"Whistleblower" WTC blueprints corroborate NIST, debunk CT claims

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
I came across this Italian blog about 9/11 by Enrico Manieri that claims that NIST report is correct. They have a lot of information that I'm still in the process of reading. One thing that got my interest is a story about a construction worker Louis Briendel and the 40 bags of material and debris he recovered at Ground Zero. Strangely, I have never heard of this before and there's nothing about it here on ATS.

Just wanted to get some of the researchers here to take a look at it and give their take on it.

"Whistleblower" WTC blueprints corroborate NIST, debunk CT claims


I had already received copies of the Twin Towers' construction blueprints from a senior Italian architect who had been involved with the WTC project at the time, and research I conducted in 2003 and 2004 pointed out that private rescuers had retained microfilms of the design and construction drawings. In July 2003 I learned that Louis Briendel, a construction worker who worked two blocks from the WTC on 9/11, had taken part in the rescue operations and in the subsequent cleanup of the buildings that had not been involved directly in the attack but had been affected by the dust and debris of the Towers' collapse. During this work, Briendel recovered material and debris stored in 40 bags, which were placed at the authorities' disposal in an underground storage facility. As time went by and nobody collected the bags, Briendel repeatedly sent reminders, both personally and through his managers, but the only response he got was that the material was of no interest and that he should get rid of it.

At this point, Briendel inspected the contents of the bags and found that they included a portion of a reel of half-burned but still legible microfilm. One frame was labeled "Tower A - Floors 9 - 33". In other words, he had found a microfilm of the blueprints of the North Tower. The reel included documents related to several projects, such as Bank of America, Chang HWA Bank and, more importantly, drawings labeled "B-Level Parking Area with the Fuel and Generator Rooms". Research allowed Briendel to attribute the microfilm to the New York and New Jersey Photographic Offices, which used to be on the 74th floor of the North Tower.

Through Bank of America, he determined that the blueprints referred to work that had been carried out in 1993, but BoA had no microfilm record of projects submitted to the owners. Nobody expressed any interest in these documents: neither the Port Authority of New York of New Jersey (PANYNJ), which had built and owned the Twin Towers, nor the architects who had signed the blueprints that had survived the collapse. So the microfilm was put into cold storage and that is presumably where it still is. Another important reference to blueprints is the book "American Ground", by William Langenwiesche.

On page 47 of the Italian edition, Langenwiesche discusses LERA (an engineering firm run by Leslie E. Robertson, the designer of the World Trade Center) and states that LERA used its own copy of the original drawings (the only surviving copy, since the remainder of the documents were stored by PANYNJ in its offices in the North Tower and was thus lost in the collapse) with great care and sparingly, carefully controlling dissemination in order to ensure that LERA would be involved in the clearing and rebuilding process and to protect itself in view of the impending victim compensation lawsuits. These documents are therefore important, although the releases are only a very small part of the full set of drawings. Their significance is discussed below.
edit on 22-2-2014 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 





But it would be absolutely wrong, and ethically unacceptable, to use these documents to mount a campaign against NIST's technical reports.


Ahhhh fiddle sticks, truthers will be absolutely wrong and ethically unacceptable if they attempt to use the same source of info to prove something to disprove something. Guess there is no since trying then

Need to finish reading my self, caught that at the bottom, made me chuckle.
If this is the nail in the coffin to prove nist, then there should be no worries what others do with the same info.
edit on ndSat, 22 Feb 2014 17:52:15 -0600America/Chicago220141580 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)
edit on ndSat, 22 Feb 2014 18:06:55 -0600America/Chicago220145580 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Yeah, it's obviously a pro NIST blog. But it's packing a lot of information, some of it is totally new to me. I'm surprised that there's nothing about it on ATS.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   

These skeptics include people who are becoming uneasy with the increasingly imaginative theories which involve not only thermite and explosives, but nuclear weapons or cosmic rays used to cause the collapse of the Twin Towers.


Typical. Write "cosmic rays" in the same sentence that you mention a legitimate theory. A theory that only underscores the need for a legitimate INVESTIGATION and not intended to solve anything.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   


I came across this Italian blog about 9/11 by Enrico Manieri that claims that NIST report is correct
reply to post by whatsecret
 


Although I have only read a bit of this so far it would seem that Emrico's assertion is that NIST did not mis-represent either the layout, or the dimensions of the core columns of the WTC 1-2. I'm not sure that was one of the things NIST was accused of.....I'll have to look.

I did however take a brief look at his possible explanation for the molten steel observed at ground zero....seems he is saying that cutting torches used to cut up support girders and such may be responsible.....which is utter nonsense.

I'll continue reading....be back when I have had time to digest this info.

S & F for bringing this to our attention.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


Have you treid to find out who the blogs author is? What his qualifications are if any?....I'm not having much luck finding anything about him on the web.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by deadcalm
 

My guess is that this release (disinfo) is in response to the FOIA documents recently acquired by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth:

"NIST omitted critical structural features from WTC 7 report." says Attorney to DoC Inspector Gen.

And I'm curious. Since when is a person classified as a "whistle blower" when they are corroborating the government or establishment story?

A "whistle blower" is someone who exposes government/establishment lies and deceit...

Man, this "whistle blower" really put his life on the line by exposing documents which allegedly HELP the official narrative...



Nice doublespeak there.


edit on 22-2-2014 by gladtobehere because: wording



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 06:41 PM
link   

MALBOSIA


These skeptics include people who are becoming uneasy with the increasingly imaginative theories which involve not only thermite and explosives, but nuclear weapons or cosmic rays used to cause the collapse of the Twin Towers.


Typical. Write "cosmic rays" in the same sentence that you mention a legitimate theory. A theory that only underscores the need for a legitimate INVESTIGATION and not intended to solve anything.


I worried about that bit too! even if the stuff is new found, it overstates the case making that remark. And even there, NIST..well their spokesman embarrassingly made the statement, "no eye witnesses mentioned molten steel."

It is something never dealt with properly, NiST's analysis depends on softening steel, not molten. In this clip you don't see his discomfort in being asked this question by a reporter, just the aftermath.





I think L. Robertson himself talked about the molten metal, the quote is in the video clip.
edit on 22-2-2014 by smurfy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   

smurfy
And even there, NIST..well their spokesman embarrassingly made the statement, "no eye witnesses mentioned molten steel."

The quote in the OP references LERA and Leslie Robertson:


On page 47 of the Italian edition, Langenwiesche discusses LERA (an engineering firm run by Leslie E. Robertson, the designer of the World Trade Center)...

Interestingly, Leslie Robertson is one of the people who witnessed the molten steel (see reference below).

Molten Steel.


A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains." 2

A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating: In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel 3

A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel." 4

A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating: Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel. 6

An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing a speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage: As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. 8

The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage: ... or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole. 10

A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." 11


None of the official government reports have commented on these reports, although FEMA's Report contained an appendix disclosing evidence of mysterious high temperature corrosion of steel due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.


edit on 22-2-2014 by gladtobehere because: wording



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


All those people just don't know what they are talking about and didn't see what they "think" they saw...Duh....

The video at the end of your post should be the case and point for the whole thing IMO but that of course is not the case



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   


And I'm curious. Since when is a person classified as a "whistle blower" when they are corroborating the government or establishment story?
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Well, he`s not a whistleblower...from what I`ve been able to find out, Enrico is an Italian Ballistics Expert....not an engineer, architect, or chemical engineer.

I find all of this highly suspect myself. However, in the spirit of getting to the truth of it, I`m thoroughly reviewing his blog.

We shall see.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


I know, but why did they not just deal with it in a blah blah? well they couldn't, because they were supposed to be on the ground themselves, melting their wellies.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Did anyone find the date it was posted?



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   
And there's also this.

NIST confirms "UPS" on 81st floor of WTC2 was power supply; may explain glowing "fountain" by Paolo Attivi



A remarkable glowing fountain of material (shown here) which flowed from the 80th-81st floors of the South Tower shortly before the building's collapse has long intrigued 9/11 researchers and inspired many conspiracy theories. In 2006, researcher Enrico Manieri suggested that this fountain might have been caused by the catastrophic shorting and meltdown of a large UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply) battery backup system installed by a tenant. NIST has now confirmed that such a UPS was indeed located on the 81st floor, providing strong backing to Manieri's suggestion. Accordingly, conspiracy theories involving thermite and similar incendiary compounds are not the explanation that best fits the known facts.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   

deadcalm



And I'm curious. Since when is a person classified as a "whistle blower" when they are corroborating the government or establishment story?
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Well, he`s not a whistleblower...from what I`ve been able to find out, Enrico is an Italian Ballistics Expert....not an engineer, architect, or chemical engineer.

I find all of this highly suspect myself. However, in the spirit of getting to the truth of it, I`m thoroughly reviewing his blog.

We shall see.


Me too, if indeed I can make sense of it. "Bring on the empty horses"



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 

Is that power supply in any sort of schematic that is available?

edit on ndSat, 22 Feb 2014 19:40:08 -0600America/Chicago220140880 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)
edit on ndSat, 22 Feb 2014 20:00:03 -0600America/Chicago220140380 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Sremmos80
reply to post by whatsecret
 


Is that power supply in any sort of schematic that is available?


I have no idea yet.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


I just read the article on the molten material pouring out the building. I just about choked when I read this....




The material "looked as if it was glowing", but as shown by the picture on the right (Figure 9-32 of the NIST report), this was an extremely modest phenomenon, exhibiting none of the conspicuous yellow-red glow and splashing, fountain-like behavior of the event on the 80th floor.


Of course there was no splashing evident...it had to fall 700+ feet to the ground...which was not shown. Notice how he only suggests "it looked as if it was glowing"...as if we couldn't clearly see that it was indeed glowing and giving of a thin white smoke....the more I read the less I think that this is anything but a hack piece.

I don't think there is anything here of substance. Certainly nothing that proves anything in support of NIST's claims.

I`m calling shenanigans....



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   

deadcalm
reply to post by whatsecret
 


I just read the article on the molten material pouring out the building. I just about choked when I read this....




The material "looked as if it was glowing", but as shown by the picture on the right (Figure 9-32 of the NIST report), this was an extremely modest phenomenon, exhibiting none of the conspicuous yellow-red glow and splashing, fountain-like behavior of the event on the 80th floor.


Of course there was no splashing evident...it had to fall 700+ feet to the ground...which was not shown. Notice how he only suggests "it looked as if it was glowing"...as if we couldn't clearly see that it was indeed glowing and giving of a thin white smoke....the more I read the less I think that this is anything but a hack piece.

I don't think there is anything here of substance. Certainly nothing that proves anything in support of NIST's claims.

I`m calling shenanigans....


That's typical though. Same as when they say "it didn't fall into its footprint or it took a few seconds longer than free fall" as if it makes any difference. They act like they don't understand that It's impossible for 110 story building to collapse neatly into its own footprint without causing damage to other buildings or collapse 10 floors per second with all the furniture and other things on every floor.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 03:36 AM
link   


Despite these high quality levels, the events that occurred in the Twin Towers led to an overload of the structure, which literally shattered due to the dynamic loads induced by the failure of the floors struck by the aircraft impact and then weakened by fire.


So although he has just shown how big and beefy the columns really were, he can still come out with a statement like this? Seriously? Also, what qualifications does he have to allow him to come to the conclusion that this was the exact reason for the tower collapse? And what about all the witnesses who on camera have said there were explosions, some even before the planes hit.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join