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: 13705
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 (1-42) not displayed.
.
.
.
#43. To: roughrider (#41)
It doesn't matter what one posts to "IT". Wether you provide links, pictures or paragraphs. Thats why I have never provided any links to "IT". Why feed "IT" any info that "IT" could split hairs with.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
You're right. There's no shortage of examples. And it doesn't matter if someone has real life experience in matters pertinent to the tower collapse incident, he/she/it will try to discredit them. In that attempt, there may be a link included to prove his/her/its point, and in quoting from that link only the "convenient" information is told; but when an important part of the information from that link is brought out that he/she/it didn't mention, it results in more ridicule. Moreover, he/she/it also adamantly and openly refuses to answer ANY other glaring pertinent inconsistencies and/or questions concerning 9/11 You're not the only one. But like you said, it's to little avail...
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
The design of the major structural elements of the towers surely had to have been completed by February 1964. Otherwise, Skilling could not possibly have completed an analysis of the structure's ability to survive a high speed plane crash that he published a White Paper about on February 3, 1964. You can't have it both ways NC. Either the White Paper is simply nonsense based on an incomplete design or the design (as far as what would be necessary to determine the resistance of the towers to plane impact) was completed by February 3, 1964. And since it must have taken some time to do the analysis that is claimed and write the White Paper, that would imply the design was essentially finished before January 1964. But he didn't change the essential structure during that revision. The revision must have consisted of very few changes because the articles you linked and quoted from 1964 and earlier show design details (size of columns, spacing, steel strengths, etc) that agree quite well with the final design. And indeed, the article you quote doesn't say the revision involved changes in the major structure. Your article is telling us that contrary to what the CT community has been saying, the WTC tower design was MORE vulnerable to fire than other steel skyscrapers (which usually uses girders and beams)? Well ... perhaps that explains why they were the first skyscrapers to collapse due to fire. Oh my goodness ... yet another difference between the WTC tower design and most other skyscraper designs. One that again makes the towers MORE vulnerable to fire if a plane crash has occurred. Are you finally admitting that it was Robertson's design ... not Skilling's. Good for you. Again, what YOU posted says Robertson did look at the tower's performance for a low speed plane lost in fog, not a high speed impact. And one more point ... this points out that Robertson, like Skilling, did an analysis AFTER the design was done. Crash of planes into the towers was apparently not a DESIGN LOAD so it is incorrect to claim that the towers were DESIGNED for even this plane crash. It's just fortuitous for them that calculations showed the towers would survive a plane impact. Otherwise, they might have had to redesign the whole tower. Right? New technologies? That doesn't sound like he just added thickness to steel members or increased the steel strengths, does it? Let's see ... what could they be talking about? Maybe the outrigger space frame which linked the outside wall to the services core? No ... that was part of the initial concept. Wait! I know what they are talking about. http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB "A viscoelastic damping system was invented and patented to ameliorate the wind-induced dynamic component of building motion by dissipating much of the energy of that motion . . . acting more or less like shock absorbers in an automobile. With these dampers, we could control the swaying motion without having to use large quantities of structural steel. This was the first time engineered dampers were used to resist the wind-induced swaying motion of a building." Now my question to you is this. Do you think those viscoelastic dampers significantly affected the resistance of the towers to plane impact? Or increased it's fire resistance? Or affected the way the tower would collapse once fire did its thing? No? Then I don't know why you even bring this up in this debate other than muddy the waters and keep folks from seeing the essential issues. Fine. If you want to claim that no study of the tower's resistance to aircraft impact was performed, that's ok with me. Because I thought it is the CT community that insists the towers were DESIGNED to survive multiple high speed plane crashes. What are you going to do, NC ... just ignore the real mystery here? The link YOU PROVIDED tells us that the concept for the towers was just explained to Skilling in April of 2004. Yet he published his White Paper (where you claim he did a design analysis of the towers) in February 3, 1964. Impossible? Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Exactly where have I diverted the discussion, roughrider? The subject of this thread is why the towers fell. ALL my posts have concerned that subject in one way or another. You just don't like the fact that I showed that you and the others here really don't understand the issues, science, engineering, facts or even logic. Then you should have quit back on post #1 when I took the subject article of this thread apart and brought into real doubt the qualifications of its supposed author. Tell you what, roughrider, since you insist we stay on topic. Why don't you respond to my criticisms of the article in post #1. You can start by providing proof that Rice is who he says he is. Show us his resume. Tell us where he got his degree. Who did he work for while working in the field? Show me anything from Vermont Technical College that actually proves he worked or works there. I'm curious, roughrider. Since you are such a master of logic, can you explain how Skillings could have done a definitive analysis of the towers resistance to plane impact that he published in February 1964 if the design wasn't done by then? For that matter, does the claim that the concept of the design was first explained to Skilling in April 1964 make any sense if he published a White Paper analysis of the towers resistance to aircraft impact in February 1964? Or is it time for you to quit? ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
No, Kamala, here's why you never provide links to what you claim. http://www.fire.nist.gov/fds/docs/fds_tech_guide_4.pdf In the acknowledgments section it states "The Fire Dynamics Simulator has been under development for almost 25 years." In Chapter 2 it states that "Version 1 of FDS was publicly released in February 2000". Gee ... that was before the WTC project, wasn't it. ROTFLOL! And that's just the latest of MANY examples.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Says the guy who claimed real life experience with regards to structures and then said "EVERYTHING is stronger in compression than in tension" when talking about steel structural elements. Which is completely false. ROTFLOL! You will not find the truth about 9/11 if you start from a foundation of misinformation and lies. You will only end up discrediting the attempt to get that truth.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Actually, it was the architects and engineers, per a white paper and an unchallenged article in the New York Times, by which questions about the safety of the soon to be built WTC were addressed to assuage the public. They claimed that the building would withstand a hit by a Boeing 707 at 600 mph. Maybe they lied, or maybe they actually designed the WTC to sustain a hit by the largest jetliner then in the sky going at 600 mph. It is only repeating what was said contemporaneously and publicly. Either they did it or they lied about doing it.
[BAC #46 to roughrider] Exactly where have I diverted the discussion, roughrider? BAC constantly invents "facts" or distorts facts and attributes statements or arguments to the other party which were not made, and he can proceed to argue against a flawed argument of his own manufacture, making believe he is arguing against something said by the other party. Let me explain how bareback rider changes and diverts the conversation with a big lie. This is just typical BAC. [BAC at #45 to nolu_chan] "The link YOU PROVIDED tells us that the concept for the towers was just explained to Skilling in April of 2004. (sic -1964) Yet he published his White Paper (where you claim he did a design analysis of the towers) in February 3, 1964. [BAC at #46 to roughrider] "For that matter, does the claim that the concept of the design was first explained to Skilling in April 1964 make any sense if he published a White Paper analysis of the towers resistance to aircraft impact in February 1964?" Here we have another BAC BIG LIE. NO SOURCE ever asserted that "the concept of the design was first explained to Skilling in April 1964." In my #26, I quoted an article demonstrating that Skilling presented his design in 1963: ----- What Skilling proposed was a pure tube structure. His design was consistent with the general principles at work in the new generation of high-rises, but he carried the concept of the tube building farther than it had ever been taken before." This is just the way BAC operates. The concept was explained to the public in January 1964 and according to BAC it was first explained to the chief structural engineer in April 1964 - only in BAC world.
And it did. At least close to a 600 mph impact by a comparably sized plane. Nope. They didn't. We have proof. The towers survived the impact. Nope. They did not. The lead structural engineer states that the structure was designed for a 180 mph impact. The ANALYSIS that was done to see it might survive a 600 mph impact was done AFTER the design of the major structural elements. I think I proved that. You tried to pull a fast one here, NC, AND YOU GOT CAUGHT.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
You never answered my post. Well?
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. 4 http://911research.w >http://tc7.net/wtc/analysis/d esign.html
#44. To: Paul Revere (#40)
I have concluded that the only purpose BAC has here is to derail all 9-11 discussions with spam filled posts and outrageous claims. He's the Donald Segretti showing up to sabotage an open forum and make it his agenda.
I put him on Bozo
#45. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#39)
In your idiocy, you asserted that prior to the White Paper in 1964, the design had been COMPLETED.
Referring to the White Paper of February 3, 1964, you blathered at #18, "This was a back of the envelope calculation done AFTER the design was complete."
AFTER 1964, Robertson's original engineering design plan had to be scrapped because tests in 1965 showed the buildings would sway beyond the limits of human tolerance. As Glanz and Lipton wrote in the New York Times, "Even today, Robertson has no trouble conjuring what two towers full of seasick office workers would have meant: 'A billion dollars right down the tube.' So he went back to work."
What he did not take into account was the extraordinary conditions of an intense, violent fire. Girders and beams would be far superior under those circumstances. Thin steel elements heat up and soften faster than thick ones.
They chose not to use thick masonry or cement to encase the three escape stairways in each tower but rather light sheets of gypsum. Although the gypsum was extremely resistant to fire, and less likely than masonry to crack when the building swayed in the wind, it would work only if it remained intact -- and it was much more susceptible to being shaken loose or damaged by an explosion or any other kind of unexpected impact.
Wind-tunnel experiments in Fort Collins, Colo., confirmed that Robertson's initial design would sway far beyond those human tolerances,
Still, he recalls that he addressed the question of an airplane collision, if only to satisfy his engineer's curiosity. For whatever reason, Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. 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.
The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow.
Robertson's assertion of being unaware of the Wein ad and the political battle is not credible. Perhaps Robertson performed only an imaginary study consisting of nothing more than some propaganda released to the press, or he blew smoke at the architect.
#46. To: roughrider, Paul Revere, nolu_chan, ALL (#41)
Yes, diversion/disruption appears to be his main objective.
One way to counter it is to know when to quit replying to his replies.
When you have made a point that effectively answers all his previous objections, that is the time to quit.
#47. To: Kamala, roughrider, ALL (#43)
Kamala to roughrider - It doesn't matter what one posts to "IT". Wether you provide links, pictures or paragraphs. Thats why I have never provided any links to "IT". Why feed "IT" any info that "IT" could split hairs with.
[Kamala] - The FDS software was so full of bugs it was a joke. None of this computer software was tested or existed before the WTC research project.
#48. To: innieway, Paul Revere, ALL (#44)
And it doesn't matter if someone has real life experience in matters pertinent to the tower collapse incident, he/she/it will try to discredit them.
Moreover, he/she/it also adamantly and openly refuses to answer ANY other glaring pertinent inconsistencies and/or questions concerning 9/11
#49. To: BeAChooser (#45)
If you want to claim that no study of the tower's resistance to aircraft impact was performed, that's ok with me. Because I thought it is the CT community that insists the towers were DESIGNED to survive multiple high speed plane crashes.
#50. To: BeAChooser, roughrider, Paul Revere, ALL (#46)
"In 1963, the firm entered a competition held by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to build in New York City what would be the tallest buildings ever constructed-the two towers of the World Trade Center. It was one of eight engineering firms-most of them large partnerships in New York-asked to submit proposals. Although the firm's tallest building up to that point was the twenty-story I. B.M. Building in Seattle, the architect of that building was Minoru Yamasaki-the same architect the Port Authority had selected for the World Trade Center. At a meeting to present the firm's proposal to the architect and developers, John Skilling, one of the four partners, used only a drawing pad, an easel, and some markers to make his pitch.
At #34, BAC quoted Wikipedia stating Yamasaki presented his design to the public in January 1964: "Yamasaki's design for the World Trade Center was unveiled to the public on January 18, 1964, with an eight-foot model."
In my #36, I quoted an April 2, 1964 article which documented an explanation of the concept BY John Skilling: "The concept was explained to the New York Architectural League by John Skilling, a partner in Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson, of Seattle, consulting structural engineers on the World Trade Center."
The concept was not explained TO JOHN SKILLING in April 1964. Speaking to the New York Architectural League in April 1964, the concept was explained BY JOHN SKILLING.
#51. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#49)
They claimed that the building would withstand a hit by a Boeing 707 at 600 mph.
Maybe they lied,
or maybe they actually designed the WTC to sustain a hit by the largest jetliner then in the sky going at 600 mph.
#52. To: BeAChooser (#51)
"You tried to pull a fast one here, NC, AND YOU GOT CAUGHT."
#53. To: BeAChooser (#51)
(Edited)
A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over- engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing- room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.
There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. 7 Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 8
#54. To: BeAChooser (#51)
Post 53 and the information at the link in it sez you are busted, booby.
#55. To: nolu_chan (#50)
Seems to me that BAC has a reading comprehension problem. Not surprised, I would imagine many believers of the government theory are similarly challenged.
This is just the way BAC operates. The concept was explained to the public in January 1964 and according to BAC it was first explained to the chief structural engineer in April 1964 - only in BAC world.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#56. To: BeAChooser (#51) (Edited)
Why the bloody hell would they use a sped close to the V1 of the aircraft? (The gear and flaps up stall speed) The model best suited to use to engineer to withstand impact of an aircraft would be cruise speed. The Vno and or Vmo would be much more logical a standard to use in engineering models. (Vno-Normal Operating Speed, Vmo-Maximum Operating Speed)
#57. To: BeAChooser (#51)
nud·nik also nud·nick(ndnk)
n. Slang
An obtuse, boring, or bothersome person; a pest.
#58. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#50)
It's sad that you resort to this sort slimy language and innuendo. It is an indication that you know your arguments and assertions are without any real merit. Robertson was, according to numerous credible sources, the lead structural engineer. Not Skilling. Skilling just owned the company. He was not the project manager ... the person most intimately familiar with the design and most influential in determining the loads to which it was designed. Robertson was. Robertson was at the location where the design team worked ... NYC. Not Skillings. Robertson says the towers were DESIGNED for a low speed plane impact. Skillings did an ANALYSIS (even he called it that in his 3 PAGE White Paper) of a high speed plane impact. There is a difference between design and analysis. The analysis showed the towers would survive the crash. But that is not unexpected if the towers were designed for a low speed impact, given the sort of safety factors involved in design. To claim the towers were designed for a high speed impact is simply dishonest. To claim they were designed for the fire that would follow a plane impact is dishonest. So do you want to make those claims, NC? Thank you for catching that. I badly misread that quote. I'm embarrassed to have made that mistake. You see, I have no problem admitting when I'm clearly wrong. How about you? And never the less, Skillings white paper is dated February 3 1964. It's difficult to imagine that he'd have been able to do an ANALYSIS on anything less than an already completed design and conclude the towers would survive. It's difficult to believe that he was able to complete and document such a complex analysis in less than a month. Thus, it's difficult to believe that the major structural elements weren't already designed by January 1st 1964. Now here is another source for consideration: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf "For the design of the WTC towers, which began in 1962, the Port Authority in May 1963 instructed the architect and engineers to prepare their designs of WTC 1 and WTC 2 to comply with the NYC Building Code."
Let me explain how bareback rider changes
Speaking to the New York Architectural League in April 1964, the concept was explained BY JOHN SKILLING.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#59. To: BeAChooser (#58) (Edited)
And when your words are shown not to have merit and to be erroneous, you pretend that that did not happen. People get angry and frustrated with you because you do not dialog in good faith. You are brainlessly and reflexively defending everything and anything the current administration says happened 9-11. If you were dialogging in good faith, you would not be so black and white in your alleged opinions. BAC, the designated 4UM false flag op cheerleader.
"It's sad that you resort to this sort slimy language and innuendo. It is an indication that you know your arguments and assertions are without any real merit."
#60. To: Ferret Mike (#59)
Damn, that hurts to watch, especially since my kid is the captain of the school cheerleading squad. lol
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#61. To: Critter (#60)
Yep. I feel sorry for that girl at the end particularly. ;-)
#62. To: BeAChooser (#58)
You see, I frankly don't care what this report said unless you can explain away all of the above. Because the proof is in the pudding. Bush was right. This report was wrong. And didn't you know? Aligyrl got the boot. BeAChooser posted on 2004-05-13 00:53:27 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=24590&Disp=26&Trace=on#C26 So, do you still believe the severely and conclusively debunked Saddam/al Qaeda connection? You sure like conspiracy theory when it involves the death of Ron Brown or this ridiculous and debunked connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.
26. To: wbales1 (#25) Explain the presence of al-Zarqawi in Baghdad after 9/11. Explain his being allowed to conduct operations from Baghdad, including the assassination of our ambassador to Jordan. Explain his connection to the al-Qaeda camp in Northern Iraq ... a camp where it was proved after the war they were working with ricin. Explain his trip to Europe after visiting this camp when he visited two al-Qaeda cells (one in England, one in France) that when later broken up were found to be planning ricin attacks on civilians. Explain the al-Qaeda captured in Jordan that just confessed to planning a chemical attack (which included the use of VX) and who say that al-Zarqawi was the mastermind behind the plot and that they trained for the attack IN IRAQ. Explain Kay's conclusion that WMD components were transported from Iraq to Syria right before the war based on Iraqi interrogations and other data (such as photos and sources within Syria). Explain the murders of so many Iraqi scientists that were seen to be cooperating with Kay's effort to locate the WMD. Explain the intercepts (some played by Powell) that suggest Iraqis had nerve agents and wished to hide them. Explain the VX counteragents found in the possession of the Iraqi military. Explain the just discovered document that suggests Atta did indeed meet with Iraq intelligence just before 9/11. Explain the coincidence in location and time between the first anthrax case and the hijackers. Explain the CIA's list of 50 al-Qaeda / Iraq linkages that was published by the Weekly Standard. etc. etc. etc.
#63. To: Ferret Mike, nolu_chan, ALL (#59)
You seem to be the one doing the cheerleading (for NC) here. That is, unless you'd like to make a real contribution to the discussion. Tell us, FM, how did Skillings do an analysis to end all analyses (that's what the CT community claims ... right?) and document it on February 3, 1964, if the design wasn't completed until later in 1964 as nolu_chan would have us believe?
BAC, the designated 4UM false flag op cheerleader.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#64. To: BeAChooser (#63)
How many posts do you have left tonight Short Leash?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#65. To: BeAChooser (#63)
Disingenuous, you have routinely ignored me this last week when I tried to get a response to you. I also remember once at LP trying to talk of low intensity conflict. You responded that because the insurgents used mortars it wasn't low intensity warfare. BAC, mortars are used in hit and run low intensity conflict situation. You ignore, bait and service a hidden agenda. I have no faith now that you will ever operate in good faith. So we'll see how well you argue against your past statements.
"That is, unless you'd like to make a real contribution to the discussion."
#66. To: BeAChooser (#63) (Edited)
Did you ever see the movie where Harrison Ford faces off against an arab armed with a big sword. Now imagine yourself, armed with your firearms, in the role of the arab ... because that's the comparison between WMDs and your weapons ... and I suspect the outcome would be similar. So just go ahead and ignore insane megalomaniac dictators and terrorists armed with WMDs. Make their day! BeAChooser posted on 2002-11-13 14:05:45 ET And these WMD are...? Well? Enough NeoCon nuttery and B.S., where is the beef?
http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5668&Disp=27#C27
27. To: All (#26)
To all of you posting these pictures of your favorite weapon.
#67. To: Minerva (#64)
It appears Howlin is in true Clinton-mode here. Smearing someone with the term "stalker" sure sounds familiar to me. This is my first post on this new forum. How appropriate that it concerns Howlin. As you may know, she and I crossed swords numerous times, dictionary definitions and all! And, of course, she and her friends are undoubtedly the reason I'm no longer on TOS. I guess they couldn't forgive my labeling them "move-on'ers", a completely accurate description which Jim eventually banned as a "personal insult". Or perhaps it was my calling them "democRATS" whenever they debated like democRATS. In any case, I was booted from TOS in June with no warning and no explanation (despite what the Admin Moderators claim happens in such cases). I also haven't been given the courtesy of a response to any of the several polite emails I sent to Robinson asking for an explanation. Since I never used foul language or, as far as I can tell, violated any of the stated guidelines for posting on TOS, the only reason I can see for TOSsing me is that move-on'ers are now paying the bills and Robinson's got to eat. Now, regarding Howlin's accusation that you are a stalker ... I "feel your pain". Here is the irony. Do you know that Howlin was once known as "Stalker"? Below is from the TOS thread "A day in the life of President Bush (photos): 6/19/02": ********* To: omegatoo When I first came here, I worked for an unnamed chat room who didn't want me to use Howlin as my screenname, so I took Stalker; when I left them, I picked used this one since most people who had been on Court TV chatroom knew me by this one. Take a look at the JOIN DATE on Stalker........LOL. posted on 6/19/02 8:34 PM Pacific by Howlin ********* Now I wonder why she called herself that? BeAChooser posted on 2002-08-05 19:20:34 ET It's interesting ow in his first LP post, BAC advances the notion that JR and howlin are Move On operatives. Interesting way to start out in a new place, with easily debunk-able conspiracy theory. http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=1066&Disp=33#C33
33. To: Registered (#24)
#68. To: Ferret Mike (#67)
Sounds like FR booted him for being a kook too. Sort of the story of his life.
n any case, I was booted from TOS in June with no warning and no explanation (despite what the Admin Moderators claim happens in such cases). I also haven't been given the courtesy of a response to any of the several polite emails I sent to Robinson asking for an explanation.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#69. To: Minerva, christine (#64)
christine - it was yours, semper libertas' and sentryoveramerica's bannings that got me so upset about fr. BAC - Thanks! You are part of the reason I decided to join and unlurk. It is sad what is happening to FR. I'm still in recovery but soon I'll venture out into the News Forum at LP. I'll try and behave. :) And maybe by the time this country really needs a site like FR used to be, LP will fill that role BeAChooser posted on 2002-08-07 01:09:09 ET Irony ping.
42. To: christine (#40)
#70. To: Minerva (#68)
Indeed. It also looks like Christine tried really hard to make him feel welcome at LP and that he doen't get along with her now mainly because that was one of the thousands of bridges BAC has burned over the years.
"Sounds like FR booted him for being a kook too. Sort of the story of his life."
#71. To: BeAChooser (#63)
RedBlooded and Howlin posted more offensive stuff than BeAChooser had ever posted Let me make one small correction. In my years on TOS I don't believe I posted anything "offensive" ... unless "offensive" is labeling someone a "move-on'er" because they advocate ignoring the crimes of the Clintons and DNC ... unless "offensive" is labeling someone a "democRAT" because they debate like one, run from facts like one and hold views that we all used to think only democRATS would hold. I didn't use foul language or make adhominem attacks. I never willfully told an untruth. But I was subjected to innumerable swear words and continuous adhominem assault ... all because I continued to force "move-on'ers" to defend the indefensible. I exposed, for all to see, their often unstated view that the crimes of Clinton and the DNC shouldn't even be investigated. I took them to task for spin such as "they are being investigated but we aren't in the know" or "it will have to wait until after the WOT ends" or "the public doesn't want a investigation" and a thousand other excuses. In my posts I mostly stuck to reviewing demonstrable (sourced) facts about Filegate, Chinagate, Emailgate, the Riady Non-Refund, the death of Foster and the death of Brown, and asking why these facts aren't being investigated by the Bush administration. This is a question that move-on'ers want everyone to ignore. The only time these folks ever showed up on threads dealing with these topics was to spout a pithy one-liner that would make them seem conservative in their views. But after more than a year of probing, I can document numerous instances where "move-on'ers" clearly lied about facts in the above cases or tried to deflect the argument with spin that could only have come from a democRAT playbook. "Move-on'ers" are the people who clearly now control FR ... who show up first on any thread critical of FR or Bush/GOP. Whether they are democRATS or a new and disturbing breed of Republican I don't know. But I do know their views will be bad for FR, the conservative cause and America in the long run. I was banned from TOS, plan and simple, because "move-on'ers" don't like being held to the fire by someone who insists Bush and the GOP hold the law and the constitution sacred. They also don't like someone willing to use their own past statements to prove they aren't being honest when they post their pithy one-liners. If you want to make a "move-on'er" uncomfortable, just ask why he/she insists on focusing solely on the Clintons and ignores the dozens if not hundreds of other high level democRATS who demonstrably committed serious crimes the last 9 years. If you want to make a "move-on'er" angry, ask him/her why Bush/Ashcroft are ignoring the statements of the pathologists and all the other facts in the death of Ron Brown. BeAChooser posted on 2002-08-07 16:07:55 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=1485&Disp=543#C543 My, such interesting conspiracy theory about Ron Brown and how Bush is covering up his murder by Clintonistas. So, when did you chang and bcome a low level shill for these people on the Internet to try to damage the Truth Movement? You obviously are not allergic to what is commonly called 'conspiracy theory,' yo juast like that which dovetails into your political mindset, and that you are not being employed to try to muddy the waters on.
543. To: FreedominJesusChrist (#380)
#72. To: BeAChooser, angle, christine, SKYDRIFTER, Minerva (#58)
as long as leftists and rightists refuse to put truth ahead of their ideology they will never see what is going on That's correct. And that road leads to tyranny in some form or another. BeAChooser posted on 2002-08-21 12:21:10 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=1963&Disp=43#C43 So BAC, now that we have ideology driving the official story of 9-11 away from the truth, where are you? What happened to your insight and good sense? How much are you getting to do what you do, service NeoCon nuttery at the expense of the truth of 9-11?
43. To: palo verde (#42)
#73. To: Ferret Mike (#71)
Woo-hoo! FR is secretly controlled by the Democrats! Only a kook of BeAChooser's caliber could come up with a conspiracy theory like that.
Move-on'ers" are the people who clearly now control FR ... who show up first on any thread critical of FR or Bush/GOP.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#74. To: Ferret Mike (#71)
In other words BeAChooser was an obnoxious kook and FR booted him off the site for it. Instead of learning from the experience though, BeAChooser goes to LP and whines about it. LP eventually boots him off for being a whiney kook. ROTFLOL!
n my years on TOS I don't believe I posted anything "offensive" ... unless "offensive" is labeling someone a "move-on'er" because they advocate ignoring the crimes of the Clintons and DNC ... unless "offensive" is labeling someone a "democRAT" because they debate like one, run from facts like one and hold views that we all used to think only democRATS would hold. I didn't use foul language or make adhominem attacks. I never willfully told an untruth. But I was subjected to innumerable swear words and continuous adhominem assault ... all because I continued to force "move-on'ers" to defend the indefensible.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#75. To: Minerva, BeaChooser, SKYDRIFTER (#68)
BeAChooser posted on 2002-08-21 22:11:40 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=2032&Disp=9#C9 Hee he, so, he never ever posts information about himself does he? Well, it looks more and more like the reason he dos not want to answer my question on whether he is part of that swiftboat the Truth Movement site he links pictures from is because he is indeed part of the picture there. Tell me BAC, what software do you develop?
9. To: Lazamataz (#0)
As a software developer, I certainly believe in protecting intellectual property, but this sort of puts the lie to claims that the DOJ is too busy fighting the WOT to do anything about the crimes committed by the Clintons and DNC the last 9 years. I guess Ashcroft is more worried about these files being in the hands of teenagers than the FBI files on Republicans that are in the hands of democRATS ... or the files stamped secret that Huang and his spy associates were given privy to and passed on to the Chinese communists. I'd say Bush and Ashcroft have their priorities wrong.
#76. To: beachooser, Jethro Tull, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#58)
BAC, you are the epitome of "CLEARLY WRONG!" You fucking liar! You're worthless, BAC. Thus, only queers will have you. Trace told on you BAC - you gonna deny the obvious? You see, I have no problem admitting when I'm clearly wrong.
#77. To: SKYDRIFTER (#76)
FJC - "Hey BAC, speaking about Filegate, Check out this thread. Take note of Howlin's response, big surprise, right?" BAC - I saw that! Of course, that thread is about Foster's death, not Filegate. Why doesn't someone on that thread ask Howlin why she thinks those who believe Foster and Brown may not have died like the Clinton administration claimed give the GOP a bad name? She said that in the past. Why doesn't someone ask Howlin why she believes Ron Brown wasn't murdered but won't state her reasons ... other than to claim "unnamed" sources ... other than to say she believed what Starr concluded in the matter (when, in fact, he had absolutely nothing to do with or say about the Brown death) ... other than to cite an official report which is demonstrably flawed (for example, it doesn't even mention the opinions of the official pathologists that Brown's wound looked like a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied) ... other than to cite a highly biased democRAT Congresswoman who said she believes the official report. Howlin is the least credible person on Free Republic today ... the biggest move-on'er of them all. Her blind support of Bush and the GOP does more damage to their credibility than anyone else posting there. As that thread proves. BeAChooser posted on 2002-08-21 22:28:54 ET Amazing how an anti Bush, anti conspiracy theory crusader like BAC started out championing what could be construed as conspiracy theory and has become a Bush butt buddy politically? I had always heard that politics makes strange bed fellows, but this is crazy.
37. To: FreedominJesusChrist (#35)
#78. To: Ferret Mike, Jethro Tull, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#75)
I'm impressed that BAC hasn't killed himself yet. BAC is clearly a coward among cowards. The one thing about BAC is that he has no significant presence on this planet, beyond the Internet. He tries for recognition on these forums, but ends up being the butt-boy for the controllers of the Bush Cabal. He clearly has nothing of value to offer the world, hence his extreme of 'privacy.' When he finally does a number on himself, no one is going to miss him, any more than a forest fire. Cho has gotten a fair amount of sympathy; BAC won't.
#79. To: BeAChooser, Minerva (#63)
That shatters the current record of two held by Vince Foster. Good one. Actually ... it is interesting that Bush said four bullets because that implies some specific knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the death. None of the reports I read in the press said that it was 4 bullets. Could there be a message in this? BeAChooser posted on 2002-08-22 00:31:26 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=2049&Disp=5#C5 Yo BAC - Why is Bush a liar then, and not now? Why is his word suspect then, and gospel you suck out of his butt these days? I'll make this chapter one and continue back tracking through the sludge of this person's LP posts tomorrow. I have to get to work anyway. It is just too interesting to put down, and I want to savor this.
5. To: EarnYourVote (#3)
#80. To: Ferret Mike, Jethro Tull, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#77)
Didn't BAC say something about not attacking others? Did I get that wrong? OR; is BAC just the LIAR and queer that the world knows him to be. He did his best on me, at ElPee. It didn't work for him, but he did his best. Howlin is the least credible person on Free Republic today ... the biggest move-on'er of them all. Her blind support of Bush and the GOP does more damage to their credibility than anyone else posting there. As that thread proves.
#81. To: SKYDRIFTER (#78)
Cho has gotten a fair amount of sympathy; BAC won't. Exactly, you can't miss this guy's stripes, or stink.
When he finally does a number on himself, no one is going to miss him, any more than a forest fire.
#82. To: BeAChooser (#51)
[nolu_chan #49] [BAC #51] Nope. They didn't. We have proof. The towers survived the impact. ----- BAC, you are still a lying piece of crap. As an editor, however, you are quite creative. ... Such a frightful vision could not be left unchallenged. Robertson says that he never saw the ad and was ignorant of the political battle behind it. Still, he recalls that he addressed the question of an airplane collision, if only to satisfy his engineer's curiosity. For whatever reason, Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. ... Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. ... 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. There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. "That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did," Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later. The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had. [BAC] The ANALYSIS that was done to see it might survive a 600 mph impact was done AFTER the design of the major structural elements. I think I proved that. No. The press release about a purported analysis, the report of which seems to have been eaten by the dog, occurred in response to a near full-page ad in the New York Times challenging the safety of the WTC design. I think I've proved that.
Maybe they lied, or maybe they actually designed the WTC to sustain a hit by the largest jetliner then in the sky going at 600 mph.
----- Maybe they lied,
Maybe they lied, or maybe they actually designed the WTC to sustain a hit by the largest jetliner then in the sky going at 600 mph.
Read again my statement, and what you quoted of it, and then your preposterous response. They [Lawrence Wein, then owner of the Empire State Building, and committee] ran a nearly full-page ad in The Times with an artist's rendition of a commercial airliner about to ram one of the towers. "Unfortunately, we rarely recognize how serious these problems are until it's too late to do anything," the caption said.
Robertson's story is less convincing than an Alberto Gonzales performance.
But when the towers were built, the people were publicly assured, in the New York Times, that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 mph... much as they would later be assured that the air atop Robertson's Rubble, at ground zero, did not pose a health hazard.
#83. To: Ferret Mike, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#67)
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=50387&Disp=67#C67 ROTFLOL! You haven't really got a clue what I meant by "move-on'er". Or what I'm really about. Just for the record I'm not. And for the record, I've posted numerous fact and source filled complaints about certain bogus claims that are posted over and over here at 4um with regard to what happened to the WTC towers and Pentagon. If you and SKYDRIFTER want to base your defense against those complaints on some out of context references to past posts by me, on nasty innuendos concerning me and on raw speculations about who I am, then go right ahead. You will only end up making the fact that you folks are ignoring dishonesty in your own camp and by the *Truth* Movement leaders even more apparent. Works for me ...
It's interesting ow in his first LP post, BAC advances the notion that JR and howlin are Move On operatives.
Well, it looks more and more like the reason he dos not want to answer my question on whether he is part of that swiftboat the Truth Movement site he links pictures from is because he is indeed part of the picture there.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
.
.
.
Comments (84 - 196) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest