Loose Change

[Alek]

Alek, any comments regarding this analysis of the collapse events?
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html

Ok, I've read that article, it was informative. Here is my review:

In the aftermath of the events, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE)—in association with several other federal agencies and professional organizations-dispatched a team of civil, structural, and fire protection engineers to study the performance of the buildings at the site.

SEI/ASCE, I would point out, isn't qualified to do an official forensic criminal investigation. Are we to assume that civil engineers have all of the expertise of say, the FBI? Neither is FEMA an investigative body.

In particular, the team studied the immediate effects of the aircraft impact on each tower, the spread of fire following the crashes, the reduction in structural strength caused by the fire, and the mechanism that led to the collapse of each tower.

It sounds like they're putting the cart before the horse here. Have they already assumed a significant reduction in structural strength due to fire occured?

What follows is essentially a distillation of portions of the draft that focus on the twin towers.

I'd like them to focus on WTC 7, a building which wasn't hit by an airplane, and yet collapsed in a symmetrical freefall. Surely if this building collapsed due to fire, it would merit the attention of the engineering community, as it was an unprecedented occurence.

It will subsequently be believed that this fuel burned off within a few minutes of impact;

Indeed.

The passage of this debris through the building causes some degree of damage across the floor plate—damage to perhaps the interior framing, core columns, and framing at the east, south, and west walls; the full extent of the damage inflicted by this passage will never be known, however.

Perhaps the jetliner, after smashing through the facade of steel columns and the 5" thick concrete floor and ceiling slabs had enough inertia to damage the 47 massive steel columns at the core. Perhaps.

The impacts from the aircraft have substantially degraded the towers' ability to withstand additional loading and have increased the susceptibility of the structures to fire-induced failure.

In this paragraph the engineers went from speculating as to the extent of the damage to stating conclusively that the aircraft "substantially degraded the towers ability to withstand additional loading". This BPAT team strikes me less as investigators, and more as a group trying to assess how they can secure future buildings from jets and kerosene fires. They've taken the offical story for granted, and this is not an objective forensic investigation of what brought the towers down.

It is clear to me that the jets severely damaged the facade of the building through the impacted floors, and I agree with their analysis. However, I remain unconvinced that the steel columns in the core were severely damaged, and they have offered no scientific evidence that they were. It's also apparent to me that the core columns bore the overwhelming load of the towers, not the facade.

Additionally, some of the columns are now experiencing elevated stress due to the transfer of load from destroyed and damaged elements, and portions of the floor framing directly beneath the partially collapsed areas are carrying a substantial degree of additional weight from the resulting debris—in some cases, carrying greater weight than they were designed to resist.

This is an interesting assertion, and I would like to see scientific analysis backing this up. The concrete floor and ceiling slabs for each floor weighed approximately 1,400,000 kg. The takeoff weight of a Boeing 767 is 312,000, or approximately 141,521 kg. It seems to me that the mass of this plane is well within the load redundancy engineered into most modern steel structures (typically 5:1 as I have read), even given the collapse of over thirty columns on each facade. Certainly I'm no expert, but I would expect the experts to comment on these terms, instead they offer only conjecture.

The fires spread, and there are significant temperature variations throughout those areas where the fires are located, depending on the type and arrangement of combustible material being consumed and the availability of air supporting combustion. The advancing fires elevate the temperature within the tower. Future estimates will place it between 1,700º and 2,000ºF—further stressing the structure.

Where is the scientific evidence to back this up? Are we supposed to just take their word for these temperatures? This contradicts a scientific analysis of the jet fuel fires made on the web indicating that the jet fuel could not have raised the temperature beyond 280C (536F). Burning office materials are an example of a cellulosic fire, which burns cooler than hydrocarbon fires. So whence this inferno? Additionally, the steel columns would have acted as a giant heat sink. The thermal conductivity of steel is such that even if we are to assume such outrageous air temperatures of 2000F, it would not necessarily cause the steel to weaken enough such that it would no longer bear the load of the structure above.

Kevin Ryan of UL emailed Frank Gayle about the infeasibility of the temperatures as estimated. He got no response and was fired from his job. UL provided no rebuttal of his claims, simply stating that he misrepresented his credentials with them. Ryan also stated that UL certified the steel in the WTC, a claim which was denied by a UL spokesman. Who is telling the truth here?

At the 80th floor of WTC 2—in the northeast corner, where office furnishings had been deposited by the rapid path of the plane—the fire burns at such a high temperature that a stream of molten metal begins to pour over the side of the tower.

This is documented on video, and it is quite interesting, especially given the web analysis I sourced earlier. I know that the jet fuel or office materials could not burn hot enough to weaken the steel past the point of failure, so obviously I don't accept the notion that kerosene would *melt* it. So we're looking at something that either isn't steel, or something besides kerosene was in that building to generate the necessary temperatures to create molten steel.

It will later be estimated that, prior to the impact from the aircraft, core columns were loaded to approximately 60 percent of their theoretical ultimate capacities.

I'd like to see the science behind this conjecture.

This would have been particularly significant in the upper portion of the damaged building. In this region, the original design load for the core columns was less than at lower floors, and the column sections were relatively light. The increased stresses caused by the impact of the aircraft could easily have brought several of these columns close to their ultimate capacity, and thus relatively little additional effect from the fires would have been required to initiate the collapse.

This is an interesting point, and deserves further investigation. However, it still ends with the necessary fire damage, which I reject until I see proof of why those fires were so hot.

The structural damage sustained by each of the two buildings as aircraft impacted them was massive. The fact that the structures were able to sustain this level of damage and remain standing for an extended period of time is remarkable and is the reason that most building occupants were able to evacuate safely. Events of this type, resulting in such massive damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Can I have scientific evidence of the massive damage, as opposed to conjecture?

Collapse of the twin towers astonished most observers, including many knowledgeable structural engineers. These were structures notable for their robust, redundant framing systems. Many believed that their structural anatomy would have enabled them to withstand the attacks. The twin towers of the World Trade Center were the primary components of the seven-building World Trade Center complex, and although they were similar, they were not identical.

I would say everyone was astonished.

Following the impact of the aircraft the structure was able to successfully redistribute the building weight to the remaining elements and to maintain a stable condition. However, the structure's strength was severely degraded. Although the structure could have remained standing in this weakened condition for an indefinite period, it had limited ability to resist additional loading and could have collapsed as a result of any severe loading event, such as that produced by high winds or earthquakes. In this case, the first extreme event encountered was that of the fires that followed the impact of the plane.

In other words, look to the fires, for which I've already offered evidence that they should have been no higher than 280C (536F). They offer no scientific analysis of their vastly higher estimates. This is a big problem.

Building codes do regard fire as a credible hazard and include extensive requirements to control the spread of fire throughout buildings, to facilitate the safe egress of building occupants in a fire event, and to delay the onset of fire-induced structural collapse. For fire-protected steel-frame buildings such as WTC 1 and WTC 2, these code requirements had been deemed effective. Prior to September 11, there was no record of fire-induced collapse of such structures, despite some very large uncontrolled fires. However, these other buildings did not suffer extensive structural damage.

Here we have a startling admission: "Prior to September 11, there was no record of fire-induced collapse of such structures, despite some very large uncontrolled fires." This is fine in the context of the analysis of WTC 1 and WTC 2, since we all know Boeing 767s impacted these buildings. But what of the unmentioned WTC building 7 that wasn't struck by an airplane?

The scope of this study was not without limits, and many issues should be explored before final conclusions are reached. Additional study of the performance of WTC 1 and WTC 2 during the events of September 11, 2001, is warranted, together with an investigation of related building performance issues. In any such studies attention should be given to the following points:

You're damn right it's warranted. Not likely though.

This report strikes me as something written to appease laymen. It doesn't offer any hard scientific evidence, but a lot of speculation, estimation, and conjecture. For a group of experts, I must say I'm disappointed. Perhaps there is a more technical analysis, or some FEA models they have done somewhere?

The paper is obviously not a criminal investigation either, as neither the ASCE or FEMA are investigative bodies. In short, the paper is insubstantial and only serves to parrot the official theory of why the buildings collapsed. It makes no mention of the imposing 47 story skyscraper which was WTC 7, which I find convenient. Since video of the collapse of this building isn't shown on mainstream media, I doubt much of the public besides New Yorkers know this building even existed.

Most importantly, it provided no proof of these intense fires which, in order to weaken steel to 50%, would have had to reach at least 600C. Note that isn't the necessary *air* temperature, but the actual temperature of the steel itself! The fire would have to be so hot, and so concentrated, such as those found in a blast furnace to overcome the thermal conductivity of the mass of 47 core steel columns, acting as a giant heat sink. Until I see this proof I will remain unconvinced.

 

[Z]

Just a minor point:

There seems to be a lot of conjecture about the nature of jet fuel, that it is basically kerosine. If it was Jet-A, then it is a kerosene-based fuel that can burn even hotter than 425 C (its autoignition temperature). Granted, by itself, that's not enough to melt steel - but it is enough to ignite almost everything else in the building - including flooring and ceiling materials, furniture, paperwork, and almost any non-steel materials present. The resulting burn could well exceed the stress point of those steel cores.

I do have to wonder about the 'heat sink' properties of the steel beams, though - That sounds like it's worth a little research.

EDIT: Scratch that. The idea of the steel cores acting as a 'heat sink' fails to take into consideration the necessary expansion of those cores as they heated... which would lead to further structural failure along the cores. In fact, the very idea that the beams were expanding due to excessive heat could very well be what ultimately led to a total collapse.

Think about it. The average heat-sink is a free-standing metallic radiator, designed to release heat safely into the air. High-temperature heat-sinks are designed to safely allow for expansion of the metals and ceramics involved. Steel cores, with concrete structural elements attached to them, would have been piss-poor heat sinks - sure, they might have transfered much of the heat along their length, but in doing so, would have disrupted huge amounts of the lateral support on the affected floors.

It's like this: dip a balloon in plaster, let it dry... then inflate the balloon just a bit. What happens to the plaster?

Steel expands when heated. What happened to all those cross-supports???

 

[Alek]

oh that's just precious... Intimating that I have claimed that there is no such thing as conspiracies...

I didn't "intimate you claimed that", I'm merely using sarcasm to ridicule you.

A very interesting debate technique you used there by the way... to expand the term 'conspiracy theories' from the normal definition (the communists are putting fluoride in the water supply to brainwash americans, black helicopters, roswell coverup, JFK shooting, RFK shooting, moon hoax or other conspiracy theories where there are NO evidence to be had) to ALL conspiracies (where there are evidence for conspiracies)... way to go I applaud your sly debating technique. You wouldn't happen to post on GFS would you?

The problem here is that it is you who are being dishonest (not very sly, however). You're trying to capitalize on the fact that the term "conspiracy theorist" has a negative connotation in popular culture, and that people who identify as such are typically nutty, eccentric, or are otherwise not credible.

Now, after I exposed your subtle attack, you attempt to redefine the term by distinguishing between legitimate conspiracy theorists, such as law enforcement, and illegitimate conspiracy theorists, such as people who believe governments have lied and gotten away with murder, but either can't prove it or don't have the resources to expose the truth. Then you use the method of bracketing, or what I like to call "negative association" in an attempt to discredit me by associating every ridiculous and impossible theory dreamed up by television producers and/or imaginative people, with very real criminal conspiracies populated by conspirators who have thus far eluded justice.

In summary, conspiracies exist, and occur all of the time. Conspirators are typically brought to justice by conspiracy theorists, usually in the form of law enforcement. Conspiracies vary in the number of conspirators, and the scope of the crimes. Conspiracy theorists are a diverse group of skeptics with no presumption of a consensus on anything, let alone far-fetched, implausible, and irrelevant theories.

The fact that you resort to these subtle and deceptive methods of attempting to discredit me is just evidence of your own ignorance, and lack of facts with respect to the specific discussion at hand. You repeating the words "conspiracy" and "theory" ad nauseum may discredit me in the eyes of some here. Fortunately, these aren't the type of people I'm trying to convince.

 

[Alek]

I never understood this line of speculation. Supposedly there were explosions in the sub-basements of the towers and "admissions" such as the above, and yet the towers collapsed top-down! There's no indication based on the way they fell that the foundations were compromised.

The point is, evidence contradicts the official theory and supports a controlled demolition. Neither is the top-down near free-fall collapse of the buildings evidence against a controlled demolition.

What is speculation is the notion that kerosene caused hydrocarbon fires in excess of 280 Celsius in the towers, and that the 47 core columns of the towers were damaged by the airplanes, and that cellulosic fires in the 47 story WTC 7 were responsible for its spectacular collapse.

 

[GrnMtSkeptic]

SEI/ASCE, I would point out, isn't qualified to do an official forensic criminal investigation. Are we to assume that civil engineers have all of the expertise of say, the FBI? Neither is FEMA an investigative body.

The ASCE is certainly more than qualified to do forensic failure analysis.

http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWsrchkwx.cgi?Failure+investigations

Are you telling us we should assume the FBI has the civil engineering forensics expertise of the ASCE? The FBI is not an engineering body.

 

[Alek]

The whole idea that the US government is a monolithic entity is laughable. Which branch of the government? Which political party? The government is organized in such a way that it CANNOT be monolithic. Also, the political realities of Washington mean that each side is constantly watching the other, waiting for a single misstep that they can crow triumphantly to the press.

The idea isn't laughable. In fact, the Federal government has done nothing but expand and amass more power since its inception. So-called conservatives have all but abandoned even the lip-service regarding smaller government. Convenient security crisis always seem to arise during "conservative" administrations, which end any phony debate over fiscal responsibility. George W. Bush has grown government at a faster rate than any other president in history. His FY 2003 budget of $2.13T was record-setting. He is transforming the welfare state into the warfare state.

The political realities of Washington are a completely polarized set of bureaucrats supported by a completely polarized electorate. Far from one party keeping the other accountable, Washington has devolved into a sea of corruption, with members of neither party being accountable as the truth about one's own party is overlooked in favor of blind partisan support. While the rhetoric indicates extreme polarization, the synthesis represents a monolith.

What you're proposing is that there was an enormous conspiracy. Watergate was a small conspiracy, but was uncovered almost immediately, and justice was quickly served (well, Nixon got off scott free, but...).

Also, you can't say that it was a GOVERNMENT conspiracy, because it was limited to a small group of people within a single branch of the government -- as ANY conspiracy would have to be!

The conspiracy is enormous in its scope, but not in the number of parties involved. You are correct, I don't believe 9/11 was a "government" conspiracy, it merely included powerful elements of the government, for private benefit.

I'd rather not talk about motive, or politics. I'd rather concentrate on the facts about 9/11.

 

[WildCat]

Where is the scientific evidence to back this up? Are we supposed to just take their word for these temperatures? This contradicts a scientific analysis of the jet fuel fires made on the web indicating that the jet fuel could not have raised the temperature beyond 280C (536F). Burning office materials are an example of a cellulosic fire, which burns cooler than hydrocarbon fires. So whence this inferno? Additionally, the steel columns would have acted as a giant heat sink. The thermal conductivity of steel is such that even if we are to assume such outrageous air temperatures of 2000F, it would not necessarily cause the steel to weaken enough such that it would no longer bear the load of the structure above.

In my job (remodeling/rehabs) I have been inside many buildings that have had damage from fires. On several occasions, I have seen aluminum windows that had completely melted into a pool on the window ledge, I used to keep one such blob as a paper weight. The melting point of aluminum is 1220 F, and this temperature obviously occurred in a normal apartment fire where the damage was contained to a single apt. So I have no problem believing that a fire on the scale of the WTC could have produced even higher temps.

 

[GrnMtSkeptic]

Controlled Demolition was the only entity allowed on the scene following the disaster, and the evidence was shipped off to China for recycling..

Actually this is quite a strange thing to say. There were four firms handling the clean up: AMEC, Bovis Lend Lease (British Companies), Turner (subsidiary of Hochtief based in Germany), and Tully Construction of Flushing, New York. CDI was brought in as a subcontractor to Tully, and there were innumerable other subcontractors, including D.H. Griffin Wrecking Co. Not to mention all the Teamsters and Laborers who actually did the work.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/14/health/main643329.shtml

http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2002/09/09/focus5.html

Bump for Alek

 

[Alek]

Wildcat already followed up as I would have for most of your points, but let me be sure of what you're saying above. You're asserting that no FBI explosives specialists examined the debris?

Ferd

I'm ignoring Wildcat, as he has poor reading comprehension, and I don't believe he is willing to accept the possibility that elements in the US government were responsible for 9/11. He is also highly condescending, and is mostly just trolling me.

From what I understand, only 2% of the steel was examined by NIST. I'm not aware of any FBI investigation at all.

I haven't done an extensive investigation of the investigation yet, other than reading the NIST report about WTC 7 (which was highly inadequate, and admittedly inconclusive). What I have read indicates there wasn't much of an investigation at all, as the steel was shipped almost immediately to China.

 

[Alek]

Actually this is quite a strange thing to say. There were four firms handling the clean up: AMEC, Bovis Lend Lease (British Companies), Turner (subsidiary of Hochtief based in Germany), and Tully Construction of Flushing, New York. CDI was brought in as a subcontractor to Tully, and there were innumerable other subcontractors, including D.H. Griffin Wrecking Co. Not to mention all the Teamsters and Laborers who actually did the work.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/14/health/main643329.shtml

http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2002/09/09/focus5.html

As I indicated above, I haven't investigated the investigation yet. Do you have any timeline evidence for when these firms started work?

 

[delphi_ote]

The idea isn't laughable. In fact, the Federal government has done nothing but expand and amass more power since its inception. So-called conservatives have all but abandoned even the lip-service regarding smaller government. Convenient security crisis always seem to arise during "conservative" administrations, which end any phony debate over fiscal responsibility. George W. Bush has grown government at a faster rate than any other president in history. His FY 2003 budget of $2.13T was record-setting. He is transforming the welfare state into the warfare state.

You realize not one statement in here backs up your assertion that this idea isn't laughable, right? They're not even vaguely related to one another. It's more paranoid rambling.

There are millions of federal employees. Millions! You expect all of them to act in concert? You conspiracy nuts can't even agree whether all federal employees are blackmailed and frightened into the evil plot or if are all federal employees part of one monolithic entity. How are millions of vaguely connected people all going to communicate in secret and agree to all the horrible things you accuse them of doing?

I'd rather not talk about motive, or politics. I'd rather concentrate on the facts about 9/11.

And by "facts about 9/11" you mean "insults and vague paranoia totally divorced from reality"

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...
SEI/ASCE, I would point out, isn't qualified to do an official forensic criminal investigation. Are we to assume that civil engineers have all of the expertise of say, the FBI? Neither is FEMA an investigative body.
...

Who (person or group of people), in your opinion, would be qualified to carry out the investigation?

It sounds like they're putting the cart before the horse here. Have they already assumed a significant reduction in structural strength due to fire occured?

Not at all, they are acknowledging that they need to determine to what extent the fire affected the structural integrity.

I'd like them to focus on WTC 7, a building which wasn't hit by an airplane, and yet collapsed in a symmetrical freefall. Surely if this building collapsed due to fire, it would merit the attention of the engineering community, as it was an unprecedented occurence.

The NIST report does touch all three towers.

Indeed.

Word games with the executive summary grammar.

Perhaps the jetliner, after smashing through the facade of steel columns and the 5" thick concrete floor and ceiling slabs had enough inertia to damage the 47 massive steel columns at the core. Perhaps.

per http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html

Engines
maximum thrust
Pratt & Whitney PW4062 GE CF6-80C2B7F
63,300 lb (281.6 kN) 62,100 lb (276.2 kN)

Maximum Fuel Capacity 23,980 U.S. gal (90,770 l)
Maximum Takeoff Weight 395,000 lb (179,170 kg)
Typical Cruise Speed at 35,000 feet Mach 0.80 530 mph (851 kph)

I'm sure one of the forumites can run the numbers, I won't pretend to do so since I am in database work, not physics/engineering, to provide kinetic energy and impact on the building.

That aside, you imply with "5" thick concrete floor and ceiling slabs" that the planes were penetrating them at something approaching a 90 degree angle, when in fact they would have been colliding with the buildings in such a manner as to direct their kinetic energy into the building and not having to directly punch through the floor/ceiling to enter the building.

In this paragraph the engineers went from speculating as to the extent of the damage to stating conclusively that the aircraft "substantially degraded the towers ability to withstand additional loading". This BPAT team strikes me less as investigators, and more as a group trying to assess how they can secure future buildings from jets and kerosene fires. They've taken the offical story for granted, and this is not an objective forensic investigation of what brought the towers down.

This is conjecture and opinion on your part

It is clear to me that the jets severely damaged the facade of the building through the impacted floors, and I agree with their analysis. However, I remain unconvinced that the steel columns in the core were severely damaged, and they have offered no scientific evidence that they were. It's also apparent to me that the core columns bore the overwhelming load of the towers, not the facade.

There is ample scientific evidence, you have dismissed it out of hand, or labeled as caused by "other" means that those to which it is ascribed.

This is an interesting assertion, and I would like to see scientific analysis backing this up. The concrete floor and ceiling slabs for each floor weighed approximately 1,400,000 kg. The takeoff weight of a Boeing 767 is 312,000, or approximately 141,521 kg. It seems to me that the mass of this plane is well within the load redundancy engineered into most modern steel structures (typically 5:1 as I have read), even given the collapse of over thirty columns on each facade. Certainly I'm no expert, but I would expect the experts to comment on these terms, instead they offer only conjecture.



Where is the scientific evidence to back this up? Are we supposed to just take their word for these temperatures? This contradicts a scientific analysis of the jet fuel fires made on the web indicating that the jet fuel could not have raised the temperature beyond 280C (536F). Burning office materials are an example of a cellulosic fire, which burns cooler than hydrocarbon fires. So whence this inferno? Additionally, the steel columns would have acted as a giant heat sink. The thermal conductivity of steel is such that even if we are to assume such outrageous air temperatures of 2000F, it would not necessarily cause the steel to weaken enough such that it would no longer bear the load of the structure above.

Kevin Ryan of UL emailed Frank Gayle about the infeasibility of the temperatures as estimated. He got no response and was fired from his job. UL provided no rebuttal of his claims, simply stating that he misrepresented his credentials with them. Ryan also stated that UL certified the steel in the WTC, a claim which was denied by a UL spokesman. Who is telling the truth here?

The NIST report touches all of these points I believe.

This is documented on video, and it is quite interesting, especially given the web analysis I sourced earlier. I know that the jet fuel or office materials could not burn hot enough to weaken the steel past the point of failure, so obviously I don't accept the notion that kerosene would *melt* it. So we're looking at something that either isn't steel, or something besides kerosene was in that building to generate the necessary temperatures to create molten steel.

Of course there were things in the building on than kerosene to fuel the fire: the office furniture, whatever other things that were flammable. Additionally, they do not make the claim that it was molten steel; they state it was molten metal. Could have been any source of metal that had melted, not necessarily a steel support beam.

I'd like to see the science behind this conjecture.

NIST Report



Let me phrase it this way, is there any evidence that can be sighted, any authoritative statements that can be quoted (and cited), that you will believe, and would cause you to rethink your position?

 

[delphi_ote]

... I don't believe he is willing to accept the possibility that elements in the US government were responsible for 9/11.

In other words, "I refuse to speak with people who challenge my beliefs too strongly."

 

[GrnMtSkeptic]

As I indicated above, I haven't investigated the investigation yet. Do you have any timeline evidence for when these firms started work?

You were the one who made the claim "Controlled Demolition was the only entity allowed on the scene following the disaster, and the evidence was shipped off to China for recycling." Yet now you deny any knowledge. Curious. Were you just making up the part about Controlled Demolition being the only entity allowed in?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm ignoring Wildcat, as he has poor reading comprehension, and I don't believe he is willing to accept the possibility that elements in the US government were responsible for 9/11. He is also highly condescending, and is mostly just trolling me.

From what I understand, only 2% of the steel was examined by NIST. I'm not aware of any FBI investigation at all.

I haven't done an extensive investigation of the investigation yet, other than reading the NIST report about WTC 7 (which was highly inadequate, and admittedly inconclusive). What I have read indicates there wasn't much of an investigation at all, as the steel was shipped almost immediately to China.

I'm ignoring Alek, as he has poor reading comprehension, and I don't believe he is willing to accept the possibility that no elements of the US government were responsible for 9/11. He is also highly condescending, and is mostly just trolling this thread.

 

[Alek]

Actually this is quite a strange thing to say. There were four firms handling the clean up: AMEC, Bovis Lend Lease (British Companies), Turner (subsidiary of Hochtief based in Germany), and Tully Construction of Flushing, New York. CDI was brought in as a subcontractor to Tully, and there were innumerable other subcontractors, including D.H. Griffin Wrecking Co. Not to mention all the Teamsters and Laborers who actually did the work.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/14/health/main643329.shtml

http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2002/09/09/focus5.html

Interesting quote from the 2nd of your links:

"I just went," says the 34-year-old Griffin from his small, cluttered office on Hilltop Road. "Because I knew — I felt — we had something to offer. The more I looked at the pictures on the news, I knew this was a demolition job. I just wanted to go. My wife knows how I am. If I hadn't gone, I would've thought about it the rest of my life. I should've gone up and helped."

I'm well aware of what he probably meant, but I find that quote interesting nonetheless.

 

[GrnMtSkeptic]

I'm ignoring Alek, as he has poor reading comprehension,

Indeed, his interpretation of the ASCE article http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html demonstrates he has no knowledge of what purpose an introductory paragraph serves.

 

[kookbreaker]

Alek's complaint seems to be a lot of 'I doubt the word of experienced Structural Engineers because i say I am right'. At one point he arrogantly states what the engineers should be impressed by. Don't worry, Alek, they'll be studying WTC7 alright, but not to the conlusion or for the reasons you would like.

The rest of his complaint is a variation of 'If I ran the zoo' nonsense.

Again: To date, no structural engineer or expert in another relevant field has supported the claim of the use of explosives. All we have are rank amatuers who claim to know better than experts.

 

[GrnMtSkeptic]

Interesting quote from the 2nd of your links:

"I just went," says the 34-year-old Griffin from his small, cluttered office on Hilltop Road. "Because I knew — I felt — we had something to offer. The more I looked at the pictures on the news, I knew this was a demolition job. I just wanted to go. My wife knows how I am. If I hadn't gone, I would've thought about it the rest of my life. I should've gone up and helped."

I'm well aware of what he probably meant, but I find that quote interesting nonetheless.

And I am sure that you will nonetheless use it entirely out of context at some future time.

 

[Alek]

This would be an interesting subject to pursue after this one is hashed out. I suggest we start a new thread at that time.

As a preview, the HSCA conclusion was based entirely on an analysis that has since been vacated, namely the acoustic analysis of gunshot echoes. You called him an ignoramus, but I think you'll find that every single regular here agrees that Oswald was the lone gunman. But let's save that for the new thread.

Wow. So a group of so-called skeptics here thinks Oswald was the lone gunman, and that the magic bullet theory on which this all depends, is true. How convincing. Appeal to Consensus - another fallacy? I'm not going to discuss the JFK murder here. You may commence with the circle jerk in another thread.