See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Why the towers fell: Two theories [by a civil engineer]
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml
Published: Mar 1, 2007
Author: William Rice
Post Date: 2007-04-17 16:30:39 by honway
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 13666
Comments: 196
Why the towers fell: Two theories By William Rice William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses, Posted March 1, 2007 Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11. I was particularly interested in the two PBS documentaries that explained the prevailing theories as determined by two government agencies, FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology). The first (2002) PBS documentary, Why the Towers Fell, discussed how the floor truss connectors failed and caused a “progressive pancake collapse.” The subsequent 2006 repackaged documentary Building on Ground Zero explained that the connectors held, but that the columns failed, which is also unlikely. Without mentioning the word “concrete,” the latter documentary compared the three-second collapse of the concrete Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building with that of the Twin Towers that were of structural steel. The collapse of a concrete-framed building cannot be compared with that of a structural steel-framed building. Since neither documentary addressed many of the pertinent facts, I took the time to review available material, combine it with scientific and historic facts, and submit the following two theories for consideration. The prevailing theory The prevailing theory for the collapse of the 110-story, award-winning Twin Towers is that when jetliners flew into the 95th and 80th floors of the North and South Towers respectively, they severed several of each building’s columns and weakened other columns with the burning of jet fuel/kerosene (and office combustibles). However, unlike concrete buildings, structural steel buildings redistribute the stress when several columns are removed and the undamaged structural framework acts as a truss network to bridge over the missing columns. After the 1993 car bomb explosion destroyed columns in the North Tower, John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but “the building structure would still be there.” The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a collapse. This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures hot enough. If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire. Let’s assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the columns to the same degree of heat intensity and thus remove their structural strength equally over the entire floor, or floors, in order to cause the top 30-floor building segment (South Tower WTC #2) to drop vertically and evenly onto the supporting 79th floor. The 30 floors from above would then combine with the 79th floor and fall onto the next level down (78th floor) crushing its columns evenly and so on down into the seven levels below the street level. The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases. Even if Newton’s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn’t exist. The politically unthinkable theory Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and “debunks” the message rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days for the president’s 9/11 Commission to start an “investigation” into a tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission’s investigation also didn’t include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the “unusual and unprecedented” manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed. The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from public view. However, instead of the Twin Towers, let’s consider this building now. Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on 9/11. This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on either side received relatively little structural damage and both continue in use today. Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6, which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more. The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was omitted from the government’s 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse has yet to be investigated. Perhaps it is time for these and other unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 to be thoroughly investigated. Let’s start by contacting our congressional delegation. William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-83) not displayed.
.
.
.
#84. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#82)
If you want us to believe that, then prove to us the Skilling's White Paper actually says they DESIGNED the towers for those loads. All the sources I've seen that claim first hand knowledge of the paper's contents simply say it said they did an ANALYSIS of the towers for that case. There is a difference. And you have two choices where the White Paper is concerned given the date it was released ... February 3, 1964. Either it analyzed a structure whose major dimensions had already be determined (in which case how much effect could it have had on the design?) or it was a wag that ASSUMED dimensions that had not yet been determined (in which case, how good could that analysis really be)? One more thing. The Skilling paper was 3 pages long. How detailed an analysis could it possibly be given such a short length? And what tools did they actually use to do that analysis? The truth is that you don't know. In fact, have you actually seen the Skilling White Paper? Well here: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/WTC.html "I found photostat images of WTC designer John Skilling's 3 page 1964 White Paper on a German website and posted the links over on the UK911 board. ... snip ... Lucky I saved them" Well what do you know. That paper wasn't ONLY about a plane crash calculation. In fact, it contained eleven numbered points, and only ONE, pertained to that subject. And ALL it said is this: "3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." That's ALL. There are NO details given to show the nature of that analysis (and considering how limited impact analysis tools were in those days, perhaps much of that analysis was actually hand waving designed to satisfy the customer and public). The word DESIGN is not used in that paragraph. It says the buildings have been INVESTIGATED and found to be safe. Which seems to imply an analysis AFTER the design was completed. And I don't challenge that possibility or the conclusion that Skillings reached. After all, the towers did survive the impact of the planes. The local damage from the impact did NOT cause collapse. It was the fires combined with that damage that NIST (and modern analysis tools) say caused the collapse. And curiously enough, that white paper doesn't even mention the threat of fire from the impact. Yet the CT community has been trying to suggest Skilling said the structure was also designed to handle the fire from that airplane crash. Well, having discounted Robertson's statements, the only piece of physical evidence you have to even prove an analysis was done for a commercial jet doesn't even mention the word fire. And also note that the paper, dated February 3, 1964, states: "The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings." It goes on to talk about the towers being "designed" for different loads. The word "designed" is used repeatedly. And you wanted us to believe that the essential dimensions of the structure hadn't already been determined by the start of 1964. I think this memo proves you wrong, NC. Robertson also said: http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/The%20Height%20of%20Ambition%20Part%20Four.pdf "He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. " Sure, NC. Based on a white paper that has ONE paragraph claiming that but where, again, there appear to be no other documents proving such a calculation actually took place. A paper that clearly appears to be a public relations ploy to alleviate concerns about the towers. And a white paper that doesn't say the towers were DESIGNED for that load. Oh ... and one more thing. SO WHAT? The truth is that if the towers were designed for a plane impact (like the CT community insists without actually being able to prove it), then the towers performed as expected. But nowhere in either Robertson's or Skilling's account is there evidence that the towers were designed to handle the fire that would result from such a collision. Indeed, designers in those days simply did not have the analysis tools to address such a problem with any confidence. That is the part of the story that the CT community simply leaves out in their haste to make the government and bombs the culprit in the collapse. Actually, it is only a part of the story they leave out. Fine. If you want to claim no Robertson study was done, that's ok with me. But remember, the CT community is the one that insists the towers were *designed* to withstand multiple jet impacts (which none of the actual participants in the design claimed). And if you discount the Robertson claim, all you are left as evidence is that one paragraph in Skilling's 3 page White Paper. Which is dated February 3, 1964. Which doesn't appear to have actually used the word "design". Which has no details about that analysis either. And here is yet another source for you to ignore and discount: http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_11092001.html "Skilling's firm got the commission, and Robertson, then thirty-five, moved to New York to open a new office, and to supervise the structural aspects of the building's construction. In 1983, the Seattle office and the New York office split, becoming two separate firms. Skilling (who died in 1998) and Robertson later argued about who was more responsible for the structure of the towers. "These are guys with big egos, and things got a little testy between them regarding who was ultimately responsible for the design," says Jon Magnusson, the chairman and C.E.O. of the Seattle-based firm, which is now called Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire. "Skilling said, 'It was me,' Robertson said, 'It was me,' but I think the truth is that both of them made a significant contribution." ... snip ... "He also designed the buildings so they would be able to absorb the impact of a jet airliner: "I'm sort of a methodical person, so I listed all the bad things that could happen to a building and tried to design for them. I thought of the B-25 bomber, lost in the fog, that hit the Empire State Building in 1945. The 707 was the state-of-the-art airplane then, and the Port Authority was quite amenable to considering the effect of an airplane as a design criterion. We studied it, and designed for the impact of such an aircraft. The next step would have been to think about the fuel load, and I've been searching my brain, but I don't know what happened there, whether in all our testing we thought about it. Now we know what happens-it explodes. I don't know if we considered the fire damage that would cause. Anyway, the architect, not the engineer, is the one who specifies the fire system."
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Boy, you put a lot of work into this one. Do you really believe the tripe you’ve been pushing? If so I truly feel sorry for you. You either don't have the mental capacity to understand reality (lack of intellect or mentally unstable (like to argue)) or you have sold your soul to TPB (sociopath, meaning unable to enjoy a sunset, poetry, art or the love of fellow humans) Any of the above cases leads me not to "dislike" you like many other posters on this forum but to really feel sorry for you for you true loss of the beauty that life has to offer those that don't have your limitations. There are some that believe that sociopath is superior since they lack the "impediment" of conscience that allows them to succeed where those with a conscience would fail. But nothing could be further from the truth. Although this may not describe you, for you could fit one of the other options mentioned. But either way it is obvious you suffer from a handicap that impedes your enjoyment of the wonders of life and fellowship.
It was a narrow escape. If the sheep had been created first, man would have been a plagiarism. -- Mark Twain No group of professionals meets except to conspire against the public at large. -- Mark Twain [BAC post of SKILLING White Paper] "The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 - DC 8) travelling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." [nc quoting] "* A prominent story appears in the New York Times explains that study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour." [BAC] Sure, NC. Based on a white paper that has ONE paragraph claiming that but where, again, there appear to be no other documents proving such a calculation actually took place. ------- SKILLING's White Paper says "the buildings have been investigated." It does not say SKILLING performed the investigation. SKILLING's White Paper says "Analysis indicates...." It does not say SKILLING performed the analysis. The New York Times report, sourced to an architect working on the WTC, attributes the study to . ROBERTSON now claims he cannot find the ROBERTSON study analysis report. If you want the report, ask ROBERTSON what ROBERTSON did with the ROBERTSON study analysis report. By the way, the White Paper also contains the following:
There is a difference between analysis and design. One can do an analysis of something after the design of that something is essentially done. When one designs, one sizes members, etc to carry DESIGN loads. But in this case, it sounds more like they did an analysis after the fact to determine if the already designed structure would survive a load that was not part of the design. And it is true that it doesn't say that Skilling performed the analysis (although the CT community has been trying to claim that's what the White Paper was ... HIS work as an expert). Perhaps Skilling was just referring to the analysis that Robertson did ... and misreported the speed of the aircraft wrong. Afterall, it wouldn't the first time that a CEO has misrepresented the work done by underlings. Fine, this would fit the above scenario. So it turns out there wasn't ever a Skilling analysis? ROTFLOL! And Robertson is VERY CLEAR about his work having related to a plane lost in fog flying at 180 mph ... not 600 mph on a clear day. It's been 40 years. Do you keep everything you've ever written, Nolu? Really?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
I do know. You mean someone who wants to move on away from the issue of who killed Ron Brown. It is your humor function that is broken. If it is too subtle or dry, you don't get it. Do you have a connection with the site I asked you about, start by answering that question. You are too black and white on the issue of 9-11 and your smugness is that of someone who has other aspects of this game going elsewhere. Indulge me. I have posted on forums since 1995 and you have my other interlocutor has an agenda alarm bells going in a five alarm manner. You are too smug and too into the baiting game. You are up to something besides merely posting in forum on 9 11.
BAC, What do you hope to accomplish by making all these posts here, where clearly, few believe the official story?
Not
just Ron Brown. Filegate, Chinagate, Campaign funding violations, Emailgate,
and various other gates. And just because certain people wanted to "move
on" doesn't mean they are members of MoveOn.Org. I did. I answered no. Do you have a reading
problem? Paranoia runs deep. Into your heart it
will creep.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
On your best day, BAC, you're a lying asshole!
Ha! Told you he's an RNC ward heeler.
THE 9/11 TRUTHS ZIONIST ISRAEL DOES NOT WANT AMERICA ESPECIALLY WHITE AMERICA TO KNOW: 250+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns' The Incredible 9-11 Evidence THE ISRAELI/US CONNECTION TO 9/11 Mossad - The Israeli Connection To 911 The World Trade Center Demolition Aren't you lucky, you get to read one of my infinite number of replies for today.
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
You mean they WEREN'T 100 Israeli art students that happened to be everywhere the "hijackers" were for the summer of 2001?
Jeremiah 11:9 Then the LORD said to me, A conspiracy has been found among the men of Judah and among the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
I can see that's a prophesy that has come true.
John D. Rockefeller's brother William was appointed president of Standard Oil. In 1911, William Rockefeller hired a high- level British Intelligence operative named Claude Dansey. Dansey converted the U.S. Army Intelligence Service into a subsidiary of the British Secret Service. RELIGIOUS MIND-CONTROL CULTS http://tinyurl.com/5db3y
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
An interesting link; if one could discern the historical facts. If Mengele had been an Iluminatist, he'd have been among the camp inmates. The Illuminati didn't survive - 1785, was it?
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
A tremendous number of articles "allude" to the Illuminati. No one that I've discovered has documented the survival of the group. Admittedly, many groups (Including the Skull & Bones) have emulated what the Illuminati is supposed to have represented. When I see such references, I lose respect for the authorship - instantly. There may be a lot of important fact in such articles; I don't have the time & patience to sort the facts from the illusions. If you can forgive my prejudices, check out my book at - http://www.p hoenixmasonry.org/enigma_of_freemasonry/text.htm I cover the Illuminati, in there.
[BAC] And Robertson is VERY CLEAR about his work having related to a plane lost in fog flying at 180 mph ... not 600 mph on a clear day. When the material was first released to the press it was very clear that Robertson's analysis involved a Boeing 707 traveling at 600 mph. The newspaper article based on Robertson's purported work and Skilling's white paper based on Robertson's purported work have the same, precise content. The goal was to counter the argument made by the owner of the Empire State Building that the WTC design was unsafe with regard to being hit by a jetliner. Assuring the public that the building could withstand a hit by The Spirit of St. Louis at 180 mph would have been worse than useless. [BAC] It's been 40 years. Do you keep everything you've ever written, Nolu? Really? Had I done an analysis 40 years ago proving that the WTC, the most important project of my lifetime, could withstand a hit by a Boeing 707 traveling at 600 mph, and "that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact," if I could not find the paperwork today, I would be able to replicate the analysis and prove the point again. The towers withstood the impact just as Titanic withstood the impact with the iceberg. Aye cap'n, it wasn't the iceberg got 'er, it was the water! It's been 40 years. Do you believe that Robertson not only lost the report but has forgotten how to do the analysis?
More like common sense. You should use it more often, instead of relying on others to think for you.
God is always good! That is false, NC. The only evidence to support the contention that a 600 mph case was examined is a single paragraph in a White Paper that does not mention Robertson's name. But Robertson states with complete certainty on his part that his analysis was for 180 mph in fog ... and he gives a quite logical reason why that number was chosen. An impact in fog is possible, a impact on a clear day is highly unlikely. A plane will not be flying at full speed in fog. For that matter, commercial jets don't normally fly at 600mph in clear weather AT LOW ALTITUDE. Any way you look at it, the REASONABLE thing to do was look at a low speed impact. For that reason, I believe Robertson ... and not Skilling or an unidentified architect at the Port Authority (who both were playing politics and might have exaggerated what was done because they were trying to quiet public concern). Yeah ... sure you would, NC. And you didn't answer my question. ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
You are once again "forgetting" the article in the New York Times. The Skilling White Paper and the New York Times article sourced to a WTC architect provide the same precise information, that Robertson assured that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. Robertson name was used, and he was identified as the source of the analysis.
I didn't forget that article. I specifically said I don't believe the claim of the unnamed Port Authority architect that is mentioned by the NYT. You don't happen to have the name of the Port Authority architect, do you? No? Well perhaps you can tell everyone how often a commercial jet flies at 600 mph a thousand or so feet above the earth's surface? Afterall, you are the one saying that Robertson would rationally have used that instead of a low speed plane as the case of concern. So do commercial jets fly at 600 mph at a 1000 feet altitude ANYTIME they are flying (and remember, this was PRIOR to concerns about terrorists using hijacked planes as WMD) over cities ANYWHERE? Hmmmmmmm????
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
For such a project it is mandatory BAC. If you knew much about the legal requirements of such projects you would know this. BAC, WTC7 says the government did it and that you are their whore. I hope the 30 pieces of silver were worth it for you.
God is always good! Give up, you have been shown to be a liar so many times you really have no credibility left. Such is a whore's life.
God is always good! That is so much bull crap it is oozing from your sides BAC. Guess you never heard of the Kamikazes in WW2. LOL! You are lame BAC, very lame.
God is always good! It's probably a good idea to keep such documents, but I challenge you to prove there is any legal requirement that calculations in the design phase of a skyscraper must be kept at all or kept indefinitely. And have you ever heard of a "statute of repose"? It's the number of years after a project is completed after which the designers and contractors cannot be held responsible for damages or problems that may subsequently occur. THAT is the period during which engineering firms PROBABLY SHOULD (again, show me where it says MUST) keep all records if they are smart. Now for New York the statute of limitations/repose on product liability is 3 years, however, personal injury cases currently have an indefinite liability in that for three years after an injury the building builder/owners can be sued. However, that has been successfully contested in court cases recently and architects in New York are currently trying to get a maximum 10 year repose statute passed for personal liability cases. So yes, it would be smart if builders under the current NY laws kept important design documents for a long time ... perhaps indefinitely ... but I know of no laws that state it is mandatory. Go ahead, Ricky ... prove me wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
That could be one reason why the engineers and architects are lying about whether or not they designed the towers to withstand plane crashes and resulting fires. If they admit they did, and the official fairy tale says that plane crashes and resulting fires caused the collapse, they may be vulnerable to law suits.
maybe they actually designed the WTC to sustain a hit by the largest jetliner then in the sky going at 600 mph.
Robertson says he never saw the ad but just out of his engineer's curiosity calculated that the towers would handle the impace from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner then in service.
* A prominent story appears in the New York Times explains that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour.
* When the towers are hit by a plane and fall to the ground, Robertson says he cannot find a copy of his precious report.
* The director of Robertson's computer department has no recollection of any such study.
* The dog ate his homework.
#85. To: BeAChooser, christine, ... (#84)
#86. To: BeAChooser (#84)
"7. The design has been reviewed by some of the most knowledgeable people in the construction industry. In a letter to John Skilling, the Structural Engineer for the World Trade Center, the Chief Engineer of the American Division of U.S. Steel Corporation said: ...."
#87. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#86)
"SKILLING's White Paper says "the buildings have been investigated." It does not say SKILLING performed the investigation."
SKILLING's White Paper says "Analysis indicates...." It does not say SKILLING performed the analysis.
The New York Times report, sourced to an architect working on the WTC, attributes the study to ROBERTSON.
ROBERTSON now claims he cannot find the ROBERTSON study analysis report.
#88. To: BeAChooser (#83)
"You haven't really got a clue what I meant by "move-on'er". Or what I'm really about."
#89. To: BeAChooser, all (#87)
#90. To: Ferret Mike (#88)
"You haven't really got a clue what I meant by "move-on'er".
Or what I'm really about."
I do know.
You mean someone who wants to move on away from the issue of who killed Ron
Brown. It is your humor function that is broken.
Do you
have a connection with the site I asked you about, start by answering that
question.
You are up to something besides merely posting in
forum on 9 11.
#91. To: beachooser, Jethro Tull, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#83)
#92. To: BeAChooser, all (#90)
#93. To: BeAChooser (#90)
Dan C. Lewin
Zionist Commando Daniel Lewin Orchestrated The 9-11 Terrorist Attacks http://www.ilaam.net/Sept11/ZionistDid911.html 
Rabbi Dov Zakheim
The Mastermind Behind 911?
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1927 
BUSH AUTHORIZED THE 9/11 ATTACKS
http://www.nogw.com/download/2006_insider_911.pdf
Found in the Mainstream Media
http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html
We've All been Overlooking
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa11.html
http://www.nogw.com/9_11.html
http://www.rense.com/general64/moss.htm
and the So-Called War on Terrorism
http://www.assassinationscience.com/wtc.html
#94. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#93)
#95. To: Paul Revere (#94)
#96. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#95)
(Edited)
#97. To: Paul Revere (#96)
#98. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, Christine, Jethro Tull, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#97)
#99. To: SKYDRIFTER (#98)
#100. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, Christine, Jethro Tull, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#99)
#101. To: BeAChooser (#87)
#102. To: BeAChooser (#90)
Paranoia runs deep. Into your heart it will creep.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#103. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#101)
[BAC] And Robertson is VERY CLEAR about his work having related to a plane lost in fog flying at 180 mph ... not 600 mph on a clear day.
When the material was first released to the press it was very clear that Robertson's analysis involved a Boeing 707 traveling at 600 mph.
" [BAC] It's been 40 years. Do you keep everything you've ever written, Nolu? Really?"
Had I done an analysis 40 years ago proving that the WTC, the most important project of my lifetime, could withstand a hit by a Boeing 707 traveling at 600 mph, and "that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact," if I could not find the paperwork today, I would be able to replicate the analysis and prove the point again.
#104. To: BeAChooser (#103)
That is false, NC. The only evidence to support the contention that a 600 mph case was examined is a single paragraph in a White Paper that does not mention Robertson's name.
One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. ... If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances.
#105. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#104)
You are once again "forgetting" the article in the New York Times.
#106. To: BeAChooser (#87)
It's been 40 years. Do you keep everything you've ever written, Nolu? Really?
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#107. To: BeAChooser (#103)
The only evidence to support the contention that a 600 mph case was examined is a single paragraph in a White Paper that does not mention Robertson's name.
One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#108. To: BeAChooser (#105)
and remember, this was PRIOR to concerns about terrorists using hijacked planes as WMD
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#109. To: RickyJ, ALL (#106)
"It's been 40 years. Do you keep everything you've ever written, Nolu? Really?"
For such a project it is mandatory BAC.
#110. To: BeAChooser (#109)
However, that has been successfully contested in court cases recently and architects in New York are currently trying to get a maximum 10 year repose statute passed for personal liability cases.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#111. To: BeAChooser (#105)
I specifically said I don't believe the claim of the unnamed Port Authority architect that is mentioned by the NYT. I am impressed. BAC does not believe the claim of the Port authority architect cited as a source for the NYT article, which just happens to be corroborated by the White Paper of Project Manager Robertson's boss, Chief Engineer John Skilling. However, BAC believes that Robertson did a study and the dog ate it. So do commercial jets fly at 600 mph at a 1000 feet altitude ANYTIME they are flying So do commercial jets fly at any speed at 1000 feet over Manhattan? Or possibly into Manhattan. Hmmmmmmm???? After all, you are the one claiming that Robertson did not consider a jetliner's cruising speed, but that he was considering a jetliner at slow speed coming in for a landing so he can go take a physical at 90 Church Street or something. That's where you got your physical, right? 90 Church Street?
#112. To: BeAChooser, RickyJ (#109)
You do not seriously purport that there is a product liability issue, do you?
Now for New York the statute of limitations/repose on product liability is 3 years, however, personal injury cases currently have an indefinite liability in that for three years after an injury the building builder/owners can be sued. However, that has been successfully contested in court cases recently and architects in New York are currently trying to get a maximum 10 year repose statute passed for personal liability cases.
#113. To: nolu_chan, RickyJ (#112)
Do you suppose that architect might have
gotten his information from Skilling's White Paper? And you still don't have
the name of this architect, do you? Actually,
I don't care whether Robertson did a study or not, NC. It is the *truth*
movement that wants there to have been a study ... one proving the towers were
designed to survive plane crashes. It doesn't matter to me whether there were
or weren't because the fact is the towers did survive a high speed impact by
big commercial jets. But at least it appears you've now dispensed with the
claim they were "designed" rather than just analyzed after the fact. And that
they were designed to survive the fires from a plane crash. Or do you wish to
contest that further? ROTFLOL! Not
ordinarily. But if you put aside terrorism, I can't think of any reason a
commercial jet would be flying at 600 mph 1000 feet above Manhattan. But the
notion of being lost in fog (given that such a thing has happened there
before) isn't all that irrational.
Strawman. Robertson said he assumed the plane was LOST IN FOG, just like the
other plane that had hit a skyscraper in NYC before the WTC was designed.
You are claiming the building was
designed for plane impact and fire so it shouldn't have collapsed. If it was,
then yes, this would be a product liability issue. If it wasn't, then this is
a case of fraud ... and the statute of limitation in that case is 7 years or
so. Now NY is special in that it allows for an indefinite time to the injury
before starting the clock in personal injury cases. Of course lately, courts
have ruled against that indefinite period in several cases and bills are
pending to set the time of repose to 10 years. Either way, you and Ricky still
haven't proven that by law builders MUST keep records for ANY length of time.
That is what was claimed. Care to try now or do you wish to continue focusing
on the irrelevant and strawmen?
BAC does not believe the claim of the Port authority architect
cited as a source for the NYT article, which just happens to be corroborated
by the White Paper of Project Manager Robertson's boss, Chief Engineer John
Skilling.
However, BAC believes
that Robertson did a study and the dog ate it.
"So do commercial jets fly
at 600 mph at a 1000 feet altitude ANYTIME they are flying"
So do commercial jets fly at any speed at 1000 feet over
Manhattan? Or possibly into Manhattan. Hmmmmmmm????
After all, you are the
one claiming that Robertson did not consider a jetliner's cruising speed, but
that he was considering a jetliner at slow speed coming in for a landing so he
can go take a physical at 90 Church Street or something.
You do not seriously purport that there is a product liability
issue, do you?
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#114. To: BeAChooser, RickyJ (#113)
Do you suppose that architect might have gotten his information from Skilling's White Paper? No. It is impossible to read Skilling's White Paper and determine that the study was done by Robertson. But at least it appears you've now dispensed with the claim they were "designed" rather than just analyzed after the fact. And that they were designed to survive the fires from a plane crash. Or do you wish to contest that further? ROTFLOL! Before the building was built, the PANYNJ and the public were assured in 1964 that "The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 - DC 8) travelling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." 1964 is before the buildings were built. The area had not yet been cleared of existing buildings. He could only be talking about the future buildings, as designed. You are claiming the building was designed for plane impact and fire so it shouldn't have collapsed. If it was, then yes, this would be a product liability issue. If it wasn't, then this is a case of fraud ... and the statute of limitation in that case is 7 years or so. Counselor, you do not know what you are talking about. All cases brought in court will use a theory of NEGLIGENCE.
#115. To: nolu_chan, RickyJ (#114)
That doesn't say they were DESIGNED for an airplane
impact. Only that an analysis (rudimentary as it would have had to have been
in 1964, given the tools they had to work with back then) showed the towers
would survive an impact. I'm not disputing that. And it doesn't say anything
about the towers surviving the fires that would result. Indeed, the sources
you've quoted on this thread indicates they thought that the fires were THE
PROBLEM. But not before they were designed. There is a difference
between design and analysis, as I've already pointed out. A design includes
safety factors. A analysis just looks at what will likely happen.
I suggest it is you who doesn't know what you are talking about. I suggest you
look up the term "statue of repose". And I notice neither you or Ricky have
yet offered any proof that calculations MUST be retained as was claimed. tick
tick tick ....
BeAChooser - But at least it appears you've now dispensed with
the claim they were "designed" rather than just analyzed after the fact. And
that they were designed to survive the fires from a plane crash. Or do you
wish to contest that further? ROTFLOL!
Before the building was built, the PANYNJ and the public were assured
1964 is before the buildings were built.
Counselor, you do not know what you are talking about. All
cases brought in court will use a theory of NEGLIGENCE.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#116. To: BeAChooser, nolu_chan, RickyJ, christine, THE SKYDRIFTER, all fans of hyperbolic silliness everywhere! (#115)
ROTFLOL! We return to the scene of yesterday's epic battle. And from the ashes of defeat we hear the dreaded battle cry! ROTFLOL! Can it be possible? Could the horrifying monstrous supervillain have survived the assault of our heroes? Out of the ashes it comes, oozing the slime of misrepresentation, distraction and general reichwing untruth! The strangely hermaphroditic creature howls it's defiance into the wind, challenging THE SKYDRIFTER and nolu_chan and his trusty sidekick little RickyJ to battle! "ROTFLOL!" It screams into the wind. "ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL!" And the epic battle commences all over again!
To: nolu_chan, RickyJ, ALL
Paranoia is a survival trait in a Decidership.
#117. To: BeAChooser (#115)
I think you mean "statute of repose," beachy. Spellcheck ain't gonna help you with your vocabulary.
I suggest you look up the term "statue of repose".
Paranoia is a survival trait in a Decidership.
#118. To: bluedogtxn (#116)
hehehehehe
#119. To: christine (#118)
During another demonstration in front of the new Building 7, police confiscate the group's camera and literally accuse them of being "terrorists."
A bunch fat Bo Dietl types...
“Yes, but is this good for Jews?"
#120. To: christine (#118)
I think you mean .... ROTFLOL!
hehehehehe
Paranoia is a survival trait in a Decidership.
#121. To: Eoghan (#119)
scumbags--calling the protestors terrorists? that p's me off.
#122. To: Eoghan (#119) (Edited)
The irony of Nazis taking over our law enforcement based upon a phony attack orchestrated mainly by Zionists.
#123. To: Eoghan, christine (#119)
Alex talked to Luke Rudkowski earlier today. The group http://www.wearechange.com is out of New York and Luke Rudkowski had another confrontation, this time with zbigniew brezinsky. Human-Deficient Brzezinski Exposed for 9/11 Culpability Security Attempts to Seize Activist's Video Tape and Intimidate Free Speech During Oration by 'Grand' Architect and Trilateral Player Serving Agenda of Would-Be Global Landlords http://www .jonesreport.com/articles/250407_brzezinski_911.html These globalist goons and their minions make me sick.
It was a narrow escape. If the sheep had been created first, man would have been a plagiarism. -- Mark Twain No group of professionals meets except to conspire against the public at large. -- Mark Twain
#124. To: christine (#121)
The pole smoking faggot saying "Guess who's going to jail? Guess who's going to jail?" needs that written on a night stick and shoved up his pooper...
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
.
.
.
Comments (125 - 196) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest