Is this what 9/11 Truth is all about? Think about it., page 1

posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 06:51 PM

link

February 23, 2008
About New York
For Engineer, a Cloud of Litigation After 9/11

By JIM DWYER

To hear Ramon Gilsanz speak — voice calm and measured, even on a day when travel plans are tied in a knot by a snowstorm — you would never guess that he is being sued by thousands of people. And that does not count the man who is suing him on behalf of everyone in the United States.

What did he do to deserve this?

Mr. Gilsanz, a structural engineer with a small firm in Manhattan, was one of the legions of people who just showed up downtown after the Sept. 11, 2001, attack to help. Some made sandwiches. Others dug. Mr. Gilsanz engineered.

The two colossal towers had been turned into three and half billion pounds of rubble, piles that reached 12 stories high and 8 stories deep.

Buildings had partially collapsed. Any search for survivors would require heavy cranes set on treacherous ground. Someone had to figure out how and where to put them. Fragile walls had to be shored up.

Led by Mr. Gilsanz, a group of structural engineers talked their way past the barricades. They became indispensable in a world that suddenly had no recognizable geometry. Nine months later, the debris was cleared. Despite the fast pace and cruel terrain, no workers died because of structural failures or accidents during the recovery.

Now, however, thousands of people have filed lawsuits claiming that they became ill by breathing the air at the World Trade Center site while working on the recovery. Still others have sued not because they worked there, but because they had jobs in places where the debris was stored. They say the exposure made them sick.

Finally, one man has sued on behalf of the United States, claiming that Mr. Gilsanz is part of a vast conspiracy to cover up the truth about 9/11, including the “so-called building failures.” The lawsuit maintains that exotic weaponry actually destroyed the buildings, and that the airplanes were mass psychological trickery.

“When you are sued by 8,000 people, your mind works in a different way,” said Mr. Gilsanz, 53. “You totally disconnect. If you live on the West Coast, you can’t always be thinking about earthquakes.” Mr. Gilsanz is one of about 130 structural engineers from 30 firms who have been named as defendants in an enormous cloud of litigation that drifts, year by year, through the federal court. The engineers turned up at the trade center site as volunteers, but after a few days, the city established formal arrangements, and they were signed up as subcontractors. “We did not want to get paid for this work, but we were told we had to be paid in order to participate,” said Joseph Tortorella, a former president of the Structural Engineers Association, who is also being sued. “Many of us ended up giving the money to charity.”

continued at: www.nytimes.com...

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

ANOK

posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 07:09 PM

link

No bud it's about the physics, how many more times does this have to be explained?

You are looking for an agenda to again try to discredit PEOPLE instead of looking at the facts of the case.

It seems it's you that has an agenda. You're not interested in the truth, in fact I think you know the truth and are trying your hardest to cover that truth by character assassination. You think we haven't dealt with this here before? Cpt.Obvious tried, you know why? Just look at my sig...He had no argument, just like you...

Please explain how 3 buildings globally collapsed at NEAR free-fall speed with no apparent sign of resistance, i.e. the collapse wave didn't slow down, as it should have, as undamaged structure bellow the collapse wave would have slowed the collapsed. But that is assuming it was floors falling on floors, which it wasn't. Their is no other choice but to believe there must have been more energy acting on those building than gravity would supply.
Sorry bud, but try to refute me if you can...

Edit; (BTW I have NO affiliation with whatever it is you're trying to claim with your OP. I'm just a disabled vet with a lot of time to kill)

[edit on 27/2/2008 by ANOK]

jthomas

posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 08:30 PM

link

ANOK,

Could you stick to the topic of the post, please?

Thanks.

Buck Division

posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 09:10 PM

link

Originally posted by jthomas
Could you stick to the topic of the post, please?

This is the very first time I've ever posted to a 9/11 topic. The reason I want to respond is because Ramon Gilsanz's story is very poignant. He truly acted as a hero, one of many heroes that were revealed on 9/11. And it is really a bitter shame he is being persecuted for it.

HOWEVER, I can't disagree with ANOK. There is something that is missing from this 9/11 story.

I am not sure if ANOK's analysis is totally correct about inertia and free-fall (although it sounds reasonable) but I am pretty sure there is more to this story than has ever been revealed. And I am VERY sure that the government is capable of atrocities and disinformation, and to blindly accept the story of 9/11, as presented, is not a good idea. History tells us what governments are capable of doing to mislead, deceive, and manipulate.

I'm at a loss. I am sympathetic to both sides. Yet, I think the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are the ones who are on track. Some shocker to this story (whatever that may be) is still waiting to be discovered.

On topic: the OP is anecdotal of how unsympathetic people can be. It is not necessarily indicative of human nature, or the final truth regarding 9/11, by any measure.

jthomas

posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 09:36 PM

link

There are two points which are behind the title I gave this thread:

1. The lawsuit is sick.

2. This:

Finally, one man has sued on behalf of the United States, claiming that Mr. Gilsanz is part of a vast conspiracy to cover up the truth about 9/11, including the “so-called building failures.” The lawsuit maintains that exotic weaponry actually destroyed the buildings, and that the airplanes were mass psychological trickery.

No matter how you slice it, the 9/11 Truth Movement is associated directly with that quote - and now with the lawsuit.

How will all of those here react? Do nothing and therefore acquiesce to the perception of them?

Let's see.

[edit on 27-2-2008 by jthomas]

Griff

posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 09:55 PM

link

Actually I can agree with jthomas that the lawsuits against this man are frivilous. It was the EPA that said the air was fine to breath. Why are structural engineers being sued? That in itself doesn't make sense to me. Why not go after the true culprits? The EPA under direct direction from the Administration said the air was fine. Go after them. Leave these people who were just trying to help alone.

Wow, fancy that. I agree with you jthomas.

Wizard_In_The_Woods

posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 10:33 PM

link

reply to post by Griff

The structural engineering companies are being sued because they agreed/supported the idea/concluded that the WTC complex (WTC-1, 2, 6 and 7) were indeed destroyed by airplanes and fires.

And any engineers who ‘signed off’ on such theories SHOULD be requested to ‘explain’ their reasoning why they came to their conclusions. Isn’t that what every truther has been clamoring for?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

ipsedixit

posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 10:34 PM

link

reply to post by Griff

Personally, I'm just glad to see something in court, because there could be a chain reaction that might land one of the bigger fish in court.

I think it would be naive of anyone to believe that the city of New York did not take lawsuits into consideration when requiring the "volunteer" engineers to be put on the payroll. Under some circumstances where I live, first responders who are volunteers are exempt from suits for damages arising from their actions.

This might, for Giuliani et al, be the judicial equivalent of criminals using innocent bystanders as shields. I know that sounds machiavellian, but that's the times we live in.

Griff

posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 11:10 PM

link

Reply to Wizard in the Woods.

I was under the impression from the article that they are being sued because people are getting sick? It says about one guy sueing because of the failure, I believe. I could be wrong as I didn't finish the article but that is what I got from the posted segment.

Griff

posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 11:16 PM

link

reply to post by ipsedixit

I can totally agree that these guys are being used as the scapegoats. You make an excellent point of why they would be required to be paid for their volunteering and heroism.

Is there any more information on this issue? Honestly, this is the first I've heard of it. Or is this a part of the Morgan Reynold's lawsuit?

ipsedixit

posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 01:02 AM

link

reply to post by Griff

I don't know anything about it, but I wonder if it is a class action suit and if it would trigger a class action suit by these engineers against the city of New York or any relevant state or federal agency.

Ordinary people are at such a disadvantage in this sort of thing. Any kind of legal fallout is interesting though because of a potential far reaching domino effect.

jthomas

posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 07:32 AM

link

One of the big problems in this lawsuit is that it assumes everyone being sued should have known in advance that exposure to the dust and debris would cause problems. It also assumes that any length of time of exposure plays no role.

But in fact, nobody new the exact chemical and physical makeup of the dust until well after 9/11 and this required time and professional analysis.

The first samples were not taken until 4 or 5 days after 9/11. There were many studies done on the dust. See, for instance:

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...
links.jstor.org...(200207)110%3A7%3C703%3ACOTDAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3

If this lawsuit is successful it could have a chilling and negative effect on how timely rescue operations are carried out.

As an aside, I have gone through many of these studies of the dust over the years and have yet to find one that shows any traces of any type of explosives.

Griff

posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 07:40 AM

link

Originally posted by jthomas
If this lawsuit is successful it could have a chilling and negative effect on how timely rescue operations are carried out.

You may very well have a good point. First responders do take a risk when responding to dangerous situations.

That's like a rescue diver suing the oil refinery forman when the diver gets attacked by a shark rescuing one of the oil refinery's employees.

Griff

posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 08:04 AM

link

Originally posted by jthomas
As an aside, I have gone through many of these studies of the dust over the years and have yet to find one that shows any traces of any type of explosives.

Question:

Have you considered ALL possible types of explosives?

Are any of these explosive residues?

I see Potassium & Barium.

Notice how every "chemical" is just listed as it's primary elements. Everything on that list is an element and not a chemical.

How can you be sure that the Potassium and Barium reported wasn't in the form of Potassium Nitrate and Barium Nitrate?

2 chemicals, which I believe, would be explosive residue.

Analytical results are tabulated in Chemistry Table 1, and summarized graphically in Chemistry Figures 1-4. The elements measured by the chemical analyses are those routinely measured by the USGS for studies of rocks, sediments, soils, and environmental samples. Total mercury concentrations have not been measured in the WTC solid samples, but have been measured in leach solutions derived from the samples (see the next section of this report). Quality-assurance, quality control data and information for the analyses are available upon request.

These analytical methods determine the total concentration (in weight percent or parts per million) of each element in any given sample. The samples are likely to contain a mixture of different components, such as particles of gypsum, concrete, steel, etc., that together make up the total concentration of elements.

Remember chemicals and elements are related but very different. Elements make up chemicals. So, to just report on the elements doesn't tell us very much about what chemicals were present.

pubs.usgs.gov...

whatukno

posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 08:18 AM

link

reply to post by jthomas

Hey they didn't ask ME if I wanted to sue this guy. If your going to have a class action lawsuit that blankets every single American you better darn well ask every single American if they want to sue.

This guy perhaps being part of the cover up process probably didn't know that he was part of the cover up process. He was a guy that just wanted to clean up the mess that was left behind. They wanted to pay him to do so. Is it his fault for not knowing that 9-11 was an inside job? No! He was in shock just like the rest of the nation and wanted to lend a hand. He thought he was doing right by the world to help out in what he could.

This is the wrong guy to go after in my opinion. Who we need to go after is those that paid him for his services. Those and the people that pay them. Keep following the money people.

Money nowadays is strictly governed and accounted for. Accountants while not knowing all the details know all the details about where the money goes. We have but a short short time left to follow the money trail September 11 of this year all those financial records get to go bye bye.

Think about that!

darkbluesky

posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 08:25 AM

link

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
reply to post by Griff

The structural engineering companies are being sued because they agreed/supported the idea/concluded that the WTC complex (WTC-1, 2, 6 and 7) were indeed destroyed by airplanes and fires.

Wow! You think it's appropriate to be sued for what you think or believe?

I believe that airplanes hit the WTC towers and a combination of the initial structural damage and ensuing weakening of the structure by fire caused a global structural failure, resulting in the complete destruction of the buildings.

Want to sue me?

undermind

posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 09:27 AM

link

reply to post by Griff

Question:

Have you considered ALL possible types of explosives?

Are any of these explosive residues?

Especially in explosive/combustion chemical reactions, a certain percentage of the explosive fails to complete the reaction to the end and remains in its original chemical configuration, called a residue.

In reality, combustion processes are never perfect or complete.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 28-2-2008 by undermind]

Griff

posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 11:01 AM

link

Originally posted by undermind
Especially in explosive/combustion chemical reactions, a certain percentage of the explosive fails to complete the reaction to the end and remains in its original chemical configuration, called a residue.

In reality, combustion processes are never perfect or complete.

en.wikipedia.org...

Bolded by me. That is exactly my point. They reported on the elements found. NOT the chemicals. As stated by them.

Edit: It's like analysing a bucket of water and reporting it as ppm hydrogen and ppm oxygen.

How is anyone to know that it was water to begin with from that report?

[edit on 2/28/2008 by Griff]

jthomas

posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 11:13 AM

link

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
As an aside, I have gone through many of these studies of the dust over the years and have yet to find one that shows any traces of any type of explosives.

Question:

Have you considered ALL possible types of explosives?

No. I've considered that none of the reports I have read have pointed out a signature of explosives. Neither have I seen any reference to any of these reports as a source of either an explosives "smoking gun" (no pun intended) or even that any combination of elements found "could" be an indicator of explosives. Have you?

Perhaps you can do your own research and find some evidence in the various reports that have been available for some time. It would certainly be a "bombshell" (no pun intended), eh?

(I once e-mailed Fetzer and Jones and asked if they had found anything in any of the studies and received no response from either one.)

percievedreality

posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 11:23 AM

link

Originally posted by jthomas
One of the big problems in this lawsuit is that it assumes everyone being sued should have known in advance that exposure to the dust and debris would cause problems. It also assumes that any length of time of exposure plays no role.

Hey, great foe of mine! I'm back! Are you kidding me, how about some common sense here? Breathing any small foriegn particulate matter is going to cause problems! Common sense would also tell us duration of time of exposure is going to have an effect also. People, American, may be pretty dumb, but common sense is not totally lost. Your arguement (their arguement) is pretty baseless if you figure in common sense.

Originally posted by jthomas
As an aside, I have gone through many of these studies of the dust over the years and have yet to find one that shows any traces of any type of explosives.

Really, well I guess you missed the following link in our last 2-day clash of minds. Read this, [*SNIP*]

wtc.nist.gov...

[edit on 28-2-2008 by percievedreality]

BTW, during one of our previous exchanges you asked about "peer-reviewed" papers from the 9/11 Truth Movement. I now know that the answer to that is at least 35, if not more currently. [*SNIP*]

[edit on 28-2-2008 by percievedreality]

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

Your post has been edited by NGC2736

Please review T&C here:

http://]www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread299888/pg1

Check your U2U box in a few moments for a message concerning civility in posting.

[edit on 28-2-2008 by NGC2736]