This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Are Millions of Business People At Risk of Dying In Collapsing Buildings?

George Washington's picture




 

This is one in a series of safety-related public service announcements.

Death Traps?

Millions of people work in or visit high-rise buildings … assuming the buildings were more or less safe.

But it turns out that there is a severe, lethal risk of sudden collapse in even the best-made skyscrapers in America, Britain, Germany, Japan and other nations worldwide.

A New Understanding

Before 9/11, no modern steel-frame high-rise building had ever collapsed due to fire.

9/11 radically changed our understanding of architecture and engineering …

Specifically, 3 steel-frame buildings collapsed on that day. That includes one that was never hit by a plane, and had only small, isolated office fires prior to its collapse.

This was unexpected, as much hotter, longer-lasting fires have never before brought down a modern steel-frame office building.  For example, the 2005 Madrid skyscraper fire “reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F), said Javier Sanz, head of Madrid firefighter”  and lasted some 20 hours without collapsing.

In other words, officials who write building codes, architects and structural engineers had never before worried about small office fires causing office buildings from collapsing.

Appendix A of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study notes:

In the case of the fire at One Meridian Plaza, the fire burned uncontrolled for the first 11 hours and lasted 19 hours. Contents from nine floors were completely consumed in the fire. In addition to these experiences in fire incidents, as a result of the Broadgate fire, British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cordington in the mid-1990s to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beam reaching 800-900 °C (1,500-1,700 °F) in three tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 °C [1,100 °F]), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.

Underwriters Laboratories tested the steel components at the Twin Towers and found they could withstand fires for hours without failure:

“NIST [the government agency - National Institute of Standards and Technology, a branch of the Department of Commerce - responsible for investigating the collapse of the 3 buildings on 9/11] contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.” (NIST, 2005, p. 140).

Other fire tests have also failed to cause failures at high temperatures.

So the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11 (not hit by a plane) was a surprise … and should be a huge concern to the millions of people who work in office buildings worldwide.

To get to the bottom of this issue, Washington’s Blog reached out to a former manager at Underwriters Laboratories – Kevin Ryan – to seek reassurance that the danger was small for the millions of financial services industry workers, business men, lawyers, web executives, and others who work in office buildings:

[Question]  Wasn’t the steel used in the Twin Towers and Building 7 of inferior quality?  So as long as builders use better-quality steel, can’t we be assured of safety?

[Kevin Ryan]   The steel used to build WTC Building 7 was the standard grade for high-rise construction–still used to this day–called ASTM A36 grade steel. It was not inferior in any way from the steel used to make many of the other high-rise buildings in America.

For the Twin Towers, fourteen different grades of steel were used in the construction, including A36, which has a nominal strength of 36 ksi.  The other grades used were higher strength steels like 100 ksi WEL-TEN steel which was manufactured in Japan and shipped to the States. The steel used in the Towers was actually far superior to typical structural steel.

The official government reports on the destruction of the WTC buildings did not find any problem with the quality of the materials or construction methods used. And although those reports did make some recommendations for changes to building codes, those changes have not been incorporated in municipal codes or adopted by the building construction community.

[Question]   You write in Foreign Policy Journal:

“And if people actually understood and believed the official account of what happened at the WTC they would not enter tall buildings because in doing so they would be putting their lives at risk.”

What do you mean?

[Ryan]  What I mean is that high-rise buildings are designed and constructed to withstand fires that are much worse than what we know existed in WTC Building 7. My former company, Underwriters Laboratories (UL), plays a big part in that process. We know that UL did the fire resistance testing that was behind the selection of the steel components for WTC7 because that fact is in the NIST WTC7 report. Therefore the steel columns and floor assemblies should have withstood 2 to 3 hours of intense fire in a testing furnace, as required by the NYC code.  But on 9/11, the fire lasted only 20 minutes in any given area, a fact that NIST admits, and the entire structure was destroyed due to an inexplicable failure to resist fire.

Moreover, NIST abandoned its previous hypotheses that suggested the destruction of WTC7 might have resulted from diesel fuel fires, or damage from falling debris, or the design of the building. In the end, NIST said that it was only the effects of the fire fed by office furnishings, on fully-fireproofed steel components, that caused the total destruction of this 47-story building. And since no actions have been taken to retrofit any existing high-rise buildings, we must assume that what happened to WTC7, according to the official account, could happen to any tall building that experiences a typical office fire.

No Change (?!)

Given that 9/11 totally changed our understanding of how dangerous small office fires could be, we couldn’t believe Ryan’s claim that “changes have not been incorporated in municipal codes or adopted by the building construction community.”

So Washington’s Blog contacted Richard Gage,  a practicing architect for more than two decades, who has worked on most types of building construction, including one project which used  around 1,200 tons of steel framing:

[Question] Have high-rise architects and engineers changed how they build skyscrapers, to prevent collapses after 9/11?

And have they changed how they build skyscrapers to prevent office fires from knocking down steel buildings?

[Richard Gage] No – they haven’t made any structural changes.

No structural changes?!

Either building code writers, architects and engineers are cavalierly ignoring this catastrophic new understanding of the extreme danger of small office fires, or the investigation into the collapse of World Trade Center building 7 on 9/11 was flawed.

No wonder New York residents have launched a High Rise Safety Initiative to try to protect the safety of those who work or visit office buildings.

Postscript:  Until this issue is resolved through a complete revision of building codes and architectural and engineering practices, we recommend that everyone stay out of office buildings. Because if even small office fires can cause the whole building to collapse, it’s just not worth the risk to go inside.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 02/15/2014 - 17:18 | 4440289 blindman
blindman's picture

and none of it is valid "evidence" as there is no chain of custody
and no telling if it has been altered or manufactured, years later,
or by whom.
reminds me of the zapruder film handling debacle. "evidence" locked
away for a decade and then falsified and released to comport with a
version, narrative, of events that had been vetted as best can
be with the benefit of those 10 years or so. with this time delay
you run the risk of selective release, or manufacture, of "evidence"
to support a narrative rather than the evidence revealing the truth
or true narrative.
.
again, just because you cannot find certain "evidence", at this point
in time and in this circumstance does not imply there was no
controlled demolition. there are important questions.
what are your sources? who are they? where is the "evidence"
and who has been holding it? why has it not come out before?
who has had access to it?
and ...
what about all the evidence, plenty, that suggests their was
controlled demolition at play. one example being the "owner" of the building
said the building was decidedly "pulled". why would he say that if
it just fell from structural failure?
.
and the security/fire personnel who moved the pedestrians from
the building because its collapse was known to be imminent ...
and the testimony of people on the scene of the 11th saying the
the columns were diagonally cut before any welders or steel workers
were on site with cutting equipment and the witnesses , many, who
heard explosions associated with the collapses and on and on ...
all evidence that you cannot find but it is already widely assimilated
into people's understanding of what happened, even though you cannot find it
in this new imagery.
can you appreciate my problem here?
speaking of no evidence, why no commercial airplane parts at the pentagon?
and no parts of flight 93 in pennsylvania?
.
the entire story is just too weird and f..d up to have any truth in it.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 22:30 | 4441083 moneybots
moneybots's picture

"and none of it is valid "evidence" as there is no chain of custody
and no telling if it has been altered or manufactured, years later,
or by whom.
reminds me of the zapruder film handling debacle. "evidence" locked
away for a decade and then falsified and released to comport with a
version, narrative, of events that had been vetted as best can
be with the benefit of those 10 years or so."

 

A camera original cannot be falsified as to the image recorded on it, without obvious signs of tampering.  The only alteration to the camera original film, were some splices when LIFE had possesion of the film.

 

The Zapruder film was not released, Robert Grodin obtained a copy when the film was subpoenaed (sp) for the Garrison trial.  If anything, that goes against the claim the film was falsified.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 23:53 | 4441291 blindman
blindman's picture

he got a copy that concealed the exit wound.
botched black out of rear of head.
see jim fetzer video previously linked.
discrepancy from testimony from clint hill
and others claiming exit wound to back of head.
.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 17:54 | 4440393 sosoome
sosoome's picture

Video and photos taken day of and on. You have to go several pages when you google to find them; not popular items, apparent;y. 

Here's one to get you started. Note only 613 views. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcyugOZaXzk

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 18:46 | 4440503 blindman
blindman's picture

ok. there is a good example.
the questions.
uploaded 12/7/2011. MORE THAN A DECADE LATE.
presumably property of the nyc police department.
.
as i remember it was stated to be illegal for
civilians to make any photographic or moving image
documentation of the clean up.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/restrictions.html
"No Photographs!

On September 26th, then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani banned photographs of Ground Zero. 6 An account by an anonymous photographer (AP), who took the photographs at the end of the Ground Zero photographs page, describes the treatment of this citizen investigator."
.
the point is the police department and their authorities had 10 years
to go through this material and either eliminate, obfuscate or
manufacture imagery that tells us nothing they don't want us to know
or see anything they don't want us to see. the event occurred or was
orchestrated and then the documentation of the event was orchestrated.
.
all i'm suggesting is that you be aware of that fact and not be persuaded
by what you have not been shown or spoon fed by the authorities, rather look at
the totality of the facts that are "uncontroversial" in the context that applies
and see if there isn't a coherent narrative just sitting there at the heart
of the thing, one that actually makes sense and puts the lie to the absurdities
at the center of the official story.
who benefits, has the motive and the means? that is all
need be applied to any statement, question or piece of evidence.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 20:32 | 4440787 sosoome
sosoome's picture

I'll try to be real clear. The video I posted, along with many others which are publicly available, show several of the critical failure points of the perimeter walls which allegedly were taken out by cutter charges to bring down the building. They show beyond doubt those failure points were connection failure, with no sign of any help from explosives or cutters. Remember now, we all saw the videos of collapse of the perimeter walls. Those lower walls HAD to be cut in order to produce the sudden "free fall", so the story goes. The lower walls show no sign of being cut. They do show buckling and breaking at their connections. And just like an auto accident investigation, reverse engineering of the debris confirms Building 7 fell over in two directions.

You can attempt to impugn this evidence in front of a grand jury, but I doubt you will be successful, and unless you can provide clear structural evidence to overcome, the jury will conclude the building indeed collapsed due to damage and fire.

And speaking of damage, you really should contemplate what this damage did to a large span tower which relies on the perimeter walls for vertical, lateral, and diagonal stability.

I'll leave it at that. If you wish to see more of the evidence, just follow my blog. It will all be published in due course.

Peace

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 20:51 | 4440834 blindman
blindman's picture

the cutting charges would not be required on the exterior structure
if the core was effectively cut. the gash in the graphic is
interesting but the key word is "graphic".
lack of evidence may prohibit a conclusion of guilt
but does not prove innocence, as you know.
in a court no one is judged to be innocent,
just judged to be "not guilty" as charged
or otherwise.
keep on the crime scene!
.
"There really can be no peace without justice.
There can be no justice without truth. And
there can be no truth, unless someone rises up
to tell you the truth." ?

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 23:17 | 4441213 moneybots
moneybots's picture

"the cutting charges would not be required on the exterior structure
if the core was effectively cut."

 

Don't forget that Jones claimed that orange sparks falling from an eastern north side window was evidence of thermite reaction.  However no bright thermite reaction was seen near the source of the orange sparks.

 

No cutting was required at all.  The fires caused the catastrophic failure.

 

In 2 World Trade, a video camera showed debris falling down, just inside the windows, from the floor above the bowed in columns, which then cascaded down to the floors immediately below the fire line.  The debris was not falling due to cut core columns.

 

"lack of evidence may prohibit a conclusion of guilt
but does not prove innocence, as you know."

 

Even if every T was crossed and every i dotted, there will always be a lack of evidence to those who want to see otherwise. 

 

There is no evidence that the images on the Zapruder camera original were tampered with, yet there are numerous claims that various things in the film were altered.  Some have even claimed the limo was rotoscoped on top of the background to hide that the limo stopped, as a few witnesses thought the limo appeared to stop. 

The Nix and Muchmore films would have had to have been rotoscoped, as well as the Bronson film, as they also showed the limo did not stop.  That is way beyond a tall order.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 23:14 | 4441208 sosoome
sosoome's picture

...and nice dodge on the gash 

It's fact. Go have the AE pros analyze it. Why haven't they already?

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 23:25 | 4441194 sosoome
sosoome's picture

Wow. You are saying free fall is then irrelevant! Somebody call Gage and tell him...quick...Free fall is NOT a sign of CD in building 7!

Please clarify. If it wasn't necessary to cut the perimeter curtain, or if they weren't cut, what accounts for the free fall? How did that happen? Cause they weren't cut.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 21:04 | 4440859 blindman
blindman's picture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-wXcJA-et0
911 WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ?? See with your own eye
.
a description of controlled demolition by an
experienced professional at the time in question.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 14:57 | 4439877 sosoome
sosoome's picture

Crickets.

You can avoid the fact you have NO structural evidence to corroborate your claims on forums all you want, but if you want a new investigation, you are going to have to find some, or you have no case that any grand jury will hear. The evidence of connection failure is overwhelming.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:05 | 4439906 Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

We ignore you because you're a dissembling liar piece of shit.

Go pick up your paycheck.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:14 | 4439932 sosoome
sosoome's picture

Feel better now? Glad to help.

Just find some corroboration in the structural remains. All I can find is connection failure.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:18 | 4439944 Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

You must mean the few pieces (evidence) that are left which were not immediately and criminally disposed of in Asia?

Geezus, back to 'ignore'.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:21 | 4439951 sosoome
sosoome's picture

Convenient cop out.

I'll ask you. Why is it I can find tons of structural evidence to this day?

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:41 | 4440017 sosoome
sosoome's picture

Thus goes the truther argument. When asked for structural corroboration, shuck and jive, call names, and do everything but face the fact they have no proof that CD even happened. 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:52 | 4439696 TNTARG
TNTARG's picture

The entire "event" was played and left the signature of the players.

Indeed.

I truly believe many things started to decline that day.

It was a turning point. From then on, they could mantain the status quo only by force, and we're seeing that in progress.

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 14:54 | 4439316 Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

Welcome to the 'conspiracy' crowd 'cause it was only the National Institute of Standards and Technology in their own report on WTC 7 that said that prior to 9/11 that no steel-framed high-rise building had ever collapsed primarilty due to office fires.  Maybe you think the damage from when WTC 1 collapsed and some damage was done to WTC 7 was a major factor, but NIST didn't.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 10:37 | 4439222 ms8172
ms8172's picture

Of course there is a risk....if you blow them up like 9/11!!

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 10:27 | 4439208 remibeni
remibeni's picture

OMG
It's certainly is difficult for an entire country to acknowledge they've been bamboozled.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 07:51 | 4439055 Dan The Man
Dan The Man's picture

Is the author only concerned about the "Business" people? 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 07:07 | 4439032 flight77
flight77's picture

Here a link to a video showing the controlled demolition of a small Skyscraper in Frankfurt (110m) some weeks ago. The demolition went incredible accurate. and was composed out of two steps, one for the outer parts and one for the core. Compare it with 9/11 and take your own conclusions.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/rhein-main/frankfurt/hochhaus-sprengung/afe-t...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 07:23 | 4439041 Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

Mein deutsch ist sehr schlect but I think the video has been removed.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 07:06 | 4439029 flight77
flight77's picture

Here a link to a video showing the controlled demolition of a small Skyscraper in Frankfurt (110m) some weeks ago. The demolition went incredible accurate. and was composed out of two steps, one for the outer parts and one for the core. Compare it with 9/11 and take your own conclusions.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/rhein-main/frankfurt/hochhaus-sprengung/afe-t...

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 03:59 | 4438999 Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

Maybe the towers fell because of global warming.

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 14:40 | 4439820 Savyindallas
Savyindallas's picture

Maybe. Global warming does strange things  -it's caused this incredibly cold winter. Whose to say that unusually hot temperatures caused a gradual weakening of the steell girders which were simply waiting for a good fire to cause them to melt. Maybe global warming has caused the atmosphere to block the sun's rays, which ironically will put us into a global ice age. I know one thing for damn sure--I'm staying out of office buildings on really hot days.

Bin Laden is a genius - he knew exactly what he was doing- though it is likely he was being helped by the iranians and Syrians, and probably Putin also. . Larry Silverstein apparently is also a genius -hellava shrewed business man.  He obviously did his homework before leasing all those buildings and double insuring them for terrorism just a couple of months before. It pays to be rich as hell and buddies with Netanyahu. The Mossad probably tipped him off in advance. They did their damndest to warn us. Had 200 agents posing as art students on top of the situation, and a team of Patriots (the Dancing Israelis) who were probably just moments way from stopping this tragedy. Same goes for papa Bush who was having lunch with the Bin Ladens that day, apparently trying to get more intel on the wayward Bin Laden son who had gone astray. I think we should recruit Silverstain to chair a government commission to study the issue.  

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 03:35 | 4438981 Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

Gotta love it.

The 'debunkers' are now reduced to just making shit up.

Here's a letter supported by ae911truth.org that was sent to the Inspector General of the U.S. Commerce Department and who has since forwarded it to the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST).  The letter highlights, with diagrams, the gross ommissions and falsifications of the NIST Final Report on the  total collapse of Bldg. 7:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 00:11 | 4441321 moneybots
moneybots's picture

"The 'debunkers' are now reduced to just making shit up."

 

"The underlying issue stems from the official NIST R eport (NIST NCSTAR 1-9- Nov. 2008) which basically contends that for the fi rst time in history, the symmetrical, complete collapse of a large, fire protected..." http://wtc7fact.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/wtc7gashfoldconfirmation.png That is not symmetrical.  The east end of 7 world Trade is twisted to the north.
Sun, 02/16/2014 - 03:40 | 4441610 russwinter
russwinter's picture

The photo looks a tad doctored. Here is the full video of WTC7 falling. It does bow in a little, as opposed to fold and twist, but much later in the fall, which would be typical of a controlled demolition. There is a very slight tilt as it begins descent, but the actual fall is quite symetrical. Judge for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 07:31 | 4439046 Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

The letter makes damned good sense but I respectfully suggest that your members take a group trip to Jerusalem where they can bang their collective heads to their hearts' content against the wailing wall.

In any case you don't need an answer from the government because in your heart and professional mind you know that the building did stack up but their explanation never will.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 01:01 | 4438865 Leraconteur
Leraconteur's picture

Logical fallacy compounded. This isn't my opinion, it's the facts you lack the ability to understand.
Where do you think I found this out? I read Truther 'proof' and then did my own research and found out that Truthers are, well, stupid and wrong. The reason I know this is because I listened to you and considered your points back in 2002.

What have we here:

-Some office furniture fire caused the collapse and 'could not' cause the building to collapse

-Core 'should not have collapsed' and 'should have remained standing'.

Fire:

It wasn't the office furniture. It was everything including the ceiling and floors and the drywall and carpet and that purified kerosene known as jetfuel and the people inside. There was not a concrete core, the walls of the stairwell were gypsum board with a smaller core acting as one lever of a fulcrum and the exterior being the 22 inch spaced steel structure. Nested tubes. Fancy, an engineering marvel, hitech, open floorplan, no columns.

Core:
When each floor ripped free and hit the one beneath, this caused the attached clips and beams to the inner core to violently rip out, destroying the core as the buildings collapsed. Which is what one can see on the video. The rubble pile was many floors high and parts of the 22 inch outer tube remained standing, many floors ini height. Core collapsed just a bit after the exterior, you can see this it's very obvious in the videos.

WTC was high tech, modern construction, not the old fashioned girders. Well, that makes it tippy in an engineering sense. Fancy, but not as solid if something really bad goes wrong.

Such as a fuel-laden aircraft impacting at 800kph.

Notice I never mentioned the fuel? The fire? The KE of the aircraft? In my PE KE calcs? 

Impact caused structural failure of some beams and also stripped others of their fire proofing. Heat from the fire and other stresses from impact into the centre of the buildings caused the metal clips that attached each floor to the support beams that jutted out through the gypsym from the concrete core weakened.

A structure is only over designed 20%. 
WTC a little bit less.
In that if you add more than 20% on to one floor, this is not windload, it collapses.

Once one floor drops, the building is then just a collection of materials hanging 418 metres up. It's not a stable engineeringstructure any longer.

That's all it took. ONE FLOOR drops down, and the building is toast. It did not have to do this at a high velocity. And if you watch videos it did it very slowly. That did not matter. The extra load exceeded the floor beneath and down it went.

From videos one can see the building weaken and dip at the corner where the South Tower was hit, it sinks down a few meters, this load hits the floor beneath, and that's the end. That floor collapses, and down it comes.

I know you guys cannot understand this, it's mostly for the amused and intelligent readers killling time watching you Dunning-Kruger yourselves. 

You think that I am repeating this because it was what I was told, or what the official version is.

Uhm, no. Some people can figure things out, things that you cannot.

I explained why. Go back and re-read it. Better yet learn some Maths and Physics, you are proving why the USA is failing in STEM fields.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 14:47 | 4439845 Savyindallas
Savyindallas's picture

Love it! Your sarcasm and parody is as good as GW's. We all have to laugh to keep from crying as the sad reality is that millions of morons actually believe thisgovernment version BS. Most don't have a clue  -the same mentality of the masses who believe there is a spittin difference between the Bush's McCain, the Clinon's and Obama. 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 15:50 | 4440037 moneybots
moneybots's picture

"Love it! Your sarcasm and parody is as good as GW's. We all have to laugh to keep from crying as the sad reality is that millions of morons actually believe thisgovernment version BS"

 

Government version?  Ler didn't mention the government, he mentioned structural facts about the Towers.

 

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:27 | 4439432 Defenestrate
Defenestrate's picture

A co-worker of mine was in NYC watching from a rooftop as the towers burned. He was standing next to an architect who said the buildings would collapse. This was well before anyone thought they would. My friend was incredulous, but the architect explained (he had worked in the buildings) that while they were ORIGINALLY built to withstand anything, there had been decades of new tenants moving in and out and remodeling every time.

"The floors and ceilings are Swiss cheese. They won't hold." He was right.

It's always made sense to me. The steel could have been fine. The original structure could've held. But decades of modifications to cement, walls and steel left the engineering less than sound.

Do the building codes need to change? Or the remodeling codes?

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 00:41 | 4438812 Leraconteur
Leraconteur's picture

For you who are whinging about name calling and adhominem and bullying, ponder this:

You guys, 9-11 Truthers with a STEM-deficiency, have for 12+ years argued to the effect that 1+1=3.

When confronted with Maths, do you counter-argue with Maths? Nope. Illogical opinion, no calculations.

So when I state that you are stupid, this isn't logical fallacy or name calling.

It's pointing out your established trend of behaviour on this subject.

There is nothing anyone can do to fix this.

Sure, you are entitled to your opinion. And those who disagree are free to point out why you are the kids from the short bus in Science class, playing at Maths and Physics and things you literally do not understand.

But in this PC nonsense world that's just my opinion, and science is oppressive because it does not enrich your self-esteem. 

Your downvote ratio just confirms your stupidity.

The more you disagree, the more you confirm that on this subject most of you are IDIOTS.

As in you are sub-intelligent. Stupid. Morons. Retarded. Developmentally Challenged. Learning Disabled. Wev. 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 10:55 | 4439248 TNTARG
TNTARG's picture

Yeah, and there's no inmediate danger from Fuku and Santa does exists.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 00:14 | 4438780 surfsup
surfsup's picture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4FkO5ry1uo

 

No explosives do this...  Implosives?  Oh yeah... 

 

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 01:13 | 4438756 chindit13
chindit13's picture

Oh, and for "shanearthur"

If you know how to use a Bloomberg machine (or maybe even Yahoo! Finance), you can resurrect all the data for "irregular trading" in airline stocks and options before 911.  Rather than tell you what it will reveal, go do it yourself.  Actual data, not somebody else's Blog post.

Were there days in the year or two before 911 when activity was greater?  How many days?  Does any activity near 911 still stand out as irregular, given the historical trading pattern in these equities?  Do other equities not in the airline industry (e.g., consumer cleansing products, clothing) show the exact same sort of peaks and valleys in trading activity, particularly around the time of analyst upgrades or downgrades?  Has it been determined if one entity held the majority of puts in certain airlines on 911?  Was there any analysis of any airline company in the months before 911 that suggested bad earnings on the horizon?  If there was one entity that held a substantial position in puts in a particular airline, did this entity also hold any sizable call positions in other airlines?  Do you know what a "pairs trade" is?

Go do all that work, then come back and report in GW's next 911 post.  Now I don't want to influence you, but if "irregular trading activity" was what finally convinced you, you might want to get a back-up "proof", just in case.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 08:44 | 4439101 shanearthur
shanearthur's picture

@chindit13, please write a post about what you are inferring. A Bloomberg machine is beyond my abilities, but I'd love to know what you know. Again, irregular trading activity is not "what finally convinced me" it's one piece in the whole that is adding to my cognitive dissonance.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:57 | 4439535 chindit13
chindit13's picture

You should do it yourself, as it would be more convincing.

Here's what you might find:

Volume in UAL puts was 3150 or so.  On July 20th, vol was 2995.  On April 6th it was 8212.  On March 13th, 8072.  Thus, the so-called "irregular activity" wasn't even half of earlier dates in the year.  One single US institution was responsible for 95% of the UAL puts near 911.  The same firm was long 115,000 shares of American Airlines at the same time as part of a pairs trade.

AMR stock had fallen from $38 in July to $29.95 on 10 September.  That’s 21% in two months.  On 7 September AMR issued a number of negative press statements, from which analysts then concluded AMR‘s losses may triple.  Increased put activity might be expected after such a price move and negative announcements.

The so-called "irregular activity" is myth.

Still, check yourself.

 

 

 

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 23:56 | 4438741 chindit13
chindit13's picture

For “Mr. Pink”

Since nothing is ever accomplished or settled in these periodic GW meat-tossing exercises regarding 911, why not take what you “know” and address an issue which might have some immediate and meaningful import to a large swathe of the American people?

What can you do, Mr. Pink?  Well, you can email the Commissioner of the National Football League and tell him he has to adjust all of the record books.  He can start with the just-finished season.  Peyton Manning did not pass for 5,400 yards, but rather well over 15,000 yards.  Peyton can thank you, Mr. Pink, for pointing out the NFL statistician error.

See, Mr. Pink, using your “fact” of WTC7 being “300 yards” away from the WTC1, one can measure that distance on a map, then superimpose the ruler on the nearest available high school or college football field.  Note that the ruler, if placed on one goal line, will reach just a touch beyond the opposing goalpost.  Previously we all just accepted that such a distance was about 110 yards, or 340 feet, but since it is the exact same distance as between the North Tower and WTC7, we now know it to be “300 yards”.  (And one of those engines from the plane---whoops, hologram--- that hit WTC2 flew an amazing 4500’ up to Church and Murray, instead of the 1475’ feet to that intersection as previously reported...all after passing through the internal structure of WTC2.  Talk about momentum!)

Once you get done with Roger Goodell of the NFL, your next email should go to Major League Baseball (some of Barry Bonds’ homers must have traveled more than 1500 feet, but then again he was using performance enhancing substances).  Roberto Clemente once threw out a baserunner at home from more than 900 feet away, which is awesome and should add to the great man’s already mythic status.

Oh, and call Usain Bolt and tell him he’s a slacker, since Gayle Sayers once ran a kick-off back in ten seconds, which means he covered a hundred meters in just over three seconds.  Wait!  First I better go measure the tracks in London and Beijing.  Maybe Bolt was actually running the 300 meter?  And let’s not even think about Roger Bannister’s real mile time.  Whoa!

GW will be back again with another 911 article in the not too distant future.  He can’t help himself, and DavidPierre insists on periodic litmus tests.  Hopefully you will be ready at that time to WOW us with adjusted figures for all our beloved sporting records.

In the meantime, I’ve got to go off to be fitted for some new dress slacks, as I suddenly realize I’m well over 19 feet tall with an inseam close to 110 inches.  I hope Brioni has that size.

As for yourself, you might want to call your girlfriend and tell her you really are packing six inches, and she shouldn’t have been making fun of you.  Hey, wait a minute!  So that’s why you insist on “300 yards”!  Now it all makes sense.

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 09:47 | 4439163 Infinite QE
Infinite QE's picture

Ah, it took some time for the PTB to find ole Fullofchindit and wake him up from his drunken stupor and post his particular form of disinformation.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 12:34 | 4439454 chindit13
chindit13's picture

You do your side no favor when you refer to absolute facts as "disinformation".  Then again, it is not important for you to be right, what's important is your anger and delusion, because that masks the reality of your meaningless existence.  To salvage your useless soul, perhaps you would like to corroborate Mr. Pink's claim of "300 yards"?  Or not.

As much as I dislike Lloyd and Jamie and everything they have done, when the opposing side is filled with the likes of you, the moral and character differences escape me, and I am left to say "a pox on both your houses".

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 16:32 | 4439982 Infinite QE
Infinite QE's picture

Keep it up there ole FullofChindit. This topic must be hot on the list of the PTB for them to keep dreging the canal of disinfo specialists such as yourself.

You yourself are the pox which you speak of. Those of us who pursue truth are the opposite of such. And you are losing the war so keep living in your delusional soup of self-importance because your time is running short. You wear your arrogance and ignorance as some sort of badge of honor. The reason which naturally escapes those awake enough to see it.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 16:59 | 4440238 moneybots
moneybots's picture

"Keep it up there ole FullofChindit. This topic must be hot on the list of the PTB for them to keep dreging the canal of disinfo specialists such as yourself."

 

I don't see you presenting any evidence that refutes what he said.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 17:39 | 4440341 Infinite QE
Infinite QE's picture

I've posted links on this thread  to the most accurate sources of material on the topic.

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 01:06 | 4441417 chindit13
chindit13's picture

I would love to see your "link" that proves Mr. Pink's '300 yards', since that is what my post addressed and seems to have gotten you all aflutter.  I guess you have a thing or two to teach NY's civil engineers, yes?

When delusion becomes your truth, can the Dark Ages be far behind?

Regarding 911, there is one, and only one, issue about which experts and rational people might disagree, and that is whether or not the fire resulting from aircraft impact and impact from the collapsing WTC1 could have resulted in the three buildings coming down.

All the rest of the "proof" that has arisen regarding 911---from "irregular trading" to NORAD to the BBC to "pull it" to interceptor scramble to missile at the Pentagon---is absolute and utter nonsense, and those who champion any or all of those engage in a game of Whack-a-Mole, where when each point is refuted, proponents merely recycle them all over again.  Bringing up those things does a disservice to those whose expertise leads them to take exception to the fire-as-sole-source-of-collapse conclusion.

GW is always posting his 37 rules of dis-info agents or some such drivel, yet what is abundantly clear in this thread and almost all threads on any topic on Zerohedge, is that anyone who disagrees with the prevailing groupthink in the echo chamber, er, comments section, is immediately labelled a "paid agent".  Apparently there is no room for anyone to have an independent opinion, and if something is linked to the Streaming Lame Media (aka the Internet Charlatans), it is taken as gospel.

For me, ZH---at least until recently---is an informative site often carrying well-researched articles that stick those who need sticking and that keep important issues in the public view.  The comments section is something else entirely.  For the vast majority of ZH readers, who never comment, the comments are viewed as entertainment and as the Support Group for the more addled members of society.  Keeps them off the street, so in a sense it is a public service.  While the migration of the lunatic fringe has done some harm to Zerohedge's credibility, it has helped upped the click count, as each refresh to check for responses is recorded as a "read".  All of that has helped raise the site's revenue, and has increased the financial value up toward a million and a half dollars.  Kudos Tyler.

Though I don't visit as much as I did when the focus was more markets and less meat-tossing to the forelorn, I still like to throw in the occasional note, practice my English, and have some fun.  I don't take it seriously.  I see that many of you do, and actually think you might make a difference.  That is kind of silly; you are just screaming in the dark.  Nobody really cares.  I guess your family and friends don't listen anymore?

Anyone who has had a chance to approach the apex (non value judgment, just a term) of wealth or power knows a few things that most of you who get so riled here just cannot accept:

Nobody is in charge.  Nobody is anywhere near as competent as "they" would have to be to do even a tenth of the things for which you credit them.  I always get a chuckle when folks here bring up the Rockefellers, Rothschilds or Henry Kissinger.  The first R family has a widely spread and now relatively small fortune, the second R is also widely spread and many of its members are trying to earn a living.  As for Henry K, he has access but no influence.  He has access only because he's a photo-op, because everyone wants a pic standing (or sitting, since he's down to about 5 feet tall now) before he passes.  Nobody cares what he thinks about anything anymore.  All the organizations you fear so much---like Bilderbergers, Bohemian Grove, etc.---are social clubs of the self-important.  That's it.  They get together to show off and compare toys.  Their core philosophy is schadenfreude.  Their greatest fear is the guy next to them "getting more".  They spend their time trying to stay at the top, but all eventually get knocked off by the hungry newcomer.  They are so busy trying to push their peers aside that they forget you exist.  They don't have a "plan", and they are much more reactionary than proactive.  You and your ilk make an absolute waste of your brief existence directing your time, emotions, fears and anger toward them for all the wrong reasons---and when you do that you miss the very things that "they" actually can do, and which do cost you (such as public bailouts).

That ain't "disinfo";  it is not even opinion.  It is fact, but I can't "link" to it.

Have a joyful day.

 

Sun, 02/16/2014 - 16:02 | 4442631 Infinite QE
Infinite QE's picture

Yawn. Same pointless misdirections that you are well noted for. The gig is up and more and more people are awakening. You should ask your handlers for a firmware upgrade as your points are dated at this point.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 21:32 | 4438408 Johnny Cocknballs
Johnny Cocknballs's picture

some of you may have seen this, but this is just about the best 5 minute debunking f the "official version" I'm aware of.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/debunked-the-official-conspiracy-theory-of-...

 

How can anyone not have serious doubts about the official conspiracy theory>?

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!