A "Preliminary Rationalization" from the ASCE

[BeFree]

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html


Much touted has been the ASCE report as a conclusion to the damage at the Pentagon. So I finally read it. Here's a few snips:
Quote:

The impact effects may be represented as a violent flow through the structure of a ?fluid? consisting of aviation fuel and solid fragments. The first-story columns in the path of this rushing fluid mass must have lost their shells immediately upon impact. End quote

But reading further: Quote:

There is no question that the progress of the impacting fluid in the structure must have verged on the chaotic. The reasoning in the preceding paragraphs is not presented as a prediction of an orderly process but as a preliminary rationalization of the distribution of severe damage ....

"Preliminary Rationalization". Not a conclusion, just a preliminary rationalization. Really, you'd think by now, three years later, ya'll could come up with something better than a "Preliminary Rationalization"

Also, throughout the ASCE report linked, it is stated numerous times that full access and full studies could not be completed, so one could conjecture that such studies never were and never will be conducted. And ya'll want everyone to just say "Good enough"?

Not good enough for me, and it shouldn't be good enough for anyone, especially the ASCE. Have they no shame?

Of course, the ASCE members do an awful lot of work for the gummint, they wouldn't dare bite the hand that feeds them, now would they?

[BeFree]

1. Here's a pic from that ASCE site:

Note that the nearest facade is not burned in the least, yet flames from the inside leap out the window, just 50 feet from the impact zone.

[AZCat]

2. This is not the Pentagon Report

As the site says, "The Pentagon BPS team?s report--The Pentagon Building Performance Report--is scheduled for release on July 31 and is available from ASCE in book form. This article is an abridged version of the report and does not include discussion of every aspect of the BPS study." I haven't read the actual report, but without knowing whether or not they go into the fluid dynamics more in those pages, I think it is inappropriate to claim the ASCE hasn't done more without reading that first.

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that "And ya'll want everyone to just say 'Good enough'?" regarding the lack of access to areas of the Pentagon after the crash and the rapid removal of debris from the aircraft and structural collapse. Yes, that is a bad thing. This in particular irritates me: "Consequently, the BPS team never had direct access to the structural debris as it existed immediately after the aircraft impact and subsequent fire." I wish there had been an opportunity to examine at length the condition of the Pentagon because it would have been useful in confirming its behavior in the models of the collision. Do I think this was the fault of the ASCE? No. Does it seem there was anything they could do about it? I don't know, but it appears that the investigating team did what they could to collect information.

I don't think your criticism of the ASCE is appropriate. If you want to blame anyone, blame the Bush Administration for preventing access (they are ultimately responsible) not a professional organization that has been around for many years prior to Bush and will be here many more after he is gone.

[RH]

3. N..B. "shoring was in place"

... wherever there was severe structural damage.

It is disingenuous to talk about a rapid demolition without understanding the inference. The shoring was put in place, at some considerable expense, to facilitate search, rescue and the recovery of evidence. Was it not resonable enough for a search for human remains and evidence to precede an architectural review?

A rapid demolition would not have involved any shoring. If the shoring were not in place the building would likely have collapsed, completely reducing the opportunity to examine the damaged columns, and it should also be remembered that a part of the building had already collapsed soon after the impact.

Here is a report especially about the shoring:

http://www.aesvn.org/resources/Pentagon-Shoring.pdf

The Arlington After Action Report also provides a lot of useful, reliable information.

http://www.911investigations.net/IMG/pdf/doc-1004.pdf

Frequent attempts to infer that it all took place in secret with no access are really quite perverse or unfortunately ignorant. Hundreds of people and dozens of diverse organisations were involved with the clear up.

[AZCat]

4. The shoring doesn't bother me

I agree with your assessment - consideration must be given to circumstances, but I still am frustrated that they were unable to examine things in detail. From the article in Civil Engineering Magazine:
However, the team inspections were not comprehensive, and they did not address fire-related material degradation.


I don't claim there was no access or that this was all in secret. I do claim that there was not an opportunity to examine all the evidence. Yes, this wasn't feasible due to the rescue operation, but it doesn't change the fact that there was less information available. Would that extra information make any difference? Only to those who care about the accuracy of building simulations. There is still enough evidence (I think) to confirm that a plane hit the Pentagon.

[RH]

5. That's right.

People from far away who persistently demand a release of evidence need to understand that the people in possession of the evidence are absolutely surrounded by a population with no sort of doubt or question as to what hit the Pentagon. Hundreds of people saw it. They could smell the aviation fuel and the burning flesh and there were then so many things to think about apart from the taking of photos just in case an alien from another Planet may happen to land with an uneducated need to comprehend the peculiar vagaries of this odd old World we live in.

[stickdog]

7. They could smell cordite. (nt)

[MercutioATC]

8. ONE witness mentioned smelling "cordite"

One. Just one.

There's no "they" involved. From the scores of eyewitness accounts recorded, I don't consider the impression of ONE of them that he smelled cordite to be sufficient evidence of the existance of cordite, especially when none of the other witnesses smelled it.

Do you?

[demodewd]

9. one?

It was so eerily similar to another experience during the Gulf War-a missile strike that killed a marine in my unit-Paul Thompson
For those formerly in the military it sounded like a 2000 pound bomb going off- Terry Morin
A bomb had gone off. I could smell the cordite.I knew explosives had been set off somewhere.- Don Perkal
Most people knew it was a bomb.- John Bowman
It smelled like cordite or gun smoke. -Gilah Goldsmith
I knew it was a bomb or something.- Mike Slater

http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/

[MercutioATC]

11. Ok, TWO mentions of a cordite or gunpowder smell.

(I'd never seen the Goldsmith quote before)

My point is the same.

[demodewd]

12. no valid point

You have no valid point. At least two seasoned vets remarked on the smell of cordite and at least six seasoned vets remarked on the possibility of a bomb. This along with the recorded bright flash,the unexplained nine foot high hole in the A-E drive, and the recorded huge white/yellow blast inferno you have some explaining to do.

[MercutioATC]

17. So your arguement is that six people out of scores said that a

plane crash and the subsequent explosion reminded them of a bomb?

What about the overwhelming majority of witnesses who saw a large commercial plane? What about the fact that NOBODY claimed to have seen a fighter or a missile? What about the positively identified remains at the crash site that showed them to be those of AAL77 passengers?

WHO has some explaining to do?

[demodewd]

46. genericctdewd

I have no doubt that many people saw a large commercial plane.I'm only quoting some of the personel at the Pentagon who experienced the crash within the building itself.

I've never once claimed that it was a missile or a fighter jet. I have stated this to you before. It would be appropriate on your part to try to fully grasp what I believe and respond to me appropriately to what I actually believe. I feel that I'm being used as a generic guy on the other side of the fence.

I brought up the theory of the spray on #175 and then later stated that I was not convinced one way or the other on this footage. Yet you bring it up to me again recently that I still maintain a conviction on this score. I haven't referred to this in months yet you insist upon sticking it on me. What's your game? You want to talk to me... demodewd...fine...You want to continue to treat me like genericctdewd..I'm not interested.

[MercutioATC]

52. You answered my reply to stickdog. I responded in that context.

I'm aware that you are a proponent of a replacement plane theory, not a fighter/missile scenario. I didn't mean to imply that you were. I apologize if it caused any confusion.

[AZCat]

53. Perhaps we should develop a local version of the Geek Code

Would we all be better off if we developed a local version of the Geek Code for use in this forum? There has already been some rudimentary categorization (OCT and CT, for example) so I don't think it would be hard. We could identify the main CTs and copy the Geek Code's method of '+' and '-' symbols to denote support or opposition to those theories, along with the extended list of symbols used to denote other things (! or ? for example). Or is this just an unnecessary tangent that will create more problems than it would solve?

What do you think?

[RH]

54. It is not possible

to be rational about the irrational.

[demodewd]

10. important clues

Important clues often reveal themselves in those "peculiar vagaries".

[BeFree]

24. Excuses, excuses

Ya know, web pages are not static. If the ASCE wants to change the preliminary to, say, "This is our conclusion" it's quite easily done. They haven't changed the page, so one must conclude they are still at a preliminary stage, two, three years later.

As for "not good enough" my comments were directed more towards the summation from the ASCE and the way others here have presented the report as some kind of proof. The proof is in the pudding, and as anyone can see, the pudding is still cooking and not ready for prime time digesting. "Not good enough".

[AZCat]

31. This is an electronic version of a magazine article

Since this is just the electronic version of a magazine article (from the February 2003 issue of Civil Engineering Magazine) the ASCE CANNOT in good faith change the web page, contrary to your claim. It must match the actual article.

I think comments about the ASCE report would be better referenced if we all digested the actual report available from the NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory (warning - pdf) rather than arguing about a magazine article that references the report.

[BeFree]

33. You Think?

Go ahead, digest the PDF and get back to us.

Look forward to your report.

The thing is, the link was placed here, in our forum, as a procalmation of fact. We looked it over, found some flaws, and presented those flaws for discussion. Let's discuss, not just cuss.

-----------------

Good point about the changing of an article. But an editor's note placed along the change on the web page would not be so difficult, now would it?

[AZCat]

35. That would have been a good idea...

It would have been nice if the editors had done such a thing, although they did provide a link for purchasing the hard copy of the report (at the bottom of the article). I don't know when the NIST made the pdf available.

I have a related question about the pdf - I have downloaded it, but I have trouble reading electronic reports and would like to print it out. Unfortunately, it's formatted weird with two pages per page (not all are like this), and the text is very small when I print out a page. Is there any way to get Adobe Acrobat to print it differently? I would appreciate it if anyone can help me.

[RH]

36. An archive is an archive,

valuable for historical reference.

Do you have any proof to show that any fact was wrong? One would expect that if there were any proof that the substantial facts are wrong we'd have heard all about it by now, but I've never yet seen any.

[stickdog]

6. Here's a link you might enjoy.

http://bedoper.com/pentagon/asce/

[k-robjoe]

13. Thanks

There´s a new site up, with two or three pics that I haven´t seen before. Kind of interesting.

The text part looks pretty standard. ( Just had a glance )

http://65.113.119.152/gagaboo/

[Endangered Specie]

15. Wow, this is just amazing...

This single author (who does not have a doctoral degree, and neglects to present his credintials) is trying to refute a report written by a boat load of men and women with Ph'Ds on the subject... using nothing but speculation, pictures, and not a single ioda of math!

"the ASCE should correct this report in order to save their credibility"
-Thats like a rapper telling someone to watch their language.

"While there are an impressive number of PhDs behind the building performance report, some of the logic is rather spotty"


This is FUCKING hilarious, it is about as bad as an uneducated bible-thumping "creationist" trying to debunk evolution, in front of a crowd of biologists!

If you dont have the credentials, the evidence, or, respect for established professional organizations, and especially if you talk cocky and arrogant, and make speculation well beyond your league... it is wise to keep the mouth SHUT.

[stickdog]

16. Yes, always attack the messenger.

How dare anyone point out several obvious flaws in the report!

[Endangered Specie]

22. Thats the problem...

the author has failed to point out any "flaws", and he is an author not a messanger by the way.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Endangered Specie]

21. Debunking...

Smoke trail vs Airliner... first of all, that particular image is rather grainy and of poor quality, there for a high speed object at some distance away is bound to not exactly resemble an airliner. Plenty of eyewitnesses will comfirm what hit the pentagon, there is also a trail of downed telephone polls that will corrabarate this.


Regarding the number of windows missing... The ASCE picture has two missing and two damaged, same as the picture.

The tail probably flew over the Pentagon building... The tail isnt exactly the strongest element of the plane, and it not liable to damage such a large concrete and steel stucture very much. Youll notice that in the WTC buildings, the stuctural elements surrounding the point of impact are relatively intact.

I believe the "AE punch out" was due to the left engine.

Otherwise, the author makes only 3 or 4 claims, based on pictures and little math; he then precedes to condemn the ENRIRE report, most of it is filled with emotional and sarcasmic language and little substance is presented.

The author ingnores the numerous aircraft parts found in the wreckage, as well as the boat load of eyewitnesses.

[k-robjoe]

23. Questions

> " The tail probably flew over the Pentagon building... " Never to be seen again?

> " I believe the "AE punch out" was due to the left engine." Ditto?


A couple of weeks back, I posted this :

" It is interesting to compare the picture in the original message ( WTC2 - the fireball coming out of the "impact hole" ) with the surveillance camera pictures from the Pentagon crash.
What we see in the Pentagon picture must be exploding UPON impact. ( And not after it has punched through the wall. )
Notice how the fireball in the Pentagon pics is "stretched" over the roof. If it had exploded inside, it would look more like the "dust-ball" coming out of the impacthole in the WTC2 pic.

In the WTC2 crash the plane punched through the wall, and then there was kind of a tiny "suspencion" - just enough time to think ; "What?" - and then "Boom!"."

The replies sounded like this :
_________________________________________

"The fireball "stretched" over the roof the same as the smoke streched over the roof, because that was the way the wind blew."

and

"Plus a plane travelling create a bit of wind in its wake."
____________________________________

But what about the large pice of debris that is seen thrown over the roof in the pic below. Was it thrown out of the hole, and then caught by the wind and blown over the roof?

[Endangered Specie]

37. Those pieces of debris...

could easily be the tail... I doubt it would be in one piece.


Even if the tail didnt fly over, it probably collapsed and folded just like the wings did.

I suspect the plane in this picture is probably a good ways inside the pentagon, and the fireball is blowing out of the hole, then wind is blowing said fire ball in the other direction.

[k-robjoe]

41. One thing about the tail

that is worth knowing about, is the third pic on this site : http://www.911-strike.com/missing-confetti.htm

( This is when hitting a surface that does not give way at all. )

Seems to me like the tail would have hit the windows, so the folding is not for me.

[Endangered Specie]

43. About that site...

first, Id like to see the process by which the plane is put to scale with the pentagon, you know, some numbers, and even if it is right, It looks fine to me, The wings areny necessarily going to fold all the way, but they arent going to stay rigid throughout the process of colliding with the pentagon wall. Besides, there is SOME damage along the area where the wings would have hit, its obviosuly not as extensive as the damage to the center around the engines and fuelsalage. The wings would have folded as well as disentegrated to a degree upon and during impact.

Comparing a 757 to an f4 is a little iffy in my book, they have completely different designs. Also, WHAT and how the two impacted are different (a speed difference of 150mph). (the f4 did not go through the concrete wall, the wings probably did not fold for that reason, whereas the 757 DID go through pentagon some distance. And who is to say the wings of the f4 DIDNT fold? I cant tell either way from those pictures, they probably disentegrated.

Interestingly enough, the source of that test indicated that: "The test established that the major impact force was from the engines" (http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm)... That picture on the website indicates the extent of damage horizontally is a bit larger than the distance between the engines of a 757 hitting at that angle.

[Endangered Specie]

14. You are quite out of your league questioning the ASCE...

For one, you are implying that report is three years old, when in fact, it was released on 2003, February... that is 1 year, 5 months.

[BeFree]

25. Out of my league?

Why yes, I should be a good citizen and just roll over and play dead when the "Authorities" proclaim something. I should blindly accept, and never question, eh?

Bub, I got news for you... this is America. It is not yet a dictatorship where citizens are forbidden from questioning authority. But it seems like you will be quite happy if it gets that way. Thanks for your support.

[LARED]

28. There is a vast difference between

a pupil asking questions and the pupil calling out the professor and calling him a liar.

I think a PhD in a hard science provides the authority to proclaim something of a scientific nature. They earned it. So unless you have some actually reasons to question the authority - something based on facts, perhaps you should just try and learn something.

[BeFree]

29. Hello Lared

You say I should not call the 'Professor' a liar.

Ok.

But all I have done, really, is use the 'Professor's' own words. It is up to you to decide the veracity and true meaning of those words ""Preliminary Rationalization"".

What I am doing is questioning the "Professor's" basis for his report. Not just blindly following. It's what free people do.

[LARED]

30. Ok

Dut your really need to get an understanding of what is meant by "preliminary rationalization" in the context of the paper.

You are way off base.

Also wasn't you that implies that the ASCE would not bite the hands that feed them.

[BeFree]

32. Off base?

Prove it. Prove that my questioning of the phrase "preliminary rationalizations" is off base. At the very least proffer your own explanation of the term.

Ya know, ya'll are seemingly nothing more than a bunch of censors proclaiming we shouldn't question authority, or otherwise have an open mind. That we should just follow.

Do you really hate our freedoms?

[RH]

34. That's only further even further off base,

it is perverse, and an insult to the proprietors of the forum.

You censor yourself, by posting under a psuedonym.

[Endangered Specie]

39. I think you missed what I was saying...

You, are attacking, a professional, reputable organization and a report writen by people who have spent their entire lives studying this field.

You need to learn your place... what you are doing is the equivalent of me calling my professor a liar and a traitor, about to threaten his reputation, based on a couple words he said in class that I took the wrong way and never attacking the meat of what he said (the lecture material)... just to give an analogy.

The worst part is you are attacking a diction of a couple sentences in a 60page report, and you havent even touched the IMPORTANT elements of that report (the models, the math, the engineering).... of course, I sincerely doubt you read or understood any of THOSE parts, and instead, went hunting for a phrase or sound bite that you could distort and therby damn the whole thing... which is exactly what you did.

[LARED]

18. Quick question

Did you read the report? Do you understand what is meant by the concept of "a preliminary rationalization" of something?

It is a preliminary rationalization OF the distribution of severe damage to the spirally reinforced column cores immediately after impact.

If goes on the immediate state;

The important conclusion is that the observed distribution of failed columns does not contradict simple estimates made on the basis of elementary mechanics. The point of doing the numerical simulations

Do you expect a rigorously determined numerical solution for the distribution of the damage to the columns due to a jumbo jet crashing into the Pentagon? Even if it is possible, why bother?

[BeFree]

76. Why bother?

That's funny..."Even if it's possible, why bother?

Gee, seems like all science is based on: "Is it possible? Let's check it out."

Only the OCT folks say "Why bother? Proper science be damned. 'Preliminary Rationalizations' are good enough for us!"

Incredible!

[LARED]

77. It's a serious question

Why is it worth it to perform

a rigorously determined numerical solution for the distribution of the damage to the columns due to a jumbo jet crashing into the Pentagon?

I can't think of a good reason to tie up resources doing that. What purpose would it serve?

[Endangered Specie]

20. Funny, right after your quote, they mention conclusions...

"The important conclusion is that the observed distribution of failed columns does not contradict simple estimates made on the basis of elementary mechanics. The same reasoning would suggest that had the columns in the affected region been tied columns, all would have been destroyed, leading to immediate collapse of a large portion of the building."

-What they are trying (from what I read) to say is that numerically and mathmatically modeling such a chaotic event is next to impossible, and that simpler models than what happened have to be used, since the simpler models result in similiar results as to what happened, they are reasonably valid.

[BeFree]

26. No, no, no

What they are trying to say is this:

Since we can't find any pieces of the plane, we had to come up with a 'rationalization' to explain how the massive damage occured. And, since we realized that objections may be aired to our fantasy, we will put in the word 'preliminary' to cover our asses. Oh, BTW, since we copied the official explanation without questioning it's validity, we feel confident that our rationalization of an otherwise unexplainable event will go in under the radar.

[LARED]

27. I hope you're kidding

Since we can't find any pieces of the plane, we had to come up with a 'rationalization' to explain how the massive damage occured. And, since we realized that objections may be aired to our fantasy, we will put in the word 'preliminary' to cover our asses. Oh, BTW, since we copied the official explanation without questioning it's validity, we feel confident that our rationalization of an otherwise unexplainable event will go in under the radar.


That is not even remotely what they are trying to say. Did you read the report, or do you not understand what the report says?

Based on your response, it can only be one of those two.

[Endangered Specie]

38. Oh brother...

Do you know anything about engineering, science or math? Just curious.

Pieces of the plane WERE found, DNA from people on the plane WERE found, eyewitnesses say it was a plane, and most importantly, the computer models and data fit what happened, and you people havent offered ANY credible evidence as to what ''really'' hit.

What else do you need... a sledgehammer to the head?
Do you know anything about engineering, science or math? Just curious.

[BeFree]

40. One thing

Just tell me what it means, this "Preliminary Rationalization"

Then read the 60 page report and tell me if they changed the wording about this "Fluid that destroys concrete". I know fluid can destroy concrete, I just don't see the pentagon example being explained anywhere. All I see is a "PR".

[RH]

42. "Preliminary"

1. something that serves as a preceding event or introduces what follows; "training is a necessary preliminary to employment"; "drinks were the overture to dinner"
2. a minor match preceding the main event
3. designed to orient or acquaint with a situation before proceeding; "a preliminary investigation"

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/preliminary

[Endangered Specie]

44. Once again...

Try and go after SOMETHING else in this report besides 2 words.

[BeFree]

45. Just what I figured

You are so shook-up over the failure of your precious report that all you do is blow smoke. Sad that you can't debate. Oh well.

[LARED]

47. Preliminary Rationalization means

simply that the observed damage to the Pentagon columns and the various methods used to quantify the damage to the columns are not contradicting each other in this very preliminary stage of the on-going performance study of the building.

Please explain how you got this out of the statement about a preliminary rationalization;

Since we can't find any pieces of the plane, we had to come up with a 'rationalization' to explain how the massive damage occured. And, since we realized that objections may be aired to our fantasy, we will put in the word 'preliminary' to cover our asses. Oh, BTW, since we copied the official explanation without questioning it's validity, we feel confident that our rationalization of an otherwise unexplainable event will go in under the radar.

Somehow I missed that conclusion in the report.

[BeFree]

48. Finally, thanks Lared

Quote:
...very preliminary stage of the on-going performance study of the building.

Very preliminary... of the building's performance.

Exactly.

Well, I'm waiting. Waiting for the post-preliminary conclusions. I know one of ya'll have it, bring it on!

Also, as you noted, the study was merely a study of the building's reaction to the "fluid concoction", since common wisdom finds that the "flying coke can", in and of itself, could not have caused such extensive damages, hence they had to start a rationalization to support their fluid theory.

How'd you miss that?

[LARED]

49. I think I mentioned this before, but at some point

it would be helpful if you actually read the report.

[gbwarming]

50. 'flluid concoction' is a method of characterizing an unknown load case

BeFree, you're reading way too much into the words used in this report.

It's clear to me as a mechanical engineer that they were searching for a way to represent the load distribution on the columns.

[tngledwebb]

55. Another OCT with special skills! What a convincing coincidence!

The lay skeptics might as well go home, head in hands. Yes, Befree, reading too much into these Official Reports is NOT a good idea. Only Official Conspiracy Theory BS and gobbledygook that supports whatever nonsense the present regime puts out is acceptable.

[LARED]

56. It is no coincidence that another

CT'er chooses to stay willfully ignorant.

For crying out load the ASCE is one of the oldest engineering societies in the in country. Do you really think that hundreds of professional people just supports whatever nonsense the present regime puts out

Get real.

BeFree did not understand what the report was saying. It's no big deal.

[tngledwebb]

57. Another OCT expert without evidence rears his tinfoil hatted head!

Get real too. If you and your friends want to believe virtually everything you read in the Officially approved Government version of 9/11 ( and only you OCT'ers have that special power it seems) it would speed up the process here if you would just all go away and let the poor illiterate non-professionals discuss their delusions among themselves. Notice that few skeptics choose to spend their time following you to your own self-started threads. Btw, what part was it, if any, of the OFFICIAL Conspiracy Theory that you DON'T agree with?

[BeFree]

58. I'd like to see

Sec. Powell said that they were gonna publish a paper on the attack.

The 9/11 Ommissioners whitewashed the whole deal. But who can blame them? The president fought them the whole way, even refusing to testify under oath. No telling what kind of threats they received.

Time and again, the studies that were published report that evidence was destroyed before experts had the time to look it over. And almost all of those reports have some kind of "Preliminary Rationalization."

All we have been given is a half-baked Official Conspiracy Theory, concocted mostly before the event happened, and pushed by anonymous 'experts', and servants of the cons.

Except that there is photographic evidence contradicting the OCT coupled with good common sense telling us that we have been lied too and kept in the dark.

It must be terribly frustrating to believe the OCT. Lets not be too hard on those poor sad souls, eh?

[tngledwebb]

61. Okay Be Free, I'll try,

But I still have trouble understanding their logic, or lack of logic. I have some sympathy for newbies on this because I WAS AN OCT'ER myself, more or less, until I looked deeper.

[BeFree]

63. Good for you, tngledwebb

One thing to consider...

What happened was terribly frightening, especially for those who never once considered that any part of our government would engage in such a dastardly deed.

It has been easier for those of us who are cognizant of the secret black-ops existing in the dark corners of the government to examine the other theories.

Blissful ingnorance comes to mind when considering the OTC believers. Let's give them a bit of credit for at least posting here.

[LARED]

68. Your mercy is appreciated

It is amazing that the guy that can't even understand the ASCE report is giving me credit for having the courage to post here?

Damm, you're funny.

[tngledwebb]

71. You funny.

You see things in reports that aren't there, but like to poke fun at people who CAN read!

[LARED]

73. I see things in reports that aren't there?

Like what for example?

[MercutioATC]

60. A question: Who's report WOULD you believe?

The government needed a study done. They assembled a team of civilian civil engineers who specialized in reinforced concrete structures. The ASCE, one of the oldest and best-respected trade organizations published the report.

Did they use military civil engineers? No.

Did they keep the findings secret? No.

Who's report WOULD you believe?

[tngledwebb]

62. You can buy official experts cheap, and anywhere.

The Pentagon black budget could buy several universities worth and have enough left over for a third world country or two. And/or ensure their investigative remit is very narrow. But help us out here, all us uneducated amateurs who don't know who to read ASCEese like you and LA Red, please quote ANY definitive conclusion that proves your OCT.

[LARED]

66. How about you providing an iota of evidence that the ASCE

was bought off?

[BeFree]

75. Evidence? Ya want evidence?

Sorry, all we can offer is a "Rationalization", but at least it's not preliminary. Hahaha

What we've done is rationalize what a 'load' forced against the 'columns' supporting the ASCE would have done to the structure.

Something hit the ASCE and made it collapse into "Preliminary Rationalizations", and so far, no one has gone beyond the preliminary, except us.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

74. Again, I ask. Who WOULD you believe???

Since the Pentagon is a Federal building, the government would be the only entity that could grant access. Does that mean that ANYBODY they hired to do the job is "bought"?


Is there any study that you'd believe?

[LARED]

64. Without evidence?

Do you really beleive that?

[tngledwebb]

67. Lessen some one else got some.

Yep, I do.

[LARED]

69. So?

The ASCE report,
The eye witness accounts,
The newspaper and magazine articles,
The 9/11 commission report,
The photographs,
The sound recordings,
The video images,
The death records,
Etc

Are NOT evidence? Huh? Duh?

It all part of a black ops program run by the government?

[tngledwebb]

70. Yes huh duh. This is your problem, La red

not mine, I've seen nothing that proves the official story in ANY of those sources, especially the 9/11 Omission, photographs, and so-called eyewitness reports. Maybe you have read too much into them, or maybe your powers of analysis have failed you, but either way these sources DISPROVE your OCT. And no-one knows who is behind it all but truth will out, one day.

[LARED]

72. Actually the problem is not mine

Reality is still reality and facts are facts. You certainly can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

Your are entitled to believe the evidence in no way proves anything. But once you say that evidence disproves the so called OCT, you are then elevating the evidence as a basis to establish this.

You can't have it both ways. Saying the evidence is useless, tampered, forged, for my position, but then using to it to say it disproves the OCT is not logical. Again the facts are the facts.

BTW Exactly how does the evidence disprove the OCT in your world?

[impe]

65. Amen

All these pedigree's being tossed around here and not one can explain the incinerated plane, while 2 cars
sitting in harms way looking kind of good. I heard Jeeps were good but didn't know just how good. Also,
how did the plane decend in such an obtuse angle to skippity do da over those 2 cars. You don't need an
engineering degree to understand that picture, you need a good pair of eyes.

Besides, wasn't it some of the members of this group that said the WTC's could withstand a direct hit. Let's talk credibility.

[RH]

81. The two cars

were not actually in the way.

[WoodrowFan]

51. a sledgehammer to the head?

you know, I'd PAY to see that. :evilgrin:

[BeFree]

59. Sad, really sad

Instead of a debate, the true believers now resort to dark wishs of seeing bodily injury inflicted upon those who dare question authority.

Why do you hate our freedoms, Woodrow?

[RH]

82. What good is it?

Your questioning of authority?

What does it give?

Who needs it?

Do you think that other people dont know how to think for themselves?

It sucks.

[gbwarming]

78. What specific fault can you find with the ASCE report?

Assume that ASCE changes those two words to something that doesn't offend you. Now, what can you find wrong with thier analysis? Is the description of the evidence wrong? description of the structure? Their choice of analytical technique? Did they omit some important information? If so, what? Please explain!

None of the engineering disciplines are secret or new. You can find 100 year old books describing analysis of reinforced concrete. The basic beams and column stress and deflection analysis is even older and usually covered in the 1st engineering course civil and mechinical engineering students take. Pick up a strength of material book or check out this online course material from MIT which looks pretty standard (1.050 Solid Mechanics)
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Civil-and-Environmental-Engineering/index.htm

Edit: I'm looking for criticism of the ASCE report related to the subject of the report. FEMA drills and Vigilant Guardian for example, might be interesting but are not relevant to the ASCE report.

[BeFree]

80. You say "assume"

that ASCE changes the two words". Did they?

And that all the loads, etc, are part of engineering 101.

Show me another report that deals with a 757 hitting a building. Since you can't, and neither can the ASCE, (all they could do was rationalize) their report had nothing to compare it too.

As we all know, sound science requires vetting, peer review and comparisons. There were no comparisons or peer review and this is the first place I've seen a vetting.

Could it be that the report is not sound science?

[RH]

83. If you had anything at all

by way of fact or science to gainsay the ASCE report, apart from the incessant heckling spin, you are free to show it. In the mean time what is painfully obvious above all else is your embarassingly vacant want of anything to do so.

[BeFree]

79. A definition of PR

The ASCE said their report was a "Preliminary Rationalization."

I asked, time and again for someone to give a definition of that term. Never got one. So here's mine:

Preliminary: before all the facts are in
Rationalization: Without all the facts being in, they rationalized with a few facts to match up with the conclusion they were reaching for.

What did the ASCE rationalize? How could a 757 turn into 'confetti' while blowing through a hardened military target. And they did it in a preliminary sort of way.

Not even close to good sound science.