I'm Guessing that nobody here gives a shit about this - -

[sirs]

This is a he-says, she-says kind of argument.  The book I read (by two NYT reporters) claimed that they avoided then-current NY and NJ building laws because they were on land owned by or within the jurisdiction of neither state.

It's not "he-says, she-says". Your source, which still has not been revealed, are directly contradicted by records revealed by the NIST investigation.

Fire protection of exposed structural steel members in the WTC towers was provided by applied fire
resistive materials. They were either sprayed fire-resistive materials (SFRMs), gypsum wallboards, or a
combination of the two, depending upon the type of structural members, to meet the requirements of
Construction Classification of 1B of the 1968 New York City (NYC) Building Code. All floor trusses
and beams were protected with SFRM. The columns inside the core were either covered with gypsum
wall board or a combination of gypsum wall board and SFRM. For the exterior columns, vermiculite
plaster was applied to the side of the column facing the interior of the building, whereas SFRM was
applied to other three faces.

...

Fabrication and inspection requirements were contained in the contracts for the floor trusses, box core
columns and built-up beams, members of the exterior wall, and rolled columns and beams. In general, the
inspection requirements from the specifications for the various contracts were at a minimum equivalent to
those in the 1968 NYC Building Code. The Code contains provisions that govern the fabrication and
inspection of materials used in buildings. However, in a number of cases, the contract requirements were
more comprehensive and stringent than the corresponding provisions in the Code.

...

The primary egress system for the office spaces was the three stairways located in the building core.
These included two 44 in. (designated A and C) and one 56 in. wide (designated B) stairs which provided
exactly the code required capacity for an occupant load of 390 per floor (39,000 ft2 net at 100 ft2 per
person). The layout within the building core was consistent with the Building Code requirements for
maximum travel distance (200 ft unsprinklered, 300 ft sprinklered) and, while the separation was
consistent with New York City requirements (15 ft and later 30 ft), it was short of the more common
requirements found in all current building codes (one-half the diagonal of the space served if
unsprinklered, or one-third the diagonal if sprinklered) on some of the floors where the transfer corridors
brought the stair access closer together.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-1.pdf

I think these bolded sections from the executive summary document what I've said - the Port Authority followed then-current NYC Building Code in building the towers, and some changes were later made to the code as a consequence of 9/11. Supporting documents are in the PDF.

Can't wait to see the rebuttal to this.  Perhaps a tongue sticking out?

[Plane]

"...which nobody can really win since neither side will be able to totally vanquish the other.
"

Gotta try , this is the only option being presented to us.


I think we do need a clearer definition of what an interrogator may and may not do , but this limit needs to be on the right side of the effective/ineffective border.

[Michael Tee]

<<Your source, which still has not been revealed . . . >>

I've referred to this source in at least one previous post, and IIRC, named it as well.  Unfortunately, I can't now recall the name of the book or the authors.  The authors were two NYT reporters, the title was "[number] Minutes" and it was on the NYT non-fic bestseller list.  You'd think it would be easy to find on a Google search, but unfortunately, there are so many conspiracy theories out there that any search of Twin Towers collapse or 911 yields thousands of results.  I've spent all the time searching for this title that I plan to spend.  If I can find this book in the pile of shelved and unshelved books that I call a library in the kids' former bedrooms upstairs, I will let you know.

[Michael Tee]

<<I think we do need a clearer definition of what an interrogator may and may not do , but this limit needs to be on the right side of the effective/ineffective border.>>

IMHO, once you've crossed from ineffective to effective, you're already in Nazi or al Qaeda territory.  That is your whole fucking problem right there.  A "terrorist" who is prepared to sacrifice his life for the cause is NOT going to sacrifice the cause to spare his ears from the sound of Metallica.  You've already crossed the line thousands of times and you're in the same moral category as your opponents and former opponents and deserving of the same fate.  IMHO.

[Amianthus]

If I can find this book in the pile of shelved and unshelved books that I call a library in the kids' former bedrooms upstairs, I will let you know.

I'll stick with believing scientists and engineers (like those at NIST) over NYT reporters, especially on issues involving science and engineering.

[BSB]

Musk Ox Dropping says, "I want to discuss the morality of torture, and specifically U.S. torture...."

A) If you want to discuss the morality of torture we aren't going to limit it. Morality is an international, human, concept.

Did you call for the arrest of Ho Chi Minh for allowing the torture of American POWs during the second Indochina war?  If not, why not?

>>Mike McGrath spent five years and nine months as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. He was captured after a failed reconnaissance mission sent his aircraft to the ground. His captors transported him to the Hanoi Hilton where he endured a life of isolation, torture and misery. The beatings were frequent and the living conditions deplorable.<<


>>Within ten hours of my capture, I was en route to Hanoi. At a pontoon bridge, I was taken out of a truck and jammed into a narrow ditch. The soldiers who were guarding the bridge took turns to see who could hit my face the hardest. After the contest, they tried to force dog dung through my teeth, bounced rocks off my chest, jabbed me with their gun barrels, and bounced the back of my head off the rocks that lay in the bottom of the ditch.
I said my final prayers that night, because I was sure I would not reach Hanoi alive.<<

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/honor/gallery/4.html


B) Artic Hare Rectum continued, "U.S. torture, which is the only kind of torture the readers of this NG can do anything about."

We did do something about it. The torture of enemy combatants was forcefully, and publicly, condemned. We held our elections and put new people, who have a very different philosophy, in charge. New Generals, who will hold all soldiers accountable, were placed in command. Veterans like myself, who have seen the elephant, made it clear, when discussions arose during family or social gatherings, that these actions must not stand. Any notion that America just went on uneffected, or stayed neutral to the actions at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, are foolish. This isn't Vietnam, or Cuba, where citizens live in such fear of government reprisals that only a very few brave individuals dare speak up. 

[Plane]

<<I think we do need a clearer definition of what an interrogator may and may not do , but this limit needs to be on the right side of the effective/ineffective border.>>

IMHO, once you've crossed from ineffective to effective, you're already in Nazi or al Qaeda territory. 

WE should have qualms that ensure we cannot fight for our own survival?

That would be fine if we never found enemys .

[Michael Tee]

<<I'll stick with believing scientists and engineers (like those at NIST) over NYT reporters, especially on issues involving science and engineering.>>

Yeah, sure, those Federal Government employees would sure be able to sort out a jurisdictional tangle between NYC, NY State and the New York Port Authority better than mere reporters of the NYT.  They'd sure know a lot more about local building codes than the NYT reporters.  They'd sure know a lot more about how the building's owners were planning to address the known problem of uninsulated beams and columns after the spray-on insulation flaked off.

I'm also unaware of the particular rule of law or NYT staff rules that prevents NYT reporters from seeking out reliable scientists and engineers to solicit their views on the causes of the Twin Towers' collapse.  I did not realize that they would be restricted in their inquiries to Federal Government sources.

[Michael Tee]

Mycountryrightorwrong wants to know

<<Did you call for the arrest of Ho Chi Minh for allowing the torture of American POWs during the second Indochina war? >>

Are you fucking nuts?  Ho Chi Minh is my hero and my god.  A better man than you and your whole fucking army could ever hope to be.  Including those whiny wimps you just quoted from.


Defeatedbyuncleho then wants to know: <<If not, why not?>>

I don't consider a few kicks and punches to be torture.  Neither is eating dog-shit.  Those whiners and complainers you just quoted make me sick to my stomach.  If they'd think for one second of the pain and agony they and their comrades in arms had inflicted on the Vietnamese people, they'd never dare to open their mouths even once to complain about the minuscule payback that the Vietnamese exacted from them.  They ought to fall down on their knees and thank the people of Vietnam every day of the rest of their miserable fucking lives that they were never forced to endure a tiny fraction of the suffering of their innocent napalmed victims.

Waaaaaah!hesaysmeanthingsaboutus says:

<<We did do something about it. The torture of enemy combatants was forcefully, and publicly, condemned. We held our elections and put new people . . .  in charge. New Generals, who will hold all soldiers accountable, were placed in command. Veterans like myself, who have seen the elephant, made it clear, when discussions arose during family or social gatherings, that these actions must not stand. Any notion that America just went on uneffected, or stayed neutral to the actions at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, are foolish. This isn't Vietnam, or Cuba, where citizens live in such fear of government reprisals that only a very few brave individuals dare speak up. >>

Well, that's all very commendable, I'm sure, but I think that UNCAT obliges its signing parties to do a little more than forcefully condemn, publicly condemn, change personnel or even (Gasp!!) denounce during family gatherings - -  it looked to me, the last time I read the treaty, more like they were looking for stuff like, you know, criminal prosecutions, jail time, etc.  Something a little more than the house arrest that Lt. Calley endured (without even having to eat dog-shit) for a few months for the massacre of hundreds of innocent civilians.  But I guess those were the halcyon days of U.S. moral righteousness - - today in America's current wars, I bet Lt. Calley's punishments would be viewed as Draconian.

[Michael Tee]

<<WE should have qualms that ensure we cannot fight for our own survival?>>

Well, plane, first you'd have to show that torture is essential to your survival now, when you apparently survived the Second World War very well without it.    THEN we could have a really interesting philosophical discussion about the morality of torture when your very survival is at stake.

<<That would be fine if we never found enemys .>>

First you'd have to stop MAKING enemies.

[Michael Tee]

<<Wow....who woulda thought? Since pretty much all you condemn is the US.
The Russians are slaughtering innocents, but outrage is only reserved for the US.>>


There's no point in condemning Russia or anyone but the U.S. in this forum.  First of all because there aren't any Russians here.  Secondly because everyone here is already condemning the Russians, the Chinese, the Muslims, the French . . .  I see that the posters in this NG are ready and more than ready to condemn any and every fucking nation or group on this planet, except one:  the U.S.A.   The only nation on the face of the earth whose shit doesn't stink.  What a fucking miracle!  I don't think that it's a healthy situation for the members of this group to be encouraged in pointing their fingers at the crimes of, say, Russia, not when their own country is committing so many crimes on its own behalf anyway.  Even the Bible recognizes this where Jesus says Why are you pointing out the mites in somebody else's eye when there is a mite the size of a fucking log in your own?

I hope, when I say something bad about the U.S. in this forum, that somebody somewhere, a lurker, a member, but somebody is going to think, even once, "Hey, he's right.  That's NOT right," which is not gonna happen in the case of any other country.

<<Like I said earlier....it's obvious what motivates you.
But thats ok....because I dont give a damn what America Haters think as far as affecting our policy.>>

You are such a fucking crybaby.  Even when the criticism is valid, you think you can invalidate it by attacking the messenger:  "Well he's an America Hater."   Even when the "America Hater" turns out to be a "Russia Hater" as well.  As long as you can characterize the speaker as "America Hater," then what he says is meaningless to you.  What I said was true, whether you wanted to hear it or not.  America sucks.  Deal with it.

<<And IslamoNazis that hate because someone refuses Islam are not unjustified haters?>>

Cut the bullshit, CU4.  The Muslims who hate the USA don't hate it because it refuses Islam, they hate it for supporting Israel against the Arabs and for the daily injustice and humiliation that Israel is heaping upon the Palestinians.  That is not by any stretch of the imagination "unjustified" hatred.

<<IslamoNazis that blow up girls schools because they want women to remain 2nd class are not haters?>>

They're backward idiots, but those women that they don't want educated are their own wives and daughters and sisters, so no, they are not haters.  And they sure as hell wouldn't hold the U.S. responsible for efforts to educate their women if the U.S. butted out of their affairs.

<<Michael they are the same as the racists that blew up Black schools/churches in the United States.>>

Similar in some respects, I would not say the same.  They are certainly not YOUR problem, CU4.  This is one fight that the U.S. has no role in.  You have no more right to restructure their society than they have to restructure yours.

[Plane]

<<That would be fine if we never found enemys .>>

First you'd have to stop MAKING enemies.

That can't be done can it?

What behavior availible to human beings brings an enemy free future?


Much better than a false hope that there could be a time with no enemys is to controll our enemys and be good to our freinds.


By controll I don't necessacerily mean "destroy" , destroying enemys is not always necessacery , enemys that are civil ought to be given toleration , even appreaciation for the civility . Destruction should be reserved for enemys that are actually causeing harm, serious harm.

[BSB]

Missing Polar Bear Brain,  you said you wanted to discuss the "morality of torture".
What you posted in reply to my post is a sad joke and an insult to every soldier who was ever captured, imprisoned, tortured, starved, placed in solitary, or denied medical care, no matter their cause. You aren't at all interested in discussing the morality of torture. What you are interested in is displaying your ignorant, boorish, cowardly, bigoted crap that won't assist one POW ever, anywhere. Take your perverted rhetoric and stick it where the sun don't shine. I'm through with you.


BSB

[Michael Tee]

<<That [to stop making enemies] can't be done can it?>>

That is a pretty abstract question, plane.  In the current situation (the enmity of the Islamic world and America) I think you can stop aiding and abetting the flagrant continuing insult and humiliation of the Palestinians which consists of the ongoing Israeli ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and the persecution of the people of Gaza.  This is by all accounts (General Petraeus' included) a source of enormous anti-American feeling.  Similarly the ongoing occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.  Similarly the ongoing threats against Iran and the boycott.  There are so many actions you have taken that are enraging the Arab world, and yet you say that you can't stop making enemies?  That makes no sense at all.

<<What behavior availible to human beings brings an enemy free future?>>

Again, you are venturing into the abstract and the general.  I don't know if it is possible to "guarantee" an "enemy-free" future, but the real point seems to be that you aren't even making the slightest effort to stop making the enemies that you are already making.

[Michael Tee]

<<Missing Polar Bear Brain,  you said you wanted to discuss the "morality of torture".
What you posted in reply to my post is a sad joke and an insult to every soldier who was ever captured, imprisoned, tortured, starved, placed in solitary, or denied medical care, no matter their cause. >>


I indicated that I did not consider their treatment (as described) to be torture.  They weren't waterboarded.  They weren't burned with cigarette butts or electroshocked or suffocated or sodomized or raped, all of which happened at Abu Ghraib and other black sites. 

<<You aren't at all interested in discussing the morality of torture. >>

That was my intention.  Discussing the morality of torture doesn't mean we have to agree on every case of alleged torture whether it is actually torture or not.     

<<What you are interested in is displaying your ignorant, boorish, cowardly, bigoted crap that won't assist one POW ever, anywhere. >>

What I was actually interested in was hearing how the actions of the American torturers that motivated me to start this thread can be defended by their supporters.  What you are interested in seems to consist of attacking the messenger, or anyone else who dares to suggest that America's actions are not exactly on the highest moral plane possible.

<<Take your perverted rhetoric and stick it where the sun don't shine. I'm through with you.>>

Thanks, but I'd like to save my "perverted rhetoric" for anyone who's genuinely interested in discussing the morality of torture, and specifically the morality of the torture of Abu Zubaydah, as discussed at the head of this thread.