 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneralRural LivingHome AutomationSecurity AlarmsConstructionRepairPlumbingCleaningPest ControlLawn and Garden |
Homeowner Forum / Construction / June 2005The WTC collapses, coincidences?
By John Daly UPI International Correspondent Washington, DC, Jun. 13 (UPI) -- Insider notes from United Press International for June 8 A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings." Two years after President George W. Bush proclaimed "mission accomplished" in Iraq, some thoughtful officers are beginning to question who the insurgents actually are. In a recent interview the head of the US 42nd Infantry Division which covers key trouble spots, including Baquba and Samarra Major General Joseph Taluto said he could understand why some ordinary Iraqis would take up arms against U.S. forces because "they're offended by our presence." Taluto added, "If a good, honest person feels having all these Humvees driving on the road, having us moving people out of the way, having us patrol the streets, having car bombs going off, you can understand how they could (want to fight us). There is a sense of a good resistance, or an accepted resistance. They say 'okay, if you shoot a coalition soldier, that's okay, it's not a bad thing but you shouldn't kill other Iraqis.'" Taluto insisted however that the other foreign forces would not be driven out of Iraq by violence, observing, "If the goal is to have the coalition leave, attacking them isn't the way," he said. "The way to make it happen is to enter the political process cooperate and the coalition will be less aggressive and less visible and eventually it'll go away." Taluto's comments are sure to raise hackles at the Pentagon, which insist that all insurgents are either Baathists or al-Qaida. Taluto observed that "99.9 per cent" of those captured fighting the U.S. were Iraqis. -0- Ah well, there's always Argentina. The German government is reportedly blocking the deportation of Nazi war crimes suspects from the U.S. back to Germany to be tried and punished. The German interior ministry has refused to accept the suspects even though the United States already has stripped them of their citizenship because of their World War II history and has asked Germany to accept them; German officials worry the suspects might join neo-Nazi groups. Deputy director of the Office of Special Investigations at the Department of Justice Jonathan Drimmer said, "By and large we're talking about concentration camp guards, we're talking about collaborators, people who were involved in indigenous police forces, that kind of thing." German interior ministry officials said that Washington had not given Berlin enough proof that the suspects were war criminals, despite repeated requests from Germany. Deportation in U.S. court cases requires not criminal, but just civil, proceedings, with a burden of proof of "clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence." German Interior ministry officials noted that if Germany accepted the deportees, they would be supported by the German social system and possibly would involve themselves in the extreme right or anti-Semitic political activities. -0- The first conflict that the newly independent United States engaged in began in 1801 with the Barbary States; now descendents of those corsairs have participated in naval exercises with their former enemies. On June 7 Algerian and U.S. Coast Guard warships conducted a joint naval exercise, improving interoperability and developing cooperation in securing the western Mediterranean. The vessels conducted maritime patrol missions, testing their joint capabilities to monitor and board suspicious vehicles and interdict illegal migration. U.S. Coast Guard Capt. Robert Wyner said Washington regards Algeria as a strategic partner in the war against terrorism and that Algeria would play a major role in U.S. efforts to bolster the stability of North Africa and counter the threat of al-Qaida. Interestingly enough, former counterterrorism adviser Richard A. Clarke closed Boston harbor on 9-11 because of concerns that al-Qaida terrorists were stowaways aboard liquefied natural gas tankers from Algeria bound for Boston's Everett LNG facility. http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm g adds. MONEY , what a concept gee dude, don't you think a fully loaded airliner crashing into a building at 500 mph could have some damaging effects on the building? how incredibly stupid are you? > By John Daly > UPI International Correspondent [quoted text clipped - 194 lines] > g adds. > MONEY , what a concept No, dude, you do not get it. It was all a conspiracy to mobilize the neo-conservatives to save democracy from the evil-doers. NOT Just another Wild a.s conspiracy theory. Truth here, I was told that a certain French author wanted to speak with me because I was a direct witness, interviewed on National TV, to the Pentagon attack. I can say that it was clearly an AA jet, silver with white stripes. Now what does that have to do with building construction ? > gee dude, > don't you think a fully loaded airliner crashing into a building at 500 mph [quoted text clipped - 199 lines] > > g adds. > > MONEY , what a concept I'd say its you that is being incredibly stupid Bill. Both the architect and the structural engineers were interviewed immediately after the event. I watched and heard them with my own eyes and ears say they specifically designed the towers to survive the impact of commercial airliners crashing into the buildings and did so considering several scenarios. Furthermore, apparently no structural steel edifice on record has ever failed as a result of 'softened steel.' Not one. Ever. Officials from some of the nation's most prestigious professional engineering organizations have rejected the 'official' story until they were visited by the Bush crime family's pals and now all of a sudden they have changed their stories and will not speak to anybody or now act as accomplices. People from all walks of life; high ranking police and fire officials, FBI, military experts and on and on have all come forth with facts and testimony discounting the so-called official story yet people like you continue to obstruct the pursuit of the truth? No Bill, the truth is not out yet and I would think no matter how far fetched some of the claims are going to sound you and people like you would want to know what really happened. It is you that is stupid to obstruct that objective. <%= Clinton Gallagher METROmilwaukee (sm) "A Regional Information Service" NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com URL http://metromilwaukee.com/ URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/ > gee dude, > don't you think a fully loaded airliner crashing into a building at 500 [quoted text clipped - 199 lines] >> g adds. >> MONEY , what a concept better get some more tinfoil for your new hats you guys crack me up. > I'd say its you that is being incredibly stupid Bill. Both the architect > and the structural engineers were interviewed immediately after the event. [quoted text clipped - 229 lines] >>> g adds. >>> MONEY , what a concept > I'd say its you that is being incredibly stupid Bill. Both the architect and > the structural engineers were interviewed immediately after the event. I > watched and heard them with my own eyes and ears say they specifically > designed the towers to survive the impact of commercial airliners crashing > into the buildings and did so considering several scenarios. If you'll recall, they <did> stand up to the impact...both of them. ... > apparently no structural steel edifice on record has ever failed as a result > of 'softened steel.' Not one. Ever. ... Actually, two large towers have. Almost, unfortunately, a perfectly designed experiment w/ replication. The number of steel buildings w/ failed beams/columns, etc., owing to fire is beyond count. If you will recall the video, the WTC buildings actually collapsed from the floors above the fire zone and the resulting impact load then could, early on before the dust cloud obscured clear view, been seen collapsing lower floors one-at-a-time as the impact load of the upper floor was transferred to the lower ones... QED. >> I'd say its you that is being incredibly stupid Bill. Both the architect >> and [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > QED. The two towers also collapsed differently. - P.Fritz > The two towers also collapsed differently. - Nehmo - Building 7 didn't even have an impact, at least not from a large object.. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html |||||||||||||||| Nehmo Sergheyev |||||||||||||||| Duane, I think we're wasting out time discussing the facts. Frontline on PBS did an extensive analysis of the collapse and came up with the same things you mentioned. Clinton seems to be a Michael Moore acolyte that couldn't accept anything from the real world that doesn't support his obsessions. A nutcase tends to remain a nutcase. Bill >> I'd say its you that is being incredibly stupid Bill. Both the architect >> and [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > QED. > Duane, > I think we're wasting out time discussing the facts. Frontline on PBS did [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > A nutcase tends to remain a nutcase. > Bill True, and I recognized that before replying but feel interjecting at least a modicum of reality to be important for lurkers... Duane: >> Duane, I think we're wasting out time discussing the facts. >> Frontline on PBS did an extensive analysis of the collapse and came [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > True, and I recognized that before replying but feel interjecting at > least a modicum of reality to be important for lurkers... I'd like to see a list of the attorneys who promoted the de-legalization of the use of asbestos for insulation in NYC and PAONYANJ (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey) buildings. They ordered the use of inferior fire protection materials by making asbestos, the most effective material, illegal. The anti-asbestos mania was a pragmatist money grabbing legalistic orgy, and that was one of the most shameful types of legislation ever created. Even steel is dangerous - all materials have specific properties, and appropriate technical methods for their use are called for by professionals. The anti-asbestos attorneys made the protection of the steel frames of the WTC from fire less than perfect, and the tower structural elements lost their strength. With asbestos the buildings would not have collapsed. The quasi-religious pragmatist legal activities concerning asbestos must have made fortunes for the attorneys. Lets see the list of those murderers who produced the contributory causes of the buildings' failures. The press: Attorneys: Building Code Officials (unlikely to be any): Architects, engineers, and contractors (unlikely to be any): Materials suppliers (unlikely to be any): Government officials: Legislators: Special interest lobbyists: Private fear mongers: Builders (the some who may have wanted lower cost buildings): They were the causal contributors to the deaths of the thousands at the WTC on 9/11/2001. It was not a coincidence that their talk and writing was a material cause for the collapse of the towers. I live 20 miles from the WTC, and for many weeks when the winds were right the terrible stench of the thousands of rotting corpses buried in the wreckage of the WTC towers was strong in the air. The anti-asbestos axis killers were causally responsible in that the physical condition of the buildings as built was insufficient according to the original engineers' intentions. The pro-asbestos advocates produced a vigorous opposition, and, alas, there was an insufficient number of other rational minds in the legal system to recognize the position of the rational and factual opposition. The asbestos advocates were right, and it is sad that they had to suffer seeing the loss of the WTC when their ideas and materials could have prevented the collapse of the buildings. That anti-asbestos axis had many friends. Recall that the same types of irrationalists fought to have the nuclear power plant in Long Island NY closed down. They succeeded in having an entire nuclear power generation plant closed down. Actually it was quite safe, an example of the safest form of power generation ever created, but the lies that the anti-nuclear axis had spread had frightened many people. There was no disaster, however, and Long Island, still has insufficient supplies of electricity. One could ask. The anti-nuclear axis attorneys made huge fortunes -- all at the expense of a frightened citizenry. We should make a public list of their names too. Ralph Hertle > With asbestos the buildings would not have collapsed. How could you possibly know that? You don't. It's your opinion and nothing more. > I live 20 miles from the WTC, and for many weeks when the winds were > right the terrible stench of the thousands of rotting corpses buried in > the wreckage of the WTC towers was strong in the air. I live closer than you do, and in the direction of the prevailing winds. I could smell smoke but there was no stench from "rotting corpses" at any time. Burning flesh and putrefaction are unmistakable odors. What you experienced was an overactive imagination at work. It was a traumatic time, it's understandable. R RicodJour: >>With asbestos the buildings would not have collapsed. > > How could you possibly know that? You don't. It's your opinion and > nothing more. How do you possibly know that I don't know? You are a liar. If you had done your homework, so to say, and read something about the causes of the failures you would know what happened, and what might not have necessarily happened. You would have had a basis for a constructive dialog rather than your attempted empirical falsifications of the facts. I read reports from the investigating structural engineers, and they said that even though there was a lot of fuel present much of it drained or burned away. The mineral insulation was insufficient on the fire heated floor joists, which sagged and pulled the interior columns out of alignment. The slenderness ratio was out of whack and the columns buckled and bent out of the positions where they would otherwise have supported their designated loads. The lower floors of one of the buildings, I gather had framing insulation of asbestos, which is a superior material. During the construction the anti-asbestos legislation came into effect, and the architects and engineers had to change over to the mineral material that also had poorer adhesion characteristics. The upper floor steel frames of the towers had the insufficient insulation that was easily knocked off due to the vibrations of the crash, and what stayed adhered was of poor fire insulation value. If the steel floor joists, beams and hence the columns had not bent due to the fire damage the engineers said the buildings could have stayed standing. >>I live 20 miles from the WTC, and for many weeks when the winds were >>right the terrible stench of the thousands of rotting corpses buried in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > R Don't kid yourself. The cleanup crews were taking precautions against the spread of disease. What you thought was smoke was smoke from fires. There was also putrid smoke. You were living in a state of denial - note that you said, "there was no stench from "rotting corpses" at any time". Tell me now - in your version of reality do 2000 corpses smell of cherry blossoms, rosewater or lavender? Are you a public relations representative for the Port Authority, and making nice for the world's public opinions? Get serious. You haven't yet awakened to reality. Ralph Hertle > RicodJour: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How do you possibly know that I don't know? You are a liar. His opinion, of course... > If you had done your homework, so to say, and read something about the > causes of the failures you would know what happened, and what might not > have necessarily happened. You would have had a basis for a constructive > dialog rather than your attempted empirical falsifications of the facts. ... The mere use of asbestos for the same design level of fire protection would have in all likelihood produced a very similar result. The design did <not> include protection against fire of the intensity and duration as that which was exprienced... You would have needed the insulation they use on the space shuttle.  SignatureJerryD(upstateNY) The mere use of asbestos for the same design level of fire protection would have in all likelihood produced a very similar result. The design did <not> include protection against fire of the intensity and duration as that which was exprienced... > You would have needed the insulation they use on the space shuttle. ...Maybe, maybe not. But irrelevant either way. The postulate was that simply using asbestos instead would have changed the outcome. The point is that material used hrere wasn't so much the factor as the conditions being out of the range for which the fire protection was designed to protect. > > You would have needed the insulation they use on the space shuttle. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > factor as the conditions being out of the range for which the fire > protection was designed to protect. Exactly. Unfortunately that doesn't fit in with some people's conspiracy theories. R R: [...] > Exactly. Unfortunately that doesn't fit in with some people's > conspiracy theories. > > R If you thirst on really compelling conspiracy theories read the stories of the skyscraper collapse of the WTC Bldg. 7 on 9/11, and the following destruction of the evidence of the cause of its collapse. Ralph Hertle Duane: [...] > The postulate was that simply using asbestos instead would have changed > the outcome. The point is that material used hrere wasn't so much the > factor as the conditions being out of the range for which the fire > protection was designed to protect. The greater efficiency of the asbestos insulation is one factor. Another factor is that the asbestos insulation has better adhered performance. I read that the vibrations of the collision immediately detached the mineral insulation from the steel in a wide general region, and the region had little or no protection. Mechanical scraping off of the insulation was also involved in local areas. If the mineral insulation had stayed on its performance wouldn't have been so bad. Indeed, the range of conditions is a factor. The added fuel was of course a big factor. I read that the interior furnishings of the building provided a major part of the fuel after the aircraft fuel had been consumed by fire, blown out or drained away. Ralph Hertle Was there an intense fire in building 7? |||||||||||||||| Nehmo Sergheyev |||||||||||||||| NS: > Was there an intense fire in building 7? No. There were a number of small fires on separate floors. However, there was mention in the news that diesel fuel stored in the building was on fire. What small fires there were could have been controlled, the fire insulation for the structure and sprinklers were functional. The Moslem-controlled planes did not hit Building 7. Photos show that fire from the towers did not transfer to the north across the street, and that debris from the crashes and collapses did not travel, the what, 200-300m ft., from the towers to building 7. (My observations in paren.:) (I suspect, unobserved to us, that some small flaming debris did hit No. 7, and the multiple fires were not attended to due to the WTC Towers 1 & 2 burning and collapsing. The occupants were there during the crashes, and the causes of each fire may be possible to identify. That is unless the fires started at the time of the collapse and after the evacuation of No. 7. One theory is that the building was wired for explosives prior to the crash. That, the writer says is the reason why Giuliani moved his office out of the building prior to the plane crashes.) The article presses the bombing explanation. (It thus incites a fallacious argument. That type of argument goes on in criminal court room trials, however, it is far too despicable for engineers. The writer failed to consider alternate possibilities.) Building 7 housed the NYC emergency center, CIA and FBI offices, for example. The bombing explanation has no scientific basis, and the collapse images of No. 7 are all there is to it. (That theory is a hoax, probably, and is probably intended by the writer, a person of extremely low self esteem, to gain power over other people by intimidating them.) The skyscraper building No. 7 collapsed neatly in 6 seconds into its own basement. It was unoccupied. (The videos of the collapse are unbelievable - and horrible.) (I would guess that there was surely some problem with fire that was not publicized, even though there were not that many broken out windows. The diesel fuel storage may have been more of a factor than appears from the outside. From seeing the the videos, the section of the building that seemed to fall first and at a few feet in advance of the rest of the building seems to me the section above the Diesel fuel storage. The heat was confined, and there were few open windows to lower the temperature. There may have been sufficient oxygen to maintain a high temperature level.) (How the fire got to the Diesel fuel, if that is indeed the case, is a mystery to me.) (My additional thought concerns the engineering of the steel frame structure. NYC steel frame buildings are notorious for having too little lateral bracing. They are often designed as though the only forces they will encounter will be vertical forces, and they are plenty strong in that regard. Twist the vertical columns a little out of vertical and the weak lateral bracing comes into play. At a certain point the weak lateral bracing is insufficient withstand the slight bending of the columns. After a few lateral bracing connections fail or the bracing steel elements bend, perhaps aggravated by heating, the column curvature becomes exaggerated. The column to column joints could slip and the columns could support even less load. Economies of construction that are mandated by cheapskate builders and owners may have meant that those ugly, office-space-robbing, window and door location blocking, diagonal steel braces were insufficient in number and strength. At this point, everything we have said here is all conjecture, and court room evidence reports from the investigating engineers would be most interesting to read.) (Since the building collapsed in a surprisingly even and level configuration - more even than most explosive demolitions - I suspect that some weird simultaneous structural failures occurred. To collapse in the level way it did I suspect that an entire floor of columns failed simultaneously. That would mean buckling of the steel columns due to lateral forces, or that column to column connections failed and all columns slipped out of position at one time. The local few or even one column stack may have failed first causing lateral tension forces upon all the adjacent columns. The lateral forces necessary to do that would have had to be enormous. Or, possibly two floors of columns buckled at their connections without bending the columns. Factual evidence is needed , however, a computer structural analysis could prove the cause, and demonstrate what happened.) (Wouldn't it be interesting to interview the firemen who saw the failures in the building structure that were occurring, and that made them clear the building and stop the fire fighting.) (Read the story. Its a real mystery. What are your observations? The destruction of the evidence is a serious criminal matter, and I would be interested in the evidence, engineering reports, and the lawsuits that the insurance companies have put together. Fortunately, the plans for the building probably still exist, and CAD and finite element analysis can easily recreate the model and dynamic forces that were in motion, and to model the collapse. If failures of engineering or construction existed they can be found out. You can hear the attorneys lying and distorting already.) Ralph Hertle > RicodJour: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How do you possibly know that I don't know? You are a liar. My opinion is that you're keeping to your usual conspiracy theories. No lie. > >>I live 20 miles from the WTC, and for many weeks when the winds were > >>right the terrible stench of the thousands of rotting corpses buried in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > representative for the Port Authority, and making nice for the world's > public opinions? Get serious. You haven't yet awakened to reality. I wonder if you twist words for a purpose or from lack of understanding, reading comprehension or what. I said that you didn't smell the "rotting corpses" 20 miles away, not that a decomposing body doesn't smell. What smells is your theory. R Dude, and don't forget that the jet was heavily loaded with jet fuel to burn the building. Of course the kooks will hatch conspiracy theories till the end of time. What else would they do, THEY ARE KOOKS AFTER ALL. The same goes for those who believe the CRAP. > > gee dude, > > don't you think a fully loaded airliner crashing into a building at 500 > > mph could have some damaging effects on the building? > > how incredibly stupid are you? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.