Fire Engineering - Bill Manning

Nothing new here, just an article from Bill Manning who has been quoted as saying, "the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce".

I have finally found the article via 911Blogger and read the entire publication.

Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?

respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time.

Firefighters, this is your call to action. Turn to the article, WTC "Investigation"?: A Call to Action in this issue and on www.fire-eng.com..., then contact your representatives in Congress and officials in Washington and help us correct this problem immediately.

More here (from 2002):
www.fireengineering.com... estigation.html

reply to post by turbofan


i read both of your links, i could not find any related topic to what you posted??

what was the point again, maybe i just missed it??

It was just a link to the entire article; I have never read until now. For some reason I cannot link it, so here's
the entire page.

Fire-engineering.com

$ELLING OUT THE INVESTIGATION


Jan 1, 2002
BY BILL MANNING

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.

Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members-described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

Maybe we should live and work in planes. That way, if disaster strikes, we will at least be sure that a thorough investigation will help find ways to increase safety for our survivors.

As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.

Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY probationary firefighter. And so do we.

Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint, for the safety of present and future generations who live and work in tall buildings-and for firefighters, always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.

To treat the September 11 incident any differently would be the height of stupidity and ignorance.

The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.

The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission a fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned.

Firefighters, this is your call to action. Turn to the article, WTC "Investigation"?: A Call to Action in this issue and on www.fire-eng.com..., then contact your representatives in Congress and officials in Washington and help us correct this problem immediately.

Bill Manning

Coming from a PennWell publication, that's something...

ATS sometimes splits a link in 2....

www.fireengineering.com/index/articles/display.articles.fire-engineering.volume-155.issue-1.departments.editors-opinion.elling-out-the-investigat ion.html

I don't understand the lack of responses to your thread. Here is an article from a bona fide fire investigation organization stating that the ground zero "clean-up" is nothing short of the destruction of evidence.

Was Bill Manning a psychic? from 2002:.

As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.

Computer-generated collapse models a la NIST anyone?

I thought people gave a damn about why the towers collapsed, Perhaps they're just giving themselves a break for the holidays.

reply to post by turbofan



Did you bother to read the article or are in typical truther style simply taking something you dont understand
and twisting it to fit you conspiracy fantasy?

I have read the article and have a copy of the publication

What Manning and some other fire protection engineers were objecting to in in the FEMA study was lack of
analysis on the construction methods employed in WTC. Particularly in the role the spray on fire protection
played in ultimate building collapse . Also the lightweight truss construction supporting the floors - neither of
which had been tested before being used in WTC. Both were new technology and ramifications were not
understood at the time.

Nothing new here.......

BM is saying you don't throw out evidence if you wish to come to a proper conclusion,
which is a major plank in the "TRUTHER" arguement"

Exanining evidence is how one arrives at the truth
Thats why they call them "Truthers", and that is why we have a legal system and a system for establishing saftey regs and modifying them to maintain the safest most sensible saftey and insurance practices.
lives and money..hopefully in that order.

People who support throwing away evidence without proper investigative practices, or who support conclusions drawn which would be questionable because the evidence was tempered with or excluded are called....

wait for it....

LIERS

Everyone knows if the murder weapon was excluded from a mobster's murder trial because it was black and had the mobsters fingerprints on it, everyone would just figure that the mobster would have bribed the judge to get off the charges so he can go free and continue to bang heroin into you kids eyeballs...can you blame them? It happens all the time and everyone knows it ....
(look up what the CIA has accomplished since 911 if you think that is an unfair comparison)

IMHO
He is questioning the totall lack of jurisprudence in the investigation which totally negates the the "liars" conclusions and leaves its supporters' pumps sucking wind too
but they keep on with the bla blabla just the same...

oh yeah, and truthers hate truth and hate Anmerica and hate god too....


.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by turbofan

 

Did you bother to read the article or are in typical truther style simply taking something you dont understand
and twisting it to fit you conspiracy fantasy?

I have read the article and have a copy of the publication

The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately

The OP read and understood it correctly, no" twisting" or "fantasy" on his part.
Typical Truther, always looking for the truth.
The nerve of some people, huh?

Well, let's see "thedman"...did I read the article, or take it out of context?

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history.

Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure.

Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members-described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.

Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.

Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY probationary firefighter. And so do we.

Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative.

The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission a fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned.

Firefighters, this is your call to action. Turn to the article, WTC "Investigation"?: A Call to Action in this issue and on www.fire-eng.com..., then contact your representatives in Congress and officials in Washington and help us correct this problem immediately.

Apparently, I DID read the article and I did NOT take it out of context.

reply to post by thedman


If I am not mistaken, this article is from Jan of 2002! The NIST report wasn't even drafted yet, in fact I am not even sure that the NIST was engaged to do an analysis. How could any of this be even the least bit relevant?

Bill Manning is referring to FEMA, not NIST.

NIST based their 'theory' on pictures and video.

Bill Manning was correct in saying the investagation would be nothing more than theories and computer sims
because most of the steel was shipped to China instead of analysed.

Very relevant.

Originally posted by turbofan
Bill Manning is referring to FEMA, not NIST.

NIST based their 'theory' on pictures and video.

Bill Manning was correct in saying the investagation would be nothing more than theories and computer sims
because most of the steel was shipped to China instead of analysed.

Very relevant.

Most? Unless it was all shipped to China (and I know for a fact that it was not) then it was examined as part of the NIST analysis and even with samples from the actual structure engineers will still rely on old fashioned notions like calculations and computer simulations.

Even if you had all the steel to examine, what more would it tell you then what was told by the samples they did examine? This is a red herring trying to discredit capable and rational engineers and scientist that concluded something that kind of takes the big air out of the conspiracy ballon.

Give me a break dude.

How are you supposed to conduct a proper investigation with

Turbo! I love your quotes taken from the article. All sound pretty damming! But wait, you forgot one!

The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.

..........

More important, from a moral standpoint, for the safety of present and future generations who live and work in tall buildings-and for firefighters, always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.

D'OH!!! Thank you Turbo for showing us again, how you truthers like to leave out key facts, and only cherry pick quotes and take things out of context.

Maybe in that article can you find me the parts about investigating bombs, thermite, nanuthermite, missiles that were used at the WTC, which is why they say this investigation is a farce?

Well, in either case, it looks like you just joined the "OS" supporters! Why? The article is lamenting how no one is investigating the possible substandard fire-proofing that may have caused the collapses. Something that we have been talking about for years! Are you coming around and saying this is probably the case? Or are you going to deny that there was substandard fireproofing done, and this would have been a big reason why the buildings collapsed from fires and damage? Key point to remember: Reading Comprehension. Comprehend what you read.

Thanks GenRadek for leaving out 90% of the other quotes that state Bill wants another investigation.

I guess that makes you a typcial government loyalist?

On the other hand, if you bothered to read my post about mid page, I've already quoted that section.
Therefore, I have not left out any important information.

If you read it carefully, Bill states that the WTC owners, Port Authority refuse to submit documentation
to support their claims.

By posting, you basically, "owned" yourself because you forgot to read the paragraphs above that one:

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. /


Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

Have a good one. D'oh!

reply to post by turbofan

Give me a break dude.

Nope, no breaks. Not all the structural steel was sent off for recycling. Repeating this falsehood does not and will not make it true. The material was examined by NIST as part of the analysis. Thats a fact you can not get away from. Implying that it was not is simply a bald-faced lie. Not all of the millions of tons of steel need to be examined for a survey. Professionals know this.

How are you supposed to conduct a proper investigation with

"If I am not mistaken, this article is from Jan of 2002! The NIST report wasn't even drafted yet, in fact I am not even sure that the NIST was engaged to do an analysis. How could any of this be even the least bit relevant?"

I agree. Why should the obvious destruction of evidence (felony) by the perps to cover their trail be relevant to 9/11?

Just because you commit a subsequent crime to cover up your original crime doesn't mean anything. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

"Implying that it was not is simply a bald-faced lie. Not all of the millions of tons of steel need to be examined for a survey."

Are you sure there were millions of tons of steel recovered from the site? According to this article, there were only 200,000 tons of steel at the WTC, which is just a wee bit short of your estimate of millions. Keep up the excellent research.

www.arnoldporter.com...

reply to post by turbofan


So turbo, does that mean that if they did another "investigation", and discovered that indeed the fireproofing was substandard, and was a direct cause of collapse, you are going to accept that as fact, and jump off the magic nanuthermite wagon? Or are you going to ignore their results and insist that it was nanu-thermite all along?

Also your quote Turbo, its funny you didnt make it bolder and larger for all to see:

The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise.

THAT is the whole reason he is making the case about it. However, every time we have brought it up that there was evidence that fireproofing was substandard, falling off, or shoddy in the years before 9/11, you and the rest of the TM have ALWAYS ignored it and the ridiculed it. Now here is a firefighter saying the same thing we have been saying for years, and you completely IGNORED it again. I see no mention of thermites, demo charges, missiles, or mentions of sabotage as being possible responsibilities. So again, do you or do you not agree with the author of the article that the fireproofing being substandard and shoddy ma have been a good possible cause of collapse? Yes or no?

Oh and your underlined portion is a lovely cherry-picked part that means one thing when taken alone, but something else when combined with the article:

The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise..........

The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time.

Be sure to underline the proper parts. Its called reading comprehension.

Ah so in other words, when used in context, this means that indeed the fires and impact were not enough to do the damage, and that crappy fireproofing may be a good reason why it failed the way it did. Nope, no mention of thermite, demo charges, or magic paint on pixie dust. So you agree then that its a possibility that fires combined with impact damage and crappy fire-proofing may be the cause of collapse?

Also notice, the article is from 2002. NIST was not on the scope yet. FEMA did an initial investitagiton a little later. Steel was saved and not destroyed for the NIST part, and they used quite a bit of it.

When you learn to quote an entire paragraph, come back and debate me.

You forgot this important part:

Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

If you're so well schooled, feel free to respond to my thread entitled, "Jones' Dust Analysis: Common Arguments Addressed" and we'll see about reading comprehension.