For all the WTC conspiracy theorists out there....

[Abaques]

You have the burden of proof upon you in this case because there is a credible explanation for the collapse of all the towers. The report was conducted by FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and can be found here:

http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm



If anyone wants to contradict anything in that report, then to be taken seriously they will need to provide expert (ie civil engineering or demolitions expert) opinion and evidence to that regard.


For those of you who will dismiss the report because of its government connections, then fine. Then when we take back the government in 2004 I suggest that the entire 9/11 chain of events be re-investigated by an independent counsel.


All this conspiracy talk does nothing more then divert us from working on the real goal we should have: removing Bush from the White House.


Keep your eyes on the prize people.

[FlashHarry]

1. Amen, brother.

[IranianDemocrat]

2. thank god for some rationale.

eom

[MercutioATC]

3. I believe in MIHOPWTHOEAFTPZATTBD

"Made It Happen On Purpose With The Help Of Evil Aliens From The Planet Zarqod And The Taco Bell Dog"

:tinfoilhat:

[ComerPerro]

4. This doesnt address my issue

I don't care how it fell. I don't have a problem with the ASCE's findings.

What concerns me is WHY.

[Cha]

9. I agree! I'm talkin' about the "conspiracy" to let it happen.

[Abaques]

11. No problem with that....

I've got no issue with finding out what happened to allow 19 hijackers to attack the US. Its the crap about explosives taking down the buildings backed up with zero evidence that bugs me.

[bpilgrim]

16. why do you lie so BLATANTLY?

"Its the crap about explosives taking down the buildings backed up with zero evidence that bugs me."

there is a 300 post thread with video, images, links to expert witnesses, etc and you have the guts to claim no evidence was persented?

please...

peace

[Abaques]

19. Lie or just disagree with your opinions?

I would say the later. Your logic is flawed and there still is no evidence for explosives despite what you said. While chemical traces would be very hard to detect in that aftermath, the simple fact that a whole lot of explosives would have had to been strategically placed throughout WTC7 when people were working in the building makes that unlikely.

[Abe Linkman]

36. How so?

What's so difficult about that? It could be done at night, if necessary.

[JHB]

56. Bringing in explosives...

...to the WTC which had been bombed in 93 and so was more "on alert" than most places... in the building that housed the mayor's emergency command center...

Yes, it would be difficult, day or night.

[Abe Linkman]

57. Negligence, simple negligence

The same negligence that the Official Story Conspiracy Theorists pedal, explains how it is possible that plotters could have been able to get inside the buildings. You could even call it criminal negligence, as some of the more daring O.Story Conspiarcy defenders "claim," when backed into a corner.

[DeadBroke]

58. Day/Night

The Trade Center was a 24/7 operation; like a 7-11 it never closed, and always had office workers there working and after the 2-93 attack security became very VERY strict, smothering actually, so tough that my apprentices could not bring back a coffee order hot. There were long lines and delays for bags and boxes to be searched - no matter what entrance you chose.

The Trade Center always had tradesmen present doing something. Getting in took time, line up, have proof of employment at the site, have I.D. and have tool box, lunch, and even have thermos checked. Sign in. Having no photo I.D. to produce meant no entry and an escort, a fast escort, out the door. For me, it was easier to get into Riker's Island for a day's work, Riker's is NYC's main jail, than into the Trade Center.

Delivery trucks were inspected prior to entering the underground loading docks and security plus Port Authority Police were present on the loading docks to check the truck's contents and issue passes. One-time one-way passes were issued and were needed and checked 2 - 3 times before an elevator operator would allow you to board.

Lots of noisy dirty construction work for renovation and tenant changes had to be done on weekends and off hours and off-off hours, basically 24/7, and security was just as strict then as during the regular day hours. Tradesmen experienced delays in getting tools and equipment upstairs the security was so rough. Example: 1) Mobile shevling sometimes is motorized and needs wiring harnesses to operate after installation. Blueprints had to be produced to show that the wiring was in fact for the shelving. If there were 6 harnesses required you better not have 7. 2) Sometimes laser levels and other types of electronic equipment are used by tradesmen. New security guards unfamilar with tools like that would become alarmed - they were trained to suspect the worse and treat unknown objects as a device of some sort, so they would sound warnings. "Lock-downs" happened with a warning. No-one went anywhere until the 'device' was identified. 3) Heaven forbid someone forget a cardboard box on the dock, in the hallway to the elevators, or on an elevator. A box absentmindly left behind by some knucklehead tradesmen was treated like a bomb.

The Trade Center was a 24/7 operation and I from my experinces working there IMHO the security was prison like.

[JHB]

59. And on a more mundane level...

...God help you finding a trash can in a public area.

[Abe Linkman]

60. Sounds more like a sensitive Government Bldg.

Sounds like the Pentagon or White House. And we know what is claimed to have happened at the Pentagon. (where Cheney Rat went, hasn't been explained)

[DeadBroke]

61. Also

In 1975 the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey experienced a bombing at LaGuardia Airport. The device was placed in a coin operated locker, reportedly by Croatian Nationalists. During the next five days every coin operated locker on PA properties were removed. Thousands and thousands of lockers. The MTA and TBTA followed later that month. The PA, IMHO took security very seriously.

[demodewd]

5. Exclusive premise

FEMA starts with the premise that the collapse was initiated by the burning plane fuel. That's just one starting point....the only one that they consider.Other starting points could be explosives or Scaler weaponry but these are excluded. There is only ONE appropriate explanation at the absolute exclusion of all others.

[Abaques]

13. So.....

So is there any evidence at all for explosives or Scaler weaponry?


Any?


Any pictures?


Any interviews with relevant experts?


Any proof at all to back up that speculation?




Just because what you say may be possible, does not make it so.

[demodewd]

17. re:evidence

There's no evidence of burning fuel causing the steel to disform and break either. That's the given...but it isn't proven by evidence. And no other option is held to be tenable...they're off the table so to speak. Just because of what I say doesn't make it possible or impossible..everything is reasoned speculation.

[Abaques]

21. But....

But there is knowledge that fuel tanks were located in the building in locations where the fires could have been.


There is no knowledge what-so-ever about any kind of explosives in WTC7 at all.

[demodewd]

23. Fires or nothing

Fuel tanks in WTC 1&2? "In locations where the fires COULD have been"? I'm not saying that the "fire" theory is necessarily an impossibility. It is the only theory that is entertained as a possibility. All other possibilities WILL NOT be entertained. Can you imagine that the government would consider options when they had already claimed bin Laden culpable and that the planes were declared to be piloted by Arab highjackers. So the culpable force had already been a priori established.So obviously from that point it's the fires or nothing.

[plaguepuppy]

32. Pictures?

How about a video?

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/New_Spire/

[bpilgrim]

6. well, it says the jury is still out and that a FIRE has never brought down

a steel building before in history though they 'THINK' that is what caused it to collapse and NOT any structual damage from the collapsing towers.

so sounds like they need OUR help... anyone got any links of this happening in the past?

thanks in advance, and i'm sure fema sends their regards as well :toast:

more...

:hi:

peace

[bpilgrim]

7. here is a steel concrete building that withstood hellfire for hours...

The A-bomb Dome standing quietly on the bank of the Motoyasu River is the remains of the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall, which was nearly directly under the atomic bomb that exploded at 8:15 A.M., August 6, 1945. The name A-bomb Dome emerged spontaneously due to the shape left at the top of the destroyed building.

peace

[Abaques]

12. Not relevant at all.

For one thing, this is a 4 or 5 story building with alot of concrete. Completely different structure then any of the WTC buildings. I'm a layman and I can tell that.


Get a new picture.

[bpilgrim]

14. right, it was even WEAKER then the structure in question...

and withstood a mmuch more dramatic force and fire.

:hi:

peace

[DeadBroke]

42. Steel or stone?

Here's a link with a better photo of those walls;

http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/shimin/heiwa/q3e.html

Steel, concrete or stone walls? The structure known as the A-Bomb Dome, the part that survived the blast, is actually less than 25 percent of the original building. A little more than 75% was destroyed. I may be wrong, but the only metal is in the dome, and it's wrought iron not steel; typical of it's builder Jan Letzel, and of materials available and popular in that era.

Good point though, esecially when one considers how close the bomb was.

I've also always wondered why new steel and reinforced concrete buildings fall in earthquakes but old Roman aqueducts stand unharmed.

[RC]

8. Horse pucky

"If anyone wants to contradict anything in that report, then to be taken seriously they will need to provide expert (ie civil engineering or demolitions expert) opinion and evidence to that regard."

The report is administration propaganda and the above quote is intimidation to quiet the skeptics here.

The report states that "A significant portion of this fuel was consumed immediately in the ensuing fireballs. The remaining fuel is believed either to have flowed down through the buildings or to have burned off with in a few minutes of the aircraft impact."

Now which was it? Did it burn off in a few minutes or did it flow down elevator shafts? This report does seem to be ambiguous on this and other key points. The point being most of the fuel burned near the point of impact.

[Abaques]

10. Its not intimidation...

Its reality. Because what you are arguing is something that only a trained civil engineer can effectively analyze.

[bpilgrim]

15. did someone call for an engineers opinion?

After 9-11 Administration Damage Control Efforts:

Fire Engineering Magazine assails the incredible speed that the evidence in
the WTC collapse is being destroyed. Never
in the history of fire investigations has evidence been destroyed this fast
before exhaustive investigations can be completed. <"We must try to find out[br />why the twin towers fell" By James Quintiere,Baltimore Sun 1/3/01
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.towers03jan03.story
-WTC "INVESTIGATION"?: A CALL TO ACTION from Fire Engineering Magazine]

...

"Burning Questions...Need Answers": FE's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse

Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002-Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief, is summoning members of the fire service to "A Call to Action." In his January 2002 Editor's Opinion, "$elling Out the Investigation" (below), he warns that unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals." Manning explained: "Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers .... The lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world."

In an interview with the New York Daily News today, Manning reiterated his call for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. He is asking members of the fire service to read "WTC 'Investigation'? A Call to Action" in the January 2002 issue of Fire Engineering and at fireengineering.com and to contact their representatives in Congress and officials in Washington to ask that a blue ribbon panel be convened to thoroughly investigate the WTC collapse.

Among those also calling for the investigation are Sally Regenhard, the mother of Christian Regenhard, the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) probationary firefighter killed in the World Trade Center (WTC) attack, and founder of the Campaign for Skyscraper Safety; Give Your Voice, a civilian relatives' group headed by Michael Cartier, who lost his brother in the collapse; prominent structural engineers and fire-safety experts, and New York State Senators Charles Schumer and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

more...
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

peace

[Abaques]

18. I responded to this in the other thread.

And I stand by that contention.

[QuietStorm]

26. bill manning had many burning questions

I ran across this months ago as well. The most unprecedented collapse in the US history and PRECIOUS FEMA was carting away what should have been evidence as trash. My browers tells me that the last link can not be found but I read through mannings concerns before.

[OudeVanDagen]

30. Know nothings don't have facts

Your comment " ... evidence in the WTC collapse is being destroyed" is based on the perceptions made by a magazine editor during a quickie photo op visit. The man knows nothing of the protocols in place, command and control, who was who, or what went where.

[plaguepuppy]

33. I agree, you sure don't!

n/t

[OudeVanDagen]

34. It just didn't happen

Evidence destroyed? You're telling me EVERYONE there looked the other way, EVERYONE there was without conscience, EVERYONE there was a mindless puppet? It just didn't happen. Hey, if you want to believe the big mouth 10 minute photo op souveiner seekers go ahead .... it's your loss, not mine.

[plaguepuppy]

35. No, saying something over and over doesn't make it so

Hate to burden you with the bothersome old facts, but read this and we'll talk:

http://members.aol.com/erichuf/PainfulQuestions_1.pdf

As to your "big mouth 10 minute photo op souveiner seekers", the commentary in Fire Engineering Magazine was based on a deep and first-hand understanding of the issues involved, and was not in any sense a ploy for publicity. It was a crie de coeur at the wanton destruction of evidence that went on from the very beginning. Learn some facts before you shoot off your "big mouth."

And read the NIST "progress report" to learn that only 250 pieces of steel were saved from the hundreds of thousands that were disposed of as quickly as possible. Does this sound like a serious effort at a comprehensive investigation?

[OudeVanDagen]

62. Q and A

Question: PP; When are you going to offer some real honest to God concrete proof that evidence was destroyed?

Answer, NEVER!

You can't, and here's why: In order to prove the destruction of evidence you need to first state the procedures practices and protocols for an investigation into a structural collapse - the ABCs, and then state how those ABCs were ignored or circumvented, and then state by who. You've never offered those ABCs and proof they were not followed. I've given you clues about protocols by listing past structural failures - months ago. If you did your homework and looked them up you'd see that the ABCs are long established and that they were indeed followed, even as the incident turned from a SAR, Search And Rescue to one of RIR Recovery and Investigation Resource.

I've been waiting a long time for you to prove your statements that evidence was destroyed. No link provided by you so far is of any value. Photo op publicity seekers without any experiences in events like this don't count.

So PP, tell me, tell everyone: What are the protocols, the steps, those ABCs always taken in the identification recovery and retention of evidence? Which step(s) in the recovery of evidence were ignored? WHAT specific evidence was destroyed? Is it your contention that there was an insufficent number of columns or beams and other debris preserved? Just how much evidence, how many columns and beams, speaking from your personal collapse investigation experience of course, is needed?

PP, so far all I see is smoke and mirrors around a lot of baloney.

[plaguepuppy]

63. concrete proof that evidence was destroyed?

"smoke and mirrors around a lot of baloney."

Sounds like you've been spending too much time in a bad deli...

“Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.”

N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02




" No link provided by you so far is of any value."

Hint - they are only valuable if you read them. Try this for starters:
http://members.aol.com/erichuf/PainfulQuestions_1.pdf

"What are the protocols, the steps, those ABCs always taken in the identification recovery and retention of evidence? Which step(s) in the recovery of evidence were ignored? WHAT specific evidence was destroyed?"

Well, oddly enough there don't seem to be any protocols observed, only the imperative to remove and recycle all of the wreckage as quickly as possible. Other than your repeated claims the these mysterious protocols exist and were followed, I find no evidence that any such policies existed and certainly no hint that they were followed. Having read the FEMA report in its entirety I found to hint or mention of any such exacting criteria ever being in place - but then you obviously have secret sources unknown to us mere mortals. Sure you're not talking about the Protocols of the elders of Zion?

WHAT specific evidence was destroyed? How about all but ~200 pieces out of the hundreds of thousands created by the collapse? But of course your mysterious protol allowed them to know that they contained nothing of interest and could be safely recycled.

And of course other enlightened individuals like Mayor Bloomberg (a "former engineering major") have gone so far as to assure us that "we don't need on steenkin' physical evidence":

New York authorities' decision to ship the twin towers' scrap to recyclers has raised the anger of victims' families and some engineers who believe the massive girders should be further examined to help determine how the towers collapsed. But New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg insisted there are better ways to study the tragedy of September 11. "If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do," said Bloomberg, a former engineering major. "Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything."

From Eastday.com, 1/24/02 http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm


"Just how much evidence, how many columns and beams, speaking from your personal collapse investigation experience of course, is needed?"

Well, speaking as an engineer with some familiarity with the concept of forensic reconstruction, I'd say roughly a whole fuck of a lot more than 200 pieces - but only on the assumption that the real concern was to arrive at the truth. The concern with the WTC collapse, as with much else surrounding 9-11, was to avoid at all costs a serious investigation and promote a bogus "closure" around a pre-determined agenda.

[OudeVanDagen]

64. Cough, cough

Smoke and mirrors, PP.

On top of all that "articulate" misdirection and nonsense of yours, you even expect your loyalist and myopic followers to sheepishly believe that everyone present was without conscience and that everyone who dropped what they were doing and drove, in some instaces thousands of miles, for an investigation were all part of a wicked plot to defraud and lie.

Closure? If you really cared enough to look into the matter you'd see that some of those investigators still haven't been home. The case is only closed when it can be closed, not when some asswipe says it is.

Cough, cough.

I don't see that you've posted your baloney on engineering sites - no nerve to drop a few bucks and roll your dice with the real guys, huh?

[Abe Linkman]

65. Another voice of moderation. Truth seeker, thy name be OodieVan

You are a distinct voice and not a twin, correct. right. Glad to know you are only interested in finding out what really happened on 9-11.

I'm looking forward to you contributing your ideas, theories, and questions. But, try to hold off on the distraction, KRovian diversion stuff, wouldja. We're trying to discover just who is behind the 9-11 conspiracy. I hope you want to know that, too.

[reorg]

66. maybe this helps?

First public hearing of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

Statement of William F. Baker to the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
April 1, 2003

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing1/witness_baker.htm

(...) We saw and documented the performance of structures that resisted extraordinary forces and maintained their overall integrity. We also saw and documented collapses that, based on previous experiences, were unexpected. It is through the study of these behaviors that the art of building design is advanced.

Unfortunately, the ASCE/FEMA team faced many obstacles while studying the WTC. The team was not able to assemble on the site until October 6th. We could only request and cajole to get drawings and other information. And, in fact, we did not receive access to the twin tower drawings until January. Nonetheless, the team was able to perform an invaluable service in our initial, overall evaluation of the buildings in order to focus and prioritize future investigations and research.

Fortunately, the National Construction Safety Act that was signed into law on October 1, 2002 addresses the difficulties faced by the ASCE/FEMA team at the WTC site. This act authorizes the National Institute of Standards and Technology to investigate building failures. This is similar to the National Transportation Safety Board investigations of airline and other transportation accidents.

This act allows NIST teams to access building failure sites; provides the power to subpoena evidence; provides access drawings, records and other documents; and allows for the removal and storage of evidence.

This legislation is a significant step forward in creating a vehicle by which the design and construction industry can learn from failures. This will help to advance building technology and improve the safety and reliability of future construction.

As a structural engineer, the WTC collapses represent the largest structural failure in the history of mankind. From this tragedy, I am confident that we can learn how to approach catastrophic building failures in the future and through the National Construction Safety Act we will continue to learn how to improve building construction.
(...)

emphasis added

[OudeVanDagen]

67. Plywood and Porta-Johns

a-k-a F.E.M.A. the flood and hurricane cleanup folks engaged the collapse zones before that date and were provided all requested items - as well as non requested colateral items of use - as they became available. Problem then, and since permanently addressed, was flood of chest pounding officials demanding command and control for their department or commission, and seeking logistical support that was, at that time, either unavailable or overburdened. Facts about WTC will require one to look beyond FEMA and NIST and at those who were first in - and last out.

[plaguepuppy]

68. a significant step forward

So we can do a better job next time - like when BushCo nukes Boston.




Actually a Neo-Con job...

[Abe Linkman]

37. Yes, that's the ticket. ANYTHING "could" have happened.

Keep it up. You're developing a new philosophy of logic.

[Dancing_Dave]

20. This is silly and out of date.

FEMA's "melting truss" theory was called a "half-baked farce" by the leading Fire Fighters journal Fire Engineering. When the federally funded investigation was then tranferred from FEMA to the National Institute for Standards and Technology, who have somewhat better resourses to do it, the NIST soon came out with a Progress Report stating "Nothing that we say should be taken to imply that the trusses played a critical role in the collapse." Another Official 9/11 Myth we all heard bites the dust!

Tearing apart all the highly misleading speculation in that report line by line would take up to much space here to be justified.
To see it all done go to http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition.htm and after reading that general exposition of the key issues, you can go on to follow some links at the bottom of that page, which include the FEMA report with critical commentaries.

Here's a somewhat shorter article by engineer Peter Johnston which explains the key issues clearly: http://911pi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5396090821&f=9606022231&m=433601662 It's also a thread where you can ask Peter questions, though it may take him a few days to give you an answer.

This whole topic is so stuck to out of date propaganda theories that it's just ABSURD!

[Abaques]

22. And exactly what is the evidence for explosives?

And I don't mean your opinion of the collapse video. I mean the maintanence workers reports to the press or police about all the activity late at night with hundreds of men attaching things everywhere.


I suppose you think evolution is a joke too.

[Dancing_Dave]

25. Your de-evolving- this was all proven before

http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_22_01/Some_Survivors_Say__Bombs_Expl/some_survivors_say__bombs_expl.html
http://www.geocities.com/theawakeningnews/911-Bomb_In_WTCs.html
http://911pi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5396090821&f=9606022231&m=433601662
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
http://www.justiceforwoody.org/re911/papers/volumev2.html
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/toce.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_050503_bombs.html
http://physics911.org

And there's plenty more...so many people witnessed or were even severely injured by explosions...and these explosions all fit into accurate physical analysis just perfectly, accounting for energy needed to pulverize concrete and demolish steel buildings WHICH HAS NEVER ONCE BEFORE 9/11 HAPPENED AS A RESULT OF ANY KIND OF FIRE OR AIRCRAFT IMPACT...all the testimony and photos, recordings, videos and scientific analysis has been gone over many times, and it all adds up...just master all the info in those links and your thoughts will come out much more intelligent.

[QuietStorm]

28. you forgot the article from the engineers that were in the basement

on 9/11 It has been placed here before. It establishs a ground zero in the building account of explosions.

http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029

[Abe Linkman]

38. Yes, I didn't hear bush confess either.

Come to think of it, none of the conspirators have confessed. OBL not only hasn't confessed, he's denied any involvement. Cheney? Nope. Rumsfeld? Well, he did admit a missile hit the Pentagram. Bunnypants? Said he was drunk or stoned, and doesn't remember anything.

So, yes, surely, we would have evidence of confessiona if any existed, wouldn't we.

Do you suppose all non-disinfo agents are liars?

[DulceDecorum]

40. Ever really had a look at DNA?

Ever really had a look at the diversity of life in one ecosystem?
Ever really had a look at Darwin's credentials?
Ever really had a look at the controversy surrounding the Leakeys?

Go have a really good look at genetics and another look at evolution.
Then you can come back and talk.
That is if you don't fall off the edge of the earth.

[QuietStorm]

27. took the words right out of my mouth what are your feelings regarding

eastman's two plane theory just as aside. Acerbic was quite rude in the pent 2 thread called him Yuck head or something like that. I always felt it the most viable ;-) as I have mentioned before but keep that to yourself.

[Dancing_Dave]

29. Glad to hear your up to date on the research!

Yes, Dick Eastman's research on what happened to the Pentagon is very enlightening indeed, and I will be happy when physics911.org comes back on line, because it's promised to include the latest and most scientific version of Eastman's theory, including an account of the DISTRACTIONS in the area, which are always such a key aspect of Bush Regime propaganda on every level.

I think Eastman and his American Patriot Network friends made some progress beyond the French Intellectuals who originally inspired them. But one thing I'm not entirely sure of is whether what he calls Flight 77 really is Flight 77, or whether it's another similar sized plane, and Flight 77 was disposed of hundreds of miles West of CLOSER TO WHERE IT ACTUALLY VANISHED FROM RADAR, in Ohio. I'm still counting both of those scenarios as possible. Anyway, Dick is looking into a mysterious crash at Reagan National Airport, right next door to the Pentagon and at the right time, to find clues to the fate of Flight 77.

There is some good research on this at http://911pi.com though there is one PR person mis-named "carefull" there who only says distracting, misleading and backword things. Well the Bush Dynasty has millions of dollars to hire people like that and try to make the internet as misleading as they've made the U.S. corporate media...that's how the Bushies have always operated. They pay their many spin doctors well. But if you can ignore that one distraction, there is good research there, much of it in line with Eastman's well informed theory. :think:

[dick_eastman]

24. The ASCE analysis of pillar damage supports small-plane theory Pentagon

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/33


or

From: Dick Eastman <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat Jul 26, 2003 9:45 am
Subject: The American Society of Civil Engineers Pentagon Building Performance Report findings actually back up the small-plane conclusion --- DISPROVES A BOEING 757CRASH



From: [e-mail] (Everyman)
Newsgroups: alt.disasters.aviation,uk.politics.crime,uk.politics.parliament,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.greens,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Pentagon frameup investigation is conclusive -- 9-11 was a frameup Here is all the proof a grand jury will need.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <cETPa.516$[e-mail]> <1aUPa.693$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.174.233.81
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

[plaguepuppy]

31. What FEMA really says (and why NIST started over from scratch)

Just checking in to defend the good name of the engineering community (MIT, '74), and point out the obvious fact that the FEMA report did not even call itself a "study," and did not try to come up with a definitive explanation for the collapses. If you bother to read it (rather than using it as a blunt instrument, the preferred use of references by the debunkers here) you will discover that it offers a few different possible mechanisms for the collapses without attempting to prove or disprove any of them with the available evidence.

The ongoing NIST study says at the outset that it is starting from scratch, and does not consider any of the theories put forward in the FEMA report as proven or disproven. NIST's progress report is little more than a research protocol, and offers no further attempts to prove a particular collapse scenario. They are still at the information garthering stage, and have not yet undertaken a forensic engineering analysis.

Contrary to the claims of a large portion of the steel being carefully examined according to some "protocol," the vast majority of the steel was sent directly to scrap yards with no inspection at all. A grand total of less than 250 pieces of steel out of hundreds of thousands were saved for further study, and the effort to save a few pieces from the recycling yards was a spare time effort by a few of the ASCE investigators (who by the way got minimal funding and almost no access to the site). The first chapter of Eric Hufschmid's book relates the sad story:
http://members.aol.com/erichuf/PainfulQuestions_1.pdf

Here's an interesting observation from a real engineer, architect Matthys Levy, co-author of "Why Buildings Fall Down," speaking about the twin tower collapses:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/discovery.wmv

[nomatrix]

39. EPA vs WH

http://www.msnbc.com/news/956255.asp?0cv=CB10

"At the White House’s direction, the Environmental Protection Agency gave New Yorkers misleading assurances that there was no health risk from the debris-laden air after the World Trade Center collapse, according to an internal inquiry."

Expert Opinion Rule 1- don't stake your job or reputation on it.

"If anyone wants to contradict anything in that report, then to be taken seriously they will need to provide expert (ie civil engineering or demolitions expert) opinion and evidence to that regard."

Expert Opinion Rule 2 - don't make demands, it obstructs justice.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[Endimion]

43. Now that's some

democracy.

Puke...

[shatoga]

44. Flat earthers believe Bush "coincidence theory"

Military stand-down on 911 alone proves it was an inside job!

search for "Payne Stewart"

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/plane102599.html
>Military Aircraft Tracked Jet
According to an Air Force summary, after contact was initially lost, two F-15s from Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., were sent to track the Learjet. The F-15s pulled back and two F-16s in the air from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., moved in to track the aircraft.
After the Learjet reached the Midwest, the Eglin F-16s pulled off and four F-16s and a midair refueling tanker from the Tulsa National Guard followed it.<

On 911, we are to believe that improbable tale that four jumbo jets were hijacked and the US Military did nothing until after they had all crashed.
Further 'flat earthers' want us to believe a NORAD designed to track radar jamming nuclear missiles was unable to track four jumbo jets.
while Fox News weather radar tracks rain clouds (who puts transponders on those rainclouds?)

Yeah right!
(rightwing Operation Northwoods Reichstag Fire)
There was once-upon-a-time a good Clinton administration that let the US Military protect America:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/augusta/stories/102599/payne.html
>Monday October 25, 1999 <
>SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (CNN/SI) -- U.S. Open champion Payne Stewart and four other people were killed Monday when a private Learjet bound from Florida to Texas crashed in South Dakota after flying out of control for hours. <
>government officials said. Air traffic controllers couldn't raise anyone by radio.
Fighter jets were sent after the plane and followed it for much of its flight but were unable to help. The pilots drew close and noticed no structural damage but were unable to see inside the Learjet because its windows were frosted, indicating the temperature inside was well below freezing.
<
>The aircraft left Orlando, Fla., about 9:20 a.m. EDT bound for Dallas, and the last communication came was when the plane was over Gainesville, Fla., said Tony Molinaro, a Federal Aviation Administration spokesman in Chicago.
An Air Force F-16 fighter jet from Tyndall, Fla., was diverted from a routine training flight to check out the jet, Air Force officials said. Two F-15 fighters from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., then took over to follow it and they later handed off the monitoring to two Air National Guard F-16s from Tulsa, Okla. <

[westerby]

45. Essay about miraculously failed air defense

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayairdefense.html

In case you do not know Paul Thompson's extensive timeline (very relevant 9/11 source!)

BTW "flat earth": In a big German newspaper, Hans Leyendecker, senior political editor, known as an "investigative journalist", wrote a bitter polemic about "conspiracy theorists" ("Monkeys of Fear", Sueddeutsche Zeitung, August 30).
In his view, everyone who merely asks questions is mad and someone who believes in Illuminates, living Elvis, Hitler was a woman, and a flat earth. Really outrageous.

[Abe Linkman]

46. It would have been more honest to call it...

"For all the 9/11 Official Story Conspiracy Defenders out there"

[Endimion]

47. It wonders me

why is there all the sudden a major flood of disinfos.
DU smarta**es are a bit like pop-up windows. You can never get rid of them.
Or like neutrons in chain reaction.

All the sudden everyone has a grade, everyone is so smart. Everyone worked in WTC. Everyone is a firefighter. Everyone knows everything.

funny....and scary...



(I am not a conspiracy theorist - those theories are often disqusting to me. My interest is only the physics of WTC. I do not mess with "who" and "why". I search for "how". Remember that, all of you. But is someone wants to search for w&w, be my guest. We live in a free world, don't we?)

[Abe Linkman]

48. Question for Endimion

You said:
"I am not a conspiracy theorist" ----

What is your definition of a conspiracy theory? If you support the Official Story, you do realize, don't you, that you would be supporting a conspiracy theory.

The way it usually works is: "I support the truth. It's only those wackos that support conspiracy theories."

[Endimion]

50. So, your final definition

is "if you do not support the official story, you're a conspiracy theorist".

Abe, I never messed with US nor Bush. I am not interested in politics. As a matter of fact, Croatia's mess is enough for me. I am sorry if I expressed myself a bit wrong. What I consider as a conspiracy theorist is a mainstream view on conspiracy theorists (you know, UFO + X-files + alien pyramids + perpetuum mobile inventors guys). My only interest is a scientific look on WTC.
Am I about to be discriminated cause I see obvious anomalies in official story? Of course not. I never intentionaly lied about WTC. I never exxagerated. I say what I see. And, yes, I support the truth. What's wrong with that? It's not like if I lie I will save the Earth.
BTW, you would be very surprised to know how my knowledge about US conspiracy theories is small.

Everything I ever learned about politicians is that you can't trust them. They are people, for God sake. Most people see them as "politicians", i.e. people in nice suits with briefcases discussing national safety.
"Look, Suzy, this is a Politician!" -> this is the wrong way of thinking, often spread in mass media during the period between innocent 50's and 60's. They are people, and there are some that do not care about others. There are some that like helping citizens. (statistics would help a lot not :) )
Same way as firefighters, doctors, cleaners, etc.

There is very small number of Firefighters, Doctors, Cleaners, Office Workers, Students, Engineers, no.
There are people that do their job, and they can be tired, upset, happy, horny, angry, anxious, depressed, surprised...you name it.

When you research something, it is important to leave every prejudice, everything but normal BIOS. :)
That is an essence of proper work. And science, if I may add. Whoops, is this too harsh for admin's eyes to read? ...:) ...

[DeadBroke]

49. Endimion! Why?

I really do not understand your intolerance towards the individuals that have posted comments and observations about their experiences; a) working at the Trade Center, and/or b) as firefighters who have fought fires in high rise structures.

As for having worked at the Trade Center myself I can state that it was a group of buildings in constant change. Tenants were always moving in and out and changes and renovations were always underway. Countless tradesmen worked there; some started their careers as apprentices there, and worked there and ONLY there until retirement or until the collapses. I feel that relating those experiences about the floors, the motor rooms, the fireproofing, it’s trusses – or what is also known as non-redundant steel frame design, the fire suppression systems and the like could be relevant to any discussion, and just might also be of interest to anyone who has never been to a construction site or had an opportunity to visit the Trade Center in person.

As for firefighting, well, it is a great experience. I’ve done it since 1968 – volunteer and paid. Why? Friendship, challenges, and one is always learning. No two fires are exactly alike and caution must be exercised at all times. FYI: If the Trade Center were a 1 story building with a truss roof, like a warehouse, auto showroom or a fast food chain restaurant it would have been considered a “Disposable Building” and unless a person was trapped no firefighter would enter. Truss roofs = death. Fire Engineering, Fire Rescue Magazine etc etc and their website forums all have articles, editorials, op-eds etc about the dangers of truss roof; and “Disposable Building” is their term, not mine. Several FDNY and Hackensack NJ firefighters lost their lives to truss roof designs. Good people, kind people, some I knew personally. Some firefighters have valuable high-rise experience, others that serve rural communities do not. The high rise experiences can often shed light on what may have or may not have happened. One forum member for example didn’t know that the stairwells at the Trade Center were pressurized – he/she never heard of pressurized stairwells, and also did not know that the sprinkler systems were supplied from tanks near the top of the structure. He/she had assumed the water, ALL the water for fire suppression flowed up from the street. I believe the firefighters, who never claimed to know everything, have offered some good insight.

[Endimion]

51. I think I was not too harsh

I merely stated that there appear to be too much of "experts" appearing at crucial moments.

>>>A question. As I do not live in US, could you explain me importancy of DU? Is it a famous forum? I never thought of it like that. Of course not as some poor websites, but neither as NYTimes page.<<<


or what is also known as non-redundant steel frame design

WHAT??? Sorry DeadBroke, but that is not true. WTC was made to be redundant. It was among the best redundant buildings in the world.


As for firefighting, well, it is a great experience. I’ve done it since 1968 – volunteer and paid.

I never attacked you, nor your job. As a matter of fact, you sound really informed about firefighting. And I admire that. As I admire PP as a doctor. I stated that there are lots of people that LIE (is anybody offended? I will repeat things like this, so anyone offended should be prepared, thank you :)) about WTC.


FYI: If the Trade Center were a 1 story building with a truss roof, like a warehouse, auto showroom or a fast food chain restaurant it would have been considered a “Disposable Building” and unless a person was trapped no firefighter would enter. Truss roofs = death.

Strange indeed. I never saw a warehouse with thick core, complex truss diafragm roofs with fireproofing, egzoskeleton, sprinkler system. Neither auto showrooms, fast food chains restaurants.
I did see truss roofs. And I know the difference.


I believe the firefighters, who never claimed to know everything, have offered some good insight.

Exactly. And I admire that. I admire tollerance and humble attitude that most of them posess. They are very important observers of 9/11.

[DeadBroke]

52. Let's clear this up

Just for some clarification:

1) A redundant steel frame building in these parts, and especially in NYC ironworker lingo, is one that has a forest of columns, one every 20 - 25 feet or so in every direction holding up the floors above. Column is the key word. Maybe it's just semantics, but it's the columns that give the steel framing it's redundancy, not the number or total number of alternate components. The towers of the WTC did not have floors supported by a forest of columns; it had trusses. Any building using an alternate support system other than a forest of columns is a nonredundant steel frame building. Another example of a building with nonredundant steel framing is Madison Square Garden in NYC - it has a cable dish roof.

2) Hey, don't believe me. Try checking any firefighting website forums about truss roof tactics: Fire Engineering, Firehouse, FireRescue, FirefightersForums, etc etc or read any of Vincent Dunn's books about collapse. Truss roof design is a major problem for firefighting. It's worth repeating; Had the WTC been a 1 story building the presence of trusses would have prevented firefighters from entering - unless there was a life safety issue. More and more truss construction in buildings has created the firefighting terms "Disposable Building" and "Surround And Drown." Anyone driving through cities with good fire prevention and inspection will see buildings with truss construction very clearly identified for fire fighting crews; marked with T inside a red triangle.

[Endimion]

53. Hm

I thought "redundant" means something as "being able to suffer damage and keep stability". Of course, in architectural meaning.

Common steel buildings with column forest would probably fail at the beginning of attack. Plane slams, they loose support, upper floors with forest columns are too heavy, top leans, falls apart, add your own. This is the reason why ESB, Woolworth, and other towers are a potential risk.
Tube-within-a-tube is a crucial design. Lots of dense exterior columns, strong core, lightweight floors. Works fantastic in attacks.

Sorry for not understanding you, but my opinion is that relatively brief fires of 9/11 couldn't harm the truss system. If you are reffering to NOVA special, I must say that it is full of old theories. Nobody is blaming trusses anymore.
NOVA program had ridiculously degraded graphics. Truss failure, for example.


To keep you smiled, here's a funny video. http://media.ebaumsworld.com/dumbfireman.mpg

(sure, you understand this is a joke. By providing this link, I just wanted to put something funny. As I had this video on my disc, and it is reffering to a fireman, I put it. Once more, no offense to you and other firemen. This is only a joke. There are other videos too on www.ebausworld.com . Enjoy.)

[DeadBroke]

54. Interesting point, but

Why, if tube within a tube construction and the use of trusses is so much better and safer than redundant steel framing, are there so few buildings around with this design; and why are cities, like mine writing new building codes prohibiting trusses?

The Trade Center design was 60s thought; fast, cheap, and it didn't even have light switches. In the two NYC building booms that followed, where union trade membership needed to triple to meet the demand for new buildings, no building followed that design.

With all due respect, you can think whatever you want about fire and it's affect on steel; all I know from lots of summers climbing steel is that the summer sun twists it enough to make an ironworker have fits and want to quit and go for a beer. Heck, the pivoting bridge I use to get home (Hackensack-Bogota Court Street Bridge) sometimes can't close in the summer - the sun twists it and the span expands it too much to fit and close. Yeah, just from the sun. Good thing it's not burning.

[Endimion]

55. Do I sense anger?

I told you the video was a joke. :)

Never mind. Personally, I know for only one building that has identical WTC design. Torre Picasso (http://www.skyscrapers.com/re/en/wm/bu/112028/) in Madrid.

Other buildings use "edited" design. But all super structures today use tube-within-a-tube design. There have to be minor exceptions, of course.

For instance, Two International Finance Center is a tube. And it is 400m high.
There are hundreds of towers all around the world that use this. But only WTC was immune to aircraft impact.


Does that bridge you're passing deforms and sags? No. No offense, but I think you exaggerated this whole WTC fire a bit. Fire was not big.

I'd really like to keep a nice conversation. You are among few people at DU that knows stuff, and acts normal.