Official story about collapse of the WTC 'bogus'

[KipWellsFan]

conspiracy theory warning

to those easily offended, don't read

 

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/artic...18131/27302.htm

 

By Greg Szymanski

 

A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush's first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the WTC is 'bogus,' saying it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

 

"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," said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a  former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.

 

Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, also believes it's 'next to impossible' that 19 Arab Terrorists alone outfoxed the mighty U.S. military, adding the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9/11.

 

"It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7," said Reynolds this week from his offices at Texas A&M.  "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.

 

"More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right."

 

However, Reynolds said  "getting it right in today's security state' remains challenging because he claims explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.

 

-- Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel supposedly was burning..

 

--When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower's flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.

 

--The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the firs could have been easily controlled.

 

--FDNY fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order  to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9/11 gag order.

 

--Even the flawed 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible."

 

 

-- Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.

 

-- The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.

 

-- WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.

 

-- WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.

 

-- In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that. "may be the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.

 

-- It's difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.

 

I'd love to know how Reynolds became a 'former' chief economist.

 

much more at link, and endless information for both sides of the argument available all over the internet

[kev211]

Dont belive it why would the goverment blow up the tower on purpose and kill tons of people and basically intetionally start a war!

[kapkomet]

oh brother... here we go again.

 

:rolly :rolly :rolly

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Dont belive it why would the goverment blow up the tower on purpose and kill tons of people and basically intetionally start a war!

 

Because the Project for a New American Century, in the previous years, stated in their position statement that to get their militant project of controlling Middle Eastern oil as a bargaining chip, increasing defense spending, decreasing almost all domestic program spending, etc., they'd need a devastating event.

 

http://www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/...l_harbored.html

 

The group’s essential demand was for hefty increases in defense spending. “We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future,” the statement’s first principle reads.

 

The increase in defense spending is to bring about two of the other principles: “to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values” and “to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.”

 

A subsequent PNAC plan entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century,” reveals that the current members of Bush’s cabinet had already planned, before the 2000 presidential election, to take military control of the Gulf region whether Saddam Hussein is in power or not.

 

The 90-page PNAC document from September 2000 says: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

 

“Even should Saddam pass from the scene,” the plan says U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf states to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran, it says, “may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has.”

 

A “core mission” for the transformed U.S. military is to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,” according to the PNAC.

 

The strategic “transformation” of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to “a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,” the PNAC plan said.

 

“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”

[Steff]

Yikes.. GDub reeeeaallyy pissed that dude off.

[Nokona]

I'm always a sucker for such hteories and it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Yes, it cartainly would be a lot harder to dismiss any 9-11 conspiracy theories had PNAC not spelled out their intentions and their desire for a catylizing national tragedy so candidly and clearly.

[kapkomet]

Yes, it cartainly would be a lot harder to dismiss any 9-11 conspiracy theories had PNAC not spelled out their intentions and their desire for a catylizing national tragedy so candidly and clearly.

So did Tom Clancy in his books. So is he a "traitor" and a "conspirator" like the labels that are being insinuated here?

[Rex Kickass]

I think I need a new tinfoil hat. Major League Baseball can still read my thoughts.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

So did Tom Clancy in his books.  So is he a "traitor" and a "conspirator" like the labels that are being insinuated here?

 

But Tom Clancy isn't one of the major policy makers currently in office like Feith, Wolfowitz, Rummy, Cheney etc. etc. that were/are members of PNAC.

[FlaSoxxJim]

So did Tom Clancy in his books.  So is he a "traitor" and a "conspirator" like the labels that are being insinuated here?

I'm not sure I follow the line of reasoning or understand the question...

 

Did Clancy also express his personal desire for a "new Pearl Harbor" Like PNAC? If he did, it should be remembered that Tom Clancy has all the pull, power, and influence of... well, of a novelist. Take a loook at the signatories to the PNAC doc – they weild quite a bit more influence than Tom Clancy.

 

If you're merely suggesting that because some of Clancy's fiction has inadvertetently come close to the truth at times, well, he does his homework and has keen insights.

 

And NONE of this is intended to suggest this particular 911 conspiracy theory, or any of the dozens of others resembles the truth. I'm merely pointing out that you invite scrutiny when you write, 'Gee, we'd really like to reshape the Middle East to our purposes using Imperialistic military might but it's going to be hard unless we get an national tragedy of epic proportions to justify it,' and then voila, you get your wish.

[Flash Tizzle]

Yes, it cartainly would be a lot harder to dismiss any 9-11 conspiracy theories had PNAC not spelled out their intentions and their desire for a catylizing national tragedy so candidly and clearly.

 

You would think so--but unfortunately this particular conspiracy theory is bulls***. I'd be more willing to believe our government allowed the 19 hijackers to orchestrate their attacks than accepting a controlled demolition brought down both WTC towers.

[FlaSoxxJim]

You would think so--but unfortunately this particular conspiracy theory is bulls***. I'd be more willing to believe our government allowed the 19 hijackers to orchestrate their attacks than accepting a controlled demolition brought down both WTC towers.

As would I, and I agree this Ph.D. with the demolition theory is off his nut.

 

Out of curiosity, HOW willing are you to believe believe our government allowed the 19 hijackers to orchestrate their attacks?

[jackie hayes]

Outlandish conspiracy theories that reference science and engineering should come from a scientist or engineer. Just a thought.

 

This thread actually makes me a bit more optimistic -- the Bush WH IS willing to fire monumentally stupid people, even Texans.

[Flash Tizzle]

Out of curiosity, HOW willing are you to believe believe our government allowed the 19 hijackers to orchestrate their attacks?

 

At the moment, I have to believe the account we're given is correct. I'm suggesting if someone said, "Bush administration knew an attack was beginning to pilot commercial airliners into skyscrapers, yet didn't intervene because they knew it would be the most effective way of convincing Congress and the American public invading Middle Eastern countries was worthwhile..," I'd be more willing to admit it makes SOME sense. Doesn't mean I'll believe it, probably won't; but it sure as hell beats this controlled demoliton theory.

 

Anti-American sentiment had been boiling over for years prior to September 11. Original WTC attack, African Embassy bombings, USS Cole all proved Al-Qeada's intention to strike us. PNAC's assertion of a large scale attack leading to Middle Eastern policy change was not very prophetic, IMO. It was only a matter of time before a large scale attack occured on US soil. And if Bush was hell-bent on removing Saddam, which many believe is true, then that too would have happened eventually--9/11 or not.

Edited June 15, 2005 by Flash Tizzle

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

As would I, and I agree this Ph.D. with the demolition theory is off his nut.

 

Out of curiosity, HOW willing are you to believe believe our government allowed the 19 hijackers to orchestrate their attacks?

 

They didn't do it purposefully. They allowed this to happen because of bumbling incompetence, a refusal to listen to agents who had strong leads on what the hijackers were up to and a stubborn pre-9/11 fixation against sharing information between agencies.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

At the moment, I have to believe the account we're given is correct.  I'm suggesting if someone said, "Bush administration knew an attack was beginning to pilot commercial airliners into skyscrapers, yet didn't intervene because they knew it would be the most effective way of convincing Congress and the American public invading Middle Eastern countries was worthwhile..," I'd be more willing to admit it makes SOME sense. Doesn't mean I'll believe it, probably won't; but it sure as hell beats this controlled demoliton theory.

 

Anti-American sentiment had been boiling over for years prior to September 11. Original  WTC attack, African Embassy bombings, USS Cole all proved Al-Qeada's intention to strike us. PNAC's assertion of a large scale attack leading to Middle Eastern policy change was not very prophetic, IMO. It was only a matter of time before a large scale attack occured on US soil. And if Bush was hell-bent on removing Saddam, which many believe is true, then that too would have happened eventually--9/11 or not.

 

 

Try not to flame for this anyone but I think we're rather fortunate what happened on 9-11 was what happened rather than someone sneaking a nuclear device into NYC or LA and setting it off. All these stories I read about those suitcase size nuclear devices the Soviets used to have that have gone missing scare me more than anything.

[CanOfCorn]

Let them all talk about conspiracy theories. Some people say the Holocaust never happened. JFK still isn't really worked out. And some people are doubting Mark Felt was Deep Throat. Bottom line, three towers collapsed, thousands of people died, we are in the Middle East.

 

 

Additionally, as I was reading about PNAC's thoughts, it reminded me of the Roman Empire. They didn't fall until they started overreaching. That's what being in the Middle East reminds me of. We are too far away from home. I'm glad you're home Nuke, now let's bring the rest home safe and sound.

[Flash Tizzle]

Try not to flame for this anyone but I think we're rather fortunate what happened on 9-11 was what happened rather than someone sneaking a nuclear device into NYC or LA and setting it off.  All these stories I read about those suitcase size nuclear devices the Soviets used to have that have gone missing scare me more than anything.

 

We'll eventually have some sort of nuclear device smuggled and detonated in this nation. Honestly, I'm surprised it hasn't already happened. One person with one briefcase of radioactive material is too difficult to prepare for. s***, 19 people freely roamed our nation. Imagine several terrorists preparing their weapons outside the country and merely traveling through Canada or Mexico. No flight schools or tickets to purchase which may tip authorities.

 

Far as 9/11, you're right, it could have been much worse.

-Three hours later and both WTC buildings have 15,000 more occupants.

-Airliner which struck the Pentagon happened to hit the area which had been recently renovated.

-Flight 93 didn't reach it's destination.

Edited June 15, 2005 by Flash Tizzle

[CubKilla]

HUSTLER magazine actually interviewed this wacko. He went as far in the article as to say that WTC workers saw "mysterious" men working in the elevator shafts and maintenance areas prior to 09/11. He concluded that they were probably government agents setting demolition charges in the days leading up to 09/11.

 

A weirdo like this is probably where some here get the majority of their horses*** anti-USA literature

[LowerCaseRepublican]

HUSTLER magazine actually interviewed this wacko. He went as far in the article as to say that WTC workers saw "mysterious" men working in the elevator shafts and maintenance areas prior to 09/11. He concluded that they were probably government agents setting demolition charges in the days leading up to 09/11.

 

A weirdo like this is probably where some here get the majority of their horses*** anti-USA literature 

 

Horses*** anti-USA literature? The ignorance you proclaim to any opposite side of a debate is amazing, CK. If we're going to talk anti-US, then perhaps we could bring in James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. During a discussion of the PATRIOT Act and while hearing criticisms of the Act from competent authorities, Sen. Sensenbrenner cut all the mics, ended the meeting early & then ran out of the meeting in a huff because they were showing the facts that the controversial aspects of the Act (i.e. Section 215) have failed to make America any safer or even catch terrorists. Because the United States isn't about making informed governmental decisions based on an adequate discussion of the topic from both sides, right?

 

And are you surprised that Hustler would discuss such political topics? Larry Flynt has been one of the most outspoken critics of Bush and has been at the forefront of numerous free speech efforts.

[YASNY]

I have always believed that the WTC was taken down by a controlled demolition, or implosion. The way those towers went down, straight down, put that thought in my head shortly after the initial shock had worn off. Watching those buildings collapse reminded me of many newsclips of planned demolitions that I had seen over the years. Those planes came into those buildings at different angles and at different elevations, yet both buildings collapsed in the same manner. That's just too much of a coincidence for me to accept.

[kapkomet]

There's enough camera crews, etc that were watching the towers at that point with sound - you would have heard the charges being set off. Do you? Has anyone from the main media amplified the sound when the towers started falling?

[Wedge]

I have always believed that the WTC was taken down by a controlled demolition, or implosion.  The way those towers went down, straight down, put that thought in my head shortly after the initial shock had worn off.  Watching those buildings collapse reminded me of many newsclips of planned demolitions that I had seen over the years.  Those planes came into those buildings at different angles and at different elevations, yet both buildings collapsed in the same manner.  That's just too much of a coincidence for me to accept.

 

I don't know anything about conspiracy theories and what not, but here is some basic high school math/physics for you:

 

Consider:

a) WTC Tower is 1400' tall

B) Both WTC Towers took about ~9-10 seconds to collapse

c) Gravity operates at roughly 32 ft/s/s

d) x= vo*t + 1/2 a*t*t

 

If I were to walk off the side of the WTC from the very top, my vo=0.

Thus,

1400 = 1/2 * (32) * t*t

t ~ 9.5 seconds

 

Therefore, if I walked off the side of the WTC and feel to the ground, I would have hit the ground at roughly the same instant that the collapse of the tower reached the ground. This means, both WTC towers collapsed as though as in a free-fall. The structure of the towers provided no resistance as they collapsed.

 

For the sake of argument, let's treat the collapse of the WTC as a hit-and-stick collision of two equally massed slabs with mass m. One slab starts at 1400', the height of the tower, and the other at 700', midway up the tower. The 700' slab is held up by massless supports, which fail instantly once the 1400' slab impacts the 700' slab.

 

In a hit-and-stick collision, two objects have masses and velocities. When they impact, they combine into a new object of combined mass with a new velocity. The property is

m1v1 + m2v2 = (m1+m2)v3

 

In our case, the fall only occurs in one direction, along the y-axis, so velocity calculation becomes simple:

 

mvi + m*0 = 2mvn

 

or, the velocity of the two combined masses will become 1/2 the velocity of the mass falling from 1400' when it impacts at the 700' level. So let's do the math, shall we?

 

x = vo*t + 1/2 a*t*t

700 = 1/2*32*t*t

t= 6.614378277661476

 

v = a*t

v = 32*6.6

v = 211.6601048851672 ft/s

Thus, the first slab hits the second at about 6.6 seconds at a speed of about 211.7 ft/s. Thus, now we can view the two slabs as starting a fall at 105.83 ft/s.

 

Thus

700 = 105.83 * t + 1/2 * 32 * t * t

16 * t * t + 105.83 * t - 700 = 0

t = 4.0879

 

so in this case, the total falling time is about 10.7 seconds. As you introduce more slabs, the falling time should increase (this would take a lot of calculus, maybe if I have time to look at it later, I will). Also... we're assuming the tower is giving no resistance as it collapse, which it should be doing. That would introduce more of a collapse time.

 

These are just simple calculations, that I feel introduce an element of doubt to the fact that the WTC towers collapsed purely because of the impact of the planes. There is enough evidence to warrant full scale scientific investigation and simulation, that I'm not sure has been done.

[SnB]

wege = juggernaut, except with useful math