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 17th September 2007, 09:27 PM   #41
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
A20 is an intelligent but eccentric man who suffers fools badly. This is compounded by what appears to be a belief of his, that the great and vast majority of all persons are fools. Further complicating matters is his occassional venture into his own foolishness, which of course he cannot recognize as such.

In the matter at hand in this thread however, I believe he is correct (not including his editorial comment on "JREFer's")
Well all I can say is regardless of ANYTHING the guy has to say about anything. His condescending, combative and woo tendencies make me and I am sure many others not care one iota about anything he says.
~enigma~ 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 17th September 2007, 09:28 PM   #42
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by notheist View Post
What if...
The WTC towers has four elevator shafts at each corner, all the people above the fire floors may have gotten out.

What if...
A system for evacuation from the roof had been developed and but into use?

And while we prepare for a similar attack, the terrorist will be planing a poison gas attack.

How safe are the ventilation systems in these buildings? Do we need a system to detect dangerous gasses and a system to clear any from buildings?
It goes beyond terror attacks and planes into buildings at 500 MPH.
Just evacuating a building with tens of thousands of people in them needs to be made more efficient and failing that at least design the structure to better maintain integrity in a multi floor major fire.

Other countries have implemented codes that address such things. It is ironic that 911 would be used to argue against them.
jaydeehess 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 17th September 2007, 09:31 PM   #43
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
Well all I can say is regardless of ANYTHING the guy has to say about anything. His condescending, combative and woo tendencies make me and I am sure many others not care one iota about anything he says.
I dislike the man too.

I also dislike GWB. (actually I would rather spend a month in purgatory than an hour with him) That does not mean that I will side with the CT's or dismiss everything he has to say out of hand.
jaydeehess 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 17th September 2007, 09:33 PM   #44
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
When I read A20's posts I try to separate the shinola he paints with, from the feces he throws.
jaydeehess 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 17th September 2007, 10:00 PM   #45
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,772
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
It goes beyond terror attacks and planes into buildings at 500 MPH.
Just evacuating a building with tens of thousands of people in them needs to be made more efficient and failing that at least design the structure to better maintain integrity in a multi floor major fire.
The fire protection systems worked fine in 1975 when they had a major fire, and sprinklers were added after that. The fact of the matter is that no-one envisioned a situation where multiple stairways and lifts would be taken out of action making it very difficult to evacuate and the fire protection and sprinkler system would would be destroyed allowing the fire to go unchecked. Having said that after 1993 evacuation procedures and system were reviewed and emergency lighting and smoke extractors addd to the stairwells. The disaster of 9/11 was beyond the scope of anyone imagination, let alone those that designed the plave in the 60's.

Quote:
Other countries have implemented codes that address such things. It is ironic that 911 would be used to argue against them.
The building met the codes it needed too, and its systems were able to handle normal situations. Having a plane smash into it at 500 mph is not a normal situation.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 17th September 2007, 11:39 PM   #46
einsteen
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 917
Wasn't it

Impact Damage AND Jet Fuel Fire AND Fireproofing stripped ?

And probably some unknown factors. The Boolean AND operator has the advantage that you only need to change one of the factors in contrast with the OR operator.
einsteen 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 18th September 2007, 02:10 AM   #47
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,772
Originally Posted by einsteen View Post
Wasn't it

Impact Damage AND Jet Fuel Fire AND Fireproofing stripped ?

And probably some unknown factors. The Boolean AND operator has the advantage that you only need to change one of the factors in contrast with the OR operator.
Except that most of those that contest NIST's views are saying that the damage to the Fireproof wasn't necessary. In otherwords while NIST is saying that it was Impact Damage AND Office Material Fuelled Fire AND Fireproofing stripped, people like Dr Quintiere, Prof. Astaneh and Arup etc are all saying that it should just be Impact Damage AND Office Material Fuelled Fire.

From a CTs point of view, you'd be better off supporting NIST because that gives you the Fireproofing to moan about, if the others are right then it doesn't matter how much fire-proofing was damaged, they were coming down regardless.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 18th September 2007, 02:23 AM   #48
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,006
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Except that most of those that contest NIST's views are saying that the damage to the Fireproof wasn't necessary. In otherwords while NIST is saying that it was Impact Damage AND Office Material Fuelled Fire AND Fireproofing stripped, people like Dr Quintiere, Prof. Astaneh and Arup etc are all saying that it should just be Impact Damage AND Office Material Fuelled Fire.
I think the role of the jet fuel as an accelerant is fairly important to the collapse initiation mechanism as well; the truther claim that no steel-framed high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire can be countered by pointing out that no previous high-rise contents fire has been so quickly spread by the presence of an accelerant. So the heirarchy of increasingly complex required causes becomes:

Impact damage AND jet fuel accelerant AND contents fire (Quintiere, Astaneh, Arup, Greening)

Impact damage AND fireproofing loss AND jet fuel accelerant AND contents fire (NIST)

Impact damage AND fireproofing loss AND jet fuel accelerant AND contents fire AND explosives (truth movement)

Video manipulation AND explosives to simulate aircraft impact AND incendiaries to spread fires AND impossible energy beams from space (batcrap crazy)

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers 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 18th September 2007, 02:42 AM   #49
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,772
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Impact damage AND fireproofing loss AND jet fuel accelerant AND contents fire AND explosives (truth movement)
I think it's closer to:

Minor Impact damage AND small jet fuel fires AND some sort of combination of explosives and therm*te (truth movement)
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 18th September 2007, 07:37 AM   #50
notheist
Thinker
 
notheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 196
Speaking of Fire Proofing.

Asbestos Could Have Saved WTC Lives
Friday , September 14, 2001
By Steven Milloy


Asbestos fibers in the air and rubble following the collapse of the World Trade Center is adding to fears in the aftermath of Tuesday’s terrorist attack. The true tragedy in the asbestos story, though, is the lives that might have been saved but for 1970s-era hysteria about asbestos.

Until 30 years ago, asbestos was added to flame-retardant sprays used to insulate steel building materials, particularly floor supports. The insulation was intended to delay the steel from melting in the case of fire by up to four hours.

In the case of the World Trade Center, emergency plans called for this four-hour window to be used to evacuate the building while helicopters sprayed to put out the fire and evacuated persons from the roof.

The use of asbestos ceased in the 1970s following reports of asbestos workers becoming ill from high exposures to asbestos fibers. The Mt. Sinai School of Medicine’s Irving Selikoff had reported that asbestos workers had higher rates of lung cancer and other diseases. Selikoff then played a key role in the campaign to halt the use of asbestos in construction.

In 1971, New York City banned the use of asbestos in spray fireproofing. At that time, asbestos insulating material had only been sprayed up to the 64th floor of the World Trade Center towers.

Other materials were substituted for asbestos. Though the substitute sprays passed Underwriters Laboratories’ tests, not everyone was convinced they would work as well.

One skeptic was the late-Herbert Levine who invented spray fireproofing with wet asbestos in the late-1940s. Levine’s invention involved a combination of asbestos with mineral wool and made commonplace the construction of large steel framed buildings.

Previously, buildings such as the Empire State Building had to have their steel framework insulated with concrete, a much more expensive insulator that was more difficult to use.

Levine’s company, Asbestospray, was familiar with the World Trade Center construction, but failed to get the contract for spraying insulation in the World Trade Center. Levine frequently would say that “if a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down.”

That appears to be what happened Tuesday, according to Richard Wilson, a risk expert and physics professor at Harvard University.

The two hijacked airliners crashed into floors 96 to 103 of One World Trade Center and floors 87 to 93 of Two World Trade Center. Instead of the steel girders of the towers lasting up to four hours before melting, the steel frames of One World Trade Center lasted only one hour and forty minutes, while the steel frames of Two World Trade Center lasted just 56 minutes before collapsing.

Though many were able to escape during those times, thousands apparently were not, including the hundreds of firefighters and police killed when the buildings suddenly and prematurely collapsed.

Selikoff was certainly right to point out that some workers heavily exposed to certain types of asbestos fibers were at increased risk of disease. But Selikoff was wrong to press the panic button about any use of or exposure to asbestos. For example, no adverse health effect has ever been attributed to Levine’s technique of spraying wet asbestos, according to Harvard’s Wilson.

We may now be paying a horrible price for junk science-fueled asbestos hysteria.

Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the author of the upcoming book Junk Science Judo: Self-defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).
notheist 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 18th September 2007, 07:55 AM   #51
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Simply put I have no problem with reviewing fire codes for very tall structures and if using a different insulation and requiring wider, better protected stairwells is shown to be in order then let's change the codes.

It is fact that the PANYNJ had more lax codes than NYC. If that was done solely to make construction less expensive then that is reprehensible.

It really seems that some of you are against this idea only because Apollo20 is for it.

That is not critical thinikng IMHO.
jaydeehess 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 18th September 2007, 08:01 AM   #52
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,006
Originally Posted by notheist View Post
Speaking of Fire Proofing.

Asbestos Could Have Saved WTC Lives
Friday , September 14, 2001
By Steven Milloy
I know it smacks of ad hominem, but if Steven Milloy said the sky was blue, I'd seriously consider the possibility it might be green.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers 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 18th September 2007, 08:05 AM   #53
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,104
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Except that most of those that contest NIST's views are saying that the damage to the Fireproof wasn't necessary. In otherwords while NIST is saying that it was Impact Damage AND Office Material Fuelled Fire AND Fireproofing stripped, people like Dr Quintiere, Prof. Astaneh and Arup etc are all saying that it should just be Impact Damage AND Office Material Fuelled Fire.

From a CTs point of view, you'd be better off supporting NIST because that gives you the Fireproofing to moan about, if the others are right then it doesn't matter how much fire-proofing was damaged, they were coming down regardless.
I think one of the things that makes the fireproofing issue moot is the fact that the impact damage included loss of the automatic fire suppression system through the loss of structural integrety and loss of power to the affected floors.
Also, faced with that inferno initiated by the Jet-A, any normal office fire supression system would be be like a squirt gun at a bonfire...
As for Apollo20--When he talks Chemistry, I'll listen. That is something he knows.
When he goes into politics, engineering, and sociology--he's just a woo-ish as Avery, Lyte, and their ilk.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn 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 18th September 2007, 08:05 AM   #54
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
 
Alferd_Packer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,746
The one issue that seems to be overlooked was that the original sprayed on fireproofing appears to have been substandard in design, formulation and application.

The mafia connection to this has never been fully explored to my knowlege.
__________________
No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post
Alferd_Packer 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 18th September 2007, 08:07 AM   #55
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
 
Alferd_Packer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,746
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
I think one of the things that makes the fireproofing issue moot is the fact that the impact damage included loss of the automatic fire suppression system through the loss of structural integrety and loss of power to the affected floors.
The buildings were not designed with sprinkler systems. They were a retofit in the mid-late 70's.
__________________
No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post
Alferd_Packer 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 18th September 2007, 08:09 AM   #56
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,104
Originally Posted by Alferd_Packer View Post
The buildings were not designed with sprinkler systems. They were a retofit in the mid-late 70's.
I missed that part of the post. Back to reading the whole thing, not just the most recent replies. Sorry 'bout that.
That makes prior performance even more impressive.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn 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 18th September 2007, 08:34 AM   #57
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
 
Alferd_Packer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,746
Originally Posted by notheist View Post
Speaking of Fire Proofing.

Asbestos Could Have Saved WTC Lives
Friday , September 14, 2001
By Steven Milloy

.[/i]
I disagree. Most of the problems with the fireproofing in the building had little to do with the presence of asbestos or not. True, the formula used in most of the structures did not include asbestos, and as such, it was a new formulation by the manufacturer that was devised as a substitute. This, however, does not alleviate that fact that the material was formulated to be applied under specific conditions and controls that were not apparently followed.

There were a number of issues with the fireproofing. One was that the specified thickness may not have been adequate. Weather this was a result of a cost benefit analysis, or a misapplication of codes and formulas, or just a general lack of understanding going all the way to the manufacturer is not really clear to me.

Delays in the initial construction caused the columns and trusses stored outside to rust. Rusty scale on the steel was not cleaned off prior to the installation of the fireproofing. This caused extensive problems later with fireproofing coming loose in huge sheets. Rain during construction often washed the exposed fireproofing from the steel. Fireproofing is installed wet. It needs to dry out thoroughly after application.

After a building floor is sealed off, the other trades come in to hang pipes, conduits, ceilings, etc. All of these activities involve the intentional removal of fireproofing from the parts of the structure that the component will be hung from. This is supposed to be repaired afterward, but in practice it rarely is.

Inspections of the fireproofing in the 90’s indicated that based on all of the above factors, the fireproofing in the building was definitely sub par. Even if asbestos containing fireproofing was used, the problems would have still been there.

This is an issue that has never been fully explored and probably won't ever be.
__________________
No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post
Alferd_Packer 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 18th September 2007, 08:37 AM   #58
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
The real 9/11 Conspiracy:

The information presented below was passed on to me by Professor Astaneh for which I thank him. Professor Astaneh was in fact invited to be on the original ASCE/FEMA study of the WTC attacks of 9/11 so he obviously knows his stuff! However, he withdrew when he saw the obvious conflict of interest embodied in some of the other memebers of the team:

Consider the names of two of the people who were on the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) that produced the famous "Building Performance" Report.

Jon Magnusson and Saw -Teen See. Who are these people?

1. Jon Magnusson: He is listed in the ASCE/FEMA report as Partner in
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc. He is actually one of the main
owners and managers of the firm Skilling, Barkshire Ward Magnusson,
which was called Skilling Helle Christiansen Robertson , and was the
firm that did the structural engineering and design of the WTC towers.

Having Jon Magnusson from Skilling on the team that is investigating the structure designed by his firm and has collapsed killing thousands of people is beyond belief.... You cannot be on the team paid by taxpayers to investigate why the buildings that you designed (or your firm had designed) collapsed.

2. Saw-Teen See: She is listed in the ASCE/FEMA report as the Managing Partner, Leslie E. Robertson and Associates, LLP. Of course Leslie E. Robertson was the structural engineer of record for the design of the towers. However, Saw-Teen See is not only the manager of Leslie E. Robertson and Associates , but she is also the wife of Leslie E. Robertson! So, the wife of the structural engineer who designed the WTC towers, who is also the head of the firm Leslie E. Robertson was on the team to investigate the design and performance of the WTC towers and why they failed!

No wonder when you read the ASCE/FEMA -403 Report, there is only praise
for the structural design of the WTC Towers.

As for the NIST report, the situation is no better. When NIST got the
funding to do the multi-million dollar WTC studies, the first contract for structural modeling and analysis was given to none other than Leslie E. Robertson's firm! So it's no wonder that the NIST Report has no criticisms of the WTC structural design. Nice, very nice! Moral corruption indeed!

Unfortunately, none of this comes as much of a surprise to me having seen the same kind of nonsense while working for 23 years in the nuclear industry in Canada.
Apollo20 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 18th September 2007, 08:52 AM   #59
slyjoe
Master Poster
 
slyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ
Posts: 2,039
Does this mean you have a problem with Boeing being involved in the investigation of airplane crashes?
__________________
"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade
slyjoe 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 18th September 2007, 09:14 AM   #60
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Well a new conspiracy theory seems to be emerging, namely, some people are insinuating that conflict of interest may have existed, which in turn may have allowed for minimal focus on the building design and pre-attack status as factors in the collapse causation on 9/11.

However, let it be noted, that I do not hear in any of these allegations or insinuations, a suggestion of MIHOP/LIHOP....

TAM
T.A.M. 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 18th September 2007, 09:24 AM   #61
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
If a Canadian nuclear reactor had a meltdown, I would want a full official (government) inquiry. As part of the inquiry I would expect the reactor designers to be consulted, but I would not want them on the investigating team writing the report.... would you?
Apollo20 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 18th September 2007, 09:32 AM   #62
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
So when NIST basically concluded that the design was partly responsible for the collapase, how it that not being critical of the design? They basically said the events exploited the design weakness.

How many buildings are being constructed with the same design used for the WTC?
Jonnyclueless 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 18th September 2007, 09:56 AM   #63
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
Jonnyclueless:

Could you please show me where NIST state that the design of the towers was "partly responsible" for the collapse.
Apollo20 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 18th September 2007, 09:56 AM   #64
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Well a new conspiracy theory seems to be emerging, namely, some people are insinuating that conflict of interest may have existed, which in turn may have allowed for minimal focus on the building design and pre-attack status as factors in the collapse causation on 9/11.

However, let it be noted, that I do not hear in any of these allegations or insinuations, a suggestion of MIHOP/LIHOP....

TAM
Not a new allegation. there have been numerous conflit of interest claims ever since the 9/11 commision was formed. Remeber that the 9/11 CTs recycle old bs instead of introducing new evidence.
~enigma~ 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 18th September 2007, 10:48 AM   #65
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Well a new conspiracy theory seems to be emerging, namely, some people are insinuating that conflict of interest may have existed, which in turn may have allowed for minimal focus on the building design and pre-attack status as factors in the collapse causation on 9/11.

However, let it be noted, that I do not hear in any of these allegations or insinuations, a suggestion of MIHOP/LIHOP....

TAM

Indeed none of this has anything to do with the Cts concerning the plan to attack the towers whether it be that of hijackers or clandestine secret world gov'ts.

Instead it concerns the issue of the design and implementation of the design specs for these buildings. There is good evidence that the insulation was not up to standard for NYC or even for the PANYNJ codes. NIST is the organization that can and does make reccomendations concerning fire codes and did make some as a result of the 911 attacks. There are others they could have but did not make. There are issues, such as the difference between NYC and PANYNJ codes, that they barely acknowledged and others that they did not address at all. That is the topic at hand, not far fetched senarios of neo-con ventures.
jaydeehess 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 18th September 2007, 12:47 PM   #66
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
The information presented below was passed on to me by Professor Astaneh for which I thank him. Professor Astaneh was in fact invited to be on the original ASCE/FEMA study of the WTC attacks of 9/11 so he obviously knows his stuff! However, he withdrew when he saw the obvious conflict of interest embodied in some of the other memebers of the team:

Consider the names of two of the people who were on the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) that produced the famous "Building Performance" Report.

Jon Magnusson and Saw -Teen See. Who are these people?

1. Jon Magnusson: He is listed in the ASCE/FEMA report as Partner in
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc. He is actually one of the main
owners and managers of the firm Skilling, Barkshire Ward Magnusson,
which was called Skilling Helle Christiansen Robertson , and was the
firm that did the structural engineering and design of the WTC towers.

Having Jon Magnusson from Skilling on the team that is investigating the structure designed by his firm and has collapsed killing thousands of people is beyond belief.... You cannot be on the team paid by taxpayers to investigate why the buildings that you designed (or your firm had designed) collapsed.

2. Saw-Teen See: She is listed in the ASCE/FEMA report as the Managing Partner, Leslie E. Robertson and Associates, LLP. Of course Leslie E. Robertson was the structural engineer of record for the design of the towers. However, Saw-Teen See is not only the manager of Leslie E. Robertson and Associates , but she is also the wife of Leslie E. Robertson! So, the wife of the structural engineer who designed the WTC towers, who is also the head of the firm Leslie E. Robertson was on the team to investigate the design and performance of the WTC towers and why they failed!

No wonder when you read the ASCE/FEMA -403 Report, there is only praise
for the structural design of the WTC Towers.

As for the NIST report, the situation is no better. When NIST got the
funding to do the multi-million dollar WTC studies, the first contract for structural modeling and analysis was given to none other than Leslie E. Robertson's firm! So it's no wonder that the NIST Report has no criticisms of the WTC structural design. Nice, very nice! Moral corruption indeed!

Unfortunately, none of this comes as much of a surprise to me having seen the same kind of nonsense while working for 23 years in the nuclear industry in Canada.
I suggest that the above should be shifted from a discussion of "9/11" conspiracies to that of a discussion of "was there, or was there not, actions taken to minimize the liability of individuals whose involvement in the construction/maintenance of WTC may have facilitated the structural failure".

Yes, I admit, that's a long description; but I contend that this material is fundementally different from "9/11 conspiracies". It does not dispute the events of the attacks. It deals specifically with what failings, prior to the attacks, may have been covered-up or glossed-over after the fact.

I think it is a worthy topic of discussion, but I feel it would benefit from being divorced from "9/11 conspiracies".

My US$0.02 (or is that Amero$0.02 ?)
Arkan_Wolfshade 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 18th September 2007, 01:08 PM   #67
Oxigen
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 260
Apollo20,
I am just wondering if this is news to you or have you always suspected the integrity of the building. As I have mentioned to you previously, I follow your posts with great interest, and this one is most interesting.
Oxigen 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 18th September 2007, 01:23 PM   #68
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
If a Canadian nuclear reactor had a meltdown, I would want a full official (government) inquiry. As part of the inquiry I would expect the reactor designers to be consulted, but I would not want them on the investigating team writing the report.... would you?
I would not want them heading up the investigation, or have a majority of the investigators under their "influence" so to speak, no...with this we can agree. Do you feel this was the case with NIST??

TAM
T.A.M. 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 18th September 2007, 01:26 PM   #69
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Indeed none of this has anything to do with the Cts concerning the plan to attack the towers whether it be that of hijackers or clandestine secret world gov'ts.

Instead it concerns the issue of the design and implementation of the design specs for these buildings. There is good evidence that the insulation was not up to standard for NYC or even for the PANYNJ codes. NIST is the organization that can and does make reccomendations concerning fire codes and did make some as a result of the 911 attacks. There are others they could have but did not make. There are issues, such as the difference between NYC and PANYNJ codes, that they barely acknowledged and others that they did not address at all. That is the topic at hand, not far fetched senarios of neo-con ventures.
Indeed, and if there is enough legitimate evidence to warrant an investigation into this angle, I agree it should occur. My issue, perhaps linked to this, is the slippery slope the "truthers" will take, that will read along these lines...

"Well if they were willing to avoid investigating this aspect, or worse, hid information on this issue, what else did they hide...hmmm...hmmmm"

You know you can hear them now...hmmmm

TAM
T.A.M. 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 18th September 2007, 01:34 PM   #70
Augustine
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 995
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
The information presented below was passed on to me by Professor Astaneh for which I thank him. Professor Astaneh was in fact invited to be on the original ASCE/FEMA study of the WTC attacks of 9/11 so he obviously knows his stuff! However, he withdrew when he saw the obvious conflict of interest embodied in some of the other memebers of the team:

Consider the names of two of the people who were on the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) that produced the famous "Building Performance" Report.

Jon Magnusson and Saw -Teen See. Who are these people?

1. Jon Magnusson: He is listed in the ASCE/FEMA report as Partner in
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc. He is actually one of the main
owners and managers of the firm Skilling, Barkshire Ward Magnusson,
which was called Skilling Helle Christiansen Robertson , and was the
firm that did the structural engineering and design of the WTC towers.

Having Jon Magnusson from Skilling on the team that is investigating the structure designed by his firm and has collapsed killing thousands of people is beyond belief.... You cannot be on the team paid by taxpayers to investigate why the buildings that you designed (or your firm had designed) collapsed.

2. Saw-Teen See: She is listed in the ASCE/FEMA report as the Managing Partner, Leslie E. Robertson and Associates, LLP. Of course Leslie E. Robertson was the structural engineer of record for the design of the towers. However, Saw-Teen See is not only the manager of Leslie E. Robertson and Associates , but she is also the wife of Leslie E. Robertson! So, the wife of the structural engineer who designed the WTC towers, who is also the head of the firm Leslie E. Robertson was on the team to investigate the design and performance of the WTC towers and why they failed!

No wonder when you read the ASCE/FEMA -403 Report, there is only praise
for the structural design of the WTC Towers.

As for the NIST report, the situation is no better. When NIST got the
funding to do the multi-million dollar WTC studies, the first contract for structural modeling and analysis was given to none other than Leslie E. Robertson's firm! So it's no wonder that the NIST Report has no criticisms of the WTC structural design. Nice, very nice! Moral corruption indeed!

Unfortunately, none of this comes as much of a surprise to me having seen the same kind of nonsense while working for 23 years in the nuclear industry in Canada.
There were 26 team members. Neither Magnusson or See were Chapter Leaders for the Report, and Magnusson was Chapter Author (one of 4, plus the Chapter Leader) for Chapter 1 only (the Introduction). See is not credited as Leader or Author for any Chapter.

The hysterics on this issue seem a mite overwrought...
Augustine 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 18th September 2007, 01:37 PM   #71
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Exactly...

Like I said, if the people in the project connected to the designers/engineers in the WTCs design/construction were of major influence or import on the report and investigation, than I think a case could be made to review the entire report for oversight or areas given minimal attention, but otherwise I think it is fair...I mean you want to have some input from those who knew the buildings the best.

TAM
T.A.M. 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 18th September 2007, 01:39 PM   #72
Oxigen
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 260
hmmmmm!

Just joking. I do have a sense of humour and am willing to see how this topic develops. This at least sounds someway plausible.
Oxigen 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 18th September 2007, 02:09 PM   #73
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Re: LERA's contract being the first

Quote:
6.6.2 The Reference Models

Under contract to NIST, Leslie E. Robertson Associates (LERA) constructed a global reference model of each tower using the SAP2000, version 8, software. ...These global, three-dimensional models encompassed the 110 stories above grade and the six subterranean levels. The models included primary structural components in the towers, resulting in tens of thousands of computation elements. The data for these elements came from the original structrual drawing books for the towers. These had been updated through the completion of the buildings and also included most of the subsequent, significant alterations by both tenants and The Port Authority. LERA also developed reference models of a truss-framed floor, typical of those in the tenant spaces of the impact and fire regions of the buildings, and of a beam-framed floor, typical of the mechanical floors.

LERA's work was reviewed by independent experts in light of the firm's earlier involvement in the WTC design. It was that earlier work, in fact, that made LERA the only source that had the detailed knowledge of the design, construction, and intended behavior of the towers over their entire 38-year life span. The accuracy of the four models was checked in two ways:

* The two global models were checked by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM), also under contract to NIST, and by NIST staff. This entailed ensuring consistency of the models with the design documents, and testing the models, for example, to ensure that the response of the models to gravity and wind loads was as intended and that the calculated stresses and deformations under these loads were reasonable.

* The global model of WTC 1 was used to calculate the natural vibration periods of the tower. These values were then compared to measurements from the towers on eight dates of winds ranging from 11.5 mph to 41 mph blowing from at least four different directions. As shown in Table 6-3, the N-S and E-W values agreed within 5 percent and the torsion values agreed within 6 percent, both within the combined uncertainty in the measurements and calculations.

* SOM and NIST staff also checked the two floor models for accuracy. These reviews involved comparison with simple hand calculations of estimated deflections and member stresses for a simply supported composite truss and beam under gravity loading. For the composite truss sections, the steel stress results wer ewithin 4 percent of those calculated by SAP2000 for the long-span truss and within 3 percent for the short-span truss. Deflections for the beams and trusses matched hand calculations to within 5 percent to 15 percent. These differences were within the combined uncertainty of the methods.

The few discrepancies between the developed models and the original design documents, as well as the areas identified by NIST and SOM as needing modification, were corrected by LERA and approved by NIST. The models then served as reference for more detailed models for aircraft impact damage analysis and for thermal-structural response and collapse initiation analysis.
boloboffin 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 18th September 2007, 02:46 PM   #74
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
I think that both Astineh and Quintiere are making the same point. The NIST avoided making a statement that thev towers could have beren better designed and that there were things discovered in the course of investigation that would have allowed a stronger, more resistant design. This would, of course, neccessitate that any new construction must take these factors into cxonsideration, and that any revisions to the building code should include measures addressing these concerns. It is in this area that politics may have entered the mix.

Tougher building codes are just not very Republican, or at least not a bloody bit neo-con.
leftysergeant 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 18th September 2007, 03:34 PM   #75
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
Tougher building codes are just not very Republican, or at least not a bloody bit neo-con.
Are you seriously claiming that Republicans and neo-cons write the building codes for New York City?
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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 18th September 2007, 05:02 PM   #76
Crungy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 449
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Are you seriously claiming that Republicans and neo-cons write the building codes for New York City?
In Chicago, the trades unions wield enormous influence on what gets written into the building codes.

I've always heard that the Big Apple building codes are quite unique. In the A/E world, it's said that if you can get through dealing with the codes in Chicago and NYC, everywhere else is a walk through the park.
Crungy 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 18th September 2007, 05:21 PM   #77
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,796
Is that Bruce or Pickering? Cuz my cottage is by Douglas Point and I'd want answers, but Pickering, forget about it.
Furcifer 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 18th September 2007, 05:44 PM   #78
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,772
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
It really seems that some of you are against this idea only because Apollo20 is for it.
Personally I don't care who brought it to the table, to me it smacks of 20/20 hindsight blaming those that made the decisions 40 years ago and trying to shift the responsibility from the attackers to the building designers. The buildings were built to handle 767's slamming into them at 500mph, they were built to handle the winds and hold people as an office building. Yes I am sure there were a lot of things that could have been done better, and some times may have been skimped on to save money, but at the same time saying that certain things should have been done, not because they would have made the buildings safer for everyday use, but because it might have helped them survive a unimaginable event (especially in the 1960's) and because they didn't they should be blamed for building an unsafe building is totally rediculous.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 18th September 2007, 05:46 PM   #79
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,772
Originally Posted by Augustine View Post
There were 26 team members. Neither Magnusson or See were Chapter Leaders for the Report, and Magnusson was Chapter Author (one of 4, plus the Chapter Leader) for Chapter 1 only (the Introduction). See is not credited as Leader or Author for any Chapter.

The hysterics on this issue seem a mite overwrought...
So they had very little control over the report anyways. Personally I would WANT people involved in the designing to be on the team because they'd likely have knowledge about the way the buildings would react and why certain things were done that outsiders wouldn't have. As long as the leadership of the group was independant and wasn't overly swayed by those few team members, I don't see any issues. Once more it seems that Apollo 20 is making mountains out of mole hills.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 18th September 2007, 06:31 PM   #80
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Crungy View Post
I've always heard that the Big Apple building codes are quite unique. In the A/E world, it's said that if you can get through dealing with the codes in Chicago and NYC, everywhere else is a walk through the park.
And it's even worse when the inspectors are complete idiots who know nothing of building construction and instead get their jobs because they're somebody's somebody. I saw a porch violation today where the inspector claimed the ledger board wasn't bolted to the wall. Problem is, the porch used lookouts and not ledger boards, what the idiot building inspector was calling a ledger board was simply the joist closest to the wall. No ledger boards at all on that porch!
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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 10:09 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.