It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTC construction manager speaks of the resilience of the twin towers

page: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   

There is a positive side to responding to Swampy and his pals, it keeps the debate going...


I don’t mind debating an opposing view but these guys are not in here to debate and we all know that. Show me one post against any Truthers that swampy hasn’t ridiculed or insulted? This is not debating this is just trash talking and mud slinging.




posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



Originally posted by impressme

There is a positive side to responding to Swampy and his pals, it keeps the debate going...


I don’t mind debating an opposing view but these guys are not in here to debate and we all know that. Show me one post against any Truthers that swampy hasn’t ridiculed or insulted? This is not debating this is just trash talking and mud slinging.


I find there are some official story supporters that I can have a decent dialogue with. I haven't dealt too much with Swamp_fox, but probably my favourite official story supporters at the moment is Pilgrim, but I also find pteridine to be quite good. And while I at times get tired of him jumping to conclusions, I find mmiichael to be fairly civil as well. I think I should add that just because I label them official story supporters doesn't mean that they think that everything was included in the 9/11 Commission Reports. mmiichael, for instance, is aware of certain things that didn't go into the report, such as the ties of some of the alleged hijackers to countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
I don’t mind debating an opposing view but these guys are not in here to debate and we all know that. Show me one post against any Truthers that swampy hasn’t ridiculed or insulted? This is not debating this is just trash talking and mud slinging.


I completely agree but what are ya going to do? You can ignore the debunkers but then what? How often do truthers debate with each other in threads here?

If we don't reply to their posts then the threads simply die, and in their arrogance they think they've 'won'. We've had far worse than Swampy over the years, most don't last very long.

And as I said the debunkers often, in their ignorance, open up the chance to show how wrong they and their 'official story' is.

edit; speeling

[edit on 12/17/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


That is a good point. It is amazing how much damage people such as swampy and jthomas have done to the OS themselves. They defend it with such fervor and yet the very nature of their posts usually either pokes holes themselves or offers a perfect target with which to shoot the truth at.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by scott3x
 


And he was wrong. Just because an engineer says something, does not automatically make it so.


Mr. Di Martini was a bona fide hero who sacrificed his life on 9/11. Perhaps, in part, because he believed what he said.

So I will not besmirch his memory or legacy.

But he was completely & utterly wrong about the towers.

He was also not an engineer of any type. He was a program manager. Which means a degree in business. And, in NYC, an ability to kick butt & deal with the unions.

His comments about "pencils & screen netting" prove beyond doubt that he had no clue how the structures of the tower operated, but was simply repeating something that someone told him. But that he didn't understand.

All that being said, I regret that I'll never have the opportunity to buy him a beer & thank him for his action on 9/11.

RIP, Frank.

TomK



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Any of you kids ever performed an engineering study of any sort?

Any of you know the steps required? The methods, the approaches, the purposes?

Let's put it this way...

There is no way on earth that Skilling or Robertson or any other engineer on the planet could possibly have done any sort of MEANINGFUL study to prove the resilience of the towers to airplane impact in 1964.

The emphasis is on that work "meaningful".

I know the exact two calculations that Skilling did back then. I duplicated one of them in about 10 minutes. Got the same answer too. I had an advantage. I had a calculator. Skilling would have had to use a slide rule. With a slide rule, it would have taken me 11 minutes.

Neither the software (FEA programs, with nonlinear, creep, buckling & CFD modules) nor the supercomputers required to run models of this size were available until the late 1980s. The first one able to handle would probably have been a Cray X-MP.

Compare that to the years it took dozens of NIST programmers, using off the shelf FEA programs with hundreds of thousands of man-years of development, to build the model. Then it took months to run each and every iteration.

And they were only able to get the details right because they had the actual event to compare their results to. Prior to 9/11, nobody could have done a meaningful study, even with the hardware & software. It would have been a massive guess.

Even today, nobody can afford the time or money to do the sort of modeling it'd take to make the statement that "this building is designed to survive a plane strike". Too many variables (plane speed, impact location, direction, size, etc).

Skilling produced this mythological "study" to undercut Lawrence Wien's attempt to stop the project. He delivered his results to a bunch of reporters. Who, not understanding the issues, lapped it up back then just the same way that you folks, who also don't understand, lap it up now.

But, by all means, continue bloviating about the issue...

LoL.

TomK



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You are placing your blind faith in the words of a human being.


Not blind faith. 1200-page analysis, remember? And you are placing your blind faith in a government that has concocted false flag operations before.

Hmmm, what to believe: 1.) a government that has concocted false flag operations before, or 2.) an engineering firm with a 1200-page analysis.



Please provide a link to this 1200 page study that says that "the towers could withstand a plane impact".


TomK

[edit on 17-12-2009 by thomk]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by thomk
 



Originally posted by thomk
Any of you kids ever performed an engineering study of any sort?


Unless we're counting the construction of a chicken pen, I wouldn't count myself in, at any rate. But I imagine that someone like, say, Tony Szamboti, who is a truther and mechanical engineer, probably has. I talk to him via email on occassion. He's been on some debates on Hardfire against Ryan Mackey concerning the disintegration of the twin towers. I found them all to be quite good. Here they are:

Hardfire TONY SZAMBOTI / RYAN MACKEY / RONALD WIECK / 1st PROGRAM

Hardfire TONY SZAMBOTI / RYAN MACKEY / RONALD WIECK / 2nd PROGRAM

Hardfire TONY SZAMBOTI / RYAN MACKEY / RONALD WIECK / 3rd PROGRAM

[edit on 17-12-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
Any of you kids


I stopped listening to you right there.


There is no way on earth that Skilling or Robertson or any other engineer on the planet could possibly have done any sort of MEANINGFUL study to prove the resilience of the towers to airplane impact in 1964.


I can agree to an extent.

But, impact damage and fire metalurgy was not a new concept in the 1960's.


I know the exact two calculations that Skilling did back then.


Really? Since no one has produced this study (just the 3 page white paper describing it), how do you know how it was performed?


I duplicated one of them in about 10 minutes.


Please show your work. Trust me. I'm a big boy, I can handle it.


[edit on 17-12-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
There is no way on earth that Skilling or Robertson or any other engineer on the planet could possibly have done any sort of MEANINGFUL study to prove the resilience of the towers to airplane impact in 1964.


Haha, how old are you? I wonder because you call us "kids" but I've had a 90-year old electronics professor who could calculate things in minutes by hand that would leave you scratching your head (including the younger instructors, in their 40s). These guys knew the ins and outs of the formulas and what realistic variables were or how to gauge them using basic physical measurements alone.

You assume you would need a computer to do this. No way. Remember that we taught the computer the math it knows, aka top-down programming. We have known this math for decades, if not centuries in many cases. Older generations of engineers who were forced to rely on calculating things by hand were extremely proficient at it.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
Any of you kids ever performed an engineering study of any sort?


Does that make you feel big?


Any of you know the steps required? The methods, the approaches, the purposes?

Let's put it this way...

There is no way on earth that Skilling or Robertson or any other engineer on the planet could possibly have done any sort of MEANINGFUL study to prove the resilience of the towers to airplane impact in 1964.

The emphasis is on that work "meaningful".

I know the exact two calculations that Skilling did back then. I duplicated one of them in about 10 minutes. Got the same answer too. I had an advantage. I had a calculator. Skilling would have had to use a slide rule. With a slide rule, it would have taken me 11 minutes.


You made a statement. Where is any kind of meaningful backup? The emphasis is on that word "meaningful." Why is there no way on the planet? Please explain.

What are these two calculations? Is there a reason you did not supply them along with your braggadocios claim of knowing and solving them?


Neither the software (FEA programs, with nonlinear, creep, buckling & CFD modules) nor the supercomputers required to run models of this size were available until the late 1980s. The first one able to handle would probably have been a Cray X-MP.

Compare that to the years it took dozens of NIST programmers, using off the shelf FEA programs with hundreds of thousands of man-years of development, to build the model. Then it took months to run each and every iteration.

And they were only able to get the details right because they had the actual event to compare their results to. Prior to 9/11, nobody could have done a meaningful study, even with the hardware & software. It would have been a massive guess.


Can you explain that? For one thing, as far as I have read the NIST model is actually not accurate as it leaves out crucial details. Where do you get hundreds of thousands of man-years? What does that have to do with how long the math would take anyway? Do you know when Calculus was invented? The time it takes to develop software to perform certain calculations is not only equitable to the time it would take to perform said calculations but the more complex the calculation - the more time it takes to write the software versus the time it takes to perform a one time calculation. They have to program in every aspect of said calculation. Computers do large numbers fast, they do not make up their own formulas and cut down equations.


Even today, nobody can afford the time or money to do the sort of modeling it'd take to make the statement that "this building is designed to survive a plane strike". Too many variables (plane speed, impact location, direction, size, etc).


Too many variables and you list 4? Wow, that does seem daunting.



Skilling produced this mythological "study" to undercut Lawrence Wien's attempt to stop the project. He delivered his results to a bunch of reporters. Who, not understanding the issues, lapped it up back then just the same way that you folks, who also don't understand, lap it up now.

But, by all means, continue bloviating about the issue...

LoL.

TomK


Well it seems you have quite a few claims to back up. I am patient.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
If you can't understand the difference between an engineer saying something and a NEWS agency or PR department saying something then I can't help you.


You know, nut, it's kind of touching, the deferential respect you pay to us in that statement above. (I'm a mechanical engineer, 35 years experience). Why does it strike that you're not quite that sincere?

But now that I'm done blushing, I gotta tell ya that we ain't Geordi, we ain't Scotty, and we ain't the engineer in Titanic who pulls out a slide rule, runs the center slide back & forth a couple times and makes proclamations about "sinking with a mathematical certainty".

While engineering starts out with the same (nah, somewhat above average) competence as any field, industry is intolerant of incompetence. So, you're given about 5 years or so as a baby engineer to show what you can do. If you prove yourself incompetent as an engineer, you're shunted off someplace else. Sometimes into engineering management.

Usually out of the company. Where you will either accept your limitations & change professions. Or, ironically, teach. (Don't read that as "teachers are incompetent". Read it as "distributed in teaching (at all levels) are a scattering of people who could not perform what they are teaching".

The good news is that, if someone has simply survived as a working engineer for 20+ years (and is not in a union or gov't service), then you can have a fair assurance that they have a certain minimum level of competence.

This also explains clearly why there are virtually NO experienced working engineers in AE911T. First, you've got VERY few engineers who have any expertise that is pertinent to the collapse of the towers. (Definitely structural & mechanical. & some civil.) All told, I count about 130 who have the background & should know better. Of those, a high number of students & those with less than 8 years experience, who, while off to a miserable start, still have some hope of turning into functional engineers. And who, if they do prosper, will eventually be humiliated at their youthful indiscretions.

Nonetheless, I find your "respect" for engineers less than convincing. Where is this respect for the 1000 or so incredibly successful & experienced engineers from NIST, academia & industry that contributed to the NIST report?

Do you know the difference between those engineers and EVERY SINGLE engineer in the 9/11 Truth Movement? The NIST engineers were asked to contribute WITHIN their fields of demonstrated expertise. There is not one single (AFAIK) of the miniscule number of "9/11 CT engineers" who is working within his field of expertise.

Why do you think that is?

Now, you & this guy ANOK have said a bunch of things that show that you also don't understand much about why the buildings stood, or why they fell down. If you've got some specific questions about them, feel free to ask.

I'll request that you stay away from snark. If you do, I'll do the same. If you don't ... well, you're playing in my sandbox.

Tom

[edit on 23-12-2009 by thomk]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I have a degree in Construction Management and would love to shed some light on this situation. If anybody has any specific construction or structural related questions regarding the twin towers on 9/11 feel free to ask. I will try to answer as best as I can. We have done a far amount of classwork regarding why the towers fell, and what not.

Until then I will be reading this forum and answering questions as I come across them.

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

and pertaining to the video....

No doubt the towers could easily, easily resist a 707, 737 or even 757 hitting the tower multipul times. And yes the towers were absolutely designed to withstand such an impact. It was a very structurally sound building, constructed with an outer and inner shell. The inner shell was one of the defining factors that made the towers so structurally sound. Basically like a backbone, there were columns in the center of the building constructed of high strength steel that supported the floors and surrounding structure. The outer structure was also braced together by several steel columns interconnected which added to the stability.

The buildings did not collapse because of the force of impact or anything of that nature (and just for the record the impact forces were absolutely tremendous. a very massive plane hitting the towers at an extremely fast velocity lead to a substantial force for each impact) However, when the airliners collided with the buildings, and with subsequent explosions... the fire resisitant coating protecting the steel was compromised and blown off.

Steel is a very very strong and maliable material for construction. However, as many of you may know it is very weak to fire and heat. In fact, after a certain point the steel will plastically fail, leading to permentate structural damange and deformation. Ultimately leading to a decreased structural strength.

Without any fire coating on the steel it was subject to the intense flames from the explosion and hotter than normal fire from the jet fuel. After a prolonged period of being exposed to this ultra hot fire, the steel eventually failed.... Leading to a collapse, floor by floor, until the entire building came down.

This is the traditionally theory. However I have heard about the government conspiracies with bombs and demolitions being used to bring down the towers as well. I am not excluding these possibilities... But this is what is known to the general public of what happened.





[edit on 23-12-2009 by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx
Without any fire coating on the steel it was subject to the intense flames from the explosion and hotter than normal fire from the jet fuel.


A couple of asterisks here.

The "explosion" of the plane impacts was not an explosion, it was a low-velocity deflagration that was not only brief but also failed to remove even all the windows from the impacted floors. In other words it was not powerful, and what heat it produced did not last long at all.

The jet fuel itself burned up after 10-15 minutes even according to official investigations, and from there on it is nothing but your typical office fire.


After a prolonged period of being exposed to this ultra hot fire, the steel eventually failed.... Leading to a collapse, floor by floor, until the entire building came down.


You are exactly right that in prolonged heat at high temperatures (700C and above -- SUSTAINED, of which there is also no physical evidence according to NIST) the steel would "fail."

Now I'm sure you know the technical definition of fail in this sense... is exactly how you described it: a deformation. Once a yield strength is reached, permanent deformation begins, and in fact going beyond the yield strengths is what technically constitutes "failure" of the structure in this case.


What is NOT technically defined, in any way whatsoever by any person or investigating agency, is how this deformation then turns into a dynamic failure across the whole structure that exhibits symmetry, huge expulsive forces that send the great majority of the debris outside of the footprints (unlike a classic "pancake collapse" which only traditionally occurs in concrete structures anyway), and all the other controversial features of those "collapses."

Deformations and all that, I don't have a problem with. A building like WTC1 falling into itself from all corners and even the antenna (supported by the core) sinking downward all instantly and at the same time DOES present a problem to me. And the official investigations don't help me with that.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Actually i do remember hearing that the intense fires only lasted for 10-15 minutes so you are absolutely correct on that. And as far as the specific explosion, I will go with your word as well.

However, you cannot deny that fact that there was still a massive force applied to the building when the planes crashed into it. The fire proofing on the steel columns and beams was that of a spray on foam. Again, I cannot definitively prove that these forces or the explosion absolutely caused the fire coating to fail. But to my understanding it is highly probable. The force and brief explosion, SHOULD have been enough to knock enough of the fire coating off to compromise the steel beams.

And this is what we have been taught thus far in some of my construction and structural classes. But then again, who is to say we are not all puppets in the grand scheme of things. This could be exactly what the gov't wants us to think.

However, with that said.... if this were what caused the fire resistant coating to fail. The briefly intense heat followed by a standard office fire (which is in the range of 1000 degrees F) lasting an hour or more is definately enough to damage the steel (again depending on the actual fire rating - which I have no idea of the specifics without knowing what type of steel was used). Most likely to the point of failure. Especially since the load had to be redistributed throughout the building because of the gaping holes created by the jet liners.

With the heat continually weakening the structural steel the floors began to sag... and eventually buckled. Buckling one by one, which created the implosion like effect we all saw on that fateful day. Now other than class I haven't really looked into this topic that much. So there are several variables at work here as well. I don't know the specific fire rating of the steel used in the buildings, or the type of steel used, the types of connections, bolts, etc... Nor do I know the exact heat and time frames of the fires. Or the exact effect of the explosion. All very important factors to consider. But based off of my general knowledge this is well within my believable realm.

If you happen to know anymore of these specifics I would love to know, so I could further analyze these failures.


Tomk if you would like to elaborate on this, I'm sure you probably know more about the specific material properties than I do. Thanks





[edit on 23-12-2009 by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx
 


Well, Ill take you and Tomk up on your offers to field questions, especially since both of you seem to have a lot of experience.

First, I know you can both only speculate, but there seems to be only two answers to this question that either side will tell you.

Those answers being...

1) by product of thermitic reaction that began to finally leak out of the building due to the sagging of the floors.

2) Some sort of back up batteries that were cooked to bright orange flowing liquid on the floor slab until it finally began to sag and some of this molten material began to leak out.

All of this just moments before the collapse.

The question should be obvious by now(Jeopardy anyone lol):

What was the molten material flowing from the south tower before the collapse?

What do you think caused it to form and flow at that time?



I guess I'll just start off with that, and see what kind of response I get. I thank you(both) in advance.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
But I imagine that someone like, say, Tony Szamboti, who is a truther and mechanical engineer, probably has. I talk to him via email on occassion. He's been on some debates on Hardfire against Ryan Mackey concerning the disintegration of the twin towers. I found them all to be quite good. Here they are:


I know Tony & Ryan. We all post on JREF. Tony & I have crossed paths, and swords, many times at JREF.

I think he's a fairly nice guy. I admire his puck. I do not admire his massively flawed attempts at engineering. He has no background in buildings. He does mechanical & thermal analysis for the robustness of antennae for ships & satellites.

The debates are excellent. They may seem like a close match to an amateur. Whether or not you believe me, they are a slaughter to those who understand the issues. Tony gets creamed. That is NOT opinion. It is fact.

Ryan Mackey is an example of a first rate engineer. His grasp of theory & practice is excellent. He & I disagree on some fine points about the details of the collapse. But we agree on all the important points.

And the gist of that agreement is that the guys who did the report for NIST are absolutely first rate engineers who understand the fine points & details of the issues. And provided a first rate report. (Whether or not you want to hear that, it's true. And no gov't official coerced or directed any of those conclusions. Real engineers adamantly refuse to allow pencil neck bureaucratic pukes to soil their reports.

Look, scott, I am not going to try to provide you with a graduate level course in structures here. That is utterly pointless. I don't have the time (or inclination.) You don't have the background necessary.

You do not need to learn Structural Engineering. You need to learn epistemology.

You need to learn how to determine who to believe. You need to learn to ask the questions. NOT as a sequence of contrarian "gotcha's".

Think of it as if you have to choose a surgeon to perform an operation on your child. You do not have the wisdom or knowledge to challenge each cut or suture. That doesn't mean you can't ask really informative questions. "What is your success rate with this operation?" What are the typical complications?"

When people provide analyses for you, for every thing that goes into the report, there are dozens of other issues that are skimmed over. You have to trust that people use their DEEP JUDGMENT to give you the right big picture.

Don't confuse the ability to toss around technobabble for a deep understanding of some subject.

Tom



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx
However, you cannot deny that fact that there was still a massive force applied to the building when the planes crashed into it. The fire proofing on the steel columns and beams was that of a spray on foam. Again, I cannot definitively prove that these forces or the explosion absolutely caused the fire coating to fail. But to my understanding it is highly probable. The force and brief explosion, SHOULD have been enough to knock enough of the fire coating off to compromise the steel beams.


I don't really care what happened to the fireproofing, as it doesn't change anything I said about known modes of failure for steel columns/beams.


If you happen to know anymore of these specifics I would love to know, so I could further analyze these failures.


I can tell you with certainty that the official investigations concluded that the temperatures to which the columns were heated had nothing to do with the failure of the towers. Their theory was to do with the trusses expanding/sagging and pulling enough perimeter columns inward to cause the whole structure to become unstable at that point. At least, that was NIST's hypothesis.

So in other words, the tree you're barking up, the government engineers looked at it and basically decided it wasn't their tree. They ultimately went with conclusions in all 3 cases that were brand new phenomena to the engineering community, without validating any of them physically.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by thomk
Any of you kids


I stopped listening to you right there.


There is no way on earth that Skilling or Robertson or any other engineer on the planet could possibly have done any sort of MEANINGFUL study to prove the resilience of the towers to airplane impact in 1964.


I can agree to an extent.
But, impact damage and fire metalurgy was not a new concept in the 1960's.


"... to an extent ..."

Please explain the specific value of FEA programs in performing this sort of analysis.
Please describe how the analysis was performed before FEA program.

Impact & collision engineering analysis in the early '60s...


Originally posted by Nutter

I know the exact two calculations that Skilling did back then.


Really? Since no one has produced this study (just the 3 page white paper describing it), how do you know how it was performed?



I duplicated one of them in about 10 minutes.

Please show your work. Trust me. I'm a big boy, I can handle it.


You are confusing the two "analyses".

The first is the one that started the rumor. It was done by Skilling just before a press conference in the 63-64 time frame.

He presented only the results, with a bombastic comment that he'd "analyzed the impact of a 707" and found the towers would survive them.

it was a PR stunt. It is presented in general terms (incorrectly, as I'll point out below) in Glanz's book "Cities in the Sky".

He analyzed 2 things only:

1. He estimated the force that an impacting plane would exert on the tower if a plane crashed in at the top floor. He took the weight of the plane, took a fairly slow air-speed. Then he assumed that it would come to a stop with a uniform deceleration over the entire width (208') of the tower. Using impulse momentum considerations, he translated this deceleration into a uniform force over the time it took to stop. (You can see the rather highly optimistic assumptions built in here.)

Glanz correctly explains that Skilling compared the stresses that the plane would exert on the tower to the forces that the max wind load would put on it. Glanz (incorrectly) states that he was looking at the max shear stress at the base of the tower, as tho the failure mode was that a high wind (or plane impact) would shear the tower off at the base & push it (still upright) down the street.

This is, of course, ludicrous. The failure mode is a tipping failure, not a shear failure.

Skilling did calculate the total tipping moment as 14 million (foot lbs? sounds way too small. foot-tons? I don't remember the units.) The plane would put about 18+ million (same units). He considered that "close enough". It was. Barely. Several people in the towers feared that the tower was going over when the plane hit it.
___

The second analysis (which I didn't attempt to duplicate) was "would the building collapse (probably by buckling) if he surgically removed ONLY the outer columns matching the outline of the 707, while causing zero additional damage to the building". He found that the building would not collapse under these circumstances.
__

That was it.

This was far, FAR from a competent engineering analysis that justifies the statement that "the building was designed to withstand the impact of the biggest jet of the day".

And yet, that is exactly what the headlines in the paper read the next day.

And a urban myth was born.


Tom



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
And the gist of that agreement is that the guys who did the report for NIST are absolutely first rate engineers who understand the fine points & details of the issues. And provided a first rate report.


Is that why James Quintiere, former Chief of NIST's own Fire Science Division, came out against the findings of the report?


At the time, I told them NIST was the best organization to do
the job. Little did I realize that the NIST heart was not in it, and its efforts
would not be proactive, but reclusive. While NIST had public hearings
during the course of discharging their findings, they were limited to 5-
minute presentations by the public, and no response to submitted questions
or comments. There was no transparency of their effort, and even their
Advisory Board did not know when they would finally release conclusions
until October of 2004. The conclusion was formally contained in a report
consisting of a 10,000-page document that defies reading and analysis.
Although Sally and Monica were updated in bi-weekly conference calls
mandated by Congress from NIST, they very early became discouraged and
concerned with the NIST progress and style. I participated in all of the
NIST hearings, and the related Congressional hearings, and in that way
followed the NIST progress. In October of 2004 their conclusions on the
cause of the building collapse was a surprise to me. While I can find issues
with their investigation of the event in assembling information through the
lack of calling witnesses, issuing subpoenas, and applying normal proactive
legal processes, I will primarily focus on the issues related to the fire and
the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.


Specifically I will demonstrate why I believe the NIST conclusion is
deficient and I will offer an alternative conclusion. The significance of
these two conclusions is significant, as it bears on the responsibility for the
collapse of the towers. The NIST conclusion essentially puts the primary
cause on the impact of the aircraft, while the alternative conclusion lays it at
the feet of fire safety design. The correct answer bears on the practice of
fire safety.

Specifically I will demonstrate why I believe the NIST conclusion is
deficient and I will offer an alternative conclusion. The significance of
these two conclusions is significant, as it bears on the responsibility for the
collapse of the towers.


www.fpe.umd.edu...


This guy does not bring up all of the testimony of numerous explosions heard all during the times between plane impacts and collapses, the testimonies of explosions in the basements simultaneous with the plane impacts, and things of that nature, but he still finds plenty of problems with NIST's report even without having to get into the "darker" details of what happened that day. And he comes from NIST himself, remember, and was in fact CHIEF of their Fire Science Division.


Quintiere noted the lack of communication with witnesses, but I always find this video humorous anyway, of NIST engineer John Gross saying he never heard a single report of there being molten steel at the WTC that day, even though the presence of it was proven in appendix C of FEMA's report, not to mention firefighters and others testifying to seeing it running under the debris piles:




Ohhh, and you have to love how red in the face and guilty he acts on top of it.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by bsbray11]




top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join