Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to alt.dss.hack,rec.woodworking,de.alt.dateien.weibsbilder,edm.forsale,alt.fashion
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
WTC Towers: The case for controlled demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns. This demolition profile requires that the support columns holding a floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by the upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style collapse at near free fall speed. This model predicts a WTC 1 collapse time of 11.38 seconds, and a WTC 2 collapse time of 9.48 seconds. Those times accurately match the seismographic data of those events.1 Refer to equations (1.9) and (1.10) for details. It should be noted that this model differs massively from the "natural pancake collapse" in that the geometrical composition of the structure is not considered (as it is physically destroyed). A natural pancake collapse features a diminishing velocity rapidly approaching rest due the resistance offered by the columns and surrounding "steel mesh". DEMOLITION MODEL A top-down controlled demolition of a building is considered as follows 1. An initial block of j floors commences to free fall. 2. The floor below the collapsing block has its support structures disabled just prior the collision with the block. 3. The collapsing block merges with the momentarily levitating floor, increases in mass, decreases in velocity (but preserves momentum), and continues to free fall. 4. If not at ground floor, goto step 2. Let j be the number of floors in the initial set of collapsing floors. Let N be the number of remaining floors to collapse. Let h be the average floor height. Let g be the gravitational field strength at ground-level. Let T be the total collapse time. Using the elementary motion equation distance = (initial velocity) * time + 1/2 * acceleration * time^2 We solve for the time taken by the k'th floor to free fall the height of one floor [1.1] t_k=(-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g where u_k is the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing floor. The total collapse time is the sum of the N individual free fall times [1.2] T = sum(k=0)^N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g Now the mass of the k'th floor at the point of collapse is the mass of itself (m) plus the mass of all the floors collapsed before it (k-1)m plus the mass on the initial collapsing block jm. [1.3] m_k=m+(k-1)m+jm =(j+k)m If we let u_k denote the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing floor, the final velocity reached by that floor prior to collision with its below floor is [1.4] v_k=SQRT(u_k^2+2gh) which follows from the elementary equation of motion (final velocity)^2 = (initial velocity)^2 + 2 * (acceleration) * (distance) Conservation of momentum demands that the initial momentum of the k'th floor equal the final momemtum of the (k-1)'th floor. [1.5] m_k u_k = m_(k-1) v_(k-1) Substituting (1.3) and (1.4) into (1.5) [1.6] (j + k)m u_k= (j + k - 1)m SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+ 2gh) Solving for the initial velocity u_k [1.7] u_k=(j + k - 1)/(j + k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+2gh) Which is a recurrence equation with base value [1.8] u_0=0 The WTC towers were 417 meters tall and had 110 floors. Tower 1 began collapsing on the 93rd floor. Making substitutions N=93, j=17 , g=9.8 into (1.2) and (1.7) gives [1.9] WTC 1 Collapse Time = sum(k=0)^93 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 = 11.38 sec where u_k=(16+ k)/(17+ k ) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) ;/ u_0=0 Tower 2 began collapsing on the 77th floor. Making substitutions N=77, j=33 , g=9.8 into (1.2) and (1.7) gives [1.10] WTC 2 Collapse Time =sum(k=0)^77 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 = 9.48 sec Where u_k=(32+k)/(33+k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) ;/ u_0=0 REFERENCES "Seismic Waves Generated By Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center ", http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq...C_LDEO_KIM.pdf APPENDIX A: HASKELL SIMULATION PROGRAM This function returns the gravitational field strength in SI units. g :: Double g = 9.8 This function calculates the total time for a top-down demolition. Parameters: _H - the total height of building _N - the number of floors in building _J - the floor number which initiated the top-down cascade (the 0'th floor being the ground floor) cascadeTime :: Double - Double - Double - Double cascadeTime _H _N _J = sum [ (- (u k) + sqrt( (u k)^2 + 2*g*h))/g | k-[0..n]] where j = _N - _J n = _N - j h = _H/_N u 0 = 0 u k = (j + k - 1)/(j + k) * sqrt( (u (k-1))^2 + 2*g*h ) Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 1 in SI units. wtc1 :: Double wtc1 = cascadeTime 417 110 93 Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 2 in SI units. wtc2 :: Double wtc2 = cascadeTime 417 110 77 |
#2
Posted to alt.dss.hack,rec.woodworking,de.alt.dateien.weibsbilder,edm.forsale,alt.fashion
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
On Oct 31, 6:15 am, wrote:
WTC Towers: The case for controlled demolition By Herman Schoenfeld Sure. By the way, did you know the Zapruder film shows that JFK shot himself? And the TV tape showed that was really Oswald shooting Ruby, not the other way around? |
#3
Posted to alt.dss.hack,rec.woodworking,de.alt.dateien.weibsbilder,edm.forsale,alt.fashion
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
so what are you trying to sell, besides another conspiracy theory
wrote in message ps.com... WTC Towers: The case for controlled demolition By Herman Schoenfeld In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns. This demolition profile requires that the support columns holding a floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by the upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style collapse at near free fall speed. This model predicts a WTC 1 collapse time of 11.38 seconds, and a WTC 2 collapse time of 9.48 seconds. Those times accurately match the seismographic data of those events.1 Refer to equations (1.9) and (1.10) for details. It should be noted that this model differs massively from the "natural pancake collapse" in that the geometrical composition of the structure is not considered (as it is physically destroyed). A natural pancake collapse features a diminishing velocity rapidly approaching rest due the resistance offered by the columns and surrounding "steel mesh". DEMOLITION MODEL A top-down controlled demolition of a building is considered as follows 1. An initial block of j floors commences to free fall. 2. The floor below the collapsing block has its support structures disabled just prior the collision with the block. 3. The collapsing block merges with the momentarily levitating floor, increases in mass, decreases in velocity (but preserves momentum), and continues to free fall. 4. If not at ground floor, goto step 2. Let j be the number of floors in the initial set of collapsing floors. Let N be the number of remaining floors to collapse. Let h be the average floor height. Let g be the gravitational field strength at ground-level. Let T be the total collapse time. Using the elementary motion equation distance = (initial velocity) * time + 1/2 * acceleration * time^2 We solve for the time taken by the k'th floor to free fall the height of one floor [1.1] t_k=(-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g where u_k is the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing floor. The total collapse time is the sum of the N individual free fall times [1.2] T = sum(k=0)^N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g Now the mass of the k'th floor at the point of collapse is the mass of itself (m) plus the mass of all the floors collapsed before it (k-1)m plus the mass on the initial collapsing block jm. [1.3] m_k=m+(k-1)m+jm =(j+k)m If we let u_k denote the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing floor, the final velocity reached by that floor prior to collision with its below floor is [1.4] v_k=SQRT(u_k^2+2gh) which follows from the elementary equation of motion (final velocity)^2 = (initial velocity)^2 + 2 * (acceleration) * (distance) Conservation of momentum demands that the initial momentum of the k'th floor equal the final momemtum of the (k-1)'th floor. [1.5] m_k u_k = m_(k-1) v_(k-1) Substituting (1.3) and (1.4) into (1.5) [1.6] (j + k)m u_k= (j + k - 1)m SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+ 2gh) Solving for the initial velocity u_k [1.7] u_k=(j + k - 1)/(j + k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+2gh) Which is a recurrence equation with base value [1.8] u_0=0 The WTC towers were 417 meters tall and had 110 floors. Tower 1 began collapsing on the 93rd floor. Making substitutions N=93, j=17 , g=9.8 into (1.2) and (1.7) gives [1.9] WTC 1 Collapse Time = sum(k=0)^93 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 = 11.38 sec where u_k=(16+ k)/(17+ k ) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) ;/ u_0=0 Tower 2 began collapsing on the 77th floor. Making substitutions N=77, j=33 , g=9.8 into (1.2) and (1.7) gives [1.10] WTC 2 Collapse Time =sum(k=0)^77 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 = 9.48 sec Where u_k=(32+k)/(33+k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) ;/ u_0=0 REFERENCES "Seismic Waves Generated By Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center ", http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq...C_LDEO_KIM.pdf APPENDIX A: HASKELL SIMULATION PROGRAM This function returns the gravitational field strength in SI units. g :: Double g = 9.8 This function calculates the total time for a top-down demolition. Parameters: _H - the total height of building _N - the number of floors in building _J - the floor number which initiated the top-down cascade (the 0'th floor being the ground floor) cascadeTime :: Double - Double - Double - Double cascadeTime _H _N _J = sum [ (- (u k) + sqrt( (u k)^2 + 2*g*h))/g | k-[0..n]] where j = _N - _J n = _N - j h = _H/_N u 0 = 0 u k = (j + k - 1)/(j + k) * sqrt( (u (k-1))^2 + 2*g*h ) Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 1 in SI units. wtc1 :: Double wtc1 = cascadeTime 417 110 93 Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 2 in SI units. wtc2 :: Double wtc2 = cascadeTime 417 110 77 |
#4
Posted to alt.dss.hack,rec.woodworking,de.alt.dateien.weibsbilder,edm.forsale,alt.fashion
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
it's not bull****.
theres alot of ****ed **** with the way it happened. Do your own research on what happened and you'll see it too. one of the things that gets me is 9 of the terrorist on the planes have been found alive and well and have been on tv. but the us government still says they did it. or the colapse of the 3rd building......if that one wasn't controled demo. i don't know what is. cameras on the ground clearly capture many explosions for all 3 buildings |
#5
Posted to alt.dss.hack,rec.woodworking,de.alt.dateien.weibsbilder,edm.forsale,alt.fashion
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
We should fly an empty, remote control Boeing 747 into Schoenfeld's
house to see how many unexplained explosions appear in the tape that may lead us to the conclusion that demolition experts might have snuck into his house to strategically place explosives thereby proving that the plane was just a distraction. I cut and pasted the following formula to prove that it will be a controlled demolition that destroyed his home and not the boeing 747. I used just one of the formulas 'cause his house is smaller than a skyscraper...I just needed the one formula... [1.10] WTC 2 Collapse Time =sum(k=0)^77 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 = 9.48 sec Where u_k=(32+k)/(33+k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) ;/ u_0=0 |
#6
Posted to alt.dss.hack,rec.woodworking,de.alt.dateien.weibsbilder,edm.forsale,alt.fashion
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
"S.S.I.N." wrote in message news:Je2Wi.163441$Da.147624@pd7urf1no... it's not bull****. theres alot of ****ed **** with the way it happened. Do your own research on what happened and you'll see it too. one of the things that gets me is 9 of the terrorist on the planes have been found alive and well and have been on tv. but the us government still says they did it. or the colapse of the 3rd building......if that one wasn't controled demo. i don't know what is. cameras on the ground clearly capture many explosions for all 3 buildings I did my own research and guess what, it is all bull****. The towers fell because planes flew into them, then they caught fire. The third fell because a whole bunch of debris fell on it, then it caught fire. Those aren't explosions, they are smoke, debris, etc., getting blown out windows as the buildings collapsed, forcing the air out of any orifice available. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either a conspiracy loon or a moron. |
#7
Posted to alt.dss.hack,rec.woodworking,de.alt.dateien.weibsbilder,edm.forsale,alt.fashion
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
God, give it a break dude. If there were even a shred of evidence of this
kind of thing, every major country in the world, every news organization, every university engineering department, etc. would be stepping up to the plate to denounce the whole thing. They aren't because it's totally ****ing wacky. I know you've got yourself convinced that the whole rest of the world is "in on it" but answer this question. If elements of the U.S. government really had the power to pull something like this off, and more imporantely keep it a secret, and therefore had anything real to hide, why haven't they had you carted you off to the booby hatch long ago? (You gotta know no one would complain.) Even Bill Mahr and Bill Clinton (hardly supporters of the administration, either one) both strongly and publicly pointed out you guys in the "truth" movement are retards. I know there isn't a law against being an asshat, but don't you conspiracy have your own newsgroups already? Do you really need to be ****ing up ours? -- -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ -------------------- Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB |
#8
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
On Oct 31, 4:52 pm, "Robert Weldon"
wrote: , they are smoke, debris, etc., getting blown out windows as the buildings collapsed, forcing the air out of any orifice available. Kinda like Shoenfeld's mouth? Does ANYBODY really think the current administration would be capable of organizing such a complex event? Without leaks? Having said that, I have my doubts about the story of Flight 93 and its demise. r |
#9
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 31, 4:52 pm, "Robert Weldon" wrote: , they are smoke, debris, etc., getting blown out windows as the buildings collapsed, forcing the air out of any orifice available. Kinda like Shoenfeld's mouth? Does ANYBODY really think the current administration would be capable of organizing such a complex event? Without leaks? Having said that, I have my doubts about the story of Flight 93 and its demise. Are you saying that the Air Force lied about failing to carry out the shoot down order? -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#10
Posted to alt.dss.hack,rec.woodworking,de.alt.dateien.weibsbilder,edm.forsale,alt.fashion
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
|
#11
Posted to alt.dss.hack,rec.woodworking,de.alt.dateien.weibsbilder,edm.forsale,alt.fashion
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
On Oct 31, 11:55 pm, Dallas D wrote:
Freedom of speech is kewl... Only if you are in The Allowed Free Speech Zone. |
#12
Posted to alt.dss.hack,rec.woodworking,de.alt.dateien.weibsbilder,edm.forsale,alt.fashion
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:55 pm, Dallas D wrote: Freedom of speech is kewl... Only if you are in The Allowed Free Speech Zone. And "kewl" is only cool if you are below the age of 14 and at least slightly retarded. |
#13
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Having said that, I have my doubts about the story of Flight 93 and its demise. That you would bring it up on rec.woodworking is somewhat disturbing. If you find yourself thinking a lot about throughout the day, or have other similar delusions, you should get professional help; otherwise it is probably harmless. |
#14
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
On Nov 1, 9:33 am, "Toller" wrote:
Having said that, I have my doubts about the story of Flight 93 and its demise. That you would bring it up on rec.woodworking is somewhat disturbing. If you find yourself thinking a lot about throughout the day, or have other similar delusions, you should get professional help; otherwise it is probably harmless. I'm sorry, was I participating in a thread 'outside' the permitted zone? Doubts are very common emotions when either the facts don't add up, or are missing. If you swallow, whole, everything the media tells you, then you are very easily led. You probably still believe that The Mission has been accomplished. Those of us who ask questions, learn. Incidentally, you have removed any doubt I had about you. G r |
#15
Posted to alt.dss.hack,rec.woodworking,de.alt.dateien.weibsbilder,edm.forsale,alt.fashion
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
You're KEWLER than me then cuz I is older than 14 looser. Who made you
the grammar police? Get my point? Don wrote: Robatoy wrote: On Oct 31, 11:55 pm, Dallas D wrote: Freedom of speech is kewl... Only if you are in The Allowed Free Speech Zone. And "kewl" is only cool if you are below the age of 14 and at least slightly retarded. |
#16
Posted to alt.dss.hack,rec.woodworking,de.alt.dateien.weibsbilder,edm.forsale,alt.fashion
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
And it's not kewl to make fun of the mentally disabled you ass.
Don wrote: Robatoy wrote: On Oct 31, 11:55 pm, Dallas D wrote: Freedom of speech is kewl... Only if you are in The Allowed Free Speech Zone. And "kewl" is only cool if you are below the age of 14 and at least slightly retarded. |
#17
Posted to alt.dss.hack,rec.woodworking,de.alt.dateien.weibsbilder,edm.forsale,alt.fashion
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Hey Don you missed the point and I'll explain for you. I'm sorry you are
upset about your "total" mentally challenged condition. Don't be jealous of us who are only "slightly" challenged. Here it is; It is because of "Freedom Of Speech" that I am allowed to spell cool like this; "kewl". So when I say "Freedom of speech is kewl" I am not only demonstrating my rights but describing them too. For us mentally challenged it is an exercise in attempting to stretch thought capacity and understand "Wit". Get it now? Try it some day it's enlightening to see the forest beyond the trees and or stop and smell the roses you dead beat. Cheers, D Don wrote: Robatoy wrote: On Oct 31, 11:55 pm, Dallas D wrote: Freedom of speech is kewl... Only if you are in The Allowed Free Speech Zone. And "kewl" is only cool if you are below the age of 14 and at least slightly retarded. |
#18
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
"Robatoy" wrote in message ups.com... On Nov 1, 9:33 am, "Toller" wrote: Having said that, I have my doubts about the story of Flight 93 and its demise. That you would bring it up on rec.woodworking is somewhat disturbing. If you find yourself thinking a lot about throughout the day, or have other similar delusions, you should get professional help; otherwise it is probably harmless. I'm sorry, was I participating in a thread 'outside' the permitted zone? Doubts are very common emotions when either the facts don't add up, or are missing. If you swallow, whole, everything the media tells you, then you are very easily led. You probably still believe that The Mission has been accomplished. Those of us who ask questions, learn. Incidentally, you have removed any doubt I had about you. G That says a whole lot more about you than about me. Bye now. |
#19
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
On Nov 1, 2:06 pm, "Toller" wrote:
That says a whole lot more about you than about me. It sure does, doesn't it? |
#20
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
"Robatoy" wrote in message ups.com... If you swallow, whole, everything the media tells you, then you are very easily led. You probably still believe that The Mission has been accomplished. .. G r You mean the despot Saddam and his murderous raping sons are still controlling Iraq? And all along I thought that Government had been overthrown, removed and disposed of. I guess you indeed can't believe everything you read.... and some people probably shouldn't believe everything they thinkG.....Rod |
#21
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
On Nov 2, 5:16 am, "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message ups.com... If you swallow, whole, everything the media tells you, then you are very easily led. You probably still believe that The Mission has been accomplished. . G r You mean the despot Saddam and his murderous raping sons are still controlling Iraq? And all along I thought that Government had been overthrown, removed and disposed of. I guess you indeed can't believe everything you read.... and some people probably shouldn't believe everything they thinkG.....Rod My bad... and here *I* thought Bush went after Iraq to get the terrorists who did 911 and get them there nukular bombs.... But all is well now, eh Rod? Besides, at the time Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" he didn't HAVE Hussein and his boys yet. Rod, I had expected a better response from you, but you still believe every lying gurgle of venom that spews out Bush's murderous butcher's mouth. He went to Iraq to set up a military base to cover Israel's backdoor so they can throw their weight around the region... like they do in the White House. Now they want Iran as well. American soldiers dying to further the Zionist agenda. Mission Accomplished, indeed. |
#22
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
On Nov 2, 9:38 am, Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 2, 5:16 am, "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote: "Robatoy" wrote in message oups.com... If you swallow, whole, everything the media tells you, then you are very easily led. You probably still believe that The Mission has been accomplished. . G r You mean the despot Saddam and his murderous raping sons are still controlling Iraq? And all along I thought that Government had been overthrown, removed and disposed of. I guess you indeed can't believe everything you read.... and some people probably shouldn't believe everything they thinkG.....Rod PS, nice job on destroying the economy as well... It'll cost you $ 1.10 next week to buy a Can$. |
#23
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Robatoy wrote:
PS, nice job on destroying the economy as well... It'll cost you $ 1.10 next week to buy a Can$. This has to be about the best "destroyed economy" on record with low unemployment, record home ownership, robust tax receipts etc..... however I indeed still suffer at the gas pump, my van has a 33gal tank.... ouch!!! Nonetheless my Canadian Brother-in-law (Calgary) is doing very well as Alberta sells us massive quantities of oil and natural gas.....just apparently not enough since the prices are still going up. Rod |
#24
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Maxwell Lol wrote: And how did eliminating Saddam reduce the risk from future 911-style attacks? Since that was neither the specific intent nor direct intended goal I wouldn't understand the expectation...... I suppose since we had 50,000 troops containing Saddam, enforcing international embargoes and Iraq no fly zones and we did foil his Kuwait invasion.....That maybe at some time or place he might be motivated to seek revenge other than his attempt on Bush SR's life in 1993 It is curious that other than on our forces in Iraq, worldwide we have had no other U.S. or U.S. interest attack. Where-as pre 9/11 we had a string of ever escalating attacks. One might surmise that without a open base in Afghanistan that long range involved plots are more difficult. Incidentally State sponsored terrorism is of serious concern or of potential great harm.... Palestinian suicide bombing in Israel have dropped considerably since Saddam no longer pays a reward (to the bomber's family) for each one. Rod |
#25
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Robatoy wrote: My bad... and here *I* thought Bush went after Iraq to get the terrorists who did 911 and get them there nukular bombs.... But all is well now, eh Rod? I guess you will think what you want but the administration did not ever directly link the two.......I think they did mention the 19 or so UN resolutions that he had violated....but expecting the International body to have any credibility while awash in the Iraq/UN oil scandal might be expecting a bit much Besides, at the time Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" he didn't HAVE Hussein and his boys yet. Rod, I had expected a better response from you, but you still believe every lying gurgle of venom that spews out Bush's murderous butcher's mouth. Maybe not but they were no longer effective Iraq leaders whilst hiding in root cellars......They had no power or influence at that time...and in due time they were easily found and dispatched with. It doesn't take much historical awareness to realize the current Iraq violence with the givens is more the historical norm than the exception (Lebanon).......many groups grabbing for power and influence outside of the ballot box (because they know they will never get it by a popular vote). While our loss in blood and treasury is tragic we lose more lives monthly to traffic deaths than the entire peace keeping effort. He went to Iraq to set up a military base to cover Israel's backdoor so they can throw their weight around the region... The bases we already had in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia weren't enough? like they do in the White House. Now they want Iran as well. American soldiers dying to further the Zionist agenda. Mission Accomplished, indeed. I can understand a lot of differing ideas but the anti Zionist rants and grand conspiracies just don't make much sense......However Israel does have enemies with many desiring the destruction and extermination of the people.... interesting those countries with such desires have no semblance of democracy where-as 1,000,000 Arabs in Israel proper do have the right and privilege to vote. Rod |
#26
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
On Nov 2, 3:15 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
It is curious that other than on our forces in Iraq, worldwide we have had no other U.S. or U.S. interest attack. Where-as pre 9/11 we had a string of ever escalating attacks. One might surmise that without a open base in Afghanistan that long range involved plots are more difficult. Next thing I know, you'll want Bush to be nominated for a Nobel peace prize? Incidentally State sponsored terrorism is of serious concern or of potential great harm.... Palestinian suicide bombing in Israel have dropped considerably since Saddam no longer pays a reward (to the bomber's family) for each one. Funny...because Israel claims that their decision to build The Wall was the reason for the drop in suicide bombings. Rod, ol' chap, I take pride in reading a VERY wide, diverse collection of news sources. I find it hard to believe that there are still people out there who toe the 'Official White House' party line. Hard to believe. After all those obvious lies. There are hundreds of recorded contradictions between what Cheney (et al) said one day and the next. So what is next? Only ONE person offers a glimmer of hope. Ron Paul. (I guess it is time to bring out the SwiftBoat crew, eh?) |
#27
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
On Nov 2, 2:29 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
Robatoy wrote: PS, nice job on destroying the economy as well... It'll cost you $ 1.10 next week to buy a Can$. This has to be about the best "destroyed economy" on record with low unemployment, record home ownership, robust tax receipts etc..... however I indeed still suffer at the gas pump, my van has a 33gal tank.... ouch!!! Nonetheless my Canadian Brother-in-law (Calgary) is doing very well as Alberta sells us massive quantities of oil and natural gas.....just apparently not enough since the prices are still going up. Rod Shall we try to re-read what I wrote? 'Destroying' is an ongoing process. YOUR 'destroyed' is a fait accompli. Give it time and you'll be correct. |
#28
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Maxwell Lol wrote:
"Rod & Betty Jo" writes: Maxwell Lol wrote: "Robatoy" wrote in message ups.com... If you swallow, whole, everything the media tells you, then you are very easily led. You probably still believe that The Mission has been accomplished. "Rod & Betty Jo" writes: You mean the despot Saddam and his murderous raping sons are still controlling Iraq? I said And how did eliminating Saddam reduce the risk from future 911-style attacks? Since that was neither the specific intent nor direct intended goal I wouldn't understand the expectation...... Looking at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/c...?story_id=2679 This lists 21 reasons for the war. Here are some of the goals that were NOT accomplished - as I see it Prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction - Nope. So WMDs are now proliferating more greatly than before the war. News to me. To further the war on terror - Nope. Didn't do much for that. So the ongoing blood/treasure expended by the West has had zero impact on interdicting in terror activities. Interesting. To transform the region - not in a good way. Now Iran is a problem. Because before, of course, Iran was a paragon if civility having never funded known terror organizations and/or other states unfriendly to Western interesting. Because of Iraq's links to al Qaeda - No evidence of this The absence of evidence is not meaningful. Only the presence of evidence is. There is no evidence, for example, that my cat can do calculus, but that doesn't mean he can't. I just don't know. Similarly - based on this post - there is no evidence you are familiar with the rules of logic, but that doesn't mean you aren't. There simply is no evidence to that effect here. Because Iraq was an imminent threat - again - no evidence "Threat" to whom? 90+ US Senators, the US Administration, the UK, Italy, Spain, Poland, and a number of nations I can no longer recall thought there was some threat *at the time*. The fact that they were/might have been wrong does not, prima facia, demonstrate they were dishonest (which is the implication of your point). To disarm Iraq - we really botched this. We are giving them arms. One hopes you can read more than just the words and see the intent. I think everyone - on all sides of this issue - understands that the intent (however well/poorly justified) was to disarm *Sadaam's* Iraq. Clearly an independent sovereign Iraq will need arms to maintain civil order and their borders. As a warning to other terrorists nations - I think we made it worse You're welcome to your opinion. DAGS the conversation between Berluscone and Gaddafi after the latter witnessed the US war machine in action. One such link: http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/...tory133588.asp Think that would have happened otherwise? Because Hussein was a threat to the region - Not really. Yeah, he started a war wherein 1 million + died, invaded a neighbor (and the West had to kick him out), murdered 10s of thousands of his own people, and committed genocide upon the Kurds. Only in the Jimmy Carter songbook is this "not a threat". Because Hussein hates the United States and will act against it. - That was also wrong. There were no WDM. As it turned out. But the evidence at the time - vetted by multiple governments and intelligence agencies *around the world* pointed to there being some. No suppose we took your line of reasoning back, say 7 years and there WERE such weapons. 'Think SH might have wanted to play with his Evil Toys? I do. It's better to go in and find out we're wrong about their existence, than not go in and discover we're wrong about them not existing. For the safety of the world - nope. In what way is the world today not safer because of the decapitation of Sadaam's regime? I suppose the murderous swine that commit suicide bombings in the Middle East are less well off, but that's all that leap to mind. To preserve peace around the world - nope. Ditto. Because the United States could (easy victory) - nope Oh, the U.S. did have an easy victory. However, the U.S. also fell prey to the collectivist do-gooders (on both sides of the political divide) that wanted to "improve" the country after SH was gone. The mess that is the Kurd-Shia-Sunni debate is not of Western making. Let the principals in that debate take each other out as needed. The West should have secured the borders to contain the spread, and sold tickets to the show. MTV could have made a Reality TV show out of it... It's hard for me to thing "mission accomplished" when many of the reasons were either wrong (and the money and lives were wasted) , or we didn't accomplish what was desired. The proper "mission" was accomplished. It was the Saving The World mission that was not. I would suggest that leaving Iraq in ruins would have been a powerful message to the rest of the world as to what happens when you support terror in any form. We did "change the regime" - but it's not a democracy, and it certainly isn't stable. Who cares? Democracy has to be earned by those who wish it. It cannot be bestowed by fiat. Moreover, the region has never been stable, and likely never will be. Again, no one's problem but the locals. Looking at the 21 reasons for war as listed above - it's not clear to me we did anything positive - except to get rid of Hussein. That's hardly "mission accomplished" What we did was: a) Act with good intention to make things "better". b) Allowed the political debate at home, an overweening Congress, an apocalyptic White House, and a drooling idiot Left keep us in-theater far longer than needed. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
#29
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Maxwell Lol wrote:
"Rod & Betty Jo" writes: Robatoy wrote: My bad... and here *I* thought Bush went after Iraq to get the terrorists who did 911 and get them there nukular bombs.... But all is well now, eh Rod? I guess you will think what you want but the administration did not ever directly link the two....... But they really really really tried, including lying to Colin Powell, who went on TV to defend the reasons to war. But what they did to Plame was even worse. One of the most valuable assets in military intelligence is a senior covert operator who has 20 years of connections, who can recruit agents, etc, and who can find out the real facts concerning WMD. These sort of assets can help accurately determine if war is the RIGHT DECISION. And one of the biggest problems with the war is the lack of real HUMINT (human intelligence). But apparently real intelligence wasn't used in deciding if the Iraq war was necessary. And in this case, the agent's (Valerie Plame) husband Wilson flatly stated that some of the "facts" Bush used to go to war (materials to construct nuclear weapons) were wrong wrong wrong. And the Bush Administration's response to this criticism was to purposely violate classified information. To quote Larry Johnson, this act was "TREASONOUS AND COWARDLY."(1) And what punishment did Bush do to the person responsible? Nothing (but probably thanked them for taking the blame, and rewarded them under the table). Nice rant, all false (except for the fact that Wilson published his rants against the Bush administration following the little jaunt he took to Niger after his wife recommended him for the assignment). The person who actually mentioned her name to Novak was Richard Armitage, who was not a fan ofthe Bush administration. She was not a covert agent; Victoria Toensing, the person who wrote the covert agent statute testified before the senate that Plame was not a covert agent covered under the act. Wilson himself lied about his trip to Niger and claimed to have been sent by Cheney. From: Headline: Patrick Fitzgerald Ignored Witnesses Who Contradicted Wilson Date: Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2005 Source: NewsMax There are other sources as well. Your one source was someone with an apparent axe to grind.: Her employment by the CIA was not a secret, for example, one witness, "Wayne Simmons, a 27-year veteran at the CIA, told Fox News Radio: "As most people now know, [Plame] was traipsed all over Washington many years ago by Joe Wilson and introduced at embassies and other parties as 'my CIA wife.'" " "Last week, Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WABC Radio's John Batchelor that during a 2002 conversation with Wilson while the two waited to appear on a TV show, Wilson casually mentioned that his wife worked at "the Agency." In Oct. 2003, NBC's diplomatic correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, told CNBC that Plame's occupation "was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger." " "And in Sept. 2003, NationalReviewOnline's Cliff May wrote that when Plame's CIA connection was mentioned in Novak's column - "That wasn't news to me." "I had been told that [Plame was CIA] - but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of." " : People were so upset over the whiff of Clinton's affair. Why are these people ignore treason? That's a good question, why isn't Sandy Berger in jail for stealing (and destroying) classified documents from the National Archives? Why haven't various members of congress and other citizens been charged with giving aid and comfort to our enemies by traveling to foreign countries, appearing with terrorist leaders, and criticizing US policy on foreign soil with those terrorist leaders? -- If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough |
#30
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Maxwell Lol wrote:
Tim Daneliuk writes: Prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction - Nope. So WMDs are now proliferating more greatly than before the war. News to me. Well then, explain to me how we have prevented WMD from proliferating. I didn't say we did. I said that to "prevent proliferation" was successful. There has not -as best I know - been a proliferation of WMDs since the Iraqi war. Let me help me with YOUR argument. You could (and should have) make the argument that going to war had *no effect* on WMD proliferation. But you tried to argue that it did not prevent it - which is, as I said, observably wrong. To further the war on terror - Nope. Didn't do much for that. So the ongoing blood/treasure expended by the West has had zero impact on interdicting in terror activities. Interesting. Global terror attacks tripled in 2004 http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0428/dailyUpdate.html Terrorist attacks worldwide increased 25 percent in 2006. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18399660/ Now take the "terrorist" attacks out of the war zone and see what happens to the numbers. To transform the region - not in a good way. Now Iran is a problem. Because before, of course, Iran was a paragon if civility having never funded known terror organizations and/or other states unfriendly to Western interesting. It's worse now than before. That's the point. You obviously have not been paying attention very long. Iran was and is, a pestiferous dangerous to sane people everywhere. It has been so since the Ayatollahs took over. It has been a state sponsor of all manner of terrorist mischief for literally decades. Now ... go read a book and discover just how wrong you are about this. Because of Iraq's links to al Qaeda - No evidence of this The absence of evidence is not meaningful. Only the presence of evidence is. Exactly. We went to war with no evidence of al Qaeda links. In other words, Bush lied. You continue to twist language in unusual and entertaining ways. There was an *apparent presence* of evidence as regards to WMDs in Iraq at the time the war was initiated. While Bush may have well been wrong, it does not appear that he lied. There is no evidence, for example, that my cat can do calculus, but that doesn't mean he can't. I just don't know. Similarly - based on this post - there is no evidence you are familiar with the rules of logic, but that doesn't mean you aren't. There simply is no evidence to that effect here. Attack the messenger, not the facts, eh? You posses few facts, and I was not attacking you personally. I was attacking your method of reasoning, which appears to be first driven by agenda and only secondarily by reason. You are in good company with the likes of Hannity and Coulter. Because Iraq was an imminent threat - again - no evidence "Threat" to whom? 90+ US Senators, the US Administration, the UK, Italy, Spain, Poland, and a number of nations I can no longer recall thought there was some threat *at the time*. The fact that they were/might have been wrong does not, prima facia, demonstrate they were dishonest (which is the implication of your point). Exactly - another reason for the war that was WRONG. I do not grasp your logic here at all. i.e., I don't know how you derive your statement from my previous statement. I guess the agenda got in front of the grammar in this case. To disarm Iraq - we really botched this. We are giving them arms. One hopes you can read more than just the words and see the intent. I think everyone - on all sides of this issue - understands that the intent (however well/poorly justified) was to disarm *Sadaam's* Iraq. Clearly an independent sovereign Iraq will need arms to maintain civil order and their borders. I bet you still think democracy will flourish there as well. I do not, but I don't care one way or the other. The end state of Iraq is a problem for the Iraqis, not the West. Because Hussein hates the United States and will act against it. - That was also wrong. There were no WDM. As it turned out. But the evidence at the time - vetted by multiple governments and intelligence agencies *around the world* pointed to there being some. And where are these "facts" now? Why is it that all of the "facts" have evaporated? Bush refused to The arguments put forth at the time are well recorded and documents. You are going to have to accept that there is a profound difference between a lie and a mistake in judgement. Then again, maybe you don't. Certainly the New York Times can't tell the difference. When Bush makes a bad call, it's a "lie". When one of their own up-and-coming reports fabricates entire stories, and get's caught doing so, it's a "mistake". listen to his experts and twisted the truth to fabricate evidence (such as Iraq's attempt yo purchase uranium from a African nation). Joseph C. Wilson point out the lie, and they outed his wife. This is clear and hard evidence that the Bush administration FAKED evidence, and did so purposely. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/op...rtner=USERLAND No, what is clear is that Wilson is flatly a liar who contrived to tell a story that was wrong in much of the detail, and his wife is a self-important pretty girl who wants the world to think she was the female James Bond when when she wasn't much more than a high-grade researcher. The Wilson/Plame thing is the weakest of all possible arguments for your views. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
#31
Posted to alt.dss.hack,rec.woodworking,de.alt.dateien.weibsbilder,edm.forsale,alt.fashion
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
On Oct 31, 6:56 am, Charlie Self wrote:
On Oct 31, 6:15 am, wrote: WTC Towers: The case for controlled demolition By Herman Schoenfeld Sure. By the way, did you know the Zapruder film shows that JFK shot himself? And the TV tape showed that was really Oswald shooting Ruby, not the other way around? Again I must toot my own horn here! I posted 3 years before the laser view became public knowledge! That I had a copy of Heraldo Reveria's Zagruder film documentary and with my 420 toshiba vcr I could pause frame and see the vapor trail leading from the Book depository building window. He acted alone but I think he was blackmailed into it by the vice that soo boldly filled his shoes!!! You know the one Haliburtons owner |
#32
Posted to alt.dss.hack,rec.woodworking,de.alt.dateien.weibsbilder,edm.forsale,alt.fashion
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
On Oct 31, 6:56 am, Charlie Self wrote:
On Oct 31, 6:15 am, wrote: WTC Towers: The case for controlled demolition By Herman Schoenfeld Sure. By the way, did you know the Zapruder film shows that JFK shot himself? And the TV tape showed that was really Oswald shooting Ruby, not the other way around? Again I must toot my own horn here! I posted 3 years before the laser view became public knowledge! That I had a copy of Heraldo Reveria's Zagruder film documentary and with my 420 toshiba vcr I could pause frame and see the vapor trail leading from the Book depository building window. He acted alone but I think he was blackmailed into it by the Vice that took the Giant Leap for Mankind and soo boldly filled his shoes!!! You know the one Haliburtons owner, the winner of the space race guy Now heres an Islamic replacement for our loss! Wonder who owns them?? http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguid...ction=describe |
#33
Posted to alt.dss.hack,rec.woodworking,de.alt.dateien.weibsbilder,edm.forsale,alt.fashion
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
If I was News Corp. I would move here to avoid paying taxes$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ click on the slide show for a breathe taking adventure,Thought I was on top of the Port Authority Building for a moment or two?? http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylc=...=u sh1-travel |
#34
Posted to alt.dss.hack,rec.woodworking,de.alt.dateien.weibsbilder,edm.forsale
|
|||
|
|||
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
On Oct 31, 4:41 pm, "S.S.I.N." wrote:
it's not bull****. theres alot of ****ed **** with the way it happened. Do your own research on what happened and you'll see it too. one of the things that gets me is 9 of the terrorist on the planes have been found alive and well and have been on tv. but the us government still says they did it. I worked at the same facility as Robert Hansen from 1979 through 1985. Yet according to the government he was arrested on October 27, 1983, and is still in prison today. Gee, do you think maybe it is possible for two different people to have the same name? Of course not if they're Arabs, right? -- FF |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
WTC Towers: the case for controlled demolition | Metalworking | |||
Scaffold/access towers - follow-up | UK diy | |||
scaffold towers best ones | UK diy | |||
Source for scaffolding towers? | UK diy |