the contractor wanted to "VE" something on the job and he agreed. He's now in the middle of a lawsuit over it.

[Subdivisions]

54. 'The problem with inspections/commissioning is that

if you let something inadequate pass it comes back on your head.' Exactly why Dad refused to budge. And he won, assisted by NRC.

[AZCat]

55. And that's why I think it is unlikely everyone would play ball.

You may get some people to shut up about inconsistencies or fudged numbers for the NIST WTC Investigation, but I think at least one person would refuse for the same reason your dad refused to be cowed by Brown & Root.

[Subdivisions]

56. Point well taken and I will consider it as I move along this line of research. n/t

[vincent_vega_lives]

60. One of the major issues I have with truthers

is that most of their theories require the public servents from the FBI, NTSB, NIST, FEMA, USAF, FAA, DOD, to be amoral sociopaths, as if they were simple drones of the Bush administration.

[Subdivisions]

62. Yea, because the threat of retaliation, retribution, character assassination, career suicide, or

an envelop full of weaponized anthrax isn't reason enough to make one STFU.

[vincent_vega_lives]

63. Publicity = safety

Do you have any examples? Or 100% of the thousands of government employes either sociopaths or cowards?

[SDuderstadt]

80. Yet not one of those people came forward when the "coast was clear"...

after Obama's election? Really?

[Subdivisions]

89. Who says the "coast is clear"? Certainly not me. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

94. Is Obama "in on it too"?

Or, is it more likely that he dismisses "9/11 was an inside job!" as the batshit crazy claim it is?

[Subdivisions]

100. I don't know what Obama thinks except that he has basically repeated

bush's position with regard to thought on this topic, though Obama is more articulate on the matter:

Bush: "Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11."

Obama: "I am aware that there are still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al-Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al-Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with."

[SDuderstadt]

103. Dude...there's plenty of evidence for what Obama said...

he's dissing you guys because you're wasting everyone's time.

[Subdivisions]

112. The thing I find interesting is that he (and bush) felt the need to

say anything at all.

[whatchamacallit]

136. I notice you left the CIA off your list

Presumably, because it's well known they are "amoral sociopath central".

[SDuderstadt]

139. It's pretty stupid to claim the average CIA employee is...

an "amoral sociopath". I'd be willing to bet you don't really understand what the CIA does or how it works.

[whatchamacallit]

142. But of course you do, eh Encyclopedia Britannica?

Wow, I imagine you spend a *lot* of time in front of the mirror...

[SDuderstadt]

146. I know a lot more about the CIA than you do, dude...

It's pretty easy to tell because you just throw out buzzwords.


Let me ask you two questions. Do you think Valerie Plame is an "amoral sociopath"? Do you understand what the implications of Plame having been a NOC were? Do you even know what a NOC is?

Do you think Leon Panetta is an "amoral sociopath"?

[whatchamacallit]

149. Sure you do Forum King

Do you deny the cia has been involved in covert acts of "questionable legality", including assassination and assisting in overthrowing legitimately elected governments? Oh that's right, you're one of those rare liberals who lives to defend the powers that be.

[SDuderstadt]

153. Dude....show me where I remotely said anything like what you're claiming...

Did I ever claim that the CIA is above question or reproach? Don't you think it's a tad oversimplifying it to tar all CIA employees with the "amoral sociopath" label? Similarly, could you please show me precisely how I live "to defend the powers that be"? Or, is that just one of your buzzphrases meant to substitute for actual debate when you're in over your head?

BTW, I didn't think you'd be able to answer those rather simple questions about the CIA. I'll try to help you a little bit here. NOC stands for "non-official cover". Can you tell us why that would be significant if she had been caught by an enemy country in the course of her duties?

[SDuderstadt]

81. I think we can all sleep more safely now that we know...

Subdivisions is moving "along this line of research".

[Subdivisions]

90. This is nothing more than an insult aimed at me. Do you have anything

of substance relating to the topic of this thread or are you just going to continue with your attacks?

[SDuderstadt]

98. Dude...I am chiding you because....

as a "truther", you should have known what NIST's review process was, given the fact you have been castigating them for some time now. The fact that you even have to ask the question in the OP speaks volumes about the way you reach conclusions without even the minimum of information you should have before making such pronouncements.

You need to develop a little thicker skin, dude.

[Subdivisions]

102. You need to stop breaking, and getting away with breaking, DU rules. The same

standard should apply to all of us.

[SDuderstadt]

105. Dude, take it up with the moderators....

you don't seem to know what "calling someone out is". I'd love for you to point me to whatever DU rule I have broken. Please be specific.

Beyond that, if you want to accuse the moderators of a double standard, I'm pretty sure the rules specify you do that in an private e-mail to them, not publicly here in the forum.

[Subdivisions]

115. Are you going to discuss the topic of the thread or are you going to

continute diverting the conversation away from it? So far, you have had absolutely nothing of substance to add to this conversation.

[SDuderstadt]

120. Pay attention, dude...

I have repeatedly asked you why you even had to ask the question you posed in the OP. As a somewhat constant critic of NIST, shouldn't we expect you would have checked into these things for yourself??

[Subdivisions]

124. You are the ones who hold Jones to the standard of peer review. However,

when it comes to NIST and UL, your standard disappears. This is standard operating procedure for OCT-o-bots whatever the topic of discussion. That and diversion/obfuscation/ad hominem. Whatever it takes to continue squashing any investigation is what you do.

Now, I'm leaving and going to visit friends for the rest of the evening. If you have something to add to the topic of this discussion, please feel free. My guess is that you won't.

[SDuderstadt]

125. I don't know what UL has to do with this but...

as we have amply pointed out, NIST does/did have a process in place. You just couldn't be bothered to find out what it was before you accused numerous people of being "octobots" and, in essence, supporting Bush.

I'd love for you to point out precisely how I am "squashing" an investigation, dude. That's your absolutely funniest claim.

[lovepg]

206. I know I know what calling out is!! Its saying certain posters who are always here

Are doing this professionally! And thats very bad and I would never do that! LOL!

[lovepg]

205. Not on this forum DUDE!

Certain posters get away with zee murder!

[SDuderstadt]

79. Which is essentially where one of the "checks and balances" come in...

since no one person knows what everyone else would do, that makes doing the wrong thing a greater risk. Not saying that guarantees the right behavior, just makes it more likely.

[lovepg]

204. Actually most of the military has towed the line in Iraq where as many as..

a couple hundred thousand innocent Iraq civilians have died as a result of our invasion.

[Kalun D]

126. NIST

N-ot
I-terested in
S-howing the
T-ruth

[scott75]

176. lol :-) -nt

[Name removed]

212. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Subdivisions]

214. Fuck it. I'm outta here. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

217. No. n/t

[Name removed]

226. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrMickeysMom]

215. You do realize this comment was written quite a while ago, don't you?

Good Lord, you must have been boiling mad inside. You shouldn't, you know. It's bad for your blood pressure. You know, that's the feeling people get when they're being taken to school.

So, admit it, you've been served. Don't bubble up inside because someone knows a great deal more than you do.

Just be gracious that you have smart people surrounding you. It may free you up to go visit some other forums and talk about other things like single payer.

[Bolo Boffin]

218. That comment was written this very evening. n/t

[Subdivisions]

216. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

219. This isn't a call out. This is an ending of the matter. n/t

[Subdivisions]

220. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

221. What a waste. n/t

[Subdivisions]

222. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

223. I forget how many I have outside this subforum.

I've been here seven years. There's no telling.

[MrMickeysMom]

225. Yes, there's no telling....

... and yes, you've probably been RIGHT HERE for that long...

:rofl:

[MrMickeysMom]

224. What else can you expect from the unwashed?

Hit the alert button and tell them to pound some salt for a while. It beats grooming the ticks out of each others head, waiting for the alpha chimp's next "woot"!

[Subdivisions]

227. I've alerted on that post 6 or 7 times and sent an email to Skinner.

The standards don't apply equally here. I've had it. I won't be posting here any time soon if ever again. I won't be treated this way.

[greyl]

229. What rule do you think it breaks?

I don't think it exactly qualifies as "continuing an argument from another thread", because this thread of yours is the same topic.

[Bolo Boffin]

232. Subdivisions seems to think it's a callout. That's what he or she said before deleting it all. n/t

[omega minimo]

233. Linking to active threads.

[Bolo Boffin]

234. It's not against the rules to link to active threads. n/t

[omega minimo]

235. Yes it is

You are breaking DU Rules by linking to active threads for troublemaking purposes which Skinner has referred to as "toxic behavior" that is worthy of a zero tolerance policy because of the damage it does.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5524913#5529983

Please also address now the linking/posting from one thread/forum to another for abusive purposes

Skinner:
I think it is one of the major contributors to making people feel victimized on DU. For both the people who are doing the linking, and for the people who are being linked to. It's against the rules, but we don't usually step in unless it starts causing an obvious problem.

To be honest, recently I've been thinking we should go back to the zero-tolerance approach. This behavior is toxic. Of course, if we did, I suspect the most determined offenders would either move the behavior to private messages, or off-board.

[Bolo Boffin]

236. You're describing wormholing, something that's not happening here.

I'm not linking to that other thread to send people over there. I linked to it to show what I'm quoting and why discussion is ending in this thread. It's completely different.

So nice try, but you're factually inaccurate there.

And thanks for sending me to scour the rules as well, because I didn't remember this rule before:

Do not accuse entire groups of people on Democratic Underground of being conservative disruptors, or post messages which spread this type of suspicion.

Zero tolerence, fellow DUer. :D

[Name removed]

237. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

231. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

228. Is that you trying to talk sense to a friend, or egging on the entertainment? nt

[MrMickeysMom]

230. greyl, you'll have to find ways to amuse yourself, I think...

I'm sure you can "get down" to that