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.....
Trancer-X
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.
colonelcrisp
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.
Trancer-X
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."
Obviously, I don't expect a decent response addressing any of the key points in the material above.
culorut
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.
4 Hours of research? More like 5+ years on 9/11 alone.
And the people who do know what they are talking about at the highest levels from every corner on this globe know 9/11 was an inside job.
You seem to be on the wrong page regardless if you are an civil engineer or not shill.
colonelcrisp
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
4 Hours of research? More like 5+ years on 9/11 alone.
And the people who do know what they are talking about at the highest levels from every corner on this globe know 9/11 was an inside job.
You seem to be on the wrong page regardless if you are an civil engineer or not shill.
now that you have pointed out that you have wasted 5 years of your life watching youtube videos, I can go on with my life feeling better about myself.....
I am quite comfortable sitting on the side of the fence not occupied by wingnuts and the tinfoil hat band....
so far the list of people "who do know what they are talking about" that you so nicely provided us, has proven to be little more than a waste of space. The reason we have certification, liscenceing and such things is to differentiate between those who know and those who don't..... qualifications and credentials arent handed out on a whim and they definatly are not meaningless. so i ask again.... how is it that you consider so many of these people to be experts when they do not hold a civil engineering liscence?
architects, physicists, electrical engineers, mechanical engineers etc are not competant for strucutral analysis in the eyes of the state, province, law and the engineering associations, so why do you hold so much faith and conviction with their opinions?
colonelcrisp
about the huge post up above......
blueprints un-availible.....
-- i call bull on this one
As-Built drawings are public record, and many other people managed to get their hands on them post 911... including CNN, Popular Mechanics, the ASCE among others, and even G. Hadjisophocleous P.Eng, M.Eng, Director Fire Safety Institute of Canada, whom i know personally and he specializes in fire safety analysis and design in structures. that being said. getting drawings from the city archives can be a frustrating process. i do it on a regular basis as most of my work ties in with existing structures and facilities, but its not impossible, and clearly other people had access to them
As for the whole steel getting removed too quickly issue
-- although i think it was a bad decision, i can understand their rationale for it, and no its not that they wanted to hide the astounding evidence of thermite from the tinfoil hat briggade. You have a city that just witnessed disaster, you are trying to exhume the bodies that remain in the rubble of two collapsed 100+ storry buildings. They just didnt have the space to store 300,000 tonnes of steel.... they wanted to get the ground zero cleanup started as soon as possible. That i can understand, however i do think that looking at the steel at point of impact could have allowed engineers to determine where the collapse started and what the failure mode is.
thats all i have time for right now..... work and meetings and what not......
shaolin_Z
LOL, what a nut!
That's what you sound like majority of the time in this thread btw PKC :D
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
LOL, what a nut!
That's what you sound like majority of the time in this thread btw PKC :D
what can i say? irrational "internet detectives" with illogical, selective scepticism make me angry.
again colonel is thrashing the kids in here...
shaolin_Z
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
what can i say? irrational "internet detectives" with illogical, selective scepticism make me angry.
That's got to be the most disingenuos BS I've ever heard, no one get's mad because someone else is an idiot, especially on a consistant basis. If you do, you have to be an idiot yourself lol. Which is why I largely started ignoring this thread, and this entire forum all together.
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
again colonel is thrashing the kids in here...
Crisp hasn't had a single argument that proved anything in here so far, other that "I call BS on that." Ok, fine, whatever lol. Explanations for supicious activity is nothing more than a bunch of lame excuses.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
That's got to be the most disingenuos BS I've ever heard, no one get's mad because someone else is an idiot, especially on a consistant basis. If you do, you have to be an idiot yourself lol.
looks like im an idiot then ;) i have pet peeves. one of those pet peeves is when someone categorically states something i know not to be true. it just gets under my skin.
quote:
Which is why I largely started ignoring this thread, and this entire forum all together.
yeah, im almost there...
quote:
Crisp hasn't had a single argument that proved anything in here so far, other that "I call BS on that." Ok, fine, whatever lol. Explanations for supicious activity is nothing more than a bunch of lame excuses.
nobody has "proved" anything. but he is a welcome voice of rationality from someone who is (relatively) an expert in the field compared to the rest of us. i find most of his analyses to be quite compelling, just from a rational standpoint. so much of the 911 movement is based on red herrings, and i like it when he calls bull :)
