Investigators simulate WTC floor fire

[LARED]

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/national/index.ssf?/base/national-29/1093480449249770.xml&storylist=national


NORTHBROOK, Ill. (AP) — Federal officials re-created a floor system of the World Trade Center and conducted a fire test on it Wednesday as part of an investigation into the towers' collapse on Sept. 11, but results didn't immediately provide clear answers.

A 17-by-14-foot slab of concrete was placed in a furnace, where flames soon licked at the steel trusses, fireproofing material and metal decking underneath the floor.

Images from inside the furnace of buckling trusses and cracking concrete were beamed onto a video screen for journalists, engineers and family members of victims invited to view the test, conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology at Underwriters Laboratories in suburban Chicago.

The floor system failed after about an hour and 15 minutes because of excessive temperatures on the trusses and concrete. A test last week of the floor system as it was actually installed in the towers passed the 2-hour fire rating required by New York City code in the 1960s, when the trade center was built.

The difference was the thickness of spray-on fireproofing. The floor system in last week's test had 3/4 of an inch of fireproofing, which the NIST said was the average amount installed in the towers. Wednesday's floor system had 1/2-inch-thick fireproofing — what trade center plans called for, though more was used.

[Parche]

1. fire

The fire was on the upper floors
How could it collapse because of that
I still think it was demolished, by the way they looked in the
videos

[MercutioATC]

2. Tou DO realize that a controlled demolition involves the placing of

literally THOUSANDS of charges, each in their own hole drilled into the supports and the cutting away of other supports. It's not done with a few balls of putty like you see in the movies.

The collapse of the lower floors happened because of the failure of the supports on the upper floors. The sudden added weight caused the collapse.

[MrSandman]

3. And gravity pulls down...

Not over.

[RH]

5. Listen to recordings of controlled demolitions.

The explosions go off with a loud crack, a sudden detonation clearly audible from a considerable distance.

Nothing like that was heard at the WTC.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

9. Oh no??

"At this point I stopped filming, and went back inside my
apartment.

Upsetting enough, but then:

4) As more and more and more and more and more emergency vehicles
descended on the World Trade Center, I hear a second explosion in
WTC
2, then a loud, low frequency rumble that precipitates the
unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of
explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips
sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in
a
demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even
those below the point of the explosion. A dense, thick dust cloud
rises up in its place, which rapidly pours through the warren of
streets that cross lower Manhattan...........

Upsetting enough, but then:

6) I decide it's time to get my daughter, who was taken by the
parents of a friend of hers to a small office building, six blocks
farter from the WTC than my apartment. As I dress for survival:
boots, flashlight, wet towels, swimming goggles, bicycle helmet,
gloves, I hear another explosion followed by a now all-too familiar
rumble that signaled the collapse of WTC 1, the first of the two
towers to have been hit. I saw the iconic antenna on this building
descend straight down in an implosion twinning the first.

This dust cloud was darker, thicker and faster-moving than the
first.
When this round of dust reached my apartment, fifteen seconds after
collapse, the sky turned dark as night, with visibility of no more
than about a centimeter.

--------------

Vallebuona: . And so I walked up and I started to say something to him, they’re going to need everybody, we’ll just start from here. So I went back. The chief started putting his gear on. I went to grab my gear and stuff and I heard boom, a loud boom, I thought. I looked up, it was a beautiful sunny day, and I heard that crescendo sound.
But something scared me. It sounded like – it must have been all the aluminum on the side, like just shhh, shhh, shhh. I looked up and it looked like a fountain, like a firework. It was the south tower collapsing. I looked up. I said, oh, my God. I tell you I thought I was back in the firehouse asleep. I said this can’t be real.
------------

I wanted to be closer. At the corner of Liberty and Broadway, I angled my way through a large, packed crowd to get the best view. We talked about people jumping. The police stood behind the yellow tape. Minutes later, there was a boom. I thought it was a bomb, so I crouched, but people ran, so I ran. I couldn't see anything. I don't know how far I ran. Couldn't see where I was running. Didn't know if I was in a street or next to a building. Didn't know what street I was on. No one could talk because the dust filled our throats. After about 10 steps I tripped over a pile of people and then people tripped on me. I lay there. The only sound was the falling of dust and debris. No one moved under me.
-------------------------
living 3 blocks from the WTC, as I do, I was astonished by the loud proximity of the first crash, and went down to the street in time to see the second fireball plane exploding. I went up to get ready to get out, and the worst sound effect of all, a huge explosion approaching my house, shaking like an earthquake on a train toward me, and then a black cloud of dust blocked all the sunlight, I was plunged into the nuclear winter of burning soot and ash and toxic fumes, and lost sight of everything
------------------
then came upon a guy with a telescope aimed at one of the towers. The picture I will never forget. At about the 60-70th floors, people were hanging out windows trying to get air. Literally holding onto the side of the building waving a T-shirt to try to get someone's attention. I couldn't watch any longer. I kept walking, and about 10 minutes later I was about a half mile away and was talking with someone and we heard this sound that can only be described as a "thundering crack." That is the best I can do. I then saw what I thought was just a chunk of the WTC but it was actually the whole tower. I said it wasn't ... I couldn't believe it ...
------------------ Many people were busy on cell phones, trying to reach friends and relatives they knew in the buildings or to alert their own loved ones that they were all right. But the circuits overloaded. Fear mounted. And then it got even worse. Police officers warned people in the vicinity to move north, that the buildings could fall, but most people found that unthinkable. They stayed put or gravitated closer.
Abruptly, there was an ear-splitting noise. The south tower shook, seemed to list in one direction and them began to come down, imploding upon itself. "It looked like a demolition," said Andy Pollock. "It started exploding," said Ross Milanytch, 57, who works at nearby Chase Manhattan Bank. "It was about the 70th floor. And each second another floor exploded out for about eight floors, before the cloud obscured it all."
-------------------
We saw Special Operations Battalion Chief John Pailillo, Deputy Chief Galvin and 22 Truck. We headed right past them. As soon as 22 Truck came through the doors, we went into the lobby of the Marriott and then walked in maybe 50, 100 feet and all of a sudden, we heard an explosion. We stopped dead in our tracks and Brian goes, ooh, that doesn’t sound good. And there was a second of nothing. Then you felt a heavy vibration like an earthquake, then you start hearing the pancaking collapse.
Brian said it’s coming down, and we all just scattered…………………….
….Then we heard the explosion of the second one, which was the same sound I heard when I was down in the lobby. I remember turning around and looking at the north bridge. I remember looking over my shoulder and going oh, and I saw you’re on your own. The guys dropped me, and I don’t blame them, you had to run for your life
-------------
About 8:45 AM what seems like forever ago, last Tuesday, I was getting ready to go over to my office from my apartment, which as many of you know, is diagonally opposite the World Trade Towers by about ½ block to the southwest………

I put on the TV and the FBI was stating that they were NOT declaring this as a terrorist attack, when the second plane hit. Frank Samaritano and I were commenting how tough these two buildings were (I believe the actual statement was something like "strong as a brick shithouse").

Another friend, Mike Benjamin, called to tell me that his brother Arthur had made it out of the building, when I started hearing a series of bangs, one right after another. I sounded like those building demolition shows on TV, when simultaneous charges are detonated and set off one by one.

I heard people in the street screaming (remember, I am on the 22nd floor) and all of the sudden, I saw a huge tidal wave of thick, black dirt cloud flying past my apartment at a very rapid pace. I felt like I would drown, and in fact, the dirt came into my apartment to such a strong degree, that it was like being in a cave, absolutely no light whatsoever.
-----------------
tried going to my office, across the street at 20 Vesey Street, but upon arriving I was told that the building was being evacuated. Standing on Vesey Street, near my building, I tried calling my wife again, but could not get a connection. I kept redialing until I heard a loud rumble and looked up at the south tower. As I watched, the top half of the tower broke off and fell towards the west. It was inconceivable that the tower fell. After the tower fell, there was this huge cloud of smoke, ash, debris, etc. coming right toward me."
--------------
I had been out of the building for only 15 minutes. We were about 5 or 6 blocks from the WTC when I heard some explosions and turned to look up at where they had come from. What I saw was surreal.The antenna and the rest of the roof atop the building I had just left, leaned to one side and fell in on itself. The rest of the floors below collapsed under the weight and an enormous cloud of dust and debris was expanding outward from the Trade Center. Everyone turned and hauled ass."
---------------------



:nopity:

[RH]

25. Which recordings

did you listen to?

:shrug:

[vincent_vega_lives]

55. OR would require tons of explosives

which would leave explosive residue all over lower Manhattan.

[MercutioATC]

61. Hi Vincent!

:hi:

It's been a while since I've seen you here.

[vincent_vega_lives]

67. Away on bizniz

Amazing how little things change around here.

:toast:

kind of comforting in a disturbing way.


:crazy:

[MercutioATC]

68. I hear ya...

There has been another conspicuous absence lately (a welcome one, however). Just search for his name and I'm sure you'll know of whom I'm speaking.

At least the arguments keep shifting (when people finally realize they don't have a leg to stand on)...it keeps things interesting...

Good to see you back!

[stickdog]

84. And we all know how diligently the EPA went about testing for asbestos,

heavy metal, benzene, etc. residue and reporting their dangerous findings to the public!

[MrSammo1]

140. and....

crystalized concrete! Which is what we saw!

[Endangered Specie]

91. The voice of common sense.

Dont forget the MASSIVE amount of wiring this would require.

What happened was the (remaining) steel columns on several floors were so weakened they buckled, gravity does the rest. An explosion big enough to bring down WTC would have been quite noticable.

[RH]

134. It is not just a matter of gravity.

Tall buildings usually resist gravity well enough.

The critical factor is more their ability to absorb disturbance.

Under unfortunate conditions, if low frequency resonances are affected, they shake themselves apart, literally.

[RH]

4. This has been answered on the forum before,

especially by OudeVanDagen.

The most crucial factor is a building's abilty to remain stable, to absorb disturbance. In ordinary terms they fall down because they wobble. In that respect then the most important element happens to be at the roof, the very top of the building.

[LARED]

6. How could it collapse because of that?

---- Hence the investigation.

I am curious though about this statement;

I still think it was demolished, by the way they looked in the
videos

This is a very common view held by CT'ers. I don't see it that way at all. What element of the video makes you think it was demolished?

[Endangered Specie]

94. I will play devil's advocate...

the CTers claim that explosives were used because, right before the commencement of collapse, a "pluff" of fire and smoke emerges from out the windows of the floors that are the initial area of collapse. This can be easily explained by a simple idea: There is a ton of smoke and fire on those floors, when they collapse, they compact, smoke has nowhere to go but out the window... just like when you push on a syringe.

[MrSammo1]

11. Fire

Wouldn't it have been nice if they put 8,000 gallons of jet fuel under this simulation and let it burn? The jet fuel would have burned away too fast......just like it did at the towers. We can't have a REAL simulation! That would blow the lie completely out into the open!

[vincent_vega_lives]

56. It's not the Jet fuel fire

It's the widespread fire the burning jet fuel ignites. Plenty of other fuel to burn.

[stickdog]

85. What fuel? Seriously? What fuel would burn hot enough?

Most office buildings contain precious little hot burning combustibles.

Just asking. I saw the Nova show tonight, and it was less than 100% convincing.

A few guys climbing around on already transported wreckage and looking at some videos? Gee whiz, Mr. Peabody, how'd you figure all this out from that?

[Endangered Specie]

95. Umm, Buildings contain all sorts of flammables...

paper, electronics, furniture, wood. Not all the jet fuel will burn up all at once too.

[stickdog]

97. What I heard on Nova tonight was that it was like "lighter fluid on

charcoal" and that it did all burn up quickly.

So what was the "charcoal" and how hot did it burn?

I'd say this is a fair question. Plastic and paper don't make hot fires, and melting plastic tends to retard both fire growth and heat. Hardwood can burn a little hotter, but how much hardwood is in the average office? Maybe one conference table per 1,000 square feet? Maybe two or three kitchen cabinets per 1,000 aquare feet? Note that most office papers are kept in metal cabinets to protect against fire and fire sprinklers.

What was burning for how long at what temperatures and why?

[LARED]

101. You seem to trying to make the case that

the office fire that burned were not hot enough to damage the building -- to play a part in the collapse.

Let me ask you a question. If the heat and temperature of combustible material found in a typical office does not generate enough temp/heat to effect the building is you are implying, why does code insist the structure is fireproofed?

[Endangered Specie]

105. Not to mention the elaborate sprinkler system that is required

in buildings because, office building fires can easily burn VERY hot. Remember, it doesnt have to be hot enough to melt steel, only to weaken it such that it bends (and then buckles) when force is applied, remember too that alot of steel beams failed, even worse, the floor trusses that helped to stabalize the columns failed (contributing even more to the bending and buckling which ultimately caused collapse), and the truth is that floor trusses DO NOT have to be exposed to an extremely hot fire in order to weaken and fail. Firefighters are very weary of truss floors they even have a saying "dont trust the truss".

[stickdog]

106. The trusses supposedly failed ONLY because of tension (clothesline) forces

The floor supports had to "soften" enough to buckle under their own weight for any trusses (other than those blown away by impact) to fail.

What I'm wondering is how hot the fire actually got using what fuel and why. If you don't the answer, just admit it. It's not the end of the world.

[AZCat]

109. Here is a link to some good fuel info...

The Explosion Dynamics Laboratory at CalTech has a good fact page on Jet-A fuel explosions and TWA flight 800. While it's not the same scenario, it's a good starting point.

[stickdog]

112. It has NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. The jet fuel was the lighter

fluid. I'm talking about the charcoal.

[LARED]

129. Have you every considered

that the columns connected to those trusses might, just might, have something to do with the collapse?

[stickdog]

131. Sure. But both towers survived the initial impact.

So what are you getting at?

Are you saying that the inside and/or outside column were so weakened by fire that they simply buckled under their own weight while still connected to every floor beam that survived the initial impacts?

Or are you just being meaninglessly snide because of force of habit?

[RH]

136. I do not think so.

If somebody shoots you and it then takes an hour to die from the wound, does that mean you survived the attack?

:puffpiece:

[stickdog]

142. You guys are really big on having the last word, huh?

I'm asking a question about how hot the fire got using what fuel and why.

I'm not even broaching a conspiracy theory. I'm merely asking a simple, reasonable, completely legitimate question. Yet 3-4 of you (I'm losing count) have now "answered" my question with unhelpful snide remarks rather than any pertinent information.

Why?

[LARED]

143. How hot?

The temperature was the same as a typical office fire once the jet fuel burned off. Try google like I did. Here's one that is interesting.


http://www.shef.ac.uk/fire-research/vulcan_cardington.html

If I'm not mistaken that type of information is available in the WTC reports as well.

Not for nothing, but these issues were hashed out two years ago.

[AZCat]

147. I don't think it's that simple

I did some checking after stickdog asked that also, and it appears that the NIST is going slowly and carefully with the investigation (as they should). The fire scenario for the WTC is complicated enough that they are doing four fire tests to validate the model. With fires, you have to simulate air flow and radiant heat loss along with fuel availability/consumption so it gets pretty hairy. I don't think we'll have any good numbers for six months to a year.

Note: the NIST WTC preliminary external heat loss study was done a couple of years ago - it looked at heat lost through the smoke plume and also studied environmental conditions (weather) in preparation for a more detailed analysis.

[RH]

144. Because the point of the agument is dubious to begin with.

I'd not be surprised if the towers fell without a fire, simply because of the structural damage.

With a big hole in the building I'd have wanted to get out quick in any case; wouldn't you?

[stickdog]

149. The building SURVIVED the initial crash. How was it going to come

crashing down on itself without a fire after surviving the initial crash?

[MercutioATC]

150. The buildings were still standing after the initial crashes. That does not

mean they "survived". Haven't you ever seen a structure collapse long after any damage was done to it? Slow shifting of the weight due to the initial damage could have done it. I believe the fire did contribute, however, by weakening already damaged support columns and trusses enough that they collapsed.

[RH]

153. If the building was no longer viable

it could have collapsed at any time. I don't see why the concept shoud be so hard to grasp. Did you never in your life break a piece of metal by applying continual stress, by flexing it?

The simple fact that a building happens to stand does not mean that it shall stand forever. The critical factor is not necessarily the strength per se but also the ability to damp low frequency vibration. Wind speed and turbulence are critical. The infamous Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapsed in 1940 not because the wind was especially strong but because it blew at an unfortunate speed.

The fire obviously didn't help but in view of the gaping hole in the side of the building it is daft to discuss the fire as if it were the only issue involved.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

148. Trusses had nothing to do with the collapse

Do your homework before you come with your rants.

[RH]

135. Aluminum

burns with enormous heat.

It is a prime constituent of solid rocket fuel.

[MrSammo1]

141. It sure was!

http://www.activistsandiego.org/wwwboard/viewtopic.php?t=3161&sid=43c4214945054436347bd4860e954c47

http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/print.php?id=34507

They lied about how the trusses were connected!

[RH]

145. Silly crap.

Quote:

The only people I know who weren't surprised {that the towers fell} were a few people who've designed high-rise buildings.

This second statement will only be true because designers of high-rise buildings would know for certain that the buildings were deliberately demolished and would consequently, "not be surprised." !!!!

:eyes:

Could it also perhaps be because the designers know something about the inherent limitations of high rise stability?

[MrSammo1]

154. so explain

how it is that steel has the same density as air?

[RH]

155. If you're looking

for serious answers the collapse issues were covered extensively on previous threads.

Oude Van Dagen's contributions were especially helpful in terms of professional insight.

[MrSammo1]

158. you

Surely you can explain in your own words how this is possible?

It pretty easy to see the problem. It's the speed in which they fell! Plus there was four to five times the opposing mass in the way. We are talking major resistence and fiction here.

Did you know that if the upper floors were to fall through a liquid with the bottom floors removed it would have taken much longer that they took that day?

[MercutioATC]

151. I could only make it through the first link and it's utter garbage.

The author shows a stunning lack of civil engineering knowledge (even less than me, and I ADMIT I don't know much about it). I'm at an utter loss as to why you think this imbecile lends credence to your assertions.

[MrSammo1]

139. But not

But not at a high enough temperature to melt the steel. Does the steel in your gas grill melt? In the presence of a perfect hydrocarbon fire may I add?

Add to this the impossiblity that the density of steel and concrete equals that of air.......big problem!

[LARED]

7. The investigation continues

http://firechief.com/news/nist-tests-wtc9835/


The Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology today reported that results from a series of four fire resistance tests conducted this month on composite concrete-steel trussed floor systems typical of those used in the World Trade Center towers showed that the test structures were able to withstand standard fire conditions for between one and two hours. The tests are part of NIST’s building and fire safety investigation of the WTC disaster on Sept. 11, 2001.


The 1968 New York City building code – the code that the towers were intended but not required to meet when they were built – required a two-hour fire rating for the floor system.

Shyam Sunder, lead investigator of the NIST WTC investigation, explained that the four laboratory tests provide only a means for evaluating the relative fire resistance rating of the floor systems under standard fire conditions and according to accepted test procedures. Sunder cautioned, “These tests alone cannot be used to determine the actual performance of the floor systems in the collapse of the WTC towers. However, they are already providing valuable insight into the role that the floors may have played in causing the inward bowing of the perimeter columns minutes before both buildings collapsed.”

“The fire conditions in the towers on 9-11 were far more extreme than those to which floor systems in standard U.S. fire rating tests are subjected,” Sunder said to a group that gathered to watch yesterday’s final test at Underwriters Laboratories (UL) in Northbrook, Ill. “Our investigation’s final assessment of how the floor system performed in the WTC fires also must consider factors such as the combustible fuel load of the hijacked jets, the extent and number of floors involved, the rate of the fire spread across and between floors, ventilation conditions, and the impact of the aircraft-damaged towers’ ability to resist the fire,” Sunder said.

[GliderGuider]

8. From a "controlled demolition" POV

it's WTC 7 that makes me go "hmmm". There's even a quote on the record from Larry Silverstein, the controller of the WTC complex, to that effect. In the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement;

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

And sure enough when you look at the videos of WTC 7 coming down, you can clearly see the building's back breaking, consistent with a controlled implosion. So how come demolition charges were in place in WTC 7?

[Bolo Boffin]

10. Demolition charges were not in place in WTC 7.

The NIST study is zeroing in on showing that the collapse of WTC 7 was a standard progressive collapse. Their computer modeling showed that only one specific column had to fail to produce the collapse seen in the video.

Silverstein's comment is a reference to an old fireman's phrase. Before radios, firemen inside a burning building were alerted to abandon the fight by someone pulling on the fire hose. The phrase has carried over as a slang term. "Pull it" means "abandon the building to the fire".

You have no evidence whatsoever that demolition charges were in WTC 7. You're inferring them there based on your misunderstanding of what you're seeing and what you've heard. For more on the WTC collapses, you should check out the NIST site devoted to a scientific study of the collapses.

http://wtc.nist.gov

[MrSammo1]

12. another lie

That's just great! I wonder who in BushCo land ordered this lie? Boy I just love simulations! You can make them do......whatever you want! Got to let the demolition companies know they only have to blow away one support!

Do they think that we're all that stupid?

[MercutioATC]

13. A "lie"? What proof do you have of a controlled demolition?

Yes, simulations can be made to prove damn near whatever you want them to, but I've not seen any proof of a controlled demolition of WTC 7. Have you?

[vincent_vega_lives]

57. Do you really want me to answer that? (n/t)

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[LARED]

15. Regarding your review

During your review, what part was not to your satisfaction?

[NecessaryOnslaught]

17. For starters

It would seem to any rational person that the first step in determining the failure of any structure would be to examine the ummm, structure. Instead the steel was removed with zero inspection and we have a report based on "paper and computer generated hypotheticals."

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

[LARED]

18. zero inspection ????

That was debunked at least two years ago.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

20. Only in the empty space between your ears was that debunked.

[LARED]

23. Does Mommy know you're using the computer this late (n/t)

[stickdog]

86. The inspection was off-site. I saw it on Nova tonight.

Sorry, but a few guys climbing around on a few pieces and examining the few they could both easily get to and identify from their markings was less than convincing.

[LARED]

102. Shocking

The inspection was off-site!!!!!

Did you expect NYC to just leave the big pile there until there were sure everyone was dead and then send in the investigation teams.

OR did you expect the millions of tons of material to be sorted in the middle of downtown Manhattan. Having been there many times I can assure you there was no room to sort out the material and categorize it.

I'm' sure NOVA did a nice job, but I you read up on the investigation you would know that the WTC material was sorted through in great detail. I was not just a bunch of guys climbing over piles looking for stuff.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Did you know?

Every piece of the WTC structural steel was marked with a unique code, identifying its place in the structure.

Did you know?

NIST scientists examined the steel after it had been transported from Manhattan, selecting specific pieces for their study.

Did you know?

NIST scientists have collected 236 unique pieces of WTC structural steel for their analysis.

Did you know?

There are pictures of some of these pieces available at the NIST website.

Did you know?

The only way to examine the, umm, structure after the buildings collapsed was on a computer. This is because the, umm, structure, umm, no longer existed after the buildings collapsed.

Now you know.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

27. Did you know...

I was referring to the WTC 7 steel? Please provide documentation showing that ANY WTC 7 was examined at all.

Your facts are absoutley wrong Bolo. Each piece of WTC steel was not marked, nor were they examined. Stop making statements that you know to be false. 99% of the towers steel was scrapped, and a majority of that with zero inspection.

[LARED]

28. Why do you ignore the fact that

the steel was inspected at the landfill, pieces were removed that the investigators though would be useful, and then it was scrapped.

Why?

[NecessaryOnslaught]

29. Because that is not a fact..

Most of the heavy wtc steel, ie core, trusses and perimeter columns never went to fresh kills.

Additionally, two recent bid awards were made to scrap processing firms to recycle 50,000 tons of large structural beams. Under the terms of those awards, the beams will be taken from the World Trade Center site, loaded onto river barges and sent directly to the purchasers’ facilities for recycling. These two scrap processors have already offloaded 20,000 tons of structural steel beams shipped by barge directly from ground zero to their facilities.


http://www.isri.org/pressoffice/10401.pdf

[Bolo Boffin]

31. So what?

Did you expect them to take every bit of structural steel and lay it out in a huge warehouse someplace? What would be the point in doing that?

[stickdog]

89. To analyze it exhaustively, of course, just like they do in many NTSB

investigations.

They crawled around on a few beams brought to Fresh Kills. And examined the ones that were easiest to dislodge from their piles.

Face it, the investigation sucked and we all should at least admit that much if we want to retain an ounce of credibility.

[MercutioATC]

48. They took samples from the debris before it was removed.

You wanted them to analyze every bit of it??????

[stickdog]

88. Report? Links?

Please share the results of this supposed onsite forensic examination with a curious public!

[Bolo Boffin]

30. What do you know?

You WERE referring to steel from WTC 7. I stand corrected.

Checking Appendix F in the June 2004, I can't see any of the structural steel identified as being from WTC 7. They have some of WTC 5, and everything else identifiable so far is from either 1 or 2.

Here's what I was talking about when I mentioned the marked steel:

Information from Leslie E. Roberts Associates indicates that all structural steel pieces in WTC 1 and WTC 2 were uniquely identified by stampings (recessed letters and numbers) and/or painted stencils (Faschan 2002).

Which would make most of the parts from 1 or 2 quickly identifiable.

I don't see how not identifying any steel from WTC 7 invalidates the analysis that NIST is doing. Instead of posting your pretty pictures, why don't you point out what's wrong in Appendix L of the interim report? It appears that they've reconstructed a detailed structural model of WTC 7 and are testing many various hypotheses of how the building might have failed.

I would probably be wrong to assume that since NIST is examining a lot of structural steel from 1 and 2, you are quite satisfied with NIST's analysis there?

Or is this a case of you damning NIST when they do, and damning them when they don't?

[NecessaryOnslaught]

32. James M. Williams of the SEAU.

"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten
steel was still running. What concrete that wasn’t pulverized into dust will continue to be removed for weeks to come. The structural steel
is being removed and shipped by barge to be recycled. All photographs shown on television, shot-on-site were preapprovedby the FBI. We were shown photographs that were not released for public view."

http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

[nomatrix]

34. Thank you for the quotes from the people who heard explosions,

NecessaryOnslaught. I appreciate that you still posting in these threads, because those who died deserve to have the whole story told.
Now for the rest of you.....

Hey you guys, what's your game?

Why on every thread do you continue your tag team assault on every post that has anything to do with 9/11? Frankly, I'm surprised the Mod's haven't said something like what I am about to say.

We know what the OFFICIAL story is.

This thread was about a study on the floor collapse. Not a DU/CT of floor collapse. No tinfoil hat needed. Obviously, they are trying to understand why it happened. You never know what they will find in those studies.

What are you so afraid of? You are acting like you are "protecting" the official story. What is up with that?

No, they wouldn't have to place thousands of explosives, where did you get that story?

What is the paranoia if there were explosives in the building? They are gone either way. Those people are still dead. What if there was a new way to level a building they (govt) didn't want to release the information about just yet?
Hell, I don't know. I suspect you don't either.

You all just need to take a break.
Go read the 9/11 commissions report & remember that Chairman Kane said something about a "lack of imagination."
So start taking his advice and open your mind to reality.
You don't know everything, I don't know everything, the commission admitted not knowing everything......

Last thought. Did you know, they don't (usually) pick degreed engineers for jury duty?

[MercutioATC]

36. Re: the thousands of explosives...

It was claimed that the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition. You don't do that with a big bomb. You do that with "thousands of charges" and removal of certain supports. If somebody states that the buildings were brought down with explosives, they must realize this.

[nomatrix]

64. Since you provided no link, guess who said this

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that. It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points. One of the things that terrorists are noted for is a diversionary attack and a secondary device."

[AZCat]

37. Actually, my experience has been different

I am a degreed engineer, and when I served jury duty, there were three engineers in the group of fourteen jurors (12+2 alternates).

That's a pretty big percentage. And based on conversations I have had with my peers, it is not unusual for us to get picked. I know several that have been chosen more than once.

[nomatrix]

38. This came from a superior court judge

May I ask, did anyone take notes? Was it a felony, or a civil trial? There may have been a reason why there were so many engineers. The reason cited, by the judge it is because of your training. Like I said, it could have been the circumstances in the case they were looking for that critique. Please feel free to respond, but I warn you will prove the point.

[AZCat]

39. It was not anything where our technical training would benefit...

It was a felony trial, four counts of aggravated assault and four counts of armed robbery.

I would be interested if you have any links to reading material. Even though (as I stated above) my experience was different, it certainly is possible that we are not popular jurists.

[RH]

41. I served on a jury

as the foreman, in the UK.

I am not so sure about engineers but a lot of professional people, e.g. doctors and lawyers, are definitely excused from jury service here, deemed to have more important things to do. It is an issue that should be taken seriously. We were expected to serve for several trials for a full two weeks. Jurors would otherwise hurry through a single case to get away as soon as possible. I managed to extricate myself after the first trial but I shall not say how; then they'd all be at it.

The intellectual capacity of the jury was alarmingly poor, but not nearly as poor as that routinely suffered around here.

[AZCat]

59. It seems to depend on the judge here

During the voir dire, a judge gets a lot of leeway when deciding who has a valid excuse and who doesn't. I have heard that in the U.S. judges are increasingly reluctant to let people out of jury duty. I was lucky - I had just finished my bachelor's degree and was taking a semester off to work on a rather flexible project - so I didn't mind serving. It was only five days total also - pretty quick.

Our jury wasn't bad, it just had a big schism that resulted in a hung jury.

[MercutioATC]

60. It also depends on the case. Potential jurors are excluded for many

reasons...

[nomatrix]

62. This is for both of you AZCat and RH

AZ you asked for a link to it.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n9_v26/ai_16476603

"The $200-million-a-year jury-consulting industry helps arm lawyers with more numerous and comprehensive prejudices than instinct and experience alone might have furnished, to resolve those nagging questions of borderline stereotyping: Will Presbyterians be more or less generous with defendants' money than Congregationalists? Do software writers count as a warm and fuzzy occupational group, like prose writers, or are they too much like engineers, widely (and revealingly) booted from juries as "too analytic"? The "impartial juror" is just a fiction, declares an ad for lawyers touting another selection primer that "shows you how to assemble your winning jury, step-by-step." Consultants advise that "logic plays a minimal role" in the courtroom and the real trick is to identify the jurors' "psychological anchors."

Do a google search and you will find....

"As defense counsel, you want jurors who are more restrained and disciplined, both with their feelings and their pocket book. They are more 'thinkers' than 'feelers.' They believe everyone should take responsibility for what happens to them and not blame others or look to others to get 'fixed up.'
These kind of people are uptight; they hold on to their preconceptions. They often fill responsible positions in those professions which require analytical thinking, such as engineers, accountants, computer programmers and managers. They are usually part of the 'establishment,' and are satisfied with the status quo."

"In general, in an invisible injury case, you need to watch out for engineers, accountants - people trained to think in terms of facts, figures, and hard-and- fast rules.
"People with engineering and advanced degrees have a greater appreciation of scientific probabilities," Rice said. "Less-educated people are often not comfortable with chance and are looking for something more reliable. They often need to be convinced not beyond a reasonable doubt, but totally."

There was another one that stated that engineers bring too much science into the case.

It is up to the lawyers to present the evidence, as a juror you decide from only that. Not your own experience.

I was a juror with other professionals. Though we were instructed to take notes, I was the only one who did.
We spent days arguing over what they thought they heard, and with my notes. Ultimately their decision was based on the defense argument of "he said, she said."
I caved in, after days putting me on trial for following instructions.
After the verdicts was handed in, the smart asses in the group couldn't wait to prove me wrong when the judge and attorneys came back to talk with us.
Seems I did record it right. The defendant was an admitted 4 time offender.

I bring this up here, because I see the same tatics are used.
Some of the CT are questionable.
This is a thread on the government doing the study. If they had all the answers as you all argue, then why?

[RH]

65. Why did they have all the answers?

I put it down to the poor quality of the questions.

In the jury room the spookiest thing in terms of intellectual capacity was that half of them never said anything at all, literally, even when prompted, and not only were they quiet, there was something palpably furtive about it, like they'd got a few too many of their own transgressions on their minds.

[AZCat]

66. I don't understand...

I see your point about engineers on juries- thanks for the link and quotes. But I don't understand this:

"I bring this up here, because I see the same tatics are used.
Some of the CT are questionable.
This is a thread on the government doing the study. If they had all the answers as you all argue, then why?"

I don't understand what you mean. Is this regarding engineers thinking too analytically, or am I conflating issues? And what do you mean by "then why?" Then why what?

I am confused.

[nomatrix]

70. Sorry. Let me try to explain my thinking more clearly.

The collapse of the WTC.
I started my 1st post on this thread with, this is a government study
of the floors collapsing.
On every thread, involving the buildings, the tag team (you guys know who you are) repeatedly point out between the engineers, the commission, the study..... we have the answers.
Anyone who suggests there could be explosives, the tag team tell them "we have the answers."

So here it comes, "Why, if those in control had the answers, are they still investigating why the floors collapsed? Now that the report is finished, why bother?
(Tells me, either they didn't have enough evidence to prove it, or manufacturing the evidence to prove it)

I brought the engineer thinking into the picture, because Keene said there was not enough imagination. Imagineers.
I know he was referring to our security. I think he was saying we need to start thinking outside of the box.

It takes some work to stop looking at a problem scientifically.
But I am asking, is it possible for the tag team to give it a rest
with the constant bashing of posters who see it differently?
There seems to be a perverse pleasure. It's sad.

There are many points to consider, in the use of explosive.
1st why not?
We were told they did before in 93'.
Then, the idea was not to have a controlled pancake demolition, but to knock it off center and topple one on top of the other.
That is what I am referring to.
Arguing how thousands of charges would have be placed, NOT if you are trying to domino one-into-the-other building, to create more destruction. You are thinking as an engineer, not as a terrorist.

More could be accomplished, if, there was a willingness to be open to others opinions, and perhaps others would join in if they felt they wouldn't be made a fool of.

[RH]

71. who see it differently?

Now I am more confused than ever before.

:crazy:

Some prefer to convict according to rules of evidence.

Others prefer to convict because of their own personal prejudice.

Which do you wish to prefer?

:shrug:

[MercutioATC]

72. My thoughts on the "tag team":

(In which you probably include me)

I can't speak for others here, but the reason I post here is because I see many theories that are based on incorrect or misinterpreted data. I've seen people say, repeatedly, "Oh, I KNOW it's MIHOP now because I just saw "In Plane Sight" (or some other CT explanation). Many, if not most, of these theories were created by laypersons without access to real data. Therefore, they present conclusions which are just not possible. For example:

The "pod". There are a few reasons the pod could not have been an actual physical bump, but perhaps the most basic is that it covers the area where the starboard landing gear deploys/retracts. Planes don't take off without all three gear.

"There's NO way a 757 could have done that damage to the Pentagon". A team of professional civil engineers examined the Pentagon first hand and wrote a report. In that report, they show how a 757 could have caused that damage. When somebody with no civil engineering knowledge and access to only a few pictures disagrees, I tend to side with the professionals.

"You can tell the WTC buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition because of the way they collapsed." Controlled demolition isn't a matter of just blowing a building up. It involves the placement of hundreds (or thousands) of charges, all drilled into the supports and the removal of other supports. I suppose it's possible that some secret government group spent weeks doing this with nobody noticing, but you must admit it's highly unlikely, to say the least.

"No commercial plane parts were found at the Pentagon.". One of my favorites. I'm sure there are more photos in the government's possession that we haven't seen yet, but even the ones we've seen show plane parts. If plane parts are there, it means a plane crashed there (unless you believe they were planted under the noses of hundreds of onlookers and rescue workers).



Honestly, if the people who presented these theories just took some time to check their facts, there would be a lot fewer naysayers posting here.

[AZCat]

73. Why would we want to stop looking at this scientifically?

Perhaps I (once again) misinterpreted your statement, but I think it is in our best interest to use our scientific knowledge to further the investigation into this affair. The tactics you decry - denunciations of non-official story theories - are not part of a scientific approach, although I have seen several of the "tag team" state specifically that they do not support the official story in whole.

I try not to post opinions about the various theories because I believe "brainstorming" different possibilities is part of the investigation. I do, on the other hand, post about the physical evidence used to support those theories. Regardless of how I feel about a particular theory, the evidence used to support it must not be flawed, and should stand up to rigorous investigation. As dulcedecorum has stated before, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". This means that just because there isn't supporting evidence for a theory that the theory is not valid. However, theories with little or no accepted evidence will be superseded by those with lots of supporting evidence.

If I post that sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads were launched by a modified F-16 into the Pentagon, that theory will quickly fall by the wayside because of a lack of evidence when compared to competing theories. Continued support for theories that have little (or no) evidence or for evidence that itself has been proven invalid tries my patience. Arguing over the validity of evidence doesn't, as long as the participants respect another's opinions and are willing to accept that they might be wrong.

[RH]

40. No, you obviously DONT know

what the official story is.

Forensic tests were of course conducted
according to standard protocols.

No trace of any explosive residue was discovered.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

50. Just another empty, baseless claim.

Are you going to provide some documentation showing that explosive residue was EVER tested for or should we just believe the impeccable word of RH?

[nomatrix]

63. I know the "offical story" vs "what really happened"

NY TIMES
December 25, 2001
THE TOWERS
"Experts Urging Broader Inquiry in Towers' Fall "In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer. Officials in the mayor's office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three- day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation...Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that prevented them from interviewing witnesses, examining the disaster site and requesting crucial information like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments..."This is almost the dream team of engineers in the country working on this, and our hands are tied," said one team member who asked not to be identified. Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press. "FEMA is controlling everything," the team member said...Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the fire protection engineering department at the University of Maryland, said he believed the decision could ultimately compromise any investigation of the collapses. "I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling," Dr. Mowrer said."

[stickdog]

90. Great. Who took these tests? Where are their published results? (nt)

[Bolo Boffin]

54. You do understand the individual marks were made BEFORE construction?

I'm not sure that point is clear in this discussion. The pieces were stamped or stenciled before construction - before assembly. That means, when the towers fell down, most structural pieces were identifiable instantly as to where they were in the structure. Researchers could afford to let the pieces be transported to various landfills and recycling centers, knowing that they could inspect and search for the crucial sections of structure while the cleanup continued apace.

If you've understood me to say that every piece was stamped or stenciled AFTER collapse, then I'm sorry to have given you that impression. I thought the links would clarify what I meant.

[AZCat]

58. It wouldn't do any good, anyway

The structural steel was so deformed from the collapse that it would be difficult (if not impossible) to read anything significant from either the shape of the pieces or the material changes of the steel. As long as the investigators had representative samples of the structural elements that is all they would need to recreate the building for simulation purposes.

[LARED]

69. Steel from WTC 7 was collected

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_apndxD_sheet.pdf

See page 2

[stickdog]

87. Did you know that 236 unique pieces of WTC structural steel wouldn't make

up 1/10 of a single floor in a single tower?

The investigation was singularly unimpressive. And you know it as well as I do. So what's with the continual overstatement?

[Bolo Boffin]

93. How much steel do you think they needed to look at?

What tests would you think they needed to perform on the steel?

Do you think they could have saved all the steel and laid it out in some warehouse somewhere? What do you think that would have accomplished?

NIST says it has all the steel it needs for the tests it's conducting. What more do you think they need to do?

[stickdog]

96. The NIST report says nothing of the sort.

Any reasonably complete forensic analysis of the site would have tried to examine any and all recoverable marked pieces in the vicinity and directly above the points of impact. That's tens of thousands of pieces, not tens of dozens.

NO OTHER STEEL FRAMED BULIDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE!!!

Yet our best forensic examination of the biggest steel frame disaster of all-time consisted of a handful of scientists dragging a couple hundred of pieces of metal off the top of a few piles at ONE of the offsite scrapyards.

And you defend it as exhaustive? Sorry, but your credibility just collapsed like WTC-7. I can't believe you even try to get away with such obvious bullshit.

Time to call in the reinforcements, bolo. You're not playing in the rookie leagues anymore.

[Bolo Boffin]

98. The hell it doesn't. Answer my question.

Where you're absolutely wrong:

1. From the NIST June 2004 report: The collection of steel from the WTC towers is adequate for purposes of NIST’s investigation (i.e., chemical, metallurgical, and mechanical property analyses as well as a substantial damage assessment and failure mode examination) to examine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the impact of the aircraft and ensuing fires.

That's direct from their report (Chapter 2.4.3, page 84). They state that they have all the steel they need.

2. From the NIST June 2004 report: There were four major sites where debris from the WTC buildings was shipped during the clean-up effort in which the volunteers worked. These were:
• Hugo Nue Schnitzer, Inc., Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island, New Jersey;
• Hugo Nue Schnitzer East, Inc., Claremont Terminal in Jersey City, New Jersey;
• Metal Management, Inc., in Newark, New Jersey; and
• Blanford and Co. in Keasbey, New Jersey.

That's from Appendix F, page F-2. Hmmm, four major sites, not one as you state. And "four major" means that they went to others, but their work concentrated on those four sites. Unless four equals one in your universe, stickdog, that's a second place where facts don't mesh with your last post.

3. Your assertion is that no reasonably complete forensic analysis could do less than examine tens of thousands of pieces. Why?

My question, which you ignored, and with which I will HOUND you until you answer it: What tests and/or specific examinations do you propose that NIST should do for which the steel they have collected isn't adequate?

If you can establish why they would need to preserve all that steel (and be my guest, I'm BEGGING you to answer this question), then where do you propose that all this steel have been stored? Should it have been left stacked up on Manhattan Island? Should it have been taken to some previously unknown building the size of Rhode Island where the entire structure could have been meticulously sorted through and pieced together?

Do you even have the slightest comprehension of what it is you're asking these people to do? Prove me wrong. Specify the exact methodology that NIST scientists should be employing to examine this steel. What could they be doing that they are not?

Answer the question.

[stickdog]

99. The studies done were minuscule, highly controlled and completely closed.

Big talk for such an obviously LAME argument.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAN309A.html

Read it and weep! Like I said, time to call in the reinforcements, bolo. This isn't the rookie league anymore.

Compare what was done to the WTC (destroy the evidence) to this:

http://www.siecorp.com/lfe/Background/body_background.html

When the Northridge earthquake struck southern California on January 17, 1994, at least five isolated buildings experienced measurable ground motions. The USC University Hospital in east Los Angeles, approximately 35 km from the epicenter, sustained stronger shaking than any other isolated building ever had previously. Peak ground accelerations of 0.38g below the building were attenuated to less than 0.13g over most of the superstructure, making this building a focal point for international study, and many researchers and engineers from around the world came to Los Angeles in the weeks following the earthquake (Asher et al., 1997).

Name one renowned international civil engineer who is on record as respecting the US's two tiny internal, official investigations as thorough and complete. Come on, bolo. Your credibility is already in shreds. Even the report itself uses the far-less-than-glowing term "adequate" to describe the tiny number of metal structures they were ALLOWED to examine! The studies SUCKED! Destroying the evidence before any and all scientists who wanted to examine it could examine it was UNCONSCIONABLE! So just give up defending the indefensible before everyone notices.

[LARED]

103. Pretty funny straw man you built

Comparing a building that attenuated an earthquake stronger than any other isolated building had previously to the WTC.

Earthquake engineering is a huge concern. This design is off course going to generate a lot of interest. Imagine being the Architect that makes a leap in earthquake proofing a building.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Every ration person on earth knows why the WTC collapsed. These investigations are interesting in trying to determine how exisiting systems failed. Then applying this knowledge to find ways to build better redundancy and fireproofing systems into high rise buildings.

Name one renowned international civil engineer who is on record as respecting the US's two tiny internal, official investigations as thorough and complete.

Why would you need to renowned international civil engineer to put his or her stamp of approval on the report? (Not to mention that you likely would even know if any renowned civil engineer are involved in the task at all).

Tiny internal official investigations. Huh?????

Tiny? By what standard. Internal? In who's wet dream? Official? Do you expect some sort of unofficial investigation? Who is unofficial enough and up to that task?

[stickdog]

108. My God, you guys just throw ANYTHING against the wall and hope it sticks.

THE WTC TOWERS WERE THE ONLY STEEL FRAME HIGHRISES TO EVER TOPPLE BECAUSE OF FIRE.

Literally hundreds of international scientists and engineers desperately wanted to forensically study this uniquely SEMINAL event in the history of civil engineering disasters. Entire international professional groups CONDEMNED the fact that they weren't ALLOWED to get anywhere NEAR the evidence.

But please, just keep destroying your own credibility. It's perfectly in character.

[Bolo Boffin]

113. And the airplanes, stickdog.

I think you meant to say:

THE WTC TOWERS WERE THE ONLY STEEL FRAME HIGHRISES TO EVER TOPPLE BECAUSE OF BEING STRUCK BY AN AIRPLANE AND FIRE.

Because, you know, that airplane crash had a little something to do with it.

[stickdog]

123. What does that have to do with the need to forensically study this

historic event as exhaustively as possible?

Will no other highrise ever be struck by a plane again? And if one is, should we just write off all the people inside instead of trying to find out everything we can to make new and even existing structures more likely to withstand such a disaster?

[Bolo Boffin]

127. It has to do with you mischaracterizing why the buildings fell.

You're leaving out important information.

The buildings were severely wounded by airplane crashes, but you make it sound like they fell only because of the fire.

The buildings were further stressed by the explosion of the airplane - that's come up in the NIST documentation - but you make it sound like a fire was the only reason the building fell.

There were also increased loads running through remaining columns, but you don't mention that. There were also wind loads that played a greater role in stressing the structure after it was wounded, but you don't mention that.

Because saying THE WTC TOWERS WERE THE ONLY HI RISE BUILDINGS EVER TO COLLAPSE BECAUSE OF AN AIRPLANE CRASHING INTO THEM AND EXPLODING, THROWING INCREASED GRAVITY AND WIND LOADS INTO A WEAKENED STRUCTURE, AND ALSO STARTING A HUGE FIRE ACROSS SEVERAL FLOORS INSTANTANEOUSLY THAT WEAKENED THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS EVEN FURTHER kind of takes the wind out of the sails of your original statement. It's accurate, but it doesn't enflame public opinion the same way, does it?

And since you're given to mischaracterize the way these towers fell, why should we listen to you rant about forsenic anything? You don't know the first thing about how to investigate a building collapse.

[impe]

146. Oh Well

NASA should just forget about investigating the Genesis crash, ditto the challenger too...complete waste of time
and money. By the by, Genesis was travelling at over 25,000 mph before entry and then upwards of 150 and
voila....we still have DUBRIS.

[MercutioATC]

133. I believe you're oversimplifying the crash.

Did the WTC towers collapse due to a fire? Well, yes...and no.

The damage caused by the initial impact compounded with the subsequent fire damage weakened the structure enough that it partially collapsed. Partially.

The problem was that that "partial" bit represented thousands of tons of steel and concrete which then unevenly distributed its weight suddenly to the next lower level, causing structural failure. This new "partial" mass then unenevenly distributed its weight suddenly to the next lower level...

and so on...

and so on...

and so on.

It's pure spin to suggest that a fire has never brought down a similar building before. There was more at play here than a simple fire.

[LARED]

128. Really ????

Entire international professional groups CONDEMNED the fact that they weren't ALLOWED to get anywhere NEAR the evidence.

I have watched this investigation pretty closely and seem to have missed this.

Do you have anything to back up this statement?

BTW, I'm glad to see you got this right.

THE WTC TOWERS WERE THE ONLY STEEL FRAME HIGHRISES TO EVER TOPPLE BECAUSE OF FIRE.

Must CT'er tend to omit the word high rise. Of course this event is the only time a jet was flown into a steel frame high rise as well, so the fact that this is the only event of this type seems to make sense.

[Bolo Boffin]

107. What CT handbook did you get that out of?

You ask for a single internationally renowned engineer who's backed up the FEMA and NIST studies.

How about the study conducted by the Weidlinger Associates? Is that enough internationally renowned engineers for you? Their World Trade Center Forensic Report won the 2004 Grand Conceptor award from the American Council of Engineering Companies, one of the most prestigious awards in engineering. And they didn't resort to controlled demolitions or death rays or anything like that. Just the airplane and the fire.

As to thorough and complete, you really don't understand what you're talking about. FEMA quickly realized that they didn't have the authority necessary to conduct the study, so they published a preliminary report and handed the reins over to NIST. So of course the FEMA report isn't thorough and complete - it doesn't pretend to be. You might as well insult eighth graders because they can't read Ulysses.

The NIST report is still being conducted. So of course it is not complete.

But thorough?

Here's http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTCplan_new.htm">the NIST proposal for their study, stickdog. Check it out, because you know that anyone reading this will do the same. Look at the breadth of this investigation - there are eight major projects for the technical side of this report:

Project #1: Analysis of Building and Fire Codes and Practices

Project #2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis

Project #3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel

Project #4: Investigation of Active Fire Protection Systems

Project #5: Reconstruction of Thermal and Tenability Environment

Project #6: Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis

Project #7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communications

Project #8: Fire Service Technologies and Guidelines.

These projects are further broken down into baseline tasks and expected outputs. Since you're on a tear about the structural steel, here's that itemized project:

Purpose: To analyze structural steel available from WTC 1, 2, and 7 for determining the metallurgical and mechanical properties and quality of the metal, weldments, and connections, and providing these data to other investigation projects.


Technical Approach: This project is divided into six tasks as follows:

Task 1—Collect and catalog the physical evidence (structural steel components and connections) and other available data, such as specifications for the steel, the location of the steel pieces within the buildings, and the specified steel properties.

Task 2—Document failure mechanisms and damage based on visual observations of recovered steel, especially for available columns, connectors, and floor trusses. Possible factors contributing to extreme erosion seen on some parts of the steel columns will be studied.

Task 3—Determine the metallurgical and mechanical properties of the steel, weldments, and connections, including temperature dependence of properties. The grades of steel will be identified in the columns, welds, spandrels, trusses, truss seats, and fasteners. The identification will include composition, microstructure, mechanical, and impact properties. This project will provide steel property data, including models of elevated temperature behavior for relevant steels, to estimate damage to the structural steel members from aircraft impact, evaluate structural fire response, and study the initiation and propagation of structural collapse in the project on Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis.

Task 4—Correlate determined steel properties with the specified properties for construction of the buildings. The quality of the steel used in the buildings will be compared with that specified.

Task 5—Analyze the steel metallographically to estimate maximum temperatures reached. It is recognized that high temperature exposure before the collapse may be difficult to distinguish from exposure during post-collapse fires.

Task 6—Report preparation. The results of this project will be synthesized into a chapter to describe the results of the metallurgical and mechanical analysis of the structural steel available from the WTC towers and WTC 7. The project staff will contribute to drafting the final investigation report for review by the Federal Advisory Committee.

Outputs and Estimate of Time-to-Completion:

1. Catalog of available structural steel and relevant specifications (4 months).

2. Documentation of failure mechanisms and damage from visual observations (4 months).

3. Interim reports on the metallurgical and mechanical properties of the steel and connections, including temperature dependence of properties.


a. Data to support model development—identification of steel in the columns, welds, spandrels, trusses, truss seats, and fasteners based on composition, microstructure, room temperature tensile properties, and impact properties (partial results in 4 months, complete in 12 months).

b. Data to support aircraft impact modeling studies—high strain rate mechanical properties and impact properties of columns, spandrels, bolts, and welds on columns (partial in 4 months, complete in 14 months).

c. Data to support models of steel frame performance in fire—creep and high temperature tensile properties of columns, bolts on columns, trusses, truss seats, and bolts or welds associated with truss seats (partial results in 4 months, complete in 12 months).

d. Data to support models of steel during collapse—high strain rate room temperature tensile properties of truss seats and associated bolts and welds (partial results in 5 months, complete in 16 months).

e. Models of elevated temperature deformation as a function of load, temperature and time history for relevant steels (some steels in 6 months, complete in 16 months).


4. Estimation of maximum temperatures reached by collected structural steel (complete in 12 months).

5. Database of microstructural changes with temperature in the various classes of steels for future use by building and fire communities (16 months).

6. Comparison of steel properties to applicable material specifications (12 months).

7. Draft of chapter for final report that describes the results of the metallurgical and mechanical` analysis of the structural steel available from the WTC towers and WTC 7 (18 months).

That seems pretty thorough to me, stickdog.

[stickdog]

110. Because you're an apologist.

The forensic evidence is now GONE, bolo!

This was a historic civil engineering disaster of SEMINAL importance. Literally SCORES of international forensic studies would have been done on just the support failure analysis had OUR GOVERNMENT ALLOWED any international scientists to examine the evidence.

Instead, we have ONE study that looked at a couple of hundred metal supports. Your zeal in defending the indefensible has reduced your credibility to nil.

[Bolo Boffin]

111. One study? Get real.

There's at least three major reports, in addition to the preliminary FEMA report.

[AZCat]

114. Not to mention all the tangentially-related reports

It only happened three years ago. It's going to take some time for studies to be completed and published. Speaking of that, an interesting article I will try to check out when I'm on campus tomorrow was just published in July 2004 in the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 140, Issue 7, titled "Explosion and Fire Analysis of Steel Frames Using Fiber Element Approach," by J. Y. Richard Lien and Hong Chen.

[Bolo Boffin]

116. Here's an abstract:

Explosion and Fire Analysis of Steel Frames Using Fiber Element Approach

J. Y. Richard Liew,1 M.ASCE and Hong Chen2

1Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Univ. of Singapore, BLK E1A # 07-03, 1 Engineering Dr. 2, Singapore 117576, Singapore.
2Post-Doctoral Fellow, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Univ. of Singapore, Singapore 117576, Singapore.

(Accepted May 28, 2003)

Since the September 11th terrorist attacks, the research and engineering communities have given significant attention to building performance under combined effects of impact, explosion, and fire. This paper presents a numerical approach for inelastic transient analysis of steel frame structures subjected to explosion loading followed by fire. The approach adopts the use of beam–column element and fiber element to enable a realistic modeling of the overall framework subjected to localized explosion and fire. Detailed requirements for modeling elasto–plastic materials subjected to elevated temperature and high-strain rates are presented. Verification examples are provided. The influence of blast loads on the fire resistance of a multistory steel frame is studied.

©2004 American Society of Civil Engineers

[stickdog]

120. Did Liew & Chen get to study the forensic evidence?

Were they allowed to examine the actual WTC metal supports?

Didn't think so.

But I guess it's all just smoke and mirrors with you guys, huh?

[stickdog]

117. You're missing the point. The forensic evidence in LONG GONE!

The BEST and MOST COMPREHENSIVE study we have got to look at just a couple hundred of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of metal supports the three buildings contained before it was all shipped off to be destroyed.

[Bolo Boffin]

119. And YOU'RE IGNORING THE QUESTION!

What more could be done to the actual steel than is being done?

What actual tests do you propose? List them.

What actual methodologies do you propose? Rattle them off!

Come on, stickdog. Answer the question.

[stickdog]

121. Anything. Anything at all. NOTHING WAS DONE WITH THE FORENSIC

EVIDENCE!

Analysis of distortion, of load, of stress, of temperature exposure, of insulation cohesion, of fire composition.

Thousands of pieces from the area of impact and directly above should have been collected and stored carefully TO THIS DAY AND LONG AFTER for any and all international scientists and engineers to study in any way that any of them saw fit.

How in the world can you dispute this? Why is it so important to you to defend something that's inarguably indefensible? What was possibly scientifically GAINED by immediately destroying the forensic evidence instead?

[Bolo Boffin]

126. That's not true.

Everything you list is being done. What more could be done?

So now you're proposing that all that steel should have been preserved in perpetuity for "future scientists". Can you map out a cost-effective analysis for that proposed venture? How long is LONG AFTER?

In the meantime, stickdog, welcome to the 21st century, where the advance in computer technology and analytical software make the level of forensic inquiry and preservation you are ranting about unnecessary.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is basing its review, analysis, modeling, and testing work for the World Trade Center (WTC) Investigation on a solid foundation of technical evidence. This requires access to critical data such as building documents, videographic and photographic records, emergency response records, and oral histories, in addition to the samples of steel that have been recovered.

...NIST has received all of the essential information it needs for the WTC investigation.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/status_collection.htm

So there's another word for you to bandy about, stickdog: essential.

Now what exactly do we look at the steel for, stickdog? If you're an internationally renowned engineer in a peer-driven, peer-reviewable study, you look at the actual structual steel to see if the building was built the way it was supposed to be built. From the NIST Interim Report:

2.4.9 Preliminary Findings

1. Analysis of recovered samples of the many grades of steel in the towers indicates that, based on stampings on the steel and mechanical tests, the correct specified grades of steel were provided for the specific fabricated elements. Furthermore, when this data is combined with pre-collapse photographic images of the five recovered WTC 1 panels in NIST’s possession that were damaged by the aircraft impact, it has been shown that these particular elements contained proper steel in the precise locations as specified in the design drawings.

2. Metallography and mechanical property tests indicate that the strength and quality of steel in the towers was adequate, typical of the era, and likely met all qualifying test requirements.

In other words, there wasn't a problem with the steel - it was built according to plan. So the computer modelling of the structure can be conducted with confidence that the manufacturing of the steel didn't contribute to the collapse.

What else, specifically, have been done to this steel and for what purpose?

[AZCat]

122. The forensic evidence was gone before the steel was shipped off

That's what happens when a building that big falls down - it deforms the structural members. The steel deformations that would have told us more about the damage from the impact were deformed even more during the subsequent fall and collapse. There's not much you can do with something like that, and saving all the structural steel from the WTC would not do anything to help the analysis.

[stickdog]

124. Yeah, that's the same reason we never study plane crashes or any other

building disasters!

No sense in even trying! Nope, AZCat has spoken!

[AZCat]

125. I didn't say we aren't studying it

I said it wouldn't do any good to save all the structural steel.

[stickdog]

115. No, you GET REAL.

The BIGGEST and BEST forensic study that you are LAUDING examined a (self-described as "adequate") couple of hundred of metal support structures from three buildings included HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of metal supports.

And now all of this EVIDENCE that might have been studied -- that hundreds of international scientists and engineers literally BEGGED to study -- IS GONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody can study it any more comprehensively BECAUSE IT WAS ALL SHIPPED AWAY to the furthest reaches of earth to be melted down ASAP!!!!!!!!!!

But I love to see you destroy your credibility. So please, keep defending the indefensible in the strongest terms possible. Don't ever give an inch until you become no more than a blatantly obvious cartoon of your carefully crafted persona.

[Bolo Boffin]

118. Got a link to "hundreds of international scientists and engineers..."

...BEGGING to study the evidence?

I want literal begging, since that was what I was promised.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

130. You got it Bolo. Fire up the spinning machine.

Statements from the House Committee on Science

----------------------------

"According to reports that we have heard since, there has been no comprehensive investigation. One expert in fire engineering concluded that there was virtually a nonexistent investigation. We haven't examined any aspects of the collapse that might have impacted rescue worker procedures even in this last month.

Second, reports have emerged that crucial evidence has been mishandled. Over 80 percent of the steel from the World Trade Center site has already been sold for recycling, much of it, if not all of it, before investigators and scientists could analyze the information."

-----------
"I am concerned that no clear protocol was in place for building investigators who were attempting to understand how the two buildings collapsed. While I understand that Ground Zero is first and foremost a crime scene and rescue area, we must also allow investigators the ability to fully examine evidence that will give us a greater understanding of why the buildings collapsed. I was disappointed to learn that investigators were unable to examine recovered pieces of steel from the Twin Towers before they were recycled."
--------------
"The FEMA BPAT encountered numerous obstacles during its investigation, including an inability to examine the steel, either removed from the site during the early search and rescue work or shipped to recycling plants, and the denial of access to building design, construction, and maintenance documents."
----------------
"The American Society of Civil Engineers team, whose report is due in April, admits they may have lost data due to the decision to recycle the structural steel."
--------------------
"In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site"
-----------------
"The efforts of NSF-funded researchers were impeded by the same obstacles the BPAT team encountered: an inability to examine the steel, either removed from the site during the early search and rescue work or shipped to recycling plants"

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy77747.000/hsy77747_0.htm#0



Some questions for you Bolo, which you should have no problem answering since there was such a "thorough investigation".

In addition to the scrapping of the steel without inspection,

1)What was the "fuel" and the source of the fire underground fires that burned until December 2001? What fuel could possibly burn at temperatures necessary to melt steel (>2800 F) in a low oxygen environment?

2)Why did the FBI have to preapprove videos and photos of the "pile" before airing on TV or appearing in print media?

3) Why are CBS and the NIST withholding the Naudet footage of the east penthouse collapse of WTC 7?

4) Why, according to the NY times, are "vast details on the towers' collapse" being withheld by the port authority of NY and Larry Silverstein, both whom were involved in the sale of the WTC in June 2001??

[LARED]

132. Still no answer

that hundreds of international scientists and engineers literally BEGGED to study -- IS GONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please provide a link or something to establish this statement.

The stuff in your post is just a rehash of the same old complaints.

Yes, I'm pretty sure everyone agrees the investigation got of to a bad start and mistakes were made. But, after three years, I've yet to see, hear, or read, of anything that even remotely indicates a conspiracy.

[Bolo Boffin]

137. That's not "hundreds", and you're trying to changing the subject.

You quote from a March 2002 report on this. What could have been the reason that all that steel was moved so quickly? Was it a concerted effort to hide the truth? Could there have been a conspiracy?

From your own link, NecessaryOnslaught, from your own damn link:

In the wake of the collapses, search and rescue workers launched an around-the-clock recovery effort to find and recover survivors and victims who perished. To make way, literally tons of twisted steel and fractured concrete were removed from the rubble pile and loaded onto convoys of bulldozers and flatbed trucks to be carried away to recycling plants and landfills.

They were trying to find survivors and bodies. How dare they.

And your quotes aren't from a scientist at all! The first is from Representative Weiner. The second is from Representative Forbes. The third, Representative Costello. The fourth, Rep. Larson. The last two are from the background report.

And this committee is much more concerned about the BPAT delay in getting to the site than the steel being recycled. Read the report instead of doing a quick scan looking for the word "steel".

And perhaps you didn't notice, but my quote from an actual engineer is from this report. And that scientist, while deploring the loss of so much steel, still felt that between all the agencies examining the steel, enough was recovered to conduct their investigation.

So go and get me a link to "hundreds of international scientists BEGGING to examine" the steel. I'm waiting.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

138. I well aware of who made the statements.

Members of the House repeating concerns made to them by engineers and investigators. Concerns that steel was recycled with no inspection. Concerns that there was "virtually no investigation".

Of course there was an effort to recover survivors and bodies, and yes steel had to be moved. Does this justify the scrapping of at least 80 percent of the steel?? Of course not, if this were a real investigation ALL of the steel would have been taken to an auxiliary site for inspection as the teams were gathered and protocols written. Instead, my furry footed, vertically challenged friend, a vast majority of the heavy steel was placed on freighters on various piers in Manhattan and shipped directly to be recycled in foreign lands. Thats a fact that you and all the other Donnie Brasco's here ain't gonna change, regardless of your axis and speed of rotation.

I'll be patiently waiting for your answers to my questions from the previous post.

[demodewd]

16. NIST invalidation

Tell me bolo,what federal agency has ever stood up to it's masters? Has anyone or agency ever publicly question the legitimacy of the Warren Report? Or any other official report of any other questionable government action or political assassination? So why would 9-11 be any different? The NIST report is predictable under the political circumstances. It invalidates itself by being a government agency. History is it's witness.

[MercutioATC]

19. That applies to the ASCE Pentagon report, too?

:shrug:

The ASCE is not a government entity, but it wrote its report at the government's behest. Is this report also worthless?

[demodewd]

21. And the answer is...

Yes

[MercutioATC]

22. So what report WOULD you consider reputable?

[demodewd]

33. government "facts"

Basically none. No one that has access to crash evidence is going to be outside a controlled circle of agencies and associations.The investigator under these controlled circumstances works under the government's given(proclamation), all of which of course has not gone through the standard legal procedures of a normal criminal inquiry. And that proclamation we were told just a few hours after the incidents. Four commercial airliners were hijacked by men from the Middle East,apparently devout Islamists,who proceeded to crash the planes into the Pentagon and the two WTC towers in NY,the fourth intended crash into another building(probably the White House) being aborted by brave passengers who struggled to gain control of the plane and by doing so crashed it into a field near Shankstown,PA. That's the true story...boys and girls...now go find your physical evidence absolutely based on these facts.

[MercutioATC]

35. Ah, so you wouldn't trust anybody actually authorized to view the sites...

...that kinda leaves you with trusting a layperson's impression of a few pictures, doesn't it?

I guess physical evidence is overrated, anyway...

:eyes:

[RH]

42. Puerile drivel.

How 'bout, just for once, instead of the fruitlessly repetitive, inconsequential rant, an adult answer to the sensible question?

In view of an absolute detestation of officialdom, who exactly would you appoint to conduct an inquiry?

:shrug:

[tngledwebb]

43. Same question back to you

Who do you trust? How would you go about this kind of investigation? Give us your very first question and to whom?

[MercutioATC]

44. Gee, maybe I'd hire a bunch of civil engineers who specialized

in reinforced concrete structures and damage to those structures, give them access to the site, and see what they thought. I'd make sure that a reputable organization, like the ASCE, was involved, too.

Oh, wait. That's what happened, isn't it?

The claim has been made that if the government is involved, the conclusions can't be trusted. Don't you see, though, that since the government OWNS the Pentagon, they're the only entity that can grant access. That being true, who do YOU suggest we get to do an investigation?

[tngledwebb]

46. well ' isn't that conveeenient...'

And this govt, and most of the media, is NOT to be trusted. C'est fini. So why waste your time here trying to use THOSE impeachable sources to back up your arguments? Alternate CT folks got no truck with with OFFICIAL Conspiracy Theorists because of this simple paradox. Would anyone mind answering my other question? Or try this easy one: Who do YOU trust in the Bush Govt? Cheney, Condi, Shrub, Rummy, Wolfie? Pick one and tell why you do or don't trust 'em. I await deafening silence or more evasion... Sorry I don't have the clever tinfoil smilies option or I'd send 'em on inderscore the soundness of my reasoning and depth of my professional legal training.

[MercutioATC]

47. So give me an alternative...

Who would you trust to give a factual analysis of the Pentagon crash?

I don't "believe" Cheney, Rice, Bush, Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz. Suggesting that I do is a gross oversimplification. I trust that the ASCE engineers that wrote the report gave an accurate accounting. Why do YOU "trust" people with absolutely no qualifications that view a few pictures to form an accurate conclusion?

Oh, by the way, you DO have the tinfoilhat option:

colon"tinfoilhat"colon (without the quotation marks)

[RH]

49. Cheney, Condi, Shrub, Rummy, and Wolfie

are beside the point.

They did not conduct an inquiry.

Who would you appoint to conduct an inquiry?

[LARED]

51. This government?

And this govt, and most of the media, is NOT to be trusted.

Well I certainly agree with you. No government should be trusted. But I get the feeling that what you mean is the Bush government. Correct?

Again I agree.

But most likely nearly everyone that created these various "government reports" have been around before Bush took office. Most of these government people are just hard working people that happen to be employed by the Feds. Or by organizations contracted by the Feds.

So how does this government control the thousands of people that are involved in creating the NIST and ASCE reports? Mind control? Fear? Radio waves? How?

You are trying to say that multitudes of professional people (engineers, scientist, etc) have created a lie to cover up for the Bush administration?

How is this possible?

[RH]

45. Read the record

If you really want to know, read my 1256 previous postings to democraticunderground. On many occassions I have commented on matters of jurisprudence, credibilty, priority and responsibility.

[demodewd]

52. closed shop

There's no way I or anyone who questions the government's version can conduct an effective inquiry. The evidence was removed. We have no access to main stream media. No serious discussion is permitted on the main stream media. Gee. I wonder why? But I guess in your thinking it's "puerile" to know this to be true. In my thinking it's just plain obvious.What's "puerile" is to have undying faith in the authorities. It's a closed shop...or haven't you figured that out yet.

[MercutioATC]

53. But anybody the government let in would be untrustworthy anyway, right?

You can't complain that the government didn't let people examine the evidence while claiming that anybody who they DID let examine the evidence is untrustworthy by virtue of that permission.

Again, give me an alternative. Who WOULD you trust?

[tngledwebb]

74. 'Well, who ya gonna

believe, me or your own eyes?'
... Chico in DUCK SOUP.

Still not getting thru. Official CT folks can use 'Official' reports to support their side till the cows come home but it won't convince the skeptics. So if you want to convince try another tack. I trust no-one in this Govt full stop, and it would be helpful if you can tell me who in this Govt YOU trust. Do you think Rummy's got the winning smile, or is it silver-tongued Cheney, or only the Pres himself, clever and charming as he is? Do you not have the slightest credibility gap with this team? Is this a difficult question?

[LARED]

75. There is a difference between

what you call this government and what is known as this administration. While there is plenty of reason to mistrust this administration, there is lots of reason to trust the government institution that prepared the NIST report, and the non-government institution of the ASCE.

This institutions are comprised of thousands of regular people like you and me that get paid by the federal government. They are not part of the administration, hence their allegiances are not defined by the administration.

What you are asking me to believe is that this administration has the power to force likely thousands of professional people to do their bidding, even though at least half of them probably do not even like this administration.

How or where does the Bush administration wield that type of power over everyday people?

[tngledwebb]

76. NIST or ASCE or 9/11 Commission Reports

in themselves neither solidify your case nor undermine the main arguments on the other side. And if Israel can still put spies in the Pentagon, this Govt can put their people in the ASCE or wherever they want. Regardless, there may be thousands of Govt and civilian employees who know more than they want to say at this time, fear itself one of many factors. For example, even suggesting LIHOP may be permanently fatal to your career or credibilty, see C. McKinney, H. Dean, M. Meacher. But why not answer my question? Or this one- are you at all afraid of the present Govt?

[LARED]

77. Huh?

NIST or ASCE or 9/11 Commission Reports in themselves neither solidify your case nor undermine the main arguments on the other side.

Please explain this. These reports quite nicely solidify nearly all of the "official story" case. BTW, is there a main argument on the tin foil hat side? Please tell me what it is.

And if Israel can still put spies in the Pentagon, this Govt can put their people in the ASCE or wherever they want.

Well that's true. What that has to do with this discussion is a mystery to me. There are literally thousands of people in these organizations, so how could a spy or two force the creation of a false document with the scope of these report.

Regardless, there may be thousands of Govt and civilian employees who know more than they want to say at this time, fear itself one of many factors. For example, even suggesting LIHOP may be permanently fatal to your career or credibility,

That's true. But here's the problem. There is no real evidence for LIHOP or MIHOP, so suggesting either IS fatal to your credibility - for good reason. If there was real material evidence, how could it be hidden from thousands of investigators in an investigation that is being watched by a nation?

If you were asked to fabricate a false document - - would you? I'd guess the answer is no. I know I would not. As an engineer I have a code of ethics I work by and take seriously. So why do your suppose thousands of other people have no principles.

see C. McKinney, H. Dean, M. Meacher.

They were rejected by the voters. That's how America works.

But why not answer my question? Or this one- are you at all afraid of the present Govt?

It was already answered. No I do not trust this administration- I am not afraid of them. America has had corrupt and lousy administrations in the past, and survived, and they will in the future. But what I do have faith in is the regular everyday people that work for the government and institutions that may be hired by the government.

[tngledwebb]

79. This 'Huh's for you Bud....

Now go ahead and huh hem and haw as if my post is above or beneath your comprehension. You may be right on one count. To repeat: the official reports do not explain 9/11, they are smokescreens and gobbledygook. Btw, the world changed 11/2000, as you may have heard. For example, the voters did not CHOOSE the current Admin, they chose the other guy, and were too dazed or powerless to stop it. 9/11 sealed the deal, and that's the kind of system where thousands keep their head down and mouths shut. Finally, the most popular tinfoil hat theory is the one you seem to favor. (Insert tinfoil hat smilies here for sarcastic gravitas.)

[LARED]

80. Pretty touchy, aren't you?

Your statement IS beneath my comprehension, hence my request for you to explain how you believe the "NIST or ASCE or 9/11 Commission Reports in themselves neither solidify your case nor undermine the main arguments on the other side.

Frankly it makes no sense.

Just a note here. can anyone explain the connection between the 9/11 tin foilers and the folks that seem to think the Bush administration has powers reserved for deity?

I've asked many time how the Bush administration got thousands of people to join a conspiracy, covered up evidence, planted evidence at the pentagon and the WTC'ers, Provided holographs, had people witness events that supposedly didn't happen. No one has yet to provide any sort of reasonable answer.

[tngledwebb]

81. Mild sarcasm, in the face of the obtuse, is no vice.

So here it is, one last time, for the record: Your 'Official' Govt reports are BS, i.e. don't support YOUR case, i.e. don't undermine the OTHER side, and are carefully designed to be wishy washy whitewash.

'Official' CT supporters may trust and cite from those sources ad infinitum, but this will not matter to those who don't wear OCT tinfoil hats.

As to your last question, bear in mind the Alt CT theory implies a BIG conspiracy going back decades, and includes major media complicity. YOU may find that far-fetched, but you must realize how the BIG 'C' concept provides an answer for nearly all your counter-arguments.

But I bet you won't.

[MercutioATC]

82. Your arguement would have more meat if it weren't for that pesky evidence.

Again, you can certainly support ANY theory by selecting specific past events and drawing parallels. That doesn't make the theory credible. Dismissing all contrary evidence doesn't work, either. A credible theory simply has to take all available evidence into account and allow or effectively debunk it.

The type of theory you're promoting is the stereotypical example of a "conspiracy theory", akin to bigfoot and alien abduction theories. Sure, some people believe them, but I think it's fair to say that most don't consider them credible.

[LARED]

83. The BIG 'C'

Of course having a ever growing BIG CT envelopes all counter arguments.

How do you think it gets so big?

It is the standard CT true believer MO. For every aspect of the CT that is explained or becomes outlandish with a little light shown on it, the response is just to expand the CT as needed to keep it alive. Even if it mean going back decades. Even if it mean going back to when this administrations was wearing diapers. "They" (the planners) knew this day was coming.

BTW, wear your CT tinfoil hat with pride. I love a person with passion. Even if it a bit well --- you know what I mean.

[tngledwebb]

100. No I don't...

But keep your little hat on tight too. It's shiny and makes a hollow sound, and suits you well.

[LARED]

104. Does this mean

I made it into the Big 'C'?

[LARED]

78. How about answering my question?

How or where does the Bush administration wield that type of power over everyday people?

[tngledwebb]

156. Not necessarily Bush Admin in total...

Only parts, but the proof is in the pudding, ie only a few key players in government and big media are needed. Public really never knows more than the iceberg's tip, if that. For example, half or more of Americans think Iraq was closely linked with 911. Do you or did you ever believe that one? Remember, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of American public. Sadly this still holds.

[LARED]

157. You're not addressing my question

Let me be more specific

These reports and investigations are put together by hundreds if not thousands of professional people. Engineers, scientists, lawyers, politicians, etc. These people cross all demographic boundaries. They are a reflection of America at large. Democrat, Republican, Christian, Jew, and Muslim, Short, fat, tall. skinny, Hate Bush, loves Bush or could care less who is president.

The government does not have the ability ot coerce all of these intelligent people to create false documents the breath and scope of the 9/11 investigations. Impossible.

Remember the key word here is coerce. Many a government secret has been kept by willing participates. Call me naive, but I will not believe that that many professional people have willingly participated in a cover-up of 3000 murdered people by the government.

[stickdog]

92. Hey, here's a question I think you can answer, MercutioATC.

Who was working the on the frontlines at Cleveland ATC on 9/11?

I think their experiences would make a great book. What do you think about that idea?

[MercutioATC]

152. I think nobody really cares what ATCs do.

They don't even realize we're there most of the time (which is what we aim for). If you took every controller involved and stuck to facts, you'd have a boring, 100-page book (if that).

My job isn't especially glamorous or interesting. When it becomes glamourous or interesting, it's because something's gone wrong. I'm happy to work "behind the scenes", as are most of us.

[LARED]

26. IF your master.............

whomever that might be was forcing you to write a something you knew to be false, what would you do?