The Trouble with Conspiracy Theories

[Len Colby]

The illusion if further contradicted by a poll commissioned by truthers. One question was:

There are three main schools of thought regarding the 9/11 attacks. The first theory is the official story, and maintains that 19 Arab fundamentalists executed a surprise attack which caught US intelligence and military forces off guard. The second theory known as Let It Happen argues that certain elements in the US government knew the attacks were coming but consciously let them proceed for various political, military and economic motives; and the third theory Made It Happen contends that certain US government elements actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attacks. Based upon your knowledge of 9/11 events and their aftermath, which theory are you more likely to agree with? Less than 5% said MIHOP. As with all previous polls that I’ve seen there was an inverse relationship between educational level and taking the truther position. Results below are for all respondents, high school drop outs and college graduates

All - Official story 63.6%, Let it happen 26.4%, Made it happen 4.6%, NS 5.4%

HSD- Official story 36.9%, Let it happen 28.0%, Made it happen 6%, NS 29.1%

CGr - Official story 72.1%, Let it happen 21.1%, Made it happen 3.0%, NS 3.8%

http://www.angus-reid.com/uppdf/911_Truth.pdf Pg 5

[William Kelly]

Bill - slight confusion there. You were talking about people who I said tended to believe most all conspiracies they hear about. I would put that group at about 0.1% of a population - and that may be too high. It does NOT refer to the percentage of people who believe JFK was taken down by means other than a lone gunman; I believe the percentage of people who believe that is significantly higher.

I don't want to sidetrack the thread, but the chemtrail stuff is not chemical warfare we know about. These people claim that ordinary contrails we see from jet airliners every day are some type of government plot. Likewise, the weather control is not the type we do know about; it's stuff like that Katrina was caused by the government, etc.

But yes, there are indeed "bizarro" people out there who believe all sorts of things. Souls being transported to Mars, which is actually green and has a atmosphere capable of supporting human life unaided? How about the lady who showed sunlight going through her sprinkler spray, which produced a rainbow. She said it was proof of chemicals in the water supply because it never happened when she was growing up.

Those type of people - very small in number - are the whackos. Just because someone believes in a conspiracy of some type does not make them unstable, unintelligent, stupid, gullible, etc, etc, etc. If you believe everything is a conspiracy, then you need psychiatric help.

So now we go from the 80% of the conspiracy theorists who believe JFK killed as a result of a conspiracy, to less than 0.1% who believe everything is a conspiracy and need psychiatric help, which confirms my suspicion that there really is no concise group of people called "conspiracy theorists," other than those in the minds of those who want to debate them, but can't seem to find one to debate.

And all those anti-conspiracy theorists and debunkers looking to pick a fight, rant and rave about the threat of conspiracy theorists, especially in these dire economic times, when conspiracy theorists come out of the woodwork, but we still can't find one to debate.

The only reason to contrive the existence of bizarre and unreasonable conspiracy theorists is to link them to those who believe that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy.

Those who beleive in alien autopsies, or that a plane didn't hit the pentagon, or UFOs must also believe in a conspiracy to kill JFK, right?

I think those 20 percenters, who propagate the idea that JFK was killed by a deranged lone nut and there was no conspiracy, are more dangerous than the .01 percent who believe in every bizzarre and unreasonable conspiracy, because if the lone-nuters are wrong, then the consequences are tremendous, and the security of our whole system of justice and government are at stake.

So in the same vein as this thread, I started another thread on the Lone-nuters who believe in chance and circumstance rather than covert ops and conspiracy.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ic=14099&hl=

BK

[Evan Burton]

And all those anti-conspiracy theorists and debunkers looking to pick a fight, rant and rave about the threat of conspiracy theorists, especially in these dire economic times, when conspiracy theorists come out of the woodwork, but we still can't find one to debate.

Bill,

I consider myself an "anti-CT" person, even if I believe I am fair and balanced. I am more than happy to debate on the Conspiracy Theory sub-forum, but I do not want to clutter the JFK board with off-topic debate.

I can also point you to off-Forum boards that have numerous debates which you may be interested in participating.

[William Kelly]

And all those anti-conspiracy theorists and debunkers looking to pick a fight, rant and rave about the threat of conspiracy theorists, especially in these dire economic times, when conspiracy theorists come out of the woodwork, but we still can't find one to debate.

Bill,

I consider myself an "anti-CT" person, even if I believe I am fair and balanced. I am more than happy to debate on the Conspiracy Theory sub-forum, but I do not want to clutter the JFK board with off-topic debate.

I can also point you to off-Forum boards that have numerous debates which you may be interested in participating.

Na, I'm not so much interested in debate over conspiracy theories, as I am in considering all the objections to the conspiracy theory that I have about the JFK assassination, and I haven't been convinced that I'm wrong, but open to persuasion.

I still maintain that there is no group of people out there who can be readily identifiable as a "conspiracy theorists," regardless of how many paranoid skidsos there are.

John Simkin says he knows some who think he's even part of a conspiracy, and Andy says you know who they are because they're rabid in response, and you know them from other forums, and we all agree that they are bizzarre and unreasonable and think everything is a conspiracy, and they take up a sizeable percentage of the population, but we can't name one.

But we can certainly name some anti-CTs, Colby, Dale Myers, Ken Rahn & Company, you claim to be one, and there's Tink who follows Prof. Fetzer around to try to set him straight, and pester Jack White about the Mooreman in the Street fiasco. But Tink is a certified, card carrying CT himself, at least in regards to the Kennedy assassination.

But where are these CTs who believe every conspiracy that comes down the pike? The ones the articles are written about - the ones that have the "problem"?

I just don't see them, though maybe I'm not really looking that hard. I know Colby has it hard for the so-called 9/11 "Truthers" who claim a plane didn't hit the Pentagon and the WTC was brought down by a controlled demolition, but are these people a threat, other than distracting from real issues?

The Counter-CTs on the JFK assassination, like Priscilla Johnson McMillan and Rahn say that CTs look for a conspiracy in order to give meaning to something that really isn't there, while I see those who view the assassination as the work of a Lone-Nut as being blind to (and in the case of PJM a part of) the secret covert history that instigated the assassination.

As I see it, the "Problem" isn't with conspiracy theorists correctly claiming that JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy, the problem is with those who refuse to recognize that political assassination will remain a major national security threat until all the records are released and the issues about the assasination of President Kennedy are resolved.

You want to debate that?

BK

[Karl Kinaski]

Mr Purvis wrote: quote:

Nope!

Since there was no "exit" wound located there...(in the back of the head)

Close quote

Oh, really???

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

KK

Edited March 5, 2009 by Karl Kinaski

[Karl Kinaski]

BK

The only reason to contrive the existence of bizarre and unreasonable conspiracy theorists is to link them to those who believe that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy.

That reminds me of ( the CIA asset) Charles Spiesel in the Garrison-case. The guy, who testified, that he is taking the fingerprints of his daughter, when ever she starts on a journey, to assure himself, that it was the same daughter, that came back. (Source: On the trail of the assassins by Jim Garrison.)

KK

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Mr Purvis wrote: quote:

Nope!

Since there was no "exit" wound located there...(in the back of the head)

Close quote

Oh, really???

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

KK

Yes, Really!

In recognition of your (as well as a few other's) perceived "Crystal Ball" ability to look at what is often poor quality photographs and thereafter resolve complex issues such as wound ballistics, my crystal ball would never allow such great (even if only imaginary) ability.

Watching too many old Johnny Carson re-runs of "Carnac the Magnificent" will often give one the impression that they can actually accomplish such great feats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnac_the_Magnificent

Unfortunately, lacking the appropriate "headgear" I have had to rely on that old antiquated method of evaluation of the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical evidence. To include relatively intense discussions with one of the autopsy surgeons and several other EXPERTS from the HSCA investigation.

No doubt, you too will soon be testifying in various courts throughout the land as an "EXPERT WITNESS" based on this un-natural gift and ability which you claim to have.

[David G. Healy]

[...]

In recognition of your (as well as a few other's) perceived "Crystal Ball" ability to look at what is often poor quality photographs and thereafter resolve complex issues such as wound ballistics, my crystal ball would never allow such great (even if only imaginary) ability.

[...]

speaking of poor quality photo-films... Moorman 5 is on parade again. (fwiw according to Karnac Miller the polaroid was snapped 3.6 seconds AFTER (Z frame 313) alleged head shot

[William Kelly]

BK

The only reason to contrive the existence of bizarre and unreasonable conspiracy theorists is to link them to those who believe that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy.

That reminds me of ( the CIA asset) Charles Spiesel in the Garrison-case. The guy, who testified, that he is taking the fingerprints of his daughter, when ever she starts on a journey, to assure himself, that it was the same daughter, that came back. (Source: On the trail of the assassins by Jim Garrison.)

KK

Hey Karl, I remember him too. In fact, when I drove to one of the first COPA conferences with Bob Danello, a New Jersey police lieutenant and COPA benefactor, he mentioned that specific witness in the course of our drive from Jersey to DC. He thought perhaps certain witnesses were planted, and of course, even investigators and "conspiracy theorists" were planted and easily identified.

Garrison's book On the Trail of the Assassins was a follow up to an earlier book, A Heritage of Stone, written in the same style but at a different time period and publishers.

Both books however, mention one of the most significant lines of inquery that has yet to be properly followed, the phone calls from New Orleans to Chicago, and the trips Ruby's pal Larry Meyers made to Dallas, and Jim Braden's trips to the same locations.

Either it's all a big coincidence, or it's proof of conspiracy.

But it still one of a dozen leads that has never been followed through.

BK

[Cliff Varnell]

26. Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense. Who are you more likely to agree with?

The attacks were thoroughly investigated

47%

Reinvestigate the attacks

45

Not sure

8

If it were common knowledge that the FBI has found no hard evidence

that Usama bin Laden was involved in the crimes of Nine One One -- the

"re-investigate the attacks" response would be in the 90-percentile.

[Evan Burton]

Ditto that three towers fell into their own footprints at near or at free-fall speeds [against all laws of physics] at the WTC.

Wrong.

[Len Colby]

26. Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense. Who are you more likely to agree with?

The attacks were thoroughly investigated

47%

Reinvestigate the attacks

45

Not sure

8

If it were common knowledge that the FBI has found no hard evidence

that Usama bin Laden was involved in the crimes of Nine One One -- the

"re-investigate the attacks" response would be in the 90-percentile.

Actually there is "no hard evidence that" an FBI spokesman said they had "no hard evidence

that Usama bin Laden was involved". A blogger claimed this but has no supporting evidence. There was quite a bit of evidence linking OBL, Al Qeada and the hijackers to the attacks and linking the hijackers to AQ and OBL.

This is one of the stranger truther theories supposedly elements of the goverment including upper level people in the FBI organized an elaborate false flag and faked lots of evidence, but were unable to get the FBI to put 9/11 on OBL's wanted poster? The simpler explanation is that he was already wanted and was unlikely to be captured so there was no reason to convene a grand jury to indict him until he was caught. The reward offer for his capture is by far the highest it is 12.5 x of one other fugitive ("Whitey" Bulger) and 250x (no not 25x) that of everyone else.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/fugitives.htm

And of course if such a leading poll question had not been asked the "re-investigate" option would have gotten fewer votes.

[Len Colby]

Ditto that three towers fell into their own footprints at near or at free-fall speeds [against all laws of physics] at the WTC.

Wrong.

Quite funny that most truthers complain the "three towers fell into their own footprints at near or at free-fall speeds" but also complain about how much of the buildings' structure and contents were ejected from their footprints and then go on to produce photos or video clips showing free falling ejected debris falling significantly faster than the collapse wave.

Lemkin will presumably respond with more ad homs

[Guest Tom Scully]

Ditto that three towers fell into their own footprints at near or at free-fall speeds [against all laws of physics] at the WTC.

Wrong.

Quite funny that most truthers complain the "three towers fell into their own footprints at near or at free-fall speeds" but also complain about how much of the buildings' structure and contents were ejected from their footprints and then go on to produce photos or video clips showing free falling ejected debris falling significantly faster than the collapse wave.

Lemkin will presumably respond with more ad homs

Len,

I am a relatively new member, so I don't know you and had no pre-conceived notion about you via your posted opinions. You have now convinced me you don't know what you are talking about; but you post anyway, in a taunting and condescending "tone"...it leaps out at this reader. Here is some history, Len. A "final" report was issued on the collapse of the WTC towers, but a 47 story steel framed structure, a tower that in all but a few American cities would be the tallest building in the skyline, was not included. No steel samples from that collapsed building were preserved and analyzed. It took a full seven years for NIST to issue a report on the collapse of this 47 story tower, aka WTC 7. Meanwhile, a new tower was built in it's place. Now NIST tells us that the new tower, and it looks like all others that have been built, need to be reinforced because they are at risk from the effects of "ordinary building fires". Have insurance rates on any of the world's steel framed towers, risen, as a result, Len? Can you point to any reinforcing projects, planned, in progress, executed or contemplated, anywhere, in response to NIST's 2008 determination of what happened to WTC 7?

Therese McAllister, Project 6 Co-Leader, NIST

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Su...Dec07-Final.pdf

December 18, 2007 Page 5 html link

A: "The fires in the towers did not stop after 20 minutes. The fires moved from location to

location, meaning that at any given location the combustibles needed about 20 minutes to be

consumed. While the combustibles at a location were being consumed, the fire front would be

progressing to adjacent combustibles. Also, recall that the 4 lb/ft

is the fuel load that is actually consumed....."

After 9/11, the shocked reaction of structural engineers to the swift, catastrophic collapse of WTC 7, gave way to a clamor for swift answers as to why it

happened....WTC 7 had not been hit by fuel laden, "heavy" airliners impacting directly on WTC 1 & 2 at air speeds in excess of 350 mph:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...752C1A9679C8B63

November 29, 2001

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SITE; Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel

By JAMES GLANZ

Almost lost in the chaos of the collapse of the World Trade Center is a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world. That mystery is the collapse of a nearby 47-story, two-million-square-foot building seven hours after flaming debris from the towers rained down on it, igniting what became an out-of-control fire.

Engineers and other experts, who quickly came to understand how hurtling airplanes and burning jet fuel had helped bring down the main towers, were for weeks still stunned by what had happened to 7 World Trade Center. That building had housed, among other things, the mayor's emergency command bunker. It tumbled to its knees shortly after 5:20 on the ugly evening of Sept. 11.

The building had suffered mightily from the fire that raged in it, and it had been wounded by the flying beams falling off the towers. But experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country.....

....''Even though Building 7 didn't get much attention in the media immediately, within the structural engineering community, it's considered to be much more important to understand,'' said William F. Baker, a partner in charge of structural engineering at the architectural firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. ''They say, 'We know what happened at 1 and 2, but why did 7 come down?' ''......

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006)

......14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.....

All I have to do is to post the facts to support my accusations about you, Len....note that I include nothing about conspiracy, or thermite, or missles......only that the government investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 is suspect....doesn't it seem suspect, even to you, Len? Doesn't it defy credibility? Have lease rates or fees dropped as a result on waht NIST told us about fire vulnerability in these steel framed towers, Len?

Fall, 2005:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060211004819/...TAR1-3index.htm

Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire

Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

The analysis focused on the WTC 1 and WTC 2. Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7, a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents.

Quote:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060207194749/...s_october05.htm

Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire

Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

The final report “Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Tower” (NCSTAR 1) and the 42 companion reports. NIST NCSTAR 1: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Tower

This is the final report on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers, conducted under the National Construction Safety Team Act.

...........Extensive details are found in the 42 companion reports. (The final report on the collapse of WTC 7 will appear in a separate report.) Also in this report is a description of how NIST reached its conclusions.

Summer, 2008

http://www.fireengineering.com/display_art...-WTC-building-7

NIST: Fires caused collapse of WTC building 7

The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.

"Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event," said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. "Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down."

"Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7," Sunder said. The NIST investigation team also determined that other elements of the building's constructionamely trusses, girders and cantilever overhangs that were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below--did not play a significant role in the collapse.

According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures "hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use.

Citing its one new recommendation (the other 12 are reiterated from the previously completed investigation of the World Trade Center towers, WTC 1 and 2), the NIST investigation team said that "while the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event, we strongly urge building owners, operators and designers to evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of the structural system. Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following features: long-span floor systems, connections not designed for thermal effects, asymmetric floor framing and/or composite floor systems." Engineers, the team said, should be able to design cost-effective fixes to address any areas of concern identified by such evaluations.

The investigators also reported that if the city water main had not been cut by the collapse of World Trade Center towers 1 and 2 (WTC 1 and WTC 2), operating sprinklers in WTC 7 would likely have prevented its collapse. "Nevertheless," Sunder said, "we recommend that building standards and codes be strengthened beyond their current intent to achieve life safety by preventing structural collapse even during severe fires like this one, when sprinklers do not function, do not exist or are overwhelmed by fire."

Sunder identified several existing, emerging or even anticipated capabilities that could have helped prevent WTC 7's collapse. He cautioned that the degree to which these capabilities improve performance remains to be evaluated. ....

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Su...Dec07-Final.pdf

Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation

of the World Trade Center Disaster

WTC 7 Technical Approach and Status Summary

December 18, 2007

Therese McAllister, Ph.D., P.E.Building and Fire Research LaboratoryNational Institute of Standards and Technology U.S. Department of Commerce

....The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks.

•This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation.

page 6 of 9

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACMeetingMinutes121807.pdf

1/18/2008

Meeting of the National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

December 18, 2007

Minutes

....Shyam Sunder, Director, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, and WTC Lead

Investigator

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTAC_December18(Sunder).pdf

Dr. Sunder presented an overview on the progress of the implementation of the recommendations

that resulted from the investigation of the World Trade Center......

.....Dr. Sunder provided the committee with a brief overview of the status of the investigation of

WTC 7. The overview included a review of the working hypothesis. He stressed that the

working hypothesis is based on scientific/engineering judgment and simple analysis models, but

has not yet been fully evaluated through rigorous analysis. The working collapse hypothesis has

not changed since first reported in June 2004. NIST has developed additional detail on the

initiating event sequence based on fire-induced failures resulting from normal building fires

occurring in the tenant floors.

Dr. Sunder concluded his remarks with an update on the schedule for completing the

investigation. He noted that the global analysis is anticipated to be completed by March and that

NIST anticipates releasing the draft reports for public comment in July of 2008.

Following these remarks, the following questions were posed by Committee members and

answered by Dr. Sunder.

Q: What do you mean by normal building fires?

A: These are fires in spaces where the combustibles are normal building contents, ventilation is

the normal building ventilation, and there are no exceptional combustibles such as diesel fuel in

day tanks or in large tanks at the base of the building. In the case of the towers, the jet fuel was

unusual, but even there we talked about normal building fires since the jet fuel burned within a

matter of a few minutes. What burned over the next hour to hour-and-a-half were normal fires

where the combustibles were building contents plus the airplane contents.

Q: But they were ventilated fires?

A: In both cases the ventilation was probably somewhat limited. Typically, when flames

extend out from windows, there is excess fuel looking for air with which to react......

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%...pse%20Final.pdf

April 5, 2005

page 4

....NIST plans to release a draft of the final report for public comment in June 2005; public

comment period of about 6 weeks after release of the draft reports; NIST plans to release final

Investigation report in September 2005.

• WTC 7 report will be issued as a supplement to the main report: draft planned for October

2005; final for December 2005.

• Decoupling of WTC 7 report necessary to accommodate overlapping staffing demands for work

on WTC towers.

• This change affects mainly the collapse analysis; other WTC 7 work will be reported with the

other Investigation reports......

page 6

Working Collapse Hypothesis for WTC 7

If it remains viable upon further analysis, the working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7

suggests that it was a classic progressive collapse, including:

Background:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...mp;pagewanted=1

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million

By MARK MCCAIN

Published: February 19, 1989

BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space.

The work, which began last month at Seven World Trade Center, reflects both the adaptability of steel-framed towers and the extraordinary importance of fail-safe computer and telephone systems for the brokerage industry. According to many real estate experts, no company has ever made such extensive alterations to a new office building in Manhattan......

.......After studying more than 50 options throughout the New York region, Salomon signed a 20-year lease for 22 floors - each spanning nearly an acre - at Seven World Trade Center, an office tower that has been largely vacant since Silverstein Properties completed it two years ago.

''We really had a time constraint,'' explained Gedale B. Horowitz, a senior executive director of Salomon. ''And we were driven very much by technology. We had to find a building that could accommodate our needs, including major-sized trading floors.''

Much of the new electrical, air-conditioning and mechanical equipment will serve three double-height trading floors. To create the extra height, workers are removing most of three existing floors, using jackhammers to demolish concrete slabs and torches to remove steel decking and girders beneath the concrete.

After the girders are cut into sections small enough to fit into a construction elevator they will be sold as scrap for about 4 cents a pound.

In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need.

''And there were many other ways that we designed as much adaptability as possible into the building because we knew that flexible layout is important to large space users.'' .....

Edited March 8, 2009 by Tom Scully

[Len Colby]

Ditto that three towers fell into their own footprints at near or at free-fall speeds [against all laws of physics] at the WTC.

Wrong.

Quite funny that most truthers complain the "three towers fell into their own footprints at near or at free-fall speeds" but also complain about how much of the buildings' structure and contents were ejected from their footprints and then go on to produce photos or video clips showing free falling ejected debris falling significantly faster than the collapse wave.

Lemkin will presumably respond with more ad homs

Len,

I am a relatively new member, so I don't know you and had no pre-conceived notion about you via your posted opinions. You have now convinced me you don't know what you are talking about; but you post anyway, in a taunting and condescending "tone"...it leaps out at this reader .

If you think I care what you think about me or my views you’re mistaken just as you were mistaken in your assumption you were telling me anything about the collapses of the WTC towers I didn’t already know or that I “don't know what [i’m] talking about” concerning the subject. Since your post in no way disputed what I said you failed to demonstrate any supposed ignorance concerning the subject

Here is some history, Len. A "final" report was issued on the collapse of the WTC towers, but a 47 story steel framed structure, a tower that in all but a few American cities would be the tallest building in the skyline, was not included.

I have no idea why you think this was significant, WTCs 1 & 2 were near identical buildings (hence their nickname the “Twin Towers”) hit by near identical airplanes (a 767-223ER and a 767-200ER fueled for a Boston – LA flight) which collapsed in a similar manner. The details concerning the collapse of building 7 were quite different, thus there is nothing strange in NIST making a single report about the 1st two and a 2nd about the latter. Complaining the NIST Twin Towers report didn’t include building 7 is like complaining the HSAC didn’t issue a report concerning the shooting of Malcolm X. No it would like complaining they covered that assassination in a separate report if they had investigated it.

No steel samples from that collapsed building were preserved and analyzed. It took a full seven years for NIST to issue a report on the collapse of this 47 story tower, aka WTC 7.

You’re right no steel samples were recovered, when you can find a number of structural engineers approaching the number of those who signed off on the report who say this casts doubt on NIST's analysis of what happened get back to us. I don’t know why their talking 7 years is a problem for you, they prioritized the collapses of the Twin Towers. Yes it took them longer than expected but it was hardly the 1st time a government agency completed a project behind schedule.

Meanwhile, a new tower was built in it's place. Now NIST tells us that the new tower, and it looks like all others that have been built, need to be reinforced because they are at risk from the effects of "ordinary building fires". Have insurance rates on any of the world's steel framed towers, risen, as a result, Len? Can you point to any reinforcing projects, planned, in progress, executed or contemplated, anywhere, in response to NIST's 2008 determination of what happened to WTC 7?

NIST issued recommendations; no one is obliged to follow them. NIST pointed out some rather unique circumstances namely the lack of water for the sprinklers or FDNY’s firefighting efforts. You don’t think “insurance rates on any of the world's steel framed towers” went up after 9/11? When you actually have some data to back that up, let me know.

One thing that came up after the crash of flight 3407 near Buffalo is that for years the NTSB and others have recommended discontinuing the use of turbo props in wintry conditions. Apparently neither the FAA nor any airlines followed this advice, I am not aware of any airlines having their insurance rates adjusted as a result.

All I have to do is to post the facts to support my accusations about you, Len....note that I include nothing about conspiracy, or thermite, or missles......only that the government investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 is suspect....doesn't it seem suspect, even to you, Len? Doesn't it defy credibility? Have lease rates or fees dropped as a result on waht NIST told us about fire vulnerability in these steel framed towers, Len?

I have no idea what you are going on about. You go on about “post[ing] the facts” but only offer speculation. Do you have any info on lease rates? Do you think everyone who rents or rent out space such buildings is “in on it”? What are the odds of a long trussed steel frame building being struck by catastrophic fire and there being no water for sprinklers of the fire department?

And when you can cite some structural engineers whose knowledge of what happened extends beyond seeing video showing the collapse from the north (i.e. relatively undamaged) side get back to us.

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein,

As for Silverstein’s self-serving comments about the floors they prove little because they weren’t confirmed by an engineer or even and architect and NIST didn’t say the building collapsed because of floor failures but rather that the expansion of floor trusses cause column failures. Presumably if you’d bothered to have read the report you’d know that.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Len Colby