Originally posted by culorut Government-Funded Investigators Accused Of WTC Cover-Up
American Society of Civil Engineers lied about inability of skyscrapers to withstand airliner impacts
The American Society of Civil Engineers - an organization that was funded by FEMA to investigate the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11 - has been accused of engaging in a cover-up to protect the government, with critics charging the organization falsified conclusions that skyscrapers could not withstand getting hit by airplanes.
The group has been forced to convene an investigative panel which could lead to a suspension in government funding.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency paid the group about $257,000 to investigate the World Trade Center collapse and their report was released in 2002.
In an attempt to explain away the complete implosion of the twin towers shortly after the planes hit, the study concluded that skyscrapers were not designed to withstand jetliner impacts, a claim completely disproved by historical studies and contemporary investigations.
"Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a structural engineer and forensics expert, contends his computer simulations disprove the society's findings that skyscrapers could not be designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner," reports the Associated Press.
"Astaneh-Asl, who received money from the National Science Foundation to investigate the collapse, insisted most New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers."
The group are also under scrutiny for their investigation of the failure of New Orleans' levees during Hurricane Katrina.
Raymond Seed, a levee expert at the University of California, Berkeley, "accused the engineering society and the Army Corps of collusion, writing an Oct. 20 letter alleging that the two organizations worked together "to promulgate misleading studies and statements, to subvert appropriate independent investigations ... to literally attempt to change some of the critical apparent answers regarding lessons to be learned."
As we reported last year, architectural drawings of the World Trade Center that prove beyond any doubt that the official reports into the collapse of the towers misrepresented their construction were used by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) during their study, but not before they had signed legal documents which bound them to secrecy and demanded that they never use the information against the buildings' owners as part of a lawsuit.
The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections. These facts were buried in the FEMA-funded ASCE report and contradictory conclusions were offered despite the fact that the group had access to the diagrams.
Numerous different World Trade Center designers and construction specialists are on record as having ruled out the possibility that multiple commercial jetliner impacts could bring the towers down. Such comments were made on a regular basis ever since the towers were first conceived and built.
A February 3, 1964 white paper which was written during the design phase of the towers stated, "The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."
During a 1984-85 Office of Special Planning study into the vulnerability of the WTC to a terrorist attack, Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, assured investigators that whether the towers suffered a bomb attack or were hit by an airplane, there was "little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked."
A February 27 1993 Seattle Times article entitled Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision quotes John Skilling, head structural engineer for the WTC.
"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said Skilling.
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
In a telling afterthought, Skilling said that the only way the building could be brought down was by means of well-placed explosives rigged by top experts.
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it," he said.
In 2001, Leslie Robertson again stated, "The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane."
"I designed it for a 707 to smash into it," he told a conference in Frankfurt Germany.
Also in early 2001, Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, said on camera, "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
As investigators have pointed out, immediately after 9/11 Leslie Robertson refused to discuss the collapse of the buildings with the media but he later recanted and agreed with NIST's conclusions - completely contradicting his previous statements and exhaustive studies carried out since the 60's about the towers' ability to withstand jetliner impacts.
Allegations of cover-up directed at The American Society of Civil Engineers are just the latest chapter in a series of hammer blows for the credibility of the official 9/11 story, arriving on the back of last month's exposé of 9/11 Commission executive director Philip Zelikow's ties to the White House and his efforts to shield the Bush administration from responsibility for the terror attack.
lets put some of your bull in context shall we.....
quote:
Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.
"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."
He took note of the fact that smoke and fire spread throughout the building yesterday. He said that is possibly because the pressurizing system that stops the spread of smoke didn't work when the electric power went off. Skilling, 72, was not involved in the design of the building mechanics.
Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."
for the record skilling is refering to the 1993 bombing of the WTC, he does not state that the only way to bring the buildings down is controlled demolition, he states that an expert in the field could feasibly accomplish this. Furthermore, he is not commenting on the FEMA report conclusions as to the nature of the collapse. The building was desinged to withstand the impact of a boeing 707 (a 1960's popular airliner) max takeoff weight 100 tonnes. the planes that hit the twin towers were both 767-200 boeings with a max takeoff weight of 180 tonnes. the difference is 21.5 MEGANEWTONS (assuming 600mph impact speed) huge difference.
257,000$ are you kidding me? That is piss all for professional fees. I couldn't build 1000m of 4 lane road for 300K in fees, If that is infact the true fee arrangement between ASCE and FEMA, then they must have commissioned a very high level report, furthermore clauses of limitations and confidenciality are very common in contracts.
Yet again your smoking gun is like an 80 year old man's dick without viagra, looks great on paper but can't hold a straight line when put up to a challenge. Try checking the sources next time you pull drivel off CT sites and post it as fact.
XaNaX
Jesus christ, people are still at this? No the building could have survived the impact of a 707 as it was designed to. It survived the impact of a 767 which is a considerably larger aircraft. What the designers did not plan for and what the building did not survive was the fire caused by massive amounts of burning jet fuel. In fact, the NIST noted this about the White Paper:
quote:
"the effect of fires due to jet fuel dispersion and ignition of building contents was not considered in the 1964 analysis."
The intense heat of the fire melted steel supports (the "mosquito netting") and caused a loss of structural integrity in the upper floors causing them to sag and pull the entire building down starting from the top.
LazFX
quote:
Originally posted by XaNaX
Jesus christ, people are still at this? No the building could have survived the impact of a 707 as it was designed to. It survived the impact of a 767 which is a considerably larger aircraft. What the designers did not plan for and what the building did not survive was the fire caused by massive amounts of burning jet fuel.
The intense heat of the fire melted steel supports (the "mosquito netting") and caused a loss of structural integrity in the upper floors causing them to sag and pull the entire building down starting from the top.
+1
simple but yet so true!!
colonelcrisp
quote:
Originally posted by XaNaX
Jesus christ, people are still at this? No the building could have survived the impact of a 707 as it was designed to. It survived the impact of a 767 which is a considerably larger aircraft. What the designers did not plan for and what the building did not survive was the fire caused by massive amounts of burning jet fuel. In fact, the NIST noted this about the White Paper:
The intense heat of the fire weakend steel supports (the "mosquito netting") and caused a loss of structural integrity in the upper floors causing them to sag and pull the entire building down starting from the top.
kudos! however i fixed it so as to avoid the general reply of "jetfuel burns at this temperature, steel melts at this termperature zomg conspiracy!!! it was thermite!!!"
room temperature
structural steel Fy (yield strength) 250Mpa, Fu (ultimate strength) 400Mpa
530 C
Fy, Fu lose 25% strength
640 C
Fy 50% loss (125 Mpa)
Fu 75% loss (100 Mpa)
At 640C and above, steel will not undergo strain hardening, it will not even reach yield point before brittle failure. A36 steel wont melt until around 1450 to 1580 C depending on teh alloy.
since jet fuel can burn at a max of 980C in an oxygen rich environment, its safe to say that a 50 to 75% loss in ultimate strength is more than likely...
shaolin_Z
quote:
Originally posted by XaNaX
Jesus christ, people are still at this? No the building could have survived the impact of a 707 as it was designed to. It survived the impact of a 767 which is a considerably larger aircraft. What the designers did not plan for and what the building did not survive was the fire caused by massive amounts of burning jet fuel. In fact, the NIST noted this about the White Paper:
The intense heat of the fire melted steel supports (the "mosquito netting") and caused a loss of structural integrity in the upper floors causing them to sag and pull the entire building down starting from the top.
The NIST report also acknowledged the high improbability of their own hypothesis in the footnotes of their own report. It's also the only hypothesis they ever considered, evaluating or discarding any evidence that didn't fit their hypothesis. I'm am totally convinced by NIST thought, because it would be highly irrational for me to have an alternate perspective, that doesn't soley depend the controlled demolition theory, that has tons of more supporting evidence than the pancake theory. Anyways, this thread and this topic. It's a dead horse regardless of what you believe did or didn't happen. Dissent is the new definition of insanity apparently, and skepticism is paranoia. Gotta love this age we live in.
shaolin_Z
quote:
Originally posted by XaNaX
Yeah, after I wrote it I realized I used the word melted when I meant to use weakened but the post was already quoted so it was too late for a ninja edit :D
There is absolutely no evidence of a controlled demolition while there is ample evidence that two large aircraft laden with thousands of gallons of jet fuel crashed into the towers at speeds in excess of 450mph and caused out of control fires.
So fold up your tinfoil hats people and go look for your next conspiracy theory because this horse is dead and buried.
I generally take my hat off as a sign of respect, even the tin foil ones, a concept you wouldn't be familiar with. Go look for your next escapist pursuit, at least it gives you a sense of security or contenment ;).
colonelcrisp
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
The NIST report also acknowledged the high improbability of their own hypothesis in the footnotes of their own report. It's also the only hypothesis they ever considered, evaluating or discarding any evidence that didn't fit their hypothesis. I'm am totally convinced by NIST thought, because it would be highly irrational for me to have an alternate perspective, that doesn't soley depend the controlled demolition theory, that has tons of more supporting evidence than the pancake theory. Anyways, this thread and this topic. It's a dead horse regardless of what you believe did or didn't happen. Dissent is the new definition of insanity apparently, and skepticism is paranoia. Gotta love this age we live in.
im affraid the testimony of a mexican janitor does not surmount to "tons" of evidence. it amounts to heresay and opinion, nothing more, and certainly not expert opinion.
LazFX
quote:
Originally posted by colonelcrisp
im affraid the testimony of a mexican janitor does not surmount to "tons" of evidence. it amounts to heresay and opinion, nothing more, and certainly not expert opinion.
hey now... watch how you say "mexican" ;)
ha ha
colonelcrisp
quote:
Originally posted by LazFX
hey now... watch how you say "mexican" ;)
ha ha
lol, sorry... Mexican... I made it a propper noun just for you :D
LazFX
quote:
Originally posted by colonelcrisp
lol, sorry... Mexican... I made it a propper noun just for you :D
