Collapse Of WTC Buildings (Just the facts)

I dunno if I'm resolving anything or not. I got a blank page and looked at the source code. It has a header and is blank!!!!?????

Maybe it was taken down by the GOVERNMENT.
</font>[/QUOTE]It probably was. I went to Way Back Machine and got it from there (the archive): And I shortened the link for Browser's Sake.

Here's the link:

Archive

 

Ain't it though? Look up "Operation Paperclip" sometime.

 

If these are strawmen, they are all strawmen put out there by the conspiricy folks. PM didn't just dream them up out of the blue. These are false claims that the conspiricy sites have been promoting since 2001.

Every point that PM makes is backed by named experts, and in some cases the very experts that the conspiricy people falsely site for their own claims!

 

PM references

 

The reason I may sound edgy is that I am sick and tired of people claiming Christianity and then even THINKING that the American government would be so stupid as to launch an attack on its own country. Or to even Compare a Republic to that of Germany in the thirties. If you want to call patriotism edgy thats fine.

As far as my expertise, I have explained it all. I originally started as an Electronic Engineer primarily on military communications and radio-frequency gear and radar. I went to work for the government where I learned and fit right in with ordnance. If you think I can't be an expert on both you are sadly mistaken.

Who said that I am "rigging" a game. I have NOT used any moderating powers in this thread whatsoever. As far as I can remember I have not edited one single word of yours in this thread and if I did, then it was because of breaking a direct rule of the board. (We do have our rules.)

Also, as far a expertise goes, when you work ordinance, you learn exactly what causes destruction in buildings. You study it in detail. There is two types of destruction. That which is planned such as demolition and that done from an outside source such as a bomb.

We do not bomb buildings to take out load bearing structures, we shatter the contents. There is a difference, but we have to study those effects in order to produce them.

My point is you and others have brought up "Airline pilots" as experts on cell-phone systems. Airline spokesmen (PR people) as experts on issues relating to aircraft and susceptability of radio frequency signals.

You have brought up a college professor as an ordinance expert. How can a college professor be an expert unless he learned it from a school where he was allowed to test his theories.

The leading experts in the world admitted in their book "Shaped charges" that explosive destruction works for the commercial world but is only really understood by the ordinance world where the knowledge base goes all the way back to the 1800's and is passed along. So, if someone isn't in that chain there is an issue.

The bottom line, though is not so much the experts qualifications, although I use that to point out a common thread, but it is the fact that the information is flawed.

The logistics Air Force officer makes assumptions that have nothing to do with "realworld" analysis of external bombing.

Let me provide you with what is missing without going into details.

First, McVeigh was taught demolition in the military. He was taught explosives from a military perspective. There were things done with the explosives in the truck that made the difference between just blowing out glass and knocking down concrete floors. The world-trade center issue is based on what a flying incendiary device is capable of. Is it capable of causing the buildings to fall? Yes, absolutely.

The bomber running into the Empire State building was brought up. What has that got to do with the price of tea in China?

Reasons:

The empire state bulding has an entirely different load-bearing structure. The plane was flying slower. The plane had much less mass. The planes fuel was much, much lower. It was also an accident. Why does that matter? It was an unplanned even not designed for optimal destruction to the building with the weapon.

The fact is, you have not presented any information from so-called experts that wasn't full of holes. If you wish to say it is my word against theirs, go ahead. Just remember, the biggest experts agree with my analysis.

There will always be someone who disagrees.

Let me give you an example.

I thought I answered the dispute line for line. Ed and I couldn't rebut the tech from New Mexico because we got a blank screen.

The Logistics Expert was completely wrong in the fact that the shock-wave had to destroy the load-bearing structures by a certain pressure to crush concrete.

Why?

When using an external bomb (weapon--not planned demolition) and you cannot get to the load bearing structures you blow up the contents. By doing this you wreck the building kill the people and make a mess. You don't specifically go in and say I'm going to take out this pillar and this one. You provide massive overpressure and blow up the floors instead. When they fall, they were heavy enough to crumble the pillars (the ones that fell.)

Your expert got the crumbling of the concrete for ANFO all wrong. If he has seen bombs the airforce dropped, yes, they powdered the concrete. Why? A major difference in brissance between military weapons and a truck full of ANFO.

He did not take into account the things McVeigh could DO with the explosives to make certain he caused a lot of damage to the building. This is really not a secret, but I'm not going into it. A small portion of it is in the books about him. McVeigh got his training by people who were trained where I work. That is where the largest knowledge base in the world is found on conventional explosives from the .223 round fired by the M-16 to the MOAB and Bunker Busters.

Every single thing that is out of the norm, the conspiracy theory people want to jump on. Its always a secret government plan to take over the world.

They complain that they have lost many of their freedoms due to the Patriot Act. Personally, I wouldn't KNOW there was a patriot act if I didn't have my computer, TV or newspaper. I would simply notice that security was better at the airports. THAT'S not a loss of freedom.

At one time, it would be considered treason to turn-coat your country and blame them for such a tragic event.

When the whole time the "voluntary" warfighters are getting killed chasing terrorists around the deserts to keep your little self safe.

By pointing blame at the government, you insult the warfighter and his support team (including me--maybe that's one reason I'm edgy--would you like me to sit here and say that you are secretly involved in a plot to destroy people's rights?) Same with Ed. He is my friend. You attack him with your ridiculous claims that the government blew up the buildings.

I have given you reason after reason based on facts why this didn't happen and all you can do is point to "so called" experts, which out of all of them, the best one simply does not understand weapons or ANFO. His assumptions completely destroy his analysis. He assumed that you would go about destroying the target the same way you would demolish a building.

If I wanted to demolish a building, it would look like it did when they DID demolish it. If I wanted to cause death and destruction. I don't need to demolish the building. I need to wreck it and leave 80% of its mass or more still standing (or hanging).

Did you not understand my descriptions of the way this stuff works?

Sorry, I'm switching over to the OKC thread, but the two threads are exactly the same. The interesting thing about people who usually believe there is something suspicious--they believe it across the board. Well, if the WTC was the government, then OKC had to be. If the WTC was set up then the airplane was shot down before it reached Washington. Does it even make sense that if the government planned the terrorist acts that the government certainly wouldn't shoot down the plane? You guys make up your mind.

I think Ed will echo my sentiments of EDGY when it comes to slamming our government. What does the Bible say about our government?

We have the most freedom of anybody in the entire world and these rumors do nothing but undermine it in the eyes of the world causing hatred and will eventually be our downfall.

Now, finally, please tell me exactly how I make this a rigged game. You have not even attempted to support your experts. I think it is because you know that I'm right.

I don't have any idea what you are talking about in the bottom paragraph. All of MY argument was presented by giving detailed descriptions in how the building was destroyed. I thought this thread was to discuss the analysis of the building's destruction? That's what I have done. All you have done is point to poorly experienced experts. People who I have pointed out flaws in their theories.

Now, mind you Poncho, I'm not necessarily always talking about you here. I'm talking about the others who believe like you and have been throwing out so called experts on cell-phones in another thread, so call experts on combustion, so called experts on explosives; when they get their assumptions all wrong, the only thing I can do is correct them. That's what I work with at work and if you can poke holes in my discussion of "what happened" go for it. But, quit skirting the issue by claiming "Foul" or "Rigged game" or accusing me of chnging my profile when I have heavy expertise in fields being discussed.

You are not debating, you are accusing so you don't have to provide technical discussion. A debate is to discuss the facts, and I have written very long discussions about exactly why the buildings went down--go back and read them.

Mercy!

 

PM references </font>[/QUOTE]EXCELLENT POST, NiteShift. Sums it all up in a single link.

 

They did a good job didn't they Phillip. And so have you btw. I envy your expertise in these matters.

 

About every year since 2001
i've checked the terrorists work analysis
conspirasy web sites. Each sample shows
about 98% bunk. Why would I expect if the
first three (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005) show up
98% bunk that the 2006 crowd would be
any different?

I don't have time for this.

Also, each seperate conspirasy site
CONDEMNS the work in which I engage
FULL TIME. I'm a full time Government
watchdog. They were squeeky clean
on 9/11 (save for a few things congress
though could have been enhansed), those
enhansements are documented by the
govenerment.

 

Er, actually, it was the bin Laden extended family that was allowed to leave on their private jets and given the okay by the WH. Now Snopes is saying it isn't true, how convenient. Nevermind that the head of the 09/11 commission has money ties to the Saudis.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york091102.asp


I initially read about this in the Boston Herald right after 09/11. There were several articles about it. I found this article by looking through my own files. After Bush had a known terrorist imam praying to Allah in the Memorial Service at the National Cathedral and had a photo op with muslims praising their religion was when I started my own personal investigation about just who was this guy I voted for. I got my eyes opened, even though it was a grevious personal experience for me to have to go through that.

[ April 13, 2006, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: LadyEagle ]

 

What has this got to do with the Thread?

NOW, this is REALLY getting ridiculous. Have you EVER worked for the military at all? Ed can tell you that ALL "secured" buildings will not allow photos if they can help it. My goodness, this is basic SOP. Have you even heard of OPSEC? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Those security cameras had been operating for years with no issues. No, I've never worked for the military. My Christian beliefs led me to avoid sitting around trying to maximize "kill ratio's" all day long.

Aren't you the guy who on another thread claimed to be an "expert" in cellular communications. Here you're claiming to be an expert on building fires and demolition. I believe you claimed you knew a top official at NASA who overseed the Shuttle program and who could verify whether or not I worked on it. Go ahead. Then you questioned the qualifications of a real expert on building fires because "you had never heard of him."

What exactly do you really know ANYTHING about?

 

Did you give me another credible example of a steel framed skyscraper collapsing due to fire? No/ You just continued your Ad Hominem insults. This is what people do when they can't refute a point with evidence.

 

World Trade Center
Leslie E. Robertson Associates (Structural Engineering)

A 1952 Berkeley civil engineering graduate, Robertson and his then-business partner John Skilling were the original structural engineers for the Twin Towers. His firm, Leslie E. Robertson Associates - which helped repair the structural damage caused by the February 1993 bombing - is located in lower Manhattan overlooking Ground Zero.

Robertson began his engineering career in 1952, leading to the establishing of Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. (LERA) - with the guiding principle of providing an imaginative and responsible approach to engineering problems. Robertson’s groundbreaking structural designs include the Bank of China tower in Hong Kong as well as the World Trade Center. He also designed such diverse projects as a library in Latvia, a supermarket in Florida, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Ohio, a museum in Berlin and numerous corporate headquarters. Along the way, Robertson and his firm have worked on three of the six tallest buildings in the world.

Robertson was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1975. Engineering News Record magazine named him Construction’s Man of the Year in 1989 and, in 1999, listed him among its Top 125 People of the Past 125 Years. Robertson has earned numerous awards and honors as well as served on the board of several cultural and engineering organizations, including the Skyscraper Museum and Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Rensselaer, New York, have awarded him honorary doctorate degrees in engineering, and the University of Western Ontario in Canada presented him with an honorary doctorate in science. In 2002, Robertson won the Henry C. Turner Prize for Innovation in Construction Technology.

In 1966, Robertson designed the structural elements of the WTC towers to withstand the impact of the largest airliner then in service, the Boeing 707.

In April, 2002, Robertson discussed the WTC attacks at an Berkeley alumni presentation. Asked whether the design of high-rises should change to protect them from the impact of large airplanes, he reflected for a moment. "I don’t think we can solve the problem that way..... the problem is with us, not our buildings, and it will be with us for a very long time"

**********************************************
The design engineers didn't mess up big time. They just didn't design the building to withstand explosions from planted demolition explosives.

 

Boeing 707 - 767 Comparison
Leslie E. Robertson - Chief Engineer of the World Trade Center

In 1966, Robertson designed the structural elements of the WTC towers to withstand the impact of the largest airliner then in service, the Boeing 707.

The above image is taken from Chapter 1 of the WTC Report [FEMA PDF of report]. To see how willing to "stretch the truth" the authors of the report are, compare the above image to the original (which can be found here). Notice that they have "accidentally" quoted the length, height and wingspan of one of the early 707's (possibly the Boeing 707-120) and the weight, fuel capacity and speed of the more common Boeing 707-320B (the aircraft that most people associate with the name, Boeing 707).

The above graphic has been edited to give a more accurate picture.

To summarize the aircraft:
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

The Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.

Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling faster on take-off and on landing.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494.

In all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC, the Boeing 707 would be traveling faster. In terms of impact damage, this higher speed would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707.

In conclusion we can say that if the twin towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.
________________________________________
See also: The 9/11 WTC Collapses: An Audio-Video Analysis
*************************************************
Now this is about aircraft, Philip. What are your qualifications wrt aircraft. I have a degree in Aerospace Engineering.

 

This information is taken from the Emporis Building web site.

Emporis Buildings is the world's largest publicly available database on architectural and building data. The site is maintained by Emporis, a multinational real estate research company, and is designed as an open platform.

As an open platform, Emporis Buildings allows users from all over the world to participate in the completion of building information in their own cities. The goal is to index all buildings and structures in order to be able to compare cities and regions.

 

So... 60,000 pounds of mass and another 1,000 gallons or so of jet fuel doesn't make a difference?

Look, any architect can "design" a building to withstand any theoretical event. The fact is that, until 9/11, no high-rise of that design had been hit at full speed by a fully-fueled commercial aircraft. Yes, the Empire State Building had been hit by a military aicraft of a much smaller design.

The point is that the tolerances built into the design, while mathematically accurate, were theoretical, and even if 30 tons of mass and a thousand gallons of flaming fuel are, in your world, inconsequential matters, the fact is that the theory was apparently flawed. It happens.

 

That reminds me of a funny story...It must've been more than 10 years ago, the NY Metropolitan Transit Authority was extending one of the subway tunnels. In the old days, the final step before putting a tunnel into use was a literal walk-through, a man with a cross-stick the height & width of the train would walk the tracks through the new tunnel. This time that was neglected as unnecessary because it was a state of the art design.

Well, you can guess the rest. Fortunately, no one was seriously hurt and although the train was scraped and dented, it was not wrecked.

Moral of the story: In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they are not.

 

Phillip concerning the Albuquerque Journal link that didn't work:
//Maybe it was taken down by the GOVERNMENT.//

LadyEagle: //It probably was. I went to Way Back Machine and got
it from there (the archive): And I shortened the link for Browser's Sake.

//Here's the link//

Thank you for the working link, Sister LadyEagle.
It shows the reactions of responsible parties.
A man makes a bad guess and the Newspaper prints it.
Later the man sees his error and has the Newspaper retract it.

But the initial posting it here shows how un-responsible,
terrorist-like parties might do things. They might quote
the man's initial (but wrong) saying and try to convince
everyone it is the SOLID TRUTH. They might try to make it
uncheckable.

Parties posing here are as pure as the driven snow.
I'm talking about parties NOT posing here and what they MIGHT
do to trick us into believing their terrorist lies.

StraightAndNarrow
//What exactly do you really know ANYTHING about? //

I have the equivalent study of Conspiracy Theories which would
have lead to a master's degree, had I cared to apply it so.
On a bb (bulletin board) long ago & far away (maybe 1989)
i made something like "The Ed's Conspiracy Rating tool" where
I gave formlulae for determining the severity of a Conspiracy.
(Severity is INTENTION TO HARM versus CAPABILITY TO HARM.
SOmething like the CENTUAR-3's EARTH FARM has intentions of using
us all for food for the starving Felines on Centuar-3; they
have no capability, only intention. So don't worry about them.

The Russians can destroy all human life (maybe all higher life-forms)
on the face of the earth. However, they are trying to raise
next months rent on the apartment, so have no intentions of doing it.
So there is no proplem there. The ones to worry about are the ones
with great intent to do harm and the capability to do it.

Oh yes, my other 'could be a Master's' is in World employment
of torture techniques. So I know stuff about the New World Order (NWO)
that the conspiring ones themselves don't know.

StraightAndNarrow: //Aren't you the guy who on another thread claimed
to be an "expert" in cellular communications.//

No, I don't think he is. Anyway, you don't have to be an expert
in a given area to recognize to recognize propaganda, gossip, etc.
in that area.

StraightAndNarrow: //The design engineers didn't mess up big time.
They just didn't design the building to withstand explosions
from planted demolition explosives.//

As you know, engineers make engineering decisions.
The odds a plane will kill you while flying into your building
is 1/400,000. In central Oklahoma in 1999 the average home
had a value of 45,000$. The cost to protect a 45,000 for the
tornado that hit Moore with rotating winds of 316MPH (That is
316 Miles Per hour) is like ¼ of 1 million bucks. It is easier
to hid from the storm (each 10 neighbors can pool and have
a $50,000 storm shelter underground. It is easier to build
another $45,000 home then to pay 295,000$ for a shack that is
only good up to about 130MPH straight winds.
Meanwhile, only 400 homes were destroyed by that tornado out
of 1,100,000 homes in Oklahoma. Consider you are the
government of OKlahoma with a tax base of 4,000 million$
a year. Every ten years maybe you have to rebuild 400 homes
at a cost (now) of 200 Million Dollars OR build
250,000 x 1,100,000 = 250,000 Million$ You don't have a choice.
Even $5,000 a house shelter would only run 5,000 Million$ -
2% of the cost of building tornado proof houses. BTW,
in 1999, Norman, OK, the home of the US Government Severe Weather
Labs had reseached Dopplar Radar so they could see inside
a tornado. The 316MPH winds found there were 80% to 100%
MORE than any model had predicted. SO even if there had been
1% of the US BUdget in 1998 used for OKlahoma
tornado proof houses, that tornado would have blown then away.

It makes no money sense to build aircraft collision proof
buildings. It makes lots of sense to protect aircraft
from being stolen by bad guys.

LadyEagle: //quote:
---
The plane to which Carter refers was an aircraft chartered
by the Saudi government in the days after the terrorist attacks.
The individuals were two dozen members of Osama bin Laden's
extended family who had been living in the United States.
Saying they were afraid that family members might suffer
retribution in the U.S., the Saudis asked for American
assistance in getting them out of the country.
With the help of the FBI, the Saudis and the bin Laden
family chartered an aircraft to pick up family members
in Los Angeles, Orlando, and Washington, D.C.
The bin Laden plane then flew the relatives to Boston,
where — one week after the attacks — the group left
Logan Airport bound for Jeddah.
---
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york091102.asp

//I initially read about this in the Boston Herald right after 09/11.
There were several articles about it. I found this article
by looking through my own files. After Bush had a known terrorist
imam praying to Allah in the Memorial Service at the National
Cathedral and had a photo op with muslims praising their
religion was when I started my own personal investigation about
just who was this guy I voted for. I got my eyes opened, even though
it was a grevious personal experience for me to have to go through that.//

I'm sorry about your grief.
There were lots of hate crimes committed against innocent people who
look middle eastern
I know unintellegent people beat up a Sikh from India thinking
he was Arab Muslim??? He ran a convienence store in my town.

My Governor had to call the local gasoline sales persons
and make them shut down their stores or keep the same prices.
They shut down the stores for awile.

BTW, I didn't vote for Bush the first time (I didn't vote for
Al 'antichrist' Gore either) I don't think any family should have
more than one President, ever: not the Bushes, not the Rosevelts,
not the Kennedys.

So my president tryed to defuse the misdirected anger at
the wrong people. I find nothing wrong with that.

Poncho: //you haven't
proven anything other than you can claim to be an expert
and change your profile just in time to fit your claim,
can I change my profile also? I would like to be known
as a vision panel engineer and architectural draftsman
instead of a glazing contractor.

Poncho: //Talk about a rigged game. //

tee hee. Of course you can change your profile
any time you want. But be honest, I have a copy of your BB
profile in Google Space tee hee

Poncho: //I didn't know that moderators were allowed
to set the conditions
of a debate to make sure only their side is heard.//

I didn't either, and still don't.
However, I am NOT a moderator, so I get to have an opinion.
IMHO the quoting and debating of Conspirasy Theories is a
detriment to the main activity of the BB. If allowed at all,
it should be hidden so deep nobody will ever figure out the
password.

Poncho: //BTW, this "garbage as you call it has everything to do with
WTC, the article in question claims to debunk the
"conspriacy theories" by setting up and knocking down
it's own strawmen, and not using references to the "experts"
and the research it claims to base it's facts on. //

YOur fallicy is showing.
IT doesn't take a rocket surgeon to identify bunk.