The Prof/Engineer list that truthers always talk about.

Twenty2AcaciaAve

New Member
Any time I get in a debate/arguement with a 9/11 truther they will usually bring up a list of thousands of engineers/professors. But, of course, surprise surprise, they can never actually show proof that such a list exists. Has there actually been a list with verification that the people are who/what they say they are? Somehow I doubt it.
 

jvnk08

Senior Member.
The list does indeed exist. But it's worth keeping in mind that there arere probably hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people in architectural/engineering positions out there. 1700 are not by any means a representative majority. One could probably argue there are thousands of medical professionals who endorse homeopathy...
 

Grieves

Senior Member

jvnk08

Senior Member.
There's also these folks, http://www.mo911truth.org/
these folks, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html
and these folks, http://demolitionexpertsquestion911.blogspot.ca/ , some of which can be found on the previous list.
Also many, many, many more. Rather large number of pertinent professionals seem highly suspicious of the events/investigation. What do they know though, right?
Number of active duty officers in the US military as of 2011: 247,834
Number of officers who have signed the petition: 320
Most recent signature: April 2010(the last dozen or so signatures seem to be on this date)
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Military/Military-Careers.htm

Number of active pilots in the US: est. 617,128
Number of pilots who signed the petition: 109
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_certification_in_the_United_States#Number_of_active_pilots

Demolition experts page is just regurgitating content from A&E, also note the only post was from 2008.

Grieves said:
A thorough investigation of the physical evidence clearly proves that... oh, right... there wasn't one.
This guy seems to have covered everything in excruciating detail: http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
 

Grieves

Senior Member
lol, seriously? The Debunking9/11 guy has conducted a thorough examination of the physical evidence, has he...? Woof. You, sir, are kidding yourself.
 

jvnk08

Senior Member.
lol, seriously? The Debunking9/11 guy has conducted a thorough examination of the physical evidence, has he...? Woof. You, sir, are kidding yourself.
Yes, let's move on from the fallacy that there are "numerous people in pertinent professions skeptical of the events/investigation"(the investigation which never happened)....

....why don't you have a look for yourself before saying silly things like that? I assume you simply glanced at the URL and formulated that conclusion. He covers all the popular theories exhaustively. Please point out for me where there is a lack of thorough examination of the physical evidence?
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Dude, no thorough examination of the physical evidence was ever conducted. Not by NIST, not by anyone. This is openly acknowledged in all of the NIST reports. No plane reconstructions (standard practice for any plane-crash, including terrorist actions) was ever conducted in the case of any of the four planes to have crashed that day. No in-depth analysis of the steel to have failed in each of the WTC towers was conducted either, also standard practice in structural collapses. In fact, a massive convoy of dump-trucks was on its way to start hauling the debris off to landfills mere moments after the collapse of WTC 7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTo3sjXtL8g
There's no question that a clean-up was absolutely necessary, but no consideration for the evidence was given whatsoever, heavy machinery being used to clear away tons upon tons of structural steel before most investigators had even made it on-site. NO thorough investigation of the physical evidence ever took place, nor was claimed to have taken place by any of the investigative bodies, in spite of the protests of members of those very investigative bodies. There was an investigation, but it consisted primarily of supposition and speculation, as openly admitted by NIST and other organizations, and failed outright to address many vital issues, such as tracing the terrorist's funding back to its source or investigating the 'insider trading' which clearly took place. The physical evidence was overlooked on the pretense of being unimportant.

I'm no stranger to Debunking9/11, and never once have I seen any claim on that site that it's investigated physical evidence. So I ask you: What are you talking about?
 

Clock

Senior Member.
In fact, a massive convoy of dump-trucks was on its way to start hauling the debris off to landfills mere moments after the collapse of WTC 7
Grieves, what are you implying? That is is proof of a controlled demolition?

It was probably just the fire fighters who called to get the trucks. They had known ahead of time that the building was going collapse. (as bad as that sounds) And they were clearing people away from the area before it collapsed.
 

jvnk08

Senior Member.
Grieves said:
In fact, a massive convoy of dump-trucks was on its way to start hauling the debris off to landfills mere moments after the collapse of WTC 7
And what exactly does that imply to you? As Clock pointed out, the FDNY were aware hours earlier of an impending collapse.

Grieves said:
The physical evidence was overlooked on the pretense of being unimportant.


By 'physical evidence', I assume you are talking about the rubble? Also, please define for me what this investigation would consist of.

Supposing that it was actually a terrorist attack, and two planes slammed into the buildings and were the sole cause of the collapse, would that warrant investigation(pending definition) of the 'physical evidence' in this case?
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
No plane reconstructions (standard practice for any plane-crash, including terrorist actions)

Can you point me to one of those?
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
If you go to the NTSB website it is very clear that the NTSB only investigates "accidents" with a view to making safety recommendations to avoid further accidents. The aircraft of 9/11 were not involved in accidents, no matter who you believe was involved.

From the NTSB website: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/process.html

Investigations Involving Criminal Activity

In cases of suspected criminal activity, other agencies may participate in the investigation. The Safety Board does not investigate criminal activity; in the past, once it has been established that a transportation tragedy is, in fact, a criminal act, the FBI becomes the lead federal investigative body, with the NTSB providing any requested support.

and,


More recently, on September 11, 2001, the crashes of all four airliners were obviously the result of criminal actions and the Justice Department assumed control of the investigations. The NTSB provided requested technical support.
The NTSB finds out what happened and why a plane crashed. There was no need for an investigation of those points by the NTSB.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
It's simply clear and irrefutable evidence that mere moments after the event had come to a 'close' it was being treated as a clean-up and not a crime scene, which it unquestionably was. And yes, I'm referring to the rubble. I know what's going to come next, 'How could they possibly search through all that steel, it would cost so much money, why would they bother, ect. ect. ect.' So throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at wholly unjustifiable foreign wars in a decade-long campaign is a better use of American resources than thoroughly investigating the horrible crime which was their impetus? I've quoted many times Astaneh-Asl, a proponent and from what I can tell one of the lead composers of the official account in the case of the towers, a structural engineer who's worked on many collapses, saying that there should have been an attempt to lay out the steel in a 'reconstruction', whatever the cost, (he estimated 100/200 million) to understand the root causes of this unprecedented triple-collapse. I'm saying the investigation was shoddily handled in so very many respects that, whether or not it inspires suspicion, it should inspire outrage and a demand for explanation/full disclosure.

That it doesn't, and the media claims it absolutely shouldn't, coupled with the highly and obviously unlikely series of events, makes me strongly suspicious of the official account. That there's a whole host of incredible coincidences surrounding the events and the people involved certainly doesn't help either. I wholly admit my suspicion that bombs or explosives of some sort were involved is based almost entirely around the appearance of the collapses, coupled with the obviously strange 'hot-spots' and reports of 'molten steel/girders' which, after a few weeks, stopped being strange (though remained unexplained) in the case of the hotspots, and ceased to exist (though remained heavily reported) in the case of the steel.

The obvious and concerted effort to 'put it all behind' the American people so far as what happened was concerned, while at the same time eagerly and preemptively moving on to the vengeance was clearly folly, I haven't heard anyone here yet truly deny that. Considering the effect it's had, who it profits and who it hurts both in America and abroad, is it so ludicrous to think the attack was more complex in its motivation and insidious in its execution than what's been portrayed as 'the whole story'?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's simply clear and irrefutable evidence that mere moments after the event had come to a 'close' it was being treated as a clean-up and not a crime scene, which it unquestionably was.
No, it was initially treated as a search and rescue. As in any building collapse the focus was on finding people buried under the rubble, which would obviously involve moving it. Those trucks were NYCHA trucks.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/downloads/pdf/j01octe.pdf

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/downloads/pdf/j02apre.pdf

 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No, it was initially treated as a search and rescue. As in any building collapse the focus was on finding people buried under the rubble, which would obviously involve moving it. Those trucks were NYCHA trucks.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/downloads/pdf/j01octe.pdf

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/downloads/pdf/j02apre.pdf

So one cannot reconstruct the steel because the Housing Authority performed a heroic act?? I don't get the connection?
 

Grieves

Senior Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjyQk941tXQ
In this video, you can hear Rudy Giuliani, on the morning of 9/12, speaking about how over a hundred-and-twenty were moved 'out of the city last night, which would give you a sense of the work that was done overnight, so some of the debris has already been removed.'
Undoubtedly rescue efforts were taking place, but were regrettably but evidently futile very early on. 120 dump-truck loads of debris in a single night isn't the product of the hand-and-bucket rescue efforts, its a product of the larger-scale clean-up effort. I wouldn't have a problem with this if they were taking the evidence to an examination site and not a scrap yard.
I'm not insinuating anything about the drivers of these trucks. I'm saying they were there to take evidence from a crime scene away for -disposal-, rather than documentation, hardly hours after the crime had taken place, and that this decision was foolish and terribly short-sighted, if not indicative of concealment.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
120 dump-truck loads of debris in a single night isn't the product of the hand-and-bucket rescue efforts,
No it isn't the product of "hand-and-bucket rescue efforts". It is the product of an enormous city that owns its own fleet of dump trucks clearing the streets as quickly as possible since debris filled streets are dangerous and an impediment to further cleanup, rescue, and recovery and attempts at recovery went on for quite some time after the collapse.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No it isn't the product of "hand-and-bucket rescue efforts". It is the product of an enormous city that owns its own fleet of dump trucks clearing the streets as quickly as possible since debris filled streets are dangerous and an impediment to further cleanup, rescue, and recovery and attempts at recovery went on for quite some time after the collapse.
So one cannot reconstruct the steel because NYC has enormous resources and has capable and motivated employees?? I don't get the connection?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So one cannot reconstruct the steel because the Housing Authority performed a heroic act?? I don't get the connection?
Er, no. I was just explaining why those trucks were there. It took months to move all the debris. You can't reconstruct the steel because it was mostly sold for scrap. There's still quite a bit of it in the WTC Artifacts Program though.
http://www.lohud.com/article/201109...teel-Debris-from-WTC-given-displays-worldwide


Most of that is going to end up as memorials around the world:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/pieces-of-world-trade-center-going-fast-as-cities-/nL9sh/
 
Last edited:

Grieves

Senior Member
Yes, Astaneh-Asl was allowed to examine an extremely limited amount of the structural steel. In those examinations he claims to have found evidence of molten steel, something largely denied by NIST. Note the word 'thorough'. He complained publicly about the lack of an adequate investigation.

You can't reconstruct the steel because it was mostly sold for scrap.
This being the major problem.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Is this thorough enough for you?

WTC Crime Scene
From Report From Ground Zero. Smith, Dennis. New York: Penguin, 2002 (p. 201)

 

SR1419

Senior Member.
In those examinations he claims to have found evidence of molten steel, something largely denied by NIST.
Sorry- that is false.

They do not deny it was a possibility. They addressed it straight on. They said they found no evidence of melting steel prior to collapse but that it WAS a possibility- "concievable"- after collapse


http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi..._wtctowers.cfm
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I wouldn't have a problem with this if they were taking the evidence to an examination site and not a scrap yard.
I'm pretty sure that everyone involved with the decisions that resulted in where the debris went were under the impression that planes flew into the buildings, which then caught fire, which was why they collapsed. They did not suspect deliberate demolition, as there was no reason to. So there was no justification for a meticulous examination of every bit of debris looking for bomb residue.

However it WAS moved to an examination site.

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/recovery/freshkills.html

 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Is this thorough enough for you?

WTC Crime Scene
From Report From Ground Zero. Smith, Dennis. New York: Penguin, 2002 (p. 201)

Still no attempt at reconstruction . . . bravo for their efforts to ID people and any evidence of the crashes . . .
 

Grieves

Senior Member
The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.
So NIST concludes evidence one of their leading engineers states as being important is irrelevant and inevitably inconclusive, with no explanation as to why that is or how this conclusion was reached, then goes on to say that the presence of molten steel was conceivable under certain circumstances (with no mention of what these circumstances might be), and that it's MORE LIKELY (which is far from certain) due to combustion within the pile than pre-collapse fires or explosions. Sobecause it's within the realm of conception that steel melt in a pile of rubble, and that scenario is 'more likely' than explosives, investigation of the obvious anomaly is completely unnecessary? What a fine display of investigative rigor.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
In crime investigations the obvious can be misleading and should never be used as an excuse not to be thorough . . . the question remains . . .were they thorough enough for an investigation of the biggest crime of the entire modern era???

 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Astaneh-Asl...complained publicly about the lack of an adequate investigation.
..and yet when pestered by a "truther" (Christofer Bollyn)- this was his response:

http://hercolano2.blogspot.com/2011_08_07_archive.html
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/ten-years-after-the-fbi-since-9-11/response-and-recovery

Seems like a lot of investigation to me. Of course the focus was on recovering remains and identifying victims. But if there was some evidence of controlled demolition in the debris, it had to get past those 1,000 FBI agents sifting through it for a year.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
They did not suspect deliberate demolition, as there was no reason to. So there was no justification for a meticulous examination of every bit of debris looking for bomb residue.
They don't have to suspect the involvement of explosives to understand that a meticulous investigation of how three steel structures suffered total collapses is an essential aspect of understanding how it happened to a relatively precise degree so that solid conclusions can be reached and effective measures taken in the future. That's how investigations of structural collapses work, and why they do them. That's why Astaneh-Asl wanted to conduct one, in spite of having no belief whatsoever in the explosives theory. Because it's necessary for an accurate picture of how structural collapses take place.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
They don't have to suspect the involvement of explosives to understand that a meticulous investigation of how three steel structures suffered total collapses is an essential aspect of understanding how it happened to a relatively precise degree so that solid conclusions can be reached and effective measures taken in the future. That's how investigations of structural collapses work, and why they do them. That's why Astaneh-Asl wanted to conduct one, in spite of having no belief whatsoever in the explosives theory. Because it's necessary for an accurate picture of how structural collapses take place.

He did exactly that.

Thorough review, solid conclusions, recommendations for the future.

Here is Astaneh's report:

http://tinyurl.com/as7mpey
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Nonsense. Or he wouldn't have -directly and publicly stated the investigation was inadequate.- I've read his report thoroughly.
At the time, the City government was not permitting researchers to conduct research at Ground Zero. For some
researchers, entering ground Zero and collection of data from Ground Zero was essential. In my case, being interested
in structural steel, not being able to work at Ground Zero was not a major hinderence.
Here's him expressing dissent with the inadequacy of the investigation in the report itself.
The first part of investigation involved inspection of steel being removed from ground zero. Most of this steel was from
Building 7 of the World Trade Center
. Building 7, a 47-story steel structure, caught fire apparently after being hit by
the falling debris from the towers and was burning for more than seven hours before collapsing in the afternoon of
September 11. Figure 10 shows an example of steel removed from the site of the collapsed Building 7. The inspection
of steel indicated that there was very intense fire inside the building. Fortunately, since this building was evacuated after
the planes have hit the towers, no lives was reported lost in this building. The exact cause of collapse of this structure
has not been established.
According to press reports, this building apparently had a large emergency fuel tank that may
have contributed to intensity of the fire in this building.
Here he directly states that most of the steel he observed was from building 7. He goes on to add that, even after his investigation, the cause of the collapse hasn't been established.
The author, at this writing, believes that a plausible scenario for the collapse of towers is as shown in Figure 12 and may
have
occurred in the following steps. The steps for both towers may have been:
That's the header to his conclusion, which is largely mirrored in much of the future NIST materials. His conclusion is not solid in the slightest, just a plausible scenario, as openly stated.

CBS News now reports, “As a result, Astaneh has almost certainly missed seeing crucial pieces before they were cut up and sent overseas.” Astaneh-Asl complains: “When there is a car accident and two people are killed, you keep the car until the trial is over. If a plane crashes, not only do you keep the plane, but you assemble all the pieces, take it to a hangar, and put it together. That’s only for 200, 300 people, when they die. In this case you had 3,000 people dead.” He says: “My wish was that we had spent whatever it takes, maybe $50 million, $100 million, and maybe two years, get all this steel, carry it to a lot. Instead of recycling it, put it horizontally, and assemble it. You have maybe 200 engineers, not just myself running around trying to figure out what’s going on. After all, this is a crime scene and you have to figure out exactly what happened for this crime, and learn from it.”
His complaint about his own investigation, which you describe as containing a 'thorough review' and 'solid conclusions'. Seems the guy himself disagrees.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here he directly states that most of the steel he observed was from building 7. He goes on to add that, even after his investigation, the cause of the collapse hasn't been established.
You are quoting from his 2005 report. The final WTC7 report was released in 2008. The cause of the collapse HAS been established.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
you describe as containing a 'thorough review' and 'solid conclusions'.Seems the guy himself disagrees.
Nonsense.

Shall we read his words again??


I think he is satisfied.


Why do you highlight this "entering ground Zero and collection of data from Ground Zero was essential.

and yet ignore the very next sentence??

"In my case, being interested in structural steel, not being able to work at Ground Zero was not a major hinderence. "
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Why do you highlight this "entering ground Zero and collection of data from Ground Zero was essential.

and yet ignore the very next sentence??

"In my case, being interested in structural steel, not being able to work at Ground Zero was not a major hinderence. "
I didn't ignore it. I very specifically included it to demonstrate I'm not implying anything about Astaneh-Asl he hasn't said himself. It's true that being prevented from entering Ground Zero didn't hinder his investigation. Cutting down and shipping massive amounts of the structural steel off to China for scrap quite clearly did. He says so. I never claimed he believed in the conspiracy theories. I simply pointed out that HE HIMSELF HAS DIRECTLY STATED HIS OWN INVESTIGATION WAS INADEQUATE. You're pretty insistently dancing around that fact. Never once have I claimed the guy believes explosives were used, or that there was a source of the collapses beyond the fire. I'm not citing him as a proponent of the conspiracy theories. Your quotes and references rebuke points I never made.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I didn't ignore it. I very specifically included it to demonstrate I'm not implying anything about Astaneh-Asl he hasn't said himself. It's true that being prevented from entering Ground Zero didn't hinder his investigation. Cutting down and shipping massive amounts of the structural steel off to China for scrap quite clearly did. He says so. I never claimed he believed in the conspiracy theories. I simply pointed out that HE HIMSELF HAS DIRECTLY STATED HIS OWN INVESTIGATION WAS INADEQUATE. You're pretty insistently dancing around that fact. Never once have I claimed the guy believes explosives were used, or that there was a source of the collapses beyond the fire. I'm not citing him as a proponent of the conspiracy theories. Your quotes and references rebuke points I never made.
I think your angle generally, G, is absolutely spot on. But it might be worth considering that Astaneh-Asl isn't a reliable witness. And the fact is, the counter argument doesn't need his approval, either way.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Nonsense. Or he wouldn't have -directly and publicly stated the investigation was inadequate.- I've read his report thoroughly.
In what way does that extract indicate his report is inadequate??

Here's him expressing dissent with the inadequacy of the investigation in the report itself.
Looks to me like he is pointing out that there were limitations on the data able to be gathered, and therefore limitations and caveats on the conclusions. That is evidence of clear thinking and understanding the limitations - not of a conspiracy.

But that is always the case in every investigation - there is ALWAYS more that could be done. If the steel was taken to a "lot" and "reassembled" by "200 engineers" then you could have added concrete floors to the reconstruction and used 500 engineers....

In fact your objection is a perfect illustration of this!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SR1419

Senior Member.
I didn't ignore it. I very specifically included it to demonstrate I'm not implying anything about Astaneh-Asl he hasn't said himself. It's true that being prevented from entering Ground Zero didn't hinder his investigation. Cutting down and shipping massive amounts of the structural steel off to China for scrap quite clearly did. He says so. I never claimed he believed in the conspiracy theories. I simply pointed out that HE HIMSELF HAS DIRECTLY STATED HIS OWN INVESTIGATION WAS INADEQUATE. You're pretty insistently dancing around that fact. Never once have I claimed the guy believes explosives were used, or that there was a source of the collapses beyond the fire. I'm not citing him as a proponent of the conspiracy theories. Your quotes and references rebuke points I never made.
I will grant you that he would have preferred access to all the steel in question.

However, you stating that his conclusion "is not solid in the slightest, just a plausible scenario"- rings hollow. Plausible indicates probable- probable is solid...especially in the slightest.

He appears to believe his conclusions solid:

 
Top