Former Bush Admin Economist Says WTC Collapse 'Bogus'
- AuroEdge
- DCEmu Mega Poster
- Posts: 1667
- https://www.artistsworkshop.eu/meble-kuchenne-na-wymiar-warszawa-gdzie-zamowic/
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:00 pm
- Location: Anywhere
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
Former Bush Admin Economist Says WTC Collapse 'Bogus'
A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.
Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."
Read Article Here
-------------------------------------
"I've been sayin' it for ten damn years haven't I Migel?"
Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."
Read Article Here
-------------------------------------
"I've been sayin' it for ten damn years haven't I Migel?"
- SuperMegatron
- DCEmu User with No Life
- Posts: 3523
- Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 8:47 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Hawq
- Soul Sold for DCEmu
- Posts: 7817
- Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2002 1:43 pm
- Location: Great Britain
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
Maybe he was thinking of the fact the wtc was designed to survive being hit by a plane? (of course this was a good many years before the bigass planes we have these days). Of course it was a fairly neat straight down collapse thats normally associated with a controlled demolition but it was found in investigations that the fire weakened the structure ion the same way a demolition team would have to ensure a neat collapse (I remember it from a documentary on it & various demolitions I've seen on tv where they take out some internal supporting bits first for control)
Of course the thing thats not in doubt is that it was a fundraiser, they knew what was planned & did nothing so they could get a bigger budget for the following year.
Of course the thing thats not in doubt is that it was a fundraiser, they knew what was planned & did nothing so they could get a bigger budget for the following year.
theres no-one else to blameThe Prisoner - Makes NGE's ending look almost intelligible.
Bored? figure out where the above lines from. Answers
- AuroEdge
- DCEmu Mega Poster
- Posts: 1667
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:00 pm
- Location: Anywhere
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
The WTC towers were built in the early 1970s. If memory serves me correctly the first B747 Jumbo Jet was built in 1970, which is bigger than the planes that struck the WTC towers. I don't claim to know what happened to the towers, but it was not as stated. The towers were huge. You would have to see them in real life to really see just how big they were. I just don't believe the planes hitting over halfway up the towers would make the whole thing collapse and on top of that building #7 as well. Oh well...Hawq wrote:Maybe he was thinking of the fact the wtc was designed to survive being hit by a plane? (of course this was a good many years before the bigass planes we have these days). Of course it was a fairly neat straight down collapse thats normally associated with a controlled demolition but it was found in investigations that the fire weakened the structure ion the same way a demolition team would have to ensure a neat collapse (I remember it from a documentary on it & various demolitions I've seen on tv where they take out some internal supporting bits first for control)
Of course the thing thats not in doubt is that it was a fundraiser, they knew what was planned & did nothing so they could get a bigger budget for the following year.
Last edited by AuroEdge on Thu Jun 16, 2005 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Hawq
- Soul Sold for DCEmu
- Posts: 7817
- Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2002 1:43 pm
- Location: Great Britain
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
Well the speed had some part to paly as well, I forget the exact details of what size plane they were designed to survive, obviously not the ones that hit em or the ones that hit em at the speed they didAuroEdge wrote:The WTC towers were built in the early 1970s. If memory serves me correctly the first B747 Jumbo Jet was built in 1970, which is bigger than the planes that struck the WTC towers. I don't claim to know what happened to the towers, but it was not as stated. The towers were huge. You would have to see them in real life to really see just how big they were. I just don't believe the planes hitting over halfway up the towers would make the whole thing collapse and on top of that building #7 as well. Oh well...Hawq wrote:Maybe he was thinking of the fact the wtc was designed to survive being hit by a plane? (of course this was a good many years before the bigass planes we have these days). Of course it was a fairly neat straight down collapse thats normally associated with a controlled demolition but it was found in investigations that the fire weakened the structure ion the same way a demolition team would have to ensure a neat collapse (I remember it from a documentary on it & various demolitions I've seen on tv where they take out some internal supporting bits first for control)
Of course the thing thats not in doubt is that it was a fundraiser, they knew what was planned & did nothing so they could get a bigger budget for the following year.
theres no-one else to blameThe Prisoner - Makes NGE's ending look almost intelligible.
Bored? figure out where the above lines from. Answers
-
- DCEmu Ex-Mod
- Posts: 4970
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2001 3:40 pm
- Location: The Canadian-Mexican border.
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Hawq wrote:Maybe he was thinking of the fact the wtc was designed to survive being hit by a plane? (of course this was a good many years before the bigass planes we have these days). Of course it was a fairly neat straight down collapse thats normally associated with a controlled demolition but it was found in investigations that the fire weakened the structure ion the same way a demolition team would have to ensure a neat collapse (I remember it from a documentary on it & various demolitions I've seen on tv where they take out some internal supporting bits first for control)
Of course the thing thats not in doubt is that it was a fundraiser, they knew what was planned & did nothing so they could get a bigger budget for the following year.
I still don't see how anybody could think that they fell neatly. Controlled implosions collapse inward. The WTC collapse was more of a "flower" effect of sorts, with metal and shards shooting far outward.
- arrowhead
- DCEmu Super Fan
- Posts: 2601
- Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:21 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
They were designed to be able to withstand being hit by small passenger planes like (sp) sezna's (sp). They were talking to the engineer on the news and thats what he was saying anyway. This guy is a fucking jackass, and that all there is to it really. .
Shut that cunts mouth before I come over there and fuck start her head
- Roofus
- President & CEO Roofuscorp, LLC
- Posts: 9898
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 11:42 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
The buildings did survive the impact. Quite well, too. What happened was the heat from thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel melted the steel supports.AuroEdge wrote:The WTC towers were built in the early 1970s. If memory serves me correctly the first B747 Jumbo Jet was built in 1970, which is bigger than the planes that struck the WTC towers. I don't claim to know what happened to the towers, but it was not as stated. The towers were huge. You would have to see them in real life to really see just how big they were. I just don't believe the planes hitting over halfway up the towers would make the whole thing collapse and on top of that building #7 as well. Oh well...
- AuroEdge
- DCEmu Mega Poster
- Posts: 1667
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:00 pm
- Location: Anywhere
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
Uh, no. They had one of the engineers on an interview say that they would survive being hit by a full loaded jetliner.arrowhead wrote:They were designed to be able to withstand being hit by small passenger planes like (sp) sezna's (sp). They were talking to the engineer on the news and thats what he was saying anyway. This guy is a fudging jackass, and that all there is to it really. .
-
- DCEmu User with No Life
- Posts: 3516
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2001 12:34 am
- Location: Birmingham, Al
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
- FETUS
- Knight of Null
- Posts: 2938
- Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 8:21 pm
- Location: Large fries
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
<--steel detailer
Those buildings were lucky they didn't fall from the original impact with how much stress those beams already had on there. Take the broken concrete and the fire burning that hot theres no way they could have survived that. Now I won't even go into how inferior steel from the 70's is, but it's pretty bad.
Those buildings were lucky they didn't fall from the original impact with how much stress those beams already had on there. Take the broken concrete and the fire burning that hot theres no way they could have survived that. Now I won't even go into how inferior steel from the 70's is, but it's pretty bad.
- SuperMegatron
- DCEmu User with No Life
- Posts: 3523
- Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 8:47 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
-
- Jeeba Jabba
- Posts: 9106
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 7:00 am
- Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
- AuroEdge
- DCEmu Mega Poster
- Posts: 1667
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:00 pm
- Location: Anywhere
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
While I would trust a steel detailer to know more about this than an economist, I would not trust a steel detailer over the head engineer of the WTC project on the dynamics of the WTC collapse.Flaccid FETUS wrote:<--steel detailer
Those buildings were lucky they didn't fall from the original impact with how much stress those beams already had on there. Take the broken concrete and the fire burning that hot theres no way they could have survived that. Now I won't even go into how inferior steel from the 70's is, but it's pretty bad.
-
- DCEmu Turkey Baster
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 8:34 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Economists are generally intelligent folk, and this particular one worked for Bush. He also "served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University." So his credibility shouldn't really be an issue.
There's some very considerable evidence that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by the US government. They're certainly capable of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
And here's a flash animation that raised questions on the subject and links to more reading:
http://tfyqa.com/images/pentagon.swf
EDIT: This place has more information relevant to this topic (somewhat technical at times), the other two are interesting, though:
http://physics911.ca
There's some very considerable evidence that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by the US government. They're certainly capable of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
And here's a flash animation that raised questions on the subject and links to more reading:
http://tfyqa.com/images/pentagon.swf
EDIT: This place has more information relevant to this topic (somewhat technical at times), the other two are interesting, though:
http://physics911.ca
Where's toastman? I'm bored.
-
- Gone Postal...
- Posts: 2775
- Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 5:45 pm
- Location: UK
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
- Roofus
- President & CEO Roofuscorp, LLC
- Posts: 9898
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 11:42 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
jaredfogle wrote:Economists are generally intelligent folk, and this particular one worked for Bush. He also "served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University." So his credibility shouldn't really be an issue.
There's some very considerable evidence that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by the US government. They're certainly capable of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
And here's a flash animation that raised questions on the subject and links to more reading:
http://tfyqa.com/images/pentagon.swf
EDIT: This place has more information relevant to this topic (somewhat technical at times), the other two are interesting, though:
http://physics911.ca
Oh shut up.