TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 [64] 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X In other words, don't think for yourselves. You have no right to do so. Let Big Brother decide for you what is right and what is wrong. He know's better than you! Can't you tell by the way that he's handled all of our wars in such an efficient and benevolent manner? "Reason obeys itself; Ignorance submits to what is dictated to it." - Thomas Paine

And this post eventually proves my point: I said engaging in discussion with conspiracy theorists was useless (because of their stubbornness), I never said anything (at all) about freedom of thought.

You want to fight the "Big Brother"? Be my guest, Don Quixote

quote:

Originally posted by Lira And this post eventually proves my point: I said engaging in discussion with conspiracy theorists was useless (because of their stubbornness), I never said anything (at all) about freedom of thought. You want to fight the "Big Brother"? Be my guest, Don Quixote

The problem here is you along with a few others still believe this is a "theory".

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Lads, arguing with conspiracy theorists is pointless, don't waste your time unless you're amused by this fruitless discussion: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...tory/Technology He's got a point right there: because of their fragility, most conspiracy theories, no matter how far-fetched they are, need to look "obvious" so it isn't threatened by disputing points of view (I mean, what are you guys posting polls for? Does the average Joe really know anything about civil engineering?). Arguing with conspiracy theorists will, strangely enough, convince them they're right. They're smart and can see things no one else has, because everyone else has been blinded by the government/church/aliens/zionist movement. They must then help all those that haven't seen the light yet. They must fight a powerful enemy, using nothing but their superior cognitive skills. Would you engage on a debate with a drunkard on the street? Yeah, I thought so

Another dandy.

Look over to the Tech Poll on the right side of the page of the Globe and Mail site.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology

Some consider the Internet, where ideas spread widely and rapidly, a conspiracy theorist's paradise. Do you give any credence to the arguments posed in such online films as Zeitgeist and Loose Change?

Currently...

Absolutely 151 votes (76%) 151 votes

You're kidding, right? 48 votes (24%) 48 votes

Total votes: 199


Apparently the smart readers of The Globe and Mail still have the final say in most matters and have no lack of respect for writers such as Ivor Tossel.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira And this post eventually proves my point: I said engaging in discussion with conspiracy theorists was useless (because of their stubbornness), I never said anything (at all) about freedom of thought. You want to fight the "Big Brother"? Be my guest, Don Quixote

Don't discuss the fact that the official story is riddled with holes/falsehoods, just capitulate to authority while maintaining your freedom of thought?

Is that right? I'm just trying to understand this correctly.

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp and CNN is a reliable news source.........rrrrrrright.... actually i saw the same kind of poll on CNN before except it was % of CNN viewers who thought JFK and Elvis were still alive........

Is there even really such a thing as a reliable source anymore? What do you consider reliable?

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Another dandy. Look over to the Tech Poll on the right side of the page of the Globe and Mail site. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology Some consider the Internet, where ideas spread widely and rapidly, a conspiracy theorist's paradise. Do you give any credence to the arguments posed in such online films as Zeitgeist and Loose Change? Currently... Absolutely 151 votes (76%) 151 votes You're kidding, right? 48 votes (24%) 48 votes Total votes: 199 Apparently the smart readers of The Globe and Mail still have the final say in most matters and have no lack of respect for writers such as Ivor Tossel.

you know, i could get a professional poll to ask the question "what is your favorite color" to a special ed class, and 67% of respondants will answer "i like tatter tots" with +- .05% accuracy. This proves absolutley nothing other than the people polled are mentally reatarded....


similar conclusions can be drawn about your "put up your hands if you belive in conspiracy theories" poll.... it just proves that im in top 5th percentile of the population aka the ones that are not metally handicapped.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut The problem here is you along with a few others still believe this is a "theory".

True, it's a hypothesis. I stand corrected.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Another dandy. Look over to the Tech Poll on the right side of the page of the Globe and Mail site. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology Some consider the Internet, where ideas spread widely and rapidly, a conspiracy theorist's paradise. Do you give any credence to the arguments posed in such online films as Zeitgeist and Loose Change? Currently... Absolutely 151 votes (76%) 151 votes You're kidding, right? 48 votes (24%) 48 votes Total votes: 199 Apparently the smart readers of The Globe and Mail still have the final say in most matters and have no lack of respect for writers such as Ivor Tossel.

lol, I can't believe it. Oh, well, I'd better follow my own advice.

Bye guys

he doesn't subscribe to the explosives theory, but...

he also doesn't subscribe to the "official" conspiracy theory.



Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

by Alan Miller

http://www.opednews.com

James Quintiere, Ph.D.

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST�s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.


Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, �Questions on the WTC Investigations� at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. �I wish that there would be a peer review of this,� he said, referring to the NIST investigation. �I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they�ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.�

�I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,� explained Dr. Quintiere. �Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.�

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world�s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. �I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,� he said.

In his hour-long presentation, Dr. Quintiere discussed many elements of NIST�s investigation that he found problematic. He emphasized, �In every investigation I�ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report.�

Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST�s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. �And that building was not hit by anything,� noted Dr. Quintiere. �It�s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!�

World Trade Center Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane on 9/11, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 8 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. In the 6 years since 9/11, NIST has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to NIST�s failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7�s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." [To watch a video of the collapse, click here http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I...C7_Collapse.wmv ]

Dr. Quintiere said he originally �had high hopes� that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. �They�re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it�s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.�

In his presentation, Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST�s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions. �I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all.�

Responding to a comment from a NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said, �I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.�

Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST�s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. �If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the �conspiracy theories� that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it�s one of the floors falling down.�

Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. �It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.�

Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students� research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. �I suggest that there�s an equally justifiable theory and that�s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,� he said.

Dr. Quintiere�s presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on �The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps�, at which he stated:

�In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

"I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science�the principal world forum for fire research. ...

"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...
   
   
2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...
   
   
3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?
   
   
4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
   
   
5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...
   
   
6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"

• The Department of Commerce Bronze Medal (1976) and Silver Medal (1982)
  
  
• The Howard W. Emmons Lecture Award from the IAFSS in 1986
  
  
• The Sj�lin Award in 2002 for outstanding contribution to the science of fire safety by the International Forum of Fire Research Directors, NIST
  
  
• The 2006 Guise Medal by the National Fire Protection Association

Re: he doesn't subscribe to the explosives theory, but...

And where's pkcRAISTLIN when you need him?! How come you didn't alert us to the fact that the NIST investigation wasn't peer reviewed?

No peer review = not credible, right? Isn't that what you've been alluding to? lol

quote:

"I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation.

Re: Re: he doesn't subscribe to the explosives theory, but...

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X And where's pkcRAISTLIN when you need him?! How come you didn't alert us to the fact that the NIST investigation wasn't peer reviewed? No peer review = not credible, right? Isn't that what you've been alluding to? lol

the difference being that the NIST report catalogued findings from hundreds of different contributors, which is, in essence, a form of peer review. still world's above anything the CT side has developed. i have never said the document was perfect, but you are unlikely to get a perfect document in a situation such as this.

an imperfect thesis does not equate with bombs in the towers. really, the most important part of your post was this:

quote:

Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST�s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives.

ie, he is an expert that thinks the NIST report is weak in certain areas but thinks the CD theory is bollocks.

Re: Re: Re: he doesn't subscribe to the explosives theory, but...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN the difference being that the NIST report catalogued findings from hundreds of different contributors, which is, in essence, a form of peer review. still world's above anything the CT side has developed. i have never said the document was perfect, but you are unlikely to get a perfect document in a situation such as this. an imperfect thesis does not equate with bombs in the towers. really, the most important part of your post was this: ie, he is an expert that thinks the NIST report is weak in certain areas but thinks the CD theory is bollocks.

Okay, if that's the way you justify it
It was a form of peer review

Re: Re: Re: Re: he doesn't subscribe to the explosives theory, but...

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Okay, if that's the way you justify it It was a form of peer review

i dont have to justify anything. can you find a single post of mind where i hold dearly to the NIST report's findings? nope, didnt think so. all i was saying is that the process of the NIST report is a far more robust analysis than anything your clowns have been able to produce.

there ARE peer reviewed analyses from structural engineers that (more or less) support the findings of the NIST report.

again with your arguments from doubt *claps hands*

again, an imperfect analysis doesn't do anything for your arguments when you are unable to produce a better one that has received anywhere near the scrutiny that the NIST report has. youtube videos made by spotty teenagers dont count!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: he doesn't subscribe to the explosives theory, but...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i dont have to justify anything. can you find a single post of mind where i hold dearly to the NIST report's findings? nope, didnt think so. all i was saying is that the process of the NIST report is a far more robust analysis than anything your clowns have been able to produce. there ARE peer reviewed analyses from structural engineers that (more or less) support the findings of the NIST report. again with your arguments from doubt *claps hands* again, an imperfect analysis doesn't do anything for your arguments when you are unable to produce a better one that has received anywhere near the scrutiny that the NIST report has. youtube videos made by spotty teenagers dont count!

No, but the NIST report is the basis for the 9/11 Commission's findings, which you seem to regard as irrefutable.

Well, if my government had devoted just a fraction of the funds that it used to go after Bill Clinton during his sex scandal then maybe they would have been able to come up with an actual fact-finding commission. But it didn't (and for a reason.) They needed to blame Osama.

The same reason why they had shills propagating their story for them at the scene of the crime...

yes, they needed to blame osama. because you know, they're getting so much strategic and economic advantage by being tied up in afghanistan.

and they obviously put the words in osama's mouth when he took credit for the attack.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yes, they needed to blame osama. because you know, they're getting so much strategic and economic advantage by being tied up in afghanistan. and they obviously put the words in osama's mouth when he took credit for the attack.

That was really Osama bin Laden? lol

I thought that it looked and sounded a lot more like Tim Osman's CIA stunt double

I think that this Dutch Television documentary did a pretty good job at touching upon certain points of interest thanks to the input of Andreas Von B�low (Former German Secretary Of Defense) and Michael Meacher (MP & Former UK Government Minister)



9/11 Special - Dutch Television Documentary

Two prominent European politicians, Michael Meacher and Andreas von B�low, express their serious doubts about the official version of the 9/11 story.

�Was 9/11 more than just an attack? Could the Bush administration have had anything to gain from the attack? Two prominent European politicians, Michael Meacher and Andreas von B�low, express their serious doubts about the official version of the 9/11 story.�

Michael Meacher - MP - Former UK Government Minister. "The war on terror is bogus"

Andreas Von B�low, Former German Secretary Of Defense "The official story is so inadequate and far fetched that there must be a different one"

[[ LINK REMOVED ]]

quote:

Duke Professor Skeptical of bin Laden Tape
WTVD By Amber Rupinta

(01/19/06 -- DURHAM) - A Duke professor says he is doubtful about Thursday's audiotape from Osama bin Laden.

Bruce Lawrence has just published Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden, a book translating bin Laden's writing. He is skeptical of Thursday's message.

"It was like a voice from the grave" Lawrence said.

He thinks bin Laden is dead and has doubts about the tape. Lawrence recently analyzed more than 20 complete speeches and interviews of the al Qaida leader for his book. He says the new message is missing several key elements.

"There's nothing in this from the Koran. He's, by his own standards, a faithful Muslim," Lawrence said. "He quotes scripture in defense of his actions. There's no quotation from the Koran in the excerpts we got, no reference to specific events, no reference to past atrocities."

While the CIA confirms the voice on the tape is bin Laden's, Lawrence questions when it was recorded. He says the timing of its release could be to divert attention from last week's U.S. air strike in Pakistan. The strike targeted bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, and killed four leading al Qaeda figures along with civilians.

Lawrence believes faulty Pakistani intelligence led to the strike and the civilian deaths, and the tape was leaked by Pakistani authorities to divert attention from their mistake.

"It led to a failed military operation where America got blamed, but they people who are really to blame are the ones who provided the intelligence," Lawrence said. "I think this is an effort to say were not going look at this terrible incident that happened."

Another element that Lawrence takes issue with in bin Laden's latest message is it's length - - only 10 minutes. Previously, the shortest was 18 minutes.


http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?s...ocal&id=3828678

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yes, they needed to blame osama. because you know, they're getting so much strategic and economic advantage by being tied up in afghanistan. and they obviously put the words in osama's mouth when he took credit for the attack.

Shows how much you know regarding this fine detail...

Osama bin Laden also known as Tim Osmond (CIA) never did confess unless of course you are an idiot and believe that it was actually him in the fixed confession tape.

The following quote is from an Osama bin Laden interview published in Ummat, a Pakistani newspaper.

�I have already said that I was not involved in the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people. Such a practice is forbidden ever in the course of a battle."

Bin Laden�s rebuttal was not reported in the American media. Rather, in December 2001 the CIA produced a video tape that is universally accepted as a confession of bin Laden�s guilt. There is some skepticism however as to whether the tape can really be considered a smoking gun or not. The CIA was a little confused about where they got it - originally the tape was said to have been found by their own agents but in later reports the Northern Allied Forces in Afghanistan are credited with discovering it, supposedly in a house in Jalalabad. It is difficult to believe that bin Laden would have made such a tape and then just left it in a house, even more difficult to imagine that the CIA or even the Afghan rebel forces would just stumble on to it. The CIA has offered no details as to the circumstances surrounding the tape�s discovery.

The video-taped confession is widely regarded as a fake.

oh, osama doesn't believe in killing civilians and women and children? wow, you guys really will swallow anything

well it makes sense since all the 911 truth videos on youtube are a fabrication by the CIA to root out IDIOTS from the american populace...... great success!!!NICE

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp well it makes sense since all the 911 truth videos on youtube are a fabrication by the CIA to root out IDIOTS from the american populace...... great success!!!NICE

So are you actually trying to refute one of the particular videos or are you just arguing for the sake of argument?

I don't think that you can really group everyone in the "Truth Movement" just because they don't believe in the official story, anyway. I know a lot of people who are discontent with the lies and deception, who don't subscribe to my governments "official story" but that doesn't make all of them all "Truthers."

A few of them are well respected, local business owners, too - hardly some fringe group as you shills would like everyonwe to believe

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X So are you actually trying to refute one of the particular videos or are you just arguing for the sake of argument? I don't think that you can really group everyone in the "Truth Movement" just because they don't believe in the official story, anyway. I know a lot of people who are discontent with the lies and deception, who don't subscribe to my governments "official story" but that doesn't make all of them all "Truthers." A few of them are well respected, local business owners, too - hardly some fringe group as you shills would like everyonwe to believe

i was merely taking a cheap stab at the usual CT response that any proof that debunks their "evidence" is a government sham.....

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp i was merely taking a cheap stab at the usual CT response that any proof that debunks their "evidence" is a government sham.....

Yeah, you guys are great at taking cheap stabs. Anything to discredit opposing views while scaring everyone away from trying to do any research of their own.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Yeah, you guys are great at taking cheap stabs. Anything to discredit opposing views while scaring everyone away from trying to do any research of their own.

honestly i think it is fantastic that you all can do so much research about these things. however, what i can't stand is how so many of you can do 4 hours of internet sleuthing and think you understand building mechanics and structural engineering. Leave the forensic analysis of what happened to those who know what they are talking about. and frankly i think it would be great if the ASCE stepped in and did a full independent review of what happened and released their findings. The ASCE is probably the only credible orginization that would not only be qualified to perform such a study, but that the public and even you people would accept their findings.

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp honestly i think it is fantastic that you all can do so much research about these things. however, what i can't stand is how so many of you can do 4 hours of internet sleuthing and think you understand building mechanics and structural engineering. Leave the forensic analysis of what happened to those who know what they are talking about. and frankly i think it would be great if the ASCE stepped in and did a full independent review of what happened and released their findings. The ASCE is probably the only credible orginization that would not only be qualified to perform such a study, but that the public and even you people would accept their findings.

Where do you see anyone making any claims regarding expertise on building mechanics or structural engineering?

And as far as forensics analysis, that's another part of the coverup. Hence, the reason why they discarded (sold to China) so much of the evidence so quickly. If you had followed the investigation from the beginning you probably would have known this. Besides that, many of the experts felt like their work was either held back or stifled during the investigation. They weren't given the power to conduct it the way that it should have been conducted, the way that ANY true criminal investigation should be conducted.


From Christmas of 2001:

Experts Urging Broader Inquiry in Towers' Fall

by James Glanz and Eric Lipton
The New York Times
December 25, 2001



Saying that the current investigation into how and why the twin towers fell on Sept. 11 is inadequate, some of the nation's leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts are calling for a new, independent and better-financed inquiry that could produce the kinds of conclusions vital for skyscrapers and future buildings nationwide.

Senator Charles E. Schumer and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, both of New York, have joined the call for a wider look into the collapses. In an interview on Friday, Mr. Schumer said he supported a new investigation "not so much to find blame" for the collapse of the buildings under extraordinary circumstances, "but rather so that we can prepare better for the future."

"It could affect building practices," he said. "It could affect evacuation practices. We live in a new world and everything has to be recalibrated."

Experts critical of the current effort, including some of those people who are actually conducting it, cite the lack of meaningful financial support and poor coordination with the agencies cleaning up the disaster site. They point out that the current team of 20 or so investigators has no subpoena power and little staff support and has even been unable to obtain basic information like detailed blueprints of the buildings that collapsed.

While agreeing that any building hit by a jetliner would suffer potentially devastating damage, experts want to examine whether the twin towers may have had hidden vulnerabilities that contributed to their collapse.

The lightweight steel trusses that supported the tower's individual floors, the connections between the trusses and the buildings' vertical structural columns, as well as possible flaws in the fireproofing have been drawing scrutiny from fire safety consultants and engineers in recent weeks.

"Two buildings came down," said Joseph F. Russo, director of the Center for Fire Safety Engineering at Polytechnic University in Brooklyn, referring to the twin towers. "That suggests some degree of predictability."

"And if it was predictable," Mr. Russo said, "was it preventable?"

Family members of some victims have added their voices to the calls for a wider investigation.

The exact scope of an expanded inquiry has not been defined. But the central desire is to learn any lessons that might be hidden in the rubble and to pinpoint the exact sequence and cause of the collapse, regardless of whether it was inevitable from the moment the planes struck, members of the investigative team and others said.

In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer.

Officials in the mayor's office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three- day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation.

"The city considered it reasonable to have recovered structural steel recycled," said Matthew G. Monahan, a spokesman for the city's Department of Design and Construction, which is in charge of debris removal at the site.

"Hindsight is always 20-20, but this was a calamity like no other," said Mr. Monahan, who was designated by the mayor's office to respond to questions about the investigation. "And I'm not trying to backpedal from the decision."

Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that prevented them from interviewing witnesses, examining the disaster site and requesting crucial information like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments.

The investigation, organized immediately after Sept. 11 by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the field's leading professional organization, has been financed and administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. A mismatch between the federal agency and senior engineers accustomed to bypassing protocol in favor of quick answers has been identified as a clear point of friction.

"This is almost the dream team of engineers in the country working on this, and our hands are tied," said one team member who asked not to be identified. Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press.

"FEMA is controlling everything," the team member said. "It sounds funny, but just give us the money and let us do it, and get the politics out of it."

A spokesman for FEMA, John Czwartacki, said the agency's primary mission was to help victims, emergency workers and to speed the city's recovery, and added, "We are not an investigative agency."

But given the assignment to examine the structural failures at the World Trade Center, the agency has so far spent roughly $100,000 and Mr. Czwartacki said that more financing could be expected after the group produced what he called an "interim document" in the spring.

"I've heard the calls for the N.T.S.B.-style investigation," Mr. Czwartacki said, referring to appeals by engineers and some families of trade center victim for an exhaustive examination like those done by the National Transportation Safety Board when a plane crashes. "I don't think this study will do it for them."

Mr. Czwartacki added that it was premature to comment on whether team members were receiving necessary information because the study has not been completed. Regardless of what any investigation might find, it is unclear how many civilian lives would have been saved if the buildings had not collapsed, because so many died on the burning upper floors.

Despite the universe of unknowns, the calls for more extensive investigations of various kinds are coming from engineers, fire experts and professional organizations in New York and across the nation.

"What some of us are calling for is a probe or reassessment," said Loring A. Wyllie Jr., a member of the National Academy of Engineering and chairman emeritus and senior principal at Degenkolb Engineers in San Francisco. Mr. Wyllie, who has investigated many building collapses after earthquakes, said the work would involve "a critique of our building practices" in search of greater safety after Sept. 11.

He added that intensive studies of building failures in disasters like the Northridge earthquake near Los Angeles in 1994 had led to important structural advances.

Calling an intensive new investigation "absolutely necessary," Mr. Russo, of Polytechnic University in Brooklyn, said the expense could be justified by the payoff of better safety in high-rises of the future. Other experts take a still wider view, favoring a study that would look at the implications of the collapses � a nearby, 47-story building, 7 World Trade Center, also fell on Sept. 11 after burning for most of the day � for fire codes, building standards and engineering practices across the board.

National organizations charged with addressing building and fire safety issues have sent letters urging the federal government to invest as much as $15 million a year to study the vulnerability of buildings to terrorist attacks and possible changes to fire and safety standards.

"There is an urgent and critical need to determine the lessons to be learned from these events," reads a letter from the American Society of Civil Engineers, dated Nov. 15.

In other disasters, FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies have played a more central role in making decisions about cleanup and investigations. But from the start, they found that New York had a degree of engineering and construction expertise unlike any they had encountered.

"They wanted to do a lot of things on their own," said Charles Hess, who is in charge of civil emergency management for the Army Corps. "Which they're very capable of doing."

But during a recovery effort that received worldwide praise, the city made one decision that has been endlessly second-guessed. To deal with nearly 300,000 tons of crumpled steel, the city quickly decided to ship it to scrap recyclers.

Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the fire protection engineering department at the University of Maryland, said he believed the decision could ultimately compromise any investigation of the collapses. "I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling," Dr. Mowrer said.

But Mr. Monahan, the City Department of Design and Construction spokesman, pointed out that members of the investigation team were eventually allowed to visit the site and inspect steel at the scrapyards and continue doing so.

Some experts have suggested that the only way to definitively determine the sequence and cause of the collapse is to recover large amounts of steel from the areas near where the planes struck, and possibly reassemble sections of the towers.

Others say such a reconstruction of an entire section might be impractical, but also expressed discomfort with the impediments they said they have faced in their investigation.

For example, three months after the disaster, Ronald Hamburger, an expert in structural analysis at A.B.S. Consulting in Oakland, Calif., and a director of the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations, said he had not even been given access to basic blueprints describing where the steel and other structural elements had been when the World Trade Center was whole.

"I'd like to be able to have a set of the drawings for all of the affected buildings," Mr. Hamburger said. "I don't have that."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/25/nyregion/25TOWE.html

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.