ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 26th August 2015, 12:08 PM   #321
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
IIRC the Cantor Structural plans were not included in the NIST report but came after a FOIA. No?
But the NIST used the Cantor Structural plans throughout their analysis didn't they?

Quote:
34. (added 6/27/12) For the WTC 7 16-story model for structural response to fire effects, why did NIST model the girders without shear studs, given that articles published in the open literature showed drawings of typical floor framing plans of WTC 7 with shear studs on the girders?

The source documents used for developing the structural analysis models of WTC 7 were the structural drawings prepared by the structural engineer of record (Irwin G. Cantor, Structural Engineers) and the erection drawings prepared by the steel fabricator and erector (Frankel Steel Limited). Neither the structural drawing for typical floors 8 through 20 (Structural Drawing S-8) nor the erection drawings for floors 10 through 13 (Erection Drawings E10/11 and E12/13) show any studs on the girders. A structural drawing showing modifications to Floor 10 (Structural Drawing S-8-10) to accommodate increased floor loads in certain areas did indicate shear studs for the girders in the affected areas, though the additional load was not identified on the drawing. The modification also indicated reinforcing some floor connections and adding new plates on the bottom flanges of some north and south floor beams.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi.../faqs_wtc7.cfm
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2015, 12:17 PM   #322
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,574
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
IIRC the Cantor Structural plans were not included in the NIST report but came after a FOIA. No?
Just a clarifying question:

Did NIST have access to and use the original plans but just didn't publish them in the report?
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2015, 12:24 PM   #323
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,855
In the case of 7wtc IRRC ther report came 7 years after the event and I don't believe the Structural plans were part of the report.

I don't recall them for the twin towers... Gamo... you want to cite a reference for them ;-)
JSanderO is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2015, 12:38 PM   #324
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
In the case of 7wtc IRRC ther report came 7 years after the event and I don't believe the Structural plans were part of the report.
Not sure what you mean by being "part if the report". NIST used them when they created their own drawings and they were referenced many times in the WTC7 report. Did you want them to take screen shots of the drawings and include them in the report? Or specifically reference the drawing numbers that they got the information from? I'm just trying to understand what you're looking for.

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I don't recall them for the twin towers... Gamo... you want to cite a reference for them ;-)
In NIST NCSTAR 1-2A for example, the drawings used are listed in Appendix A, starting on page 149.
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2015, 12:43 PM   #325
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Doesn't it seem that it is mission critical to examine, present and analyze the actual plans, the actual connections and so forth?
I guess I'm trying to understand what you mean by the above statement. It sounds like you think the NIST didn't use any of the original construction drawings for the analysis of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, but instead created cartoons based on their imagination.

Yet in the two reports I looked at regarding the analysis of all three buildings, i find references to all kinds of drawings that they used.

Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2015, 01:09 PM   #326
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,638
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
I guess I'm trying to understand what you mean by the above statement. It sounds like you think the NIST didn't use any of the original construction drawings for the analysis of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, but instead created cartoons based on their imagination.

Yet in the two reports I looked at regarding the analysis of all three buildings, i find references to all kinds of drawings that they used.

It seams to be a problem that they only referenced them, not published them. In other words, you need access to them to question the report.

They weren't really needed if you read the report and not just jumped in on sections that you thought were of interest.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2015, 03:18 PM   #327
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,638
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
I'm specifically concerned .................
I find it to be really bad form for a poster to solicit a reply from someone then ignore the response. I gave you an honest reply and you ignored it. Should I just ignore you from now on and stop wasting my time? No skin off my back.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2015, 07:37 PM   #328
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
For example... why didn't NIST include the ACTUAL floor plans... the structural plans..., the construction logs...
Please don't interpret this as an excuse or apology for NIST, but having thought about this further, an analogy to the manufacturing field I work in might be apt here:

It is very common with a project - say the Corvette's control arms (wink wink) - where the original prints, in the hands of the suppliers, are used as the basis for other drawings and then mostly substituted by them. The original print is often ignored except at the level of quality control. The supplier's drawings - process prints, control documents, etc. - ignore the totality of info of the OEM print (which can be large) and only centers on the related info of that particular operation. And indeed info not even present on the OEM print (such as in-process manufacturing info) is what is front and center, because that's what is important for that particular op.

In fact it if the part is complex enough, it makes no sense to do it any other way - the OEM print is the global map, but the supplier uses street addresses to get anywhere. So to speak.

I realize this is a crude analogy, but I wonder if it is apt to your comments about NIST not using original prints?
Bravin Neff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2015, 02:07 AM   #329
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,855
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
Please don't interpret this as an excuse or apology for NIST, but having thought about this further, an analogy to the manufacturing field I work in might be apt here:

It is very common with a project - say the Corvette's control arms (wink wink) - where the original prints, in the hands of the suppliers, are used as the basis for other drawings and then mostly substituted by them. The original print is often ignored except at the level of quality control. The supplier's drawings - process prints, control documents, etc. - ignore the totality of info of the OEM print (which can be large) and only centers on the related info of that particular operation. And indeed info not even present on the OEM print (such as in-process manufacturing info) is what is front and center, because that's what is important for that particular op.

In fact it if the part is complex enough, it makes no sense to do it any other way - the OEM print is the global map, but the supplier uses street addresses to get anywhere. So to speak.

I realize this is a crude analogy, but I wonder if it is apt to your comments about NIST not using original prints?
No... It's not. We had a structural failure from mechanical and heat causes. Its important to have the exact details of the structure that fails... not cartoons. This was.... as you refer to it... a massive technical effort... but they ignored the actual construction details. No excuse and no reason given... aside from stupid remarks like "national security"... which clearly makes no sense since the buildings were gone and there were no others like them or in the works.
JSanderO is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2015, 06:14 AM   #330
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
It seams to be a problem that they only referenced them, not published them. In other words, you need access to them to question the report.
Ok, but then why does JSanderO make the hilited statements below?

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Doesn't it seem that it is mission critical to examine, present and analyze the actual plans, the actual connections and so forth?
I'm trying to get him to clarify if he thinks the the NIST didn't examine or analyze any of the original blueprints per the statement above when all the drawings are clearly referenced in the reports.
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2015, 06:15 AM   #331
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
but they ignored the actual construction details.
What construction details were ignored?
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2015, 06:48 AM   #332
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
JSanderO, just thinking out loud here.

Drawings from the 1960s would have been done by hand on paper, and anyone in the recent past (i.e., NIST), would be using solid models (no doubt generated from the originals), which could then be used to extract 2D CAD drawings or other engineering studies.

For NIST to put the original drawings in their report, someone would have to (1) scan the originals, in which case it is now a digital raster, not vectors - but at least they would be digitized and capable of being reprinted. Or (2) as I said above, they would simply recreate the originals into modern CAD, and use them as they saw fit.

Does anything I say here strike you as problematic? My question would be, what would be the value in choosing door #1, since anyone in the modern world would end up at door #2 anyway?

Last edited by Bravin Neff; 27th August 2015 at 06:53 AM. Reason: grammar
Bravin Neff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2015, 07:52 AM   #333
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,855
My issue is simply that their addenda has a slew of scanned correspondence.. yet none of the construction plans, details and specifications. Did they have and read them? I suppose so. But I find it odd that these were not included in the report or turned into cartoons in their report.

I believe they still have not been released... not sure though.... but why?

If you recall some of the other "investigations" of failures... the details were important... the Hubble telepscope /Pperkin Elmer... screw up... the Challenger with the O rings. In fact in these cases it was impossible to diagnose the failure without the detailed engineering drawings and there is no sensible reason for these not to be part of the report.

++++

turning the old paper prints into raster or vector digital material is irrelevant.

Last edited by JSanderO; 27th August 2015 at 07:59 AM.
JSanderO is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2015, 08:00 AM   #334
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,855
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
What construction details were ignored?
You know Gamo... the ones I can't see because they didn't publish them ;-)
JSanderO is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2015, 08:17 AM   #335
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
You know Gamo... the ones I can't see because they didn't publish them ;-)
First you claim construction details were ignored and then say you have no idea which construction details were ignored because you can't see them as they weren't published.

Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2015, 09:06 AM   #336
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
...turning the old paper prints into raster or vector digital material is irrelevant.
Agreed.

My only point is that a rasterized version - a scan - is pointless for any purpose, except for photocopying, or to have a bitmap/gif type image.

But any modern engineering study is going to be done with vector data - and you still get to make copies or extract bitmap/gif type images. I am just trying to understand your complaint, which was:

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
"...why didn't NIST include the ACTUAL floor plans?
...which seems to me to be asking why didn't NIST make the scans and include them. Am I understanding you correctly?
Bravin Neff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2015, 10:13 AM   #337
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,855
A set of structural drawings and details and specs and test reports, construction logs etc are all relevant to understanding building performance in a collapse.

We paid for this study and we are entitled to see the entire record and structural details. All are key to a forensic analysis and all were not in the report or the addenda.

Did you see any of this or pics of fires and cartoon diagrams?
JSanderO is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2015, 10:15 AM   #338
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,855
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
First you claim construction details were ignored and then say you have no idea which construction details were ignored because you can't see them as they weren't published.

You betcha... Did you notice that the Cantor/Frankel drawings were released AFTER a FOIA request?

Where are the twin towers drawings and specs?

You're not interested in them.... correct? They are irrelevant as far as you are concerned... Right?

Why?
JSanderO is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2015, 10:50 AM   #339
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Did you see any of this or pics of fires and cartoon diagrams?
I certainly saw the pics of fires and cartoon diagrams, although "cartoon" is a bit of a stretch. But I take your meaning.
Bravin Neff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2015, 12:04 PM   #340
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,638
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
My issue is simply that their addenda has a slew of scanned correspondence.. yet none of the construction plans, details and specifications. Did they have and read them? I suppose so. But I find it odd that these were not included in the report or turned into cartoons in their report.
The relevant drawings (all the ones later released) are acknowledged in the reference pages.

I have to ask, How much of the reports have you actually read?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 27th August 2015 at 12:06 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2015, 01:34 PM   #341
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,855
I don't recall how much I read... as in # of pages or percentage... But I did read through a fair amount including the addenda.
JSanderO is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2015, 01:38 PM   #342
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,638
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I don't recall how much I read... as in # of pages or percentage... But I did read through a fair amount including the addenda.
Point being. They reference the drawings countless times, they just didn't publish them. What's wrong with that (especially in a report geared toward the structural engineering world)?

If someone had a concern they could look up the drawing. They weren't top secret.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 27th August 2015 at 01:42 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2015, 05:06 PM   #343
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,855
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Point being. They reference the drawings countless times, they just didn't publish them. What's wrong with that (especially in a report geared toward the structural engineering world)?

If someone had a concern they could look up the drawing. They weren't top secret.
yes they are... please tell me where I can "look them up"?
JSanderO is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2015, 05:24 PM   #344
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,638
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
yes they are... please tell me where I can "look them up"?
I would suggest talking to the firm that produced them. No problem with that, right?

They might ask for a legitimate reason for your need to know but, you do have one, right?

ETA: My nephew was working with the WPI research team at that time and he had no problems..............
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 27th August 2015 at 05:29 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2015, 06:11 PM   #345
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,855
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I would suggest talking to the firm that produced them. No problem with that, right?

They might ask for a legitimate reason for your need to know but, you do have one, right?

ETA: My nephew was working with the WPI research team at that time and he had no problems..............
That's absurd... The point is NIST was tasked to explain how these towers came down and write a report. The report should have included the ACTUAL structural data, drawings, plans etc. I don't have to ask Leslie Roberston and I would bet he doesn't have them any more because.... NIST took them.

I would ask any engineer or architect for their drawings... and I would give mine.... But these collapses were a very special case... and of interest to the public and the professional community.

And who knows if there were not elements of the designs which played some role in the collapse.
JSanderO is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2015, 06:35 PM   #346
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
That's absurd... The point is NIST was tasked to explain how these towers came down and write a report. The report should have included the ACTUAL structural data, drawings, plans etc. I don't have to ask Leslie Roberston and I would bet he doesn't have them any more because.... NIST took them.

I would ask any engineer or architect for their drawings... and I would give mine.... But these collapses were a very special case... and of interest to the public and the professional community.

And who knows if there were not elements of the designs which played some role in the collapse.
What if the designs were stored on site in a fire safe that did not survive?
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2015, 07:15 PM   #347
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,422
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
They might ask for a legitimate reason for your need to know but, you do have one, right?...
That is the central issue which I've never seen anyone address - or respond when I've identified that it is a key issue and outlined some reasons as to who should/could be entitled to access the information.

It is a question of "standing" and "need to know". Which is not addressed - glossed over actually - by Sander's generalised response:
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
.... But these collapses were a very special case... and of interest to the public and the professional community.
What sector of the "public"? What sector of the professional community? What standing do they have to entitle them to demand the info? Do they have a legitimate need to know?

I'm a professional engineer (retd) and AU citizen. I don't think that I have any legitimate basis to demand that US Government Agencies should provide such data for me. Whether in my capacity as an engineer OR as an AU citizen.

So the line in the sand separating "entitled' from "not entitled" is well beyond me - over towards US interests and I'm on the wrong side.

The discussion point therefore is "How should the line be drawn defining who is entitled?"

And it is not a single factor decision - much more complicated - that's probably why no-one wants to discuss it?
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2015, 07:42 PM   #348
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,422
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
You're not interested in them.... correct? They are irrelevant as far as you are concerned... Right?

Why?
Gamolon is only one example of a "you" posting here. I'm another "you" so I'll answer from my perspective.

My interest in WTC 9/11 collapses is in two main areas:
1) Priority One: Understanding the mechanisms of collapse for my own professional enlightenment and so that I can explain the engineering physics to other persons; AND
2) Priority Two - and very secondary: So I can be assured there was No CD or other MHI other than the plane crashes involved in those collapse mechanisms.

The main issues needing technical understanding - again my historic priorities - are:
A) Understand "progression" at the Twin towers;
B) Understand "initiation" at the Twin Towers;
C) Understand "transition" from "A)" to "B)" - now redundant - I now understand "initiation" sufficiently to comprehend why it led directly into "ROOSD" and "progression". So no need for a "transition" stage.


There are several issues which still cause contentious discussion:
p) Why no "Missing Jolt"?
q) "Would tilt prevent/cause axial impact?"
r) "Why didn't the Top Block topple over the side?"

AND the Grand Daddy of lèse majesté:
s) Bazant really was wrong on these points[list].

I don't need any hidden drawings to satisfy A, B or C. And - once you understand those three - p, q, r & s all drop into place.


So "They are irrelevant as far as I am concerned... Right?"

Last edited by ozeco41; 27th August 2015 at 07:44 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2015, 03:17 AM   #349
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,855
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
That is the central issue which I've never seen anyone address - or respond when I've identified that it is a key issue and outlined some reasons as to who should/could be entitled to access the information.

It is a question of "standing" and "need to know". Which is not addressed - glossed over actually - by Sander's generalised response:
What sector of the "public"? What sector of the professional community? What standing do they have to entitle them to demand the info? Do they have a legitimate need to know?

I'm a professional engineer (retd) and AU citizen. I don't think that I have any legitimate basis to demand that US Government Agencies should provide such data for me. Whether in my capacity as an engineer OR as an AU citizen.

So the line in the sand separating "entitled' from "not entitled" is well beyond me - over towards US interests and I'm on the wrong side.

The discussion point therefore is "How should the line be drawn defining who is entitled?"

And it is not a single factor decision - much more complicated - that's probably why no-one wants to discuss it?
Ozzie... Frankly I don't think one may NEED the plans to know what could have happened. I think that this information COULD be helpful.

One can pretty much see from the public record what is going on in the "global collapse" phase... something that NIST doesn't even bother to "detail". The ROOSD like models describe that quite well and seem supported by the visual public record.

However the initiation period is mysterious because we can't see much of what is happening. I can make an analogy to a patient who drops dead from an illness such as... heart disease or a aneurism... or other causes that were progressive diseases which can only be determined by autopsy... looking inside the patient. It may be possible that the internal diseases can be read from looking at the patient and some non invasive testing. Once dead some people say... the person is clearly dead something went wrong inside... they were functioning normally and does it matter the cause of death?

I think the collapses were of concern to people because millions are in hgh rise steel framed towers every day around the world and the possibility of fire, at least is real. Buildings have fire suppression systems for that and few to no fires have over come the existing systems to produce a complete collapse.

Then of course the towers survived the initial plane strikes and so to many the fact that the collapsed an hour or more later must be related to fire or something else. The something else has been called "CD" and there are many arguments why this did not occur and so most people accept that the mechanism of collapse were a combination of heat and the plane damage.

I think it then becomes important to understand how the heat was able to undermine the structure... and was this only because of the plane damage? (apparently not because 7wtc was not hit by a plane).

So perhaps it becomes important to see if there was anything about the structure which enabled the collapse. Did similar mechanisms lead to the collapses in all three towers? NIST told us that lateral steel expansion led to the global collapse in 78wtc.... and it seems sagging floor trusses were the culprit in the twin towers. Whatever the reasons.... the devil is in the details... and in these collapses it would be in the actual structural systems and actual heat heavier (which was clearly assumed somewhat).

So this may be a sort of navel gazing and engineers learned lessons... not more long span truss floors and so on. But were they really the culprit? Perhaps not when you have 7wtc.

The early explanations... dropping pancakes were silly cartoon explanations that John Q Public could comprehend. But many railed against this because it simply not credible... and then NIST had to come up with their "forensic" analysis... which satisfied many... but not me! Many including you saw flaws in their "thinking" and presentation. And you often write right for the wrong reason... and the reason doesn't actually matter... the patient died.... no evidence of poison.

Standing is a legal concept... and for me this is a personal "journey" to make sense of what happened. And for me it seems that to do so one needs to know the details of the frame that failed. It's that simple.

Truthers go on nonstop about the col 79 "details". I can't evaluate whether NIST's explanation is correct. Their sim doesn't seem to match the actual collapse and that becomes a red flag for me. 79 clearly was an early failure... but maybe not how NIST portrayed it.

I've been unsatisfied with NIST's explanations and aside from the ROOSD like explanations for the collapse phase... I think the clues will be in the study of the structures.

I started a thread here about if a single column failure would / could lead to global collapse. If so what would the circumstances be? Is col 79 different from other columns in other buildings around the world? Was the fire around it different from other fires in high rises?

I don't have the answers yet. And all the pubic can do is speculate...engineers more informed speculation... laypersons... less informed speculation.
JSanderO is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2015, 04:05 AM   #350
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
What if the designs were stored on site in a fire safe that did not survive?
I would not be surprised if that were true of some copies, but it can't be the full answer. Drawings exist elsewhere, drawings which persist today. How could anyone - e.g., NIST, or *anyone else on planet Earth* - model WTC with the level of accuracy and detail required, without access to information that is either (1) the originals, or (2) derivative of the originals within a causal chain starting with the originals?

I'm not an architect or structural engineer, but this seems obvious to me.
Bravin Neff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2015, 04:43 AM   #351
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,422
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Ozzie... Frankly I don't think one may NEED the plans to know what could have happened. I think that this information COULD be helpful.
Yes - BUT. Helpful to who? For what purpose? And my main point why should the US community at large - represented by their Government operating under a Constitution and the Rule of Law give access to an undefined wide range of persons - some of whom like me have no legitimate claim on the US?

The question remains Who has standing? Where should you folk of the US draw the line against (a) foreigners like me and (b) members of your own community. NO community can afford to give every nut in the ratbag fringe free access to everything they demand. So lines have to be drawn. Where do YOU draw the line(s)???

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
One can pretty much see from the public record what is going on in the "global collapse" phase... something that NIST doesn't even bother to "detail". The ROOSD like models describe that quite well and seem supported by the visual public record.
I can explain that "phase" as well as anyone I've seen posting AND I don't need extra plans. It's pretty well accepted except for the mental gymnastics of those who cannot tolerate a "truther" being right AND selecting the acronym. So this doesn't help your case.

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
However the initiation period is mysterious because we can't see much of what is happening.
Same situation - I've explained this initiation stage without the need for more plans. And on this forum found little interest in discussing the TOPIC. Distinct from the handful who chose to abuse me for explaining it in layman understandable language. But, PA's aside, more plans are not needed to explain the mechanisms. And on this forum the engineering controversies are around failure to comprehend mechanisms...NOT details from hidden plans.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2015, 04:44 AM   #352
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
I would not be surprised if that were true of some copies, but it can't be the full answer. Drawings exist elsewhere, drawings which persist today. How could anyone - e.g., NIST, or *anyone else on planet Earth* - model WTC with the level of accuracy and detail required, without access to information that is either (1) the originals, or (2) derivative of the originals within a causal chain starting with the originals?

I'm not an architect or structural engineer, but this seems obvious to me.
The original plans were property of the port authority of New York stored
In WT7.
Nist used the plans from the permit drawings submitted to the city of
New York, as I recall.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2015, 04:47 AM   #353
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Yes - BUT. Helpful to who? For what purpose? And my main point why should the US community at large - represented by their Government operating under a Constitution and the Rule of Law give access to an undefined wide range of persons - some of whom like me have no legitimate claim on the US?

The question remains Who has standing? Where should you folk of the US draw the line against (a) foreigners like me and (b) members of your own community. NO community can afford to give every nut in the ratbag fringe free access to everything they demand. So lines have to be drawn. Where do YOU draw the line(s)???

I can explain that "phase" as well as anyone I've seen posting AND I don't need extra plans. It's pretty well accepted except for the mental gymnastics of those who cannot tolerate a "truther" being right AND selecting the acronym. So this doesn't help your case.

Same situation - I've explained this initiation stage without the need for more plans. And on this forum found little interest in discussing the TOPIC. Distinct from the handful who chose to abuse me for explaining it in layman understandable language. But, PA's aside, more plans are not needed to explain the mechanisms. And on this forum the engineering controversies are around failure to comprehend mechanisms...NOT details from hidden plans.
The plans are not the property of the government they are the property, of the
Builders and the artist who drew them, they decide who sees them under US,
Copyright law.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2015, 04:57 AM   #354
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,422
Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
How could anyone - e.g., NIST, or *anyone else on planet Earth* - model WTC with the level of accuracy and detail required, without access to information that is either (1) the originals, or (2) derivative of the originals within a causal chain starting with the originals?
Take care with using unquantified non-specific generalisations.

The "big technical questions" at or near the top of most people's lists do not need that level of detail.

F'rinstance "proof" (in layperson language) of No need for CD in the progression stages doesn't need detailed plans beyond what is openly available. It is readily "provable" with ball park numbers because the available energies are overwhelming - orders of magnitude more than needed.

Understanding of the cascade failure of the initiation stage likewise does not need fine detailed plans. "Proof" of no CD in that stage I doubt can be based on technical factors (engineering physics) BUT can be based on logistic and security "impossibility".


(Disclaimer: I have used words such as "proof", "impossibility" and similar employing lay persons usage for brevity. I can restate those aspects in rigorous scientific method language BUT it would take a boring extra 2-3-400 words. )

Originally Posted by Bravin Neff View Post
I'm not an architect or structural engineer,...
Probably an advantage. You are not as prone to "Forests v Trees" syndrome.. Or "alligators v swamp draining". Engineers can so often get so obsessed with details that they lose the plot.

Last edited by ozeco41; 28th August 2015 at 05:01 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2015, 05:08 AM   #355
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,422
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
The plans are not the property of the government they are the property, of the
Builders and the artist who drew them, they decide who sees them under US,
Copyright law.
Yes - so what? As I said "operating under a Constitution and the Rule of Law". The legalities are not significantly different across the Common Law jurisdictions. The issues I am drawing attention to are those of who needs them and why? Whether or not they are legally accessible.

Last edited by ozeco41; 28th August 2015 at 05:23 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2015, 05:23 AM   #356
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
The plans are not the property of the government they are the property, of the
Builders and the artist who drew them, they decide who sees them under US,
Copyright law.
That struck me a while back, when JSO was comparing the WTC disaster to the Space Shuttle. In terms of intellectual property, and who "has the right to access it," it seems a distinction between private and public property is relevant here - the WTC was not public property, but the Space Shuttle in a relevant sense was. I would suppose this plays into it.

Last edited by Bravin Neff; 28th August 2015 at 05:23 AM. Reason: spelling
Bravin Neff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2015, 05:35 AM   #357
Bravin Neff
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Take care with using unquantified non-specific generalisations.

The "big technical questions" at or near the top of most people's lists do not need that level of detail.
Agreed.

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
...it is readily "provable" with ball park numbers because the available energies are overwhelming - orders of magnitude more than needed.
Agreed.

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Probably an advantage. You are not as prone to "Forests v Trees" syndrome..
Well, I am an engineer... just from a very different discipline. But I take your point, and my assumption all along has been that the WTC has been sufficiently modelled already, and done so years ago (in terms of CAD).

Your points being taken, it seems to me anyone going through the trouble of modeling the buildings must have relied on original prints of some verifiable origination along the way. Otherwise you're putting scales on photos, or vector converting pictures or whatever (not to belittle this technique, I do it a lot and it certainly works to a point).

So I assume, anyway.
Bravin Neff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2015, 05:50 AM   #358
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Yes - so what? As I said "operating under a Constitution and the Rule of Law". The legalities are not significantly different across the Common Law jurisdictions. The issues I am drawing attention to are those of who needs them and why? Whether or not they are legally accessible.
The point I was making is the people who own them deside who has access to them usually under confidentiality contracts.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2015, 06:40 AM   #359
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
The point I was making is the people who own them deside who has access to them usually under confidentiality contracts.
Chainsaw, when I asked NIST directly about this, they did not say the plans and blueprints etc were privately owned. They said that some of the information about the buildings was withheld for National Securrity reasons, so that the bad guys wouldn't be able to use the information to figure out how to bring down more skyscrapers. I would guess that NIST and other government agencies either asked for or subpoenaed all information that existed about the designs, plans, blueprints etc, and that private ownership or copyright was superceded by the magnitude of the crime they were investigating. The government decided what to release and what to withhold, not any private party.
And Ozeco, the question of what information a democratic government should release and what it should suppress is a constant back-and-forth. The Freedom of Information Act and many National Security acts address these, and often conflict. Then there are people who leak information illegally, from Daniel Ellsberg to all the modern-day WikiLeaks types. From a journalist's perspective, of course I lean more towards open records. Others with military experience, for example, lean more towards keeping things classified. The damage WikiLeaks has caused to our national security has not seemed to be fatal, so I do believe too much info is kept classified. Under FOIA, though, I believe any American citizen can petition for the release of information from the government without having to prove "standing." I could be wrong about that, but it seems to me that if Richard Gage wants to sue the government under FOIA to fish for evidence of CD, that's reason enough for him to have "standing." And if I'm right, I'm glad for that, becauise while I doubt that Gage would find such evidence, other people DO find evidence of government malfeasance, waste etc in this manner.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com

Last edited by chrismohr; 28th August 2015 at 06:49 AM. Reason: more info
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2015, 06:49 AM   #360
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
You betcha... Did you notice that the Cantor/Frankel drawings were released AFTER a FOIA request?
So what? The engineers involved in the study had them at their disposal. How does the general public having access to or visibility of the original drawings effect the validity of the study or the "cartoons" the NIST created from those drawings within the report?

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Where are the twin towers drawings and specs?
Again, how does accessibility to the original drawings to the general public change the studies? The engineers had them.

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
You're not interested in them.... correct?
Incorrect. I am interested in them as I have used them many times to try and understand different scenarios being discussed.

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
They are irrelevant as far as you are concerned... Right?
Wrong. They are/were relevant to the engineers who did the study.
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:12 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.