Controlled demolition: disinfo?

by **Byrne** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:47 pm

Oh no, this thread has reared its head again! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/nerd.gif ALT="8o"> I noticed this article in a trade civil engineering publication.... The article is copied directly from ‘New Civil Engineer’ (NCE) magazine, which is a magazine for construction professionals & members of the UK Institution of Civil Engineers (established 181<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> , (www.ice.org.uk). Publication date 6th October 2005. (Magazine website www.nceplus.co.uk) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualisation World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators. The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings (NCE 22 September 2005). NIST showed detailed computer generated visualisations of both the plane impacts and the development of fires within WTC1 and WTC2 at a recent conference at its Gaithersburg HQ. But the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers were not shown as visualisations. University of Manchester (UK) professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response. “NIST should really show the visualisations, otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost,” he said. University of Sheffield (UK) professor Roger Plank added that visualisations of the collapses of the towers “would be a very powerful tool to promote the design code changes recommended by NIST.” NIST told NCE this week that it did not believe there is much value in visualising quasi-static processes such as thermal response and load redistribution up to the point of global collapse initiation and has chosen not to develop such visualisations. But it said it would ‘consider’ developing visualisations of its global structural collapse model, although its contract with the finite element analysis subcontractor was now terminated. A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said. “The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls. This doesn’t mean NIST has got it wrong in principle, but it does mean it would be hard to produce a definitive visualisation from the analysis so far.”<hr></blockquote> Now why wouldn't NIST go the whole hog & fully investigate the "thermal response and load redistribution" ...analysis..."up to the point of global collapse initiation" and "choose not to develop such visualisations" for the 3 worst cases of steel frame building collapses in history? Structural Engineering peers in the UK seem to think it would be a good idea........... What gets me is the hundreds of engineers & professionals who would have worked on the research/investigations, they seem to be kowtowing the line so as not to upset the applecart (or are they all compartmentalised?). I'm convinced that as the weaknesses in the official arguments are exposed and more exposure is given to the alternative explanations, the more people will begin to realise the true attrocities that were committed that day.

by **Qutb** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:38 pm

rapt said - <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Surely more believable than 19 untrained Arabs doing aerobatics in big passenger jets.<hr></blockquote> But why assume they were untrained? We don't know the real identities of many of the hijackers, but 5 of them were shortly after 9/11 reported to have trained at US Air Force bases. This was of course quickly denied and covered up, and so we got the unbelievable story of Hani Hanjour flying the 757 into the Pentagon, while the real pilot, in my opinion, was probably a highly skilled Saudi fighter pilot trained in the US. Much less complicated than remote control. Everything points to the flight school training having been a cover story, which also appears to have enjoyed protection from the FBI's Radical Fundamentalism Unit (Dave Frasca). And not necessarily just for 9/11, as there are things that point to a protected drug smuggling aspect, which I think is an important clue. Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **Qutb** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:48 pm

Homeless Halo said - <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Further there is the issue of 19 men using razors to hijack airlines to begin with. Where I live, pre-911, anyone pulling a razor on a plane would've gotten his ass shot, nothing else. I find it hard to believe that, given how many white americans already hate middle easterners, that they'd let a little brown guy with a razor tell a crowd that outnumbers him 40-1 what to do. It just SOUNDS hokey. Like someone has been watching too many made for TV movies.<hr></blockquote> Yeah, I don't believe box cutters were the only weapons they had. At least one passenger is reported to have said they had guns and a bomb (and they were reported to have shot that Israeli special forces guy who was on one of the planes). This has been covered up, for some reason. Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **rapt** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:02 pm

I tried following your line of reasoning months ago Qutb, and concluded that your logic circuits are wired differently than mine are. Therefore I find it unproductive to argue with you online. You may take my posts for what they are, opinion. Use them or ignore em at your option.

by **Qutb** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:09 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I tried following your line of reasoning months ago Qutb, and concluded that your logic circuits are wired differently than mine are.<hr></blockquote> I've come to the same conclusion. Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **Homeless Halo** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:31 pm

My point being that it'd take nothing less than a fully equipped GSG9 team to take a plane from the people I ride on them with, so I'm sure the rest of Americans can't be as easily controlled as they told us they were. Something just doesn't sit right with me when it comes to the idea of "box cutters". I know what I'd do if some little guy told me he was in charge 'cause he had a razor knife.

by **robertdreed** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:55 pm

There were in fact reports of a firearm being used in one of the hijackings out of Logan airport, on a plane that ended up going into the WTC. If it's possible to smuggle drugs into a maximum security prison, it's possible to smuggle a pistol beyond the security gates at an airport. It's pretty much a matter of getting it across the threshhold, and then putting it somewhere like one of the bathrooms, perhaps under the lining of a wastebasket. The last time I went through airport security, I realized that they had let a small pen-sized canister of pepper spray through- twice. It was in my backpack, in a zippered pocket. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/24/05 3:23 pm

by **Homeless Halo** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:39 pm

Last time I was in Detroit Metro, I wasn't even flying, just dropping someone off. They left something in the car and I went in to find them, got lost. I got so lost that somehow I accidentally (seriously) managed to bypass the metal detector lines completely and made my way to the "secure" area. I never got "checked". Very bad security here. I called them and explained to them how it happened and they promised to look into it. If a lost stoner can accidentally infiltrate the airport, we're all in trouble.

by **Iroquois** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:47 pm

Qutb said: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Yeah, I don't believe box cutters were the only weapons they had. At least one passenger is reported to have said they had guns and a bomb (and they were reported to have shot that Israeli special forces guy who was on one of the planes). This has been covered up, for some reason.<hr></blockquote> When I used believe (and argue on behalf of) the official version of the events of 9/11, I was satisfied with the explanation that admitting the use of bombs and/or guns in the hijackings could have increased the exposure of the airlines and the airports involved to liability for the events that followed.

by **Iroquois** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:51 pm

From Byrne: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>What gets me is the hundreds of engineers & professionals who would have worked on the research/investigations, they seem to be kowtowing the line so as not to upset the applecart (or are they all compartmentalised?).<hr></blockquote> The budget for the study on the collapse of the WTC towers was only $16 million dollars. That doesn't generally buy hundreds of engineers and professionals, more like dozens. I think the number of project managers and co-project managers supports this. See: <a href="http://wtc.nist.gov/media/highlights.htm">wtc.nist.gov/media/highlights.htm</a> and <a href="http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/">wtc.nist.gov/pi/</a> I think it is also a mistake to say that because the conclusion of their study does not contradict the official story that the people involved in the study either wholly believe the official story or know it is false but are (in their own minds) actively participating in the coverup. The NIST would have been given a spec to follow, a budget, and a deadline. Knowing the spec would help clear this up, but my guess is that the jist was something like: here's some data about the WTC towers, the planes that hit them, and the resulting collapse. Provide details of how those factors could have resulted in those collapses and derive from that implications for future building codes. The result, which was not too impressive to this liberal arts major, was just those engineers trying to fullfill that spec (or something like it) with the budgetary and time constraits they were given. The only compartmentalization needed to allow them to do this despite any misgiving or suspicians that a little voluntary reasignment couldn't resolve would have been in their own minds. "Follow the spec, and keep your suspicians and problems with the conclusions out of the report. If you can't figure out how something happened they way the data provided says it did, ask for more time, money, and/or manpower. If you don't get it, give your boss whatever you have when the deadline comes." That's no real mystery or evidence of conspiracy to me. They're like soldiers in a sense, they were just doing their jobs. I say this as someone who once wore the pickle suit and who now works at a small engineering firm. So, I have my own prejudices and sympathies. Still, when I read through the NIST reports, both an initial draft and the final draft had images of the woman believed to be Edna Cintron looking out of the hole in the South Tower. In the first case, she was covered by an oddly crude (as in, why didn't they use a computer generated) outline of the Boeing 767 said to have created the hole. In the second case (on or near page 126 if I recall) the image was small, and she was hard to spot if you didn't know where to look. To me, she pretty much destroyed any theory that heat from impact fires brought that building down, and I believe her pictures were included as a form of protest. That was very courageous in my book. It's a shame it wasn't enough.

by **robertdreed** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:16 pm

"Last time I was in Detroit Metro, I wasn't even flying, just dropping someone off. They left something in the car and I went in to find them, got lost. I got so lost that somehow I accidentally (seriously) managed to bypass the metal detector lines completely and made my way to the "secure" area. I never got "checked". Very bad security here. I called them and explained to them how it happened and they promised to look into it. If a lost stoner can accidentally infiltrate the airport, we're all in trouble." You told it, Halo. Except that I don't really think "we're all in trouble"...not significantly more than we've ever been, anyhow. I'm not an adherent to the idea that I'm living in some new era that was inagurated on Sept. 11, 2001. I don't live in the "post-911 Era", I still live in the post-Hiroshima & Nagasaki Era", which was inaugurated more than 10 years before I was born. That's what I call "trouble." If you really want to learn what a fraud "Omniscient & Omnipotent" Homeland Security is, get a job as a courier. One of them uniform shirts, a mock-up ID badge, and a clipboard, and you can go all sortsa places. I used to have a temporary ID badge from the U.S. Customs Service, inscribed with the nom de plume "Jack Straw." Don't ask me how I got it. I don't recall the details, except that it was back in the 80s some time. ( I'm thinking the name was inspired by the Grateful Dead song, not the UK cabinet member. That's my guess. ) I'll tell you this, no amount of "increased vigilance" is worth significantly sacrificing our Constitutional rights. As Ben Franklin said- when citizens sacrifice their most cherished liberties in the name of security, the inevitable tendency is that they end up with neither liberty or security. But much of the assault on Consitutional liberties that we're currently dealing with under the rubric of "counter-terrorism" was already pre-figured by the Zero Tolerance War On Drugs, which can be viewed as a "pilot program" for the current push to a surveillance/police state. The ZTWOD has been proving the truth of Franklin's axiom for decades now. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/24/05 5:30 pm

by **maggrwaggr** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:17 pm

The NIST's job was to rationalize what happened based on the assumption that the buildings collapsed due to only the jets hitting them. So that's what they did. It amazes me that anyone looks at the NIST's findings with anything other than a completely jaundiced eye, because their JOB was to figure out a way to prove a theory that may or may not be true. So their entire report consists of "this MUST HAVE done this ..." and "this MUST HAVE RESULTED in this ..." Especially galling is their dealing with the collapse of WTC7, where they go to great pains to find a completely silly and convoluted excuse for its collapse. The entire logic behind their report is this: "obviously WTC1 and WTC2 both collapsed due to jetliners hitting them, therefore this, that, and the other is what must have happened for that to have occurred. We can't prove any of it, but any fool can plainly see the buildings collapsed and the only reason was the planes hitting them, so we must be right". And "obviously WTC7 fell for some crazy reason, so we're assuming it MUST have been this, that, and the other, none of which we can prove". Their "findings" are merely theories, same as ours. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> Theirs are based on closed minds, ours are based on open ones. They rule out the possibilities of anything other than a plane hitting the tower (and in the case of WTC7, not even that!), and we don't rule out any possibilities. So tell me which theory makes more sense.

by **robertdreed** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:23 pm

You know what impressed me, was that re-print a few posts back, the guy posting on the physics board, that boilermaker dude. He had some firsthand perspective to supply.

by **michael meiring** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:47 pm

Has anybody got a decent link to a photo of a full length shot of the towers with the 'raging' fire. All i ever see is a close up of about 12 floors with a small fire cindering fire, with loads of smoke bellowing out. Just one full shot photo of the whole of the building, and then we can check the 'scale' of the fire. links much appreciated.

by **Byrne** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 6:30 am

MM, There are some pics <a href="http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm" target="top">_HERE_</a>. Check the Section "View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center Collapsed". I found this site (& you have been forewarned, it postulates that controlled explosions were used) from a link on the Physics.org forum, that has been referred to previously, most recently by RDReed (i.e. where the Farang-boliermaker post originated). The argument over there on Pysics.org has settled down a bit & the posters are arguing reasonably on the the PHYSICS of things, with some calculations presented, however there still is the odd post complete with insults thrown in, as expected. My point regarding the NCE news article regarding the NIST reluctance to produce the thermal dispersal and load redistribution visualisation models of the towers’ collapse, to arrive at the points of global collapse initiation, and then to correlate these with the available video evidence (as the UK academic suggested), was that this is what you would do if it was a genuine accident/event, i.e. the only ever full scale collapse of (3) steel frame buildings. I agree (Iroquois & Maggrwaggr), about the engineers & researchers working on the project working in a ration manner. With research projects of this magnitude, you would have to delineate paths of research to be gone down (& most probably which ones NOT to go down!), otherwise the exercise consumes massive resources & budgets. BUT the fact that they don’t follow these important research paths through to as best a conclusion as they possibly could, compounds me with that feeling of doubt as to the official story. It’s a case of look at this big 200 odd page report which may convince lay people, whereas academic & industry specialists (in the UK, at least) are saying…..Well, if you REALLY want to get to the bottom of an understanding of the incident of (I repeat), the only ever full scale collapse of any steel frame buildings from fire alone, & to update design & fireproofing building codes for future construction then DO the reasearch!!. Maggrwaggr, for your info (& correct me if I’m wrong) but NIST have yet to publish any report for WTC-7 & the WTC-1 & WTC-2 reports are in still in draft format). It is FEMA who have produced a draft report for WTC-7. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>=========================================<hr></blockquote> I’ll leave you with a statement from Dr. Shyam Sunder of the NIST, made during the NIST (National Institute of Standards & Technology) Public Meeting in New York on February 12, 2004. When asked by Investigative Reporter Nico Haupt about many of the glaring inconsistencies surrounding the unprecedented implosion of WTC 7; among other issues, Haupt asked for a simple explanation as to how WTC 7 imploded into its footprint in less than 8 seconds. The following is Dr. Sunder’s reply to Nico Haupt’s concerns: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Thank you very much. We will fully report. We have begun reporting, and we will fully report on the fires in WTC 7, the causes of the collapse in WTC 7, as well as any other evidence from first-person accounts about 7… So stay tuned, we will get more information as time goes” <hr></blockquote> There you have it

Controlled demolition: disinfo?

WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualisation

Re: Dead passengers

Re: aaa

Human pilots or not

Re: Human pilots or not

yep

weapons

ha

Re: aaa

Re: WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualisatio

backstage passes

what's stupid about the NIST

Alternate WTC theories

full length photos

Iscream & Pancake Brandy Snaps.....

Who is online