Database of factual material

[Mal Jones]

Administrator,

To progress a suggestion that ‘Solomon’ posted on 7.5.06:

Is it possible to set up a locked, or at least moderated, area to store cast iron, undisputable facts about 9/11? Most of the ‘facts’ doing the rounds seem to be received wisdom or have originated from sources that have later turned out to be dubious, or at least debatable. I’m sure that there are some that would challenge even the most solid of facts but if we could establish a database of established material it would save a lot of leg work for people trying to ‘drill down’ to the source material for their own research. An example might be the construction details for the various buildings. Anything, really, as long as it is undeniable fact.

Thanks for your time
Mal

[Mark Gobell]

Hi Mal

I support your call for a database of 9/11 research.

After 5 years I would expect such a thing to exist, whereas what we have is a collection of websites from which we have to take our pick.

When you examine the history of how all of this information has evolved it is easier to see how such a project would have probably stalled from day 1 because of claim and counterclaim and the many dead ends and false flags that the 9/11 movement have encountered and quite often stated as fact, only to discover later that "fact" to be doubtful or entirely wrong. There are many examples of this.

At this late stage however, as the data has become more refined a central repository must be possible.

There are issues with who administers and controls that database, how arguments as to veracity and accuracy are resolved and the process of making factual entries in the first place.

I think the best we have at the moment is the disconnected "flat" database called the internet, where by it's very nature, the data is loose, duplicated, accurate, false, unstructured, non-relational and arbitrary in nature. It is of course a "prosaic" database rather than empirical.

It would be a massive undertaking, but needs to be started IMO.

Where, how, who what, when all need to debated and answered.

Maybe there are strong arguments against it ?

[Mal Jones]

Hi Mark

Thanks for the reply. I know we would have to be careful about what is construed as fact but some are simply unassailable. My own area of interest, for example, is the construction of the towers but I’m having a devil of a job finding out, for instance, how the core columns were joined. If this information could be placed on a database it would save someone else the bother of searching it out again. This is not information that would be challenged by someone who just wants to argue the toss. It’s just fact.

Cheers
Mal

[Mark Gobell]

Mal

Agreed.

I have no idea if the WTC designs are in the public domain. I will continue to search but I have read that they have not been released. I have also read that they were destroyed in the collapses and that there is a consequent initiative to have them stored off site. I don't know if either of these statements are true or not.

You may have to resort to going to the horses mouth, the designers, builders etc.

Incredibly just two days after 9/11 on 13th Sept Bazant & Zhou published their theory about the collapse in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE.

The source of the progressive collapse theory is the paper produced in Dec 2001 by Thomas Eagar & Christopher Musso of the MIT.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

This is Eagar's home page at the MIT http://eagar.mit.edu/ where you will find all things metallurgy, welding etc, right up your street !

Here is a good response from an engineering perspective that includes some pictures that may give you a clue.
http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/nova.htm

As ever the excellent http://911research.wtc7.net evaluates the "experts on parade" here http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/index.html with links to the papers.

Hope this helps & good luck

[Mark Gobell]

Mal

I've just realised that some of the http://guardian.150m.com/ site is mirrored at the 911 Research site here http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/index.html where they also have a more accessible version of the 9/11 Commission Report

The mirror reasons and history of the Guardian site is here to explain things. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian.html

The index to the Guardian mirror is here http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/index.htm

I've just been re-reading the critique of the 2002 FEMA Building Performance report section on WTC1 & 2 here http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch2.htm

Figure 2-6 in this document has the detail you are looking for.

I quote:

Design architecture was provided by Minoru Yamasaki & Associates, and Emery Roth & Sons served as the architect of record.

Since these companies have nothing to hide, they should provide the architectural plans of the WTC to the world, so that any misunderstandings regarding the facts of the collapse, may be established. In fact, Minoru Yamasaki & Associates, and Roth & Sons, or their descendent companies, should put the entire set of architectural plans on the internet.

Looks like the design drawings are not available then.

The Guardian info IMO is very good, hence the mirroring by 911Research

Cheers