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: 13593
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 (1-57) not displayed.
.
.
.
#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."
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
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.
Damn, that hurts to watch, especially since my kid is the captain of the school cheerleading squad. lol
Let me explain how bareback rider changes
Speaking to the New York Architectural League in April 1964, the concept was explained BY JOHN SKILLING.
#59. To: BeAChooser (#58)
(Edited)
"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)
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.
#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."
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.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#85. To: BeAChooser, christine, ... (#84)
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 
#86. To: BeAChooser (#84)
[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: "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)
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?
"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.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#88. To: BeAChooser (#83)
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.
"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)
BAC, What do you hope to accomplish by making all these posts here, where clearly, few believe the official story?
#90. To: Ferret Mike (#88)
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.
"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.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#91. To: beachooser, Jethro Tull, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#83)
On your best day, BAC, you're a lying asshole!
#92. To: BeAChooser, all (#90)
Ha! Told you he's an RNC ward heeler.
#93. To: BeAChooser (#90)
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.
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
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
#94. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#93)
You mean they WEREN'T 100 Israeli art students that happened to be everywhere the "hijackers" were for the summer of 2001?
#95. To: Paul Revere (#94)
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."
#96. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#95) (Edited)
I can see that's a prophesy that has come true.
#97. To: Paul Revere (#96)
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."
#98. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, Christine, Jethro Tull, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#97)
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?
.
.
.
Comments (99 - 196) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest