Jones quotes Manning?
[Home] [WTC (other)] [Fire Engineering] [Jones quotes Manning?]

[NOTE: The comments on this archived page no longer apply, as Professor Jones has now edited his paper to deal with them. If you want to read the version we were commenting on, then try this Google Groups link]

In one retelling of Mannings, for instance, Steve Jones lists the editorial as one of 17 points which he describes as...

Seventeen reasons for advancing the controlled-demolition hypothesis while challenging the “official” fire-caused collapse hypothesis are delineated here.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Manning appears as point 9. Here’s how he is quoted.

Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating [result] 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.

Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA… 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.

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, [are considerations] for the… present and future generations…
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Jones tells us that this is a reason “for advancing the controlled-demolition hypothesis while challenging the “official” fire-caused collapse hypothesis”, but is that what Manning’s doing? You won't know from Jones account, because he starts part way in. Let's see a bit of what he's left out.

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.
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225
Cached

Note that he says the evidence could answer questions about "building design practices" and "performance under fire conditions", and calls this "the largest fire-induced collapse in world history". None of these suggest any support for demolition, which perhaps is why they’ve been left out.

But let's move on to a direct comparison with the paragraph Jones does quote. The following are Mannings original words; the bits that didn't survive the transition to Jones’ paper are highlighted in bold.

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.
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225
Cached

Problem #1: Jones version replaces the original word "theory" to read "result". Does that seem reasonable to you? And is that behaviour excused by enclosing his new word in square brackets?

Problem #2: He's left in Mannings question about what's enough to "bring down the towers", but left out what he's saying (even if not supporting) as one possible answer: questionable fireproofing and lightweight trusses. Do you think that leaves the reader with a true picture of Mannings views?

Now let's move to paragraph two, original version, again with Jones omissions highlighted in bold.

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.
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225
Cached

Problem #3: This quote appeared earlier in the original article, and actually relates to the fire safety issues that Jones ignores. By re-ordering it, then leaving out Mannings earlier line about the truss theory, he changes the emphasis completely. Please, go read this for yourself at the above link, then decide if you believe Jones account is fair and accurate.

Problem #4: Jones version of Mannings editorial omits the words that might tell the reader that the investigation was actually run by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Can you think of a good reason why only those words , which might suggest a degree of independence to the investigation, have been left out? Is it sufficient to include an ellipsis in their place?

And here's the final section.

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.
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225
Cached

Problem #5: once again Mannings words that clearly say his interest is in the buildings design and its performance in fire, and therefore the lessons to be learned for similar structures, are left out. Does this seem reasonable to you? 

In reality, then, Manning is not advancing the controlled demolition hypothesis, or challenging that the collapse was (or at least could have been) caused by fires, and in fact Fire Engineering ran a detailed report later supporting the “fire-induced” claim (http://downloads.pennnet.com/fe/wtc.pdf). Only careful editing makes it appear that way. The moral of this story, as throughout this whole site, is to check sources whenever you can. Don't trust snipped quotes (even with us) -- they may not be telling you the whole story.

[NOTE: The comments on this archived page no longer apply, as Professor Jones has now edited his paper to deal with them. If you want to read the version we were commenting on, then try this Google Groups link]

[Home] [Hijackers] [Foreknowledge] [Stand down] [WTC (demolition)] [WTC (other)] [WTC7 and Silverstein] [Pentagon] [Flight 93] [bin Ladin] [Obstructing Justice] [Afghanistan] [Others] [Investigations, more] [What's New?]