Have a go Celebs

Originally posted by Griff

And, I will say. Yes, you need the structural documentation for an analysis.

I agree with this.

However, a qualified structural engineer CAN make some assumptions, based on what IS known. They won't be 100% correct, we agree. And no one would call them a fool for trying. At least it would be an effort, other than Ross'.

Tell me, how can a structural engineer say that they are fairly convinced about 9/11 WITHOUT seeing them? It is hypocritical of the whole engineer arm of the truth movement to say that they have a feeling for what happened. Surely engineers don't operate this way - "well, my calcs show that I need an 8" beam, but I don't believe it, so we'll spec a 6"." Like I said, just about EVERY comment made by the members at ae911 is rooted in incredulity, rather than some kind of "engineering" knowledge. Very poor for an engineer, I'd say.

But let's be truthful here also about WHO "they" are. "They" won't release the specs. You KNOW that "they" isn't NIST, right?

Who owns the specs? The Port Authority I would assume? You or whoever can file all the FOIAs you want, but it prolly won't get you anywhere, since NIST is legally prohibited from releasing to the public, those private docs.

Ask the PA for them, but they are in no way obligated to release private files. NIST saw them, presumably, because they also, presumably, have subpeona power to view them. All we're entitled to is their report.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Ask the PA for them, but they are in no way obligated to release private files. NIST saw them, presumably, because they also, presumably, have subpeona power to view them. All we're entitled to is their report.

I have asked the PA for them. They played dumb. They sent me to a link to download the new "freedom tower" documentation. They must have thought I was a bidder even though I specifically said I was an engineer interesed in studying the collapse of the towers. After mentioning this to her again, I haven't heard back in well over 6 months. It took her about 3 days when she thought I was a bidder. So, to say she is just overwhelmed would be disingeneous IMO.

And since all we're entitled to is their report, how can people claim said report is peer reviewed? When only the writers of said report can view the critical documentation.

[edit on 6/1/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

I have asked the PA for them. They played dumb.

And since all we're entitled to is their report, how can people claim said report is peer reviewed? When only the writers of said report can view the critical documentation.

[edit on 6/1/2008 by Griff]

Personally, I enjoy my 5th A rights. I'd like to keep them intact and not start requiring private companies or people to submit their private documents and such to scrutiny by any Tom, Dick, or Harry. This is exactly the thing that I'd expect the ACLU to fight against if it came to pass. So good luck with that.

There's no way around that now, is there? We are not entitled to view those docs. Period. If the PA decides to release them, good for y'all.

Again, this is the country we live in. We have a right to privacy and have property rights, as guarranteed by the 5th A. Govt agencies have a right to subpeona/take custody of this type of info when they need it to do an investigation. They may not release said info cuz they want to validate their report to doubters. The people doing the work have demonstrated their competence already, that's how they're in the position in the first place.

I'd fight you and anyone else that would seek to change these property rights, because such erosion of our rights would be the first step down the slippery slope to facism. Which is something that Bush haterz accuse the guv of doing. Hypocrites.



[edit on 2-6-2008 by Seymour Butz]

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Well, I guess it depends on the owner of the property and the licensed engineer.

But, for the most part, I've found building plans are accessed through the internet even.

www.fpm.iastate.edu...

Which goes back to why would the owner (Silverstein) and the engineer (Robertson) want the plans to be hidden? Wouldn't it benefit them both to have as many engineers backing up what the official reports say?



[edit on 6/2/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

Which goes back to why would the owner (Silverstein) and the engineer (Robertson) want the plans to be hidden? Wouldn't it benefit them both to have as many engineers backing up what the official reports say?

Those plans are there because they CHOSE to put them there. Again, they would never be required to do so. Similarly, your firm would be spanked pretty hard if they put up some construction plans up on the web without their client's approval. They paid for them, and they're NOT yours to distribute. Same goes for NIST.

I'm sure you meant the PA and Robertson, right?

I see no advantage to them to release anything, other than to appease those pesky investigoogling kids and their dog. Businesses would rather move on than get dragged into any spurious legal battles that CTerz would bring up when they get their hands on this - think Judy Wood here.

But of course the other side of the coin is that the towers MAY have been built with some questionable engineering, but still within the guidelines that were set forth for the PA when they were built. NIST presumably would have said something if the plans didn't meet the codes specified for the PA. (I believe that a retired fire chief- Scheuer? - wrote a book detailing some objections about the towers.) Which of course while legal, would indeed bring those lawsuits that they must defend against. There are avenues for being compensated for having to defend themselves from frivolous lawsuits - the term is pure heart but empty headed I believe ( no joke, I think that's the actual wording from the courts ) - but like in the Wood case, if she's broke, how do you collect? So it's just more expense to be avoided.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
I'm sure you meant the PA and Robertson, right?

I guess so. How does Silverstein fit into the picture? Did he buy the buildings? Or did he just lease them and the PA still owns them? Or does the PA own the land and Silverstein the buildings? Damnit Butz, now I have to go do more research. Just joking around, please take as such.

I see no advantage to them to release anything, other than to appease those pesky investigoogling kids and their dog. Businesses would rather move on than get dragged into any spurious legal battles that CTerz would bring up when they get their hands on this - think Judy Wood here.

But, don't you think if there was something to it, the public has a right to know?

While we are on the subject of lawsuites, what do you make of Silverstein trying to collect billions from the airlines? But, not going after the ones who decided to make it illegal for the FBI and CIA to communicate? Which is why the security was not vamped up in the airlines to begin with. If Silverstein actually wants to go after the true culprits, why the airlines who had no idea of the threat?

[edit on 6/4/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
quote]

I guess so. How does Silverstein fit into the picture?
But, don't you think if there was something to it, the public has a right to know?

While we are on the subject of lawsuites, what do you make of Silverstein trying to collect billions from the airlines?

I believe LS owned the land and building for 7. And the PA owned the land and buildings for 1,2.

It sounds equally frivolous unless the airline security did something wrong.

I don't see how he can sue the guv though for having a policy that was generally acceptable at the time - "boxcutter" wise.

reply to post by Seymour Butz


True, but I feel the same way towards the airlines. I think you do too from what you said.

I have said this before, in other forums, but I'll say it again here. When I was in High School, I took vocational classes in Drafting and Design. On of the requirements for graduation was to write a term paper on an assigned subject. My topic was the construction innovations used in building the WTC. During my research, I found that the WTC towers were almost left unfinished, due to a shortage of the correct type of steel and financial problems. Almost overnight those problems disappeared. I have to wonder if a different, cheaper, more plentiful type of steel was used? I'm not saying that the towers were built unsafe, they just weren't as strong as we were led to believe. Let's face it, no one could forsee someone delibertly flying a fully loaded airliner directly into the towers.

With this being said, does anybody find it strange that the Federal Government stepped in so quickly with the 9-11 settlement fund? It was publicized as protection for the airlines involved, but you have to wonder if there wasn't another reason? The WTC was leased by Silverstein, but who owned it? The answer is the City of New York, the State of New York and the State of New Jersey. With our "sue happy", "get rich quick society", what would the result have been if it was found out that the steel had been changed on the upper floors? It would probably have bankrupted two States and one of the largest cities in the US.

What I find most interesting is the intentional purging of books and information about the construction of the WTC from our libraries and the removal of copies of the plans from several companies and colleges.

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Holy crap, Seymour Butz is still writing posts telling everyone in the world how everything really is? This is the same guy who proves WTC 1 & 2 didn't collapse in 9 seconds by posting a video which doesn't even show the entire collapse itself. Excuse me, I got the giggles again...

Originally posted by JIMC5499
What I find most interesting is the intentional purging of books and information about the construction of the WTC from our libraries and the removal of copies of the plans from several companies and colleges.

Nice to see you're comming around Jim. Strange isn't it?

Originally posted by Griff
Nice to see you're comming around Jim. Strange isn't it?

Coming around to what? I've been saying this from the beginning. The only cover-up is the one being used to prevent the ambulance chasers from bankrupting the States of New York and New Jersey as well as the City of New York.

Everybody seems to be ignoring the real conspiracy here. Who stands to gain from all of these half-brained theories being tossed around?

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Coming around to what?

To being a "twoofer". Didn't you know that if you don't tout the government line hook line and sinker you are one of those crazy conspiracy theorists?

I've been saying this from the beginning. The only cover-up is the one being used to prevent the ambulance chasers from bankrupting the States of New York and New Jersey as well as the City of New York.

A cover-up none the less. Welcome to the crazies.

Honestly, I think I would advise Robertson and anyone else involved with the construction of the WTC to burn all their records. Because, eventually the plans will surface and the lawsuits will start.

Before you know it, you will have lawsuits alleging wrongful death or negligence in the construction, because the fireproofing was crap or that the buildings didnt survive..etc

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Before you know it, you will have lawsuits alleging wrongful death or negligence in the construction, because the fireproofing was crap or that the buildings didnt survive..etc

I honestly think they would be excempt from any future lawsuites. Remember that "No one could have imagined someone deliberately flying a plane into those buildings".

reply to post by Griff


I have yet to see a federal law protecting them. And I already see lawsuits against the airlines for following FAA regulations in regards to security. So, not a stretch to see lawsuits over the construction of the WTC.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Yeah, Silverstein's lawsuite makes me sick to the stomach. I would hope you could at least agree to that. Not about my stomach but how it's nausiating.

911 was an inside job but all the theories that the buildings were destroyed some other way are just loony. The elite hired the hijackers to fly the planes into the buildings, nothing more.

reply to post by AgentScmidt



I think thats the most logical way to explain it. There could have been explosives and all of that other stuff but the way I look at it is this way. If the GOV was involved they would most likely use a CIA funded group to carry out the plans and become the goat. That why al qaeda is interesting because we helped them when the russians were tearing them up with choppers, and then we left them high and dry with nothing but RPGs.

So a generation of angry men grow up in a destroyed homeland with no ones help to rebuild. A man comes along (bin laden) and is able to organize them and fund them. Seeing that these people are looking for something to believe in and revenge he provides them with just that. Fulfilling gods wishes to destroy the evil enemies who put you in this place to begin with. We all know how strong religion is when the corrupted know how to wield it.

This also prevents a lot of loose ends that would come with the other theories. If American agents physically accomplished 9/11 there would be more chance of a whistleblower down the line. Now you have the guys on top tell bin laden (or whoever is in charge) to train a small militia of crazed men bent on destruction. These men kill themselves which eliminates there threat to expose the lie and now all the CIA or GOV has to deal with his bin laden.


I don't know if there is a video link. But the first time I ever hear Bin Ladens name was hours after 9/11 when he was on tv and was specifically DENYING that he or al qaeda had anything to do with the attacks. I know I did not imagine this video, I saw it. And yet 24 (maybe more) hours later MSM is reporting that it is in fact Osama that carried out the attacks.

reply to post by Griff


I do not approve of his actions in regards to the lawsuits either.