4um: Paul Laffoley,member of design team of WTC, comments on 9/11

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
9/11
See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Paul Laffoley,member of design team of WTC, comments on 9/11
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://media.putfile.com/Paul-Laffoley-WTC
Published: Apr 20, 2007
Author: Paul Laffoley Interview
Post Date: 2007-04-20 22:20:16 by honway
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 446299
Comments: 38

Click below for an excerpt from the Paul Laffoley interview.
http://media.putfile.com/Paul-Laffoley-WTC

Bio on Paul Laffoley
http://www.laffoleyarchive.com/laffoley_writings/bio_laffoley.html
LAFFOLEY ARCHIVE: Paul Laffoley Biographical Info CONDENSED BIOGRAPHY:
Laffoley attended Brown University, graduating in 1962 with honors in Classics, Philosophy, and Art History.
In 1963, he attended the Harvard Graduate School of Design, and apprenticed with the sculptor Mirko Basaldella before being dismissed from the institution. He was dismissed for "conceptual deviance", after the majority of his designs were given a grade that designates the project not as good or bad, but as 'currently technologically or physically impossible'.
Thereafter, he moved to New York to apprentice with the visionary architect Friedrich Kiesler. He was also hired for the design team of the World Trade Center, but was soon after fired by the chief architect, Minoru Yamasaki, for his unconventional ideas. He had apparently always been quite an 'unconventional' person. By Laffoley's account, he spoke his first word ("Constantinople") at the age of six months, and then lapsed into 4 years of silence, having been diagnosed with slight Autism. Laffoley has written that, in his senior year at Brown, he was given eight electric-shock treatments. As a child he attended the progressive Mary Lee Burbank School in Belmont, Massachusetts, where his draftsman's talent was ridiculed by his Abstract Expressionist teachers. Subscribe to *9-11*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 35.
#4. To: honway, Christine, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#0)
Sounds like a distracting piece of disinformation to me.
The building was perfect for controlled demolition, but that doesn't imply daddy or junior bin Laden. The dancing art students were Mossad.
(BAC is quiet on this one; take note.)

SKYDRIFTER posted on 2007-04-21 12:48:59 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#5. To: SKYDRIFTER (#4)
disinformation

to all of you...paul laffoley is sincere...i'm the guy who interviewed him and he is my friend...
he is an extremely accomplished and visionary architect and artist who used to hang out with guys like buckminster fuller and WAS ON THE ORIGINAL WTC DESIGN TEAM UNDER MINORU YAMASAKI...he is considered an absolute polymath and genius by any who encounter him...i had no idea he had worked on the original wtc design team in the early 1960's until i interviewed him in february...i also had no intention of talking about 911 or anything like that...the program was focused on art, imagination and creativity...hah...but this little gem came out when we were talking about his background...
but i'll tell you this...he is for real and knows a great deal about the construction on the wtc comlpex...and we will be talking more about it in the near future...
o)<
mike

dragger2k posted on 2007-04-25 18:49:22 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#7. To: dragger2k, honway, InsideJob (#5)
ping to dragger2k's post

christine posted on 2007-04-25 18:55:35 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#8. To: christine (#7)
I'm going to take all of this with a large grain of salt.

Critter posted on 2007-04-25 18:56:37 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#12. To: Critter, SKYDRIFTER (#8)
Laffoley said that buildings in the early 1960s and 1970s in New York were built to be brought down by controlled demolition.

you don't think this is plausible?

christine posted on 2007-04-25 19:23:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#24. To: Christine, Jethro Tull, Honway, Robin, Minerva, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#12)
Try to imagine an engineer involved in a great work - designed to be destroyed. That just doesn't pass the smell test.
The core columns, by coincidence, were a demolition expert's dream come true; but I can't believe that was the intent of the design.
Of course, we bring the bin Ladens into it, for authenticity!
If that had been the case, the towers would have come down in '93.
I smell Red Herring PSYOPS.

SKYDRIFTER posted on 2007-04-25 20:57:04 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#26. To: SKYDRIFTER (#24) (Edited)
Try to imagine an engineer involved in a great work - designed to be destroyed.

Any rational person would know that one day in the future the Towers would have to come down. No skyscaper has ever been built that will last forever.
A design taking into the consideration the absolute fact that one day the building will be coming down sounds plausible to me.

I am not suggesting and Paul Laffoley was not suggesting explosives were included in the design. Laffoley is making the claim that considerations were included in the design for the day that the building would come down.
Consider a scenario where due to an earthquake,hurricane or a design flaw a building the size of the Towers in downtown Manhattan was in imminent danger of toppling.
Time would be critical.
You can make the case that a design which included the ability to rapidly prepare the building for demolition would be the responsible thing to do.

honway posted on 2007-04-25 21:10:50 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#35. To: honway, Christine, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#26)

You can make the case that a design which included the ability to rapidly prepare the building for demolition would be the responsible thing to do.

That's carrying rationalization way over the line, for my money.

I just don't buy it. That would entail the addition of 'weak points' in a building that was economically designed to be maximum strength, per ton of steel. You can't have both.

SKYDRIFTER posted on 2007-04-25 21:33:00 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 35.
#37. To: SKYDRIFTER (#35)
I just don't buy it. That would entail the addition of 'weak points' in a building that was economically designed to be maximum strength, per ton of steel. You can't have both.

No one would intentionally design weak points.
I believe the practice of designing for demolition means identifying in advance the key load bearing points and identifying those points in the structure and on blueprints.
This is only speculation, but if you wanted the ability to do it quickly to prevent a toppling collapse in Manhattan and a potential domino event,the building might be pre-wired. Hence, the only additional component needed in the event of imminent collapse would be to place the pre-determined explosives at the pre-determined locations.

honway posted on 2007-04-25 21:48:33 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
End Trace Mode for Comment # 35.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um