Welcome to BoatingForumz.com!
FAQFAQ      ProfileProfile    Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log inLog in

WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition

 
   Boating Forums (Home) -> Boat General Discussion RSS
Next:  If I didn't know better ...  
Author Message
schoenfeld.one

External


Since: Nov 05, 2007
Posts: 1



(Msg. 1) Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:39 pm
Post subject: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
Archived from groups: alt>fan>cecil-adams, others (more info?)

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+74.2Cool)/9.8 =
11.38 sec
where
u_k=(16+ k)/(17+ k ) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.2Cool ;/ 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+74.2Cool)/9.8 =
9.48 sec
Where
u_k=(32+k)/(33+k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.2Cool ;/ u_0=0


REFERENCES

"Seismic Waves Generated By Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at
World Trade Center ", http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_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

 >> Stay informed about: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition 
Back to top
Login to vote
bizook

External


Since: Nov 05, 2007
Posts: 1



(Msg. 2) Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:33 pm
Post subject: Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Sorry, you lost me at "t_k=(-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g "

 >> Stay informed about: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition 
Back to top
Login to vote
Mitch

External


Since: Nov 05, 2007
Posts: 1



(Msg. 3) Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:13 pm
Post subject: Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Nov 5, 7:39 pm, schoenfeld.... DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
> WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
> By Herman Schoenfeld
<...>

Uh, Herman, you're either a troll or a nutjob. Watch the films. See
the big shiny things hitting the buildings? Stop shaving your palms
with Occam's razor, it ruins the edge.

Mitch
(and surprise-surprise-surprise...gravity works in a predictable way
which is all your "case" shows.)
 >> Stay informed about: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition 
Back to top
Login to vote
artyw2

External


Since: Nov 06, 2007
Posts: 1



(Msg. 4) Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:18 am
Post subject: Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Nov 6, 1:13 am, Mitch <mitch_sk....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 7:39 pm, schoenfeld.....TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:> WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
> > By Herman Schoenfeld
>
> <...>
>
> Uh, Herman, you're either a troll or a nutjob. Watch the films. See
> the big shiny things hitting the buildings? Stop shaving your palms
> with Occam's razor, it ruins the edge.

You can keep Occam's razor sharp if you store in one of those pyramid
thingys.
 >> Stay informed about: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition 
Back to top
Login to vote
Lamneth

External


Since: Nov 06, 2007
Posts: 1



(Msg. 5) Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:05 am
Post subject: Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Nov 5, 10:39 pm, schoenfeld.....TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
> 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+74.2Cool)/9.8 =
> 11.38 sec
> where
> u_k=(16+ k)/(17+ k ) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.2Cool ;/ 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+74.2Cool)/9.8 =
> 9.48 sec
> Where
> u_k=(32+k)/(33+k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.2Cool ;/ u_0=0
>
> REFERENCES
>
> "Seismic Waves Generated By Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at
> World Trade Center ",http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In other news the Aliens put us here to observe us and to build them
Pyramids.
 >> Stay informed about: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition 
Back to top
Login to vote
Bob Ward

External


Since: Nov 06, 2007
Posts: 3



(Msg. 6) Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:27 am
Post subject: Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 07:20:02 -0500, "JA" <noyb.TakeThisOut@noyb.com> wrote:

>sum(k=0)^N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g=NUTBAG!
>
><schoenfeld.one.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1194260106.012939.230260@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.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


What's worse? A Conspiracy kook, or someone who TOP POSTS a single
line, then quotes a 170 line rambling diatribe
 >> Stay informed about: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition 
Back to top
Login to vote
Lee Ayrton

External


Since: Nov 06, 2007
Posts: 1



(Msg. 7) Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:31 am
Post subject: Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, schoenfeld.one.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:

[snip]


Cilantro Mashed Potatoes

2-3 pounds potatoes
(I use yellow potatoes, unpeeled, your tastes may vary)
1 bunch fresh cilantro
2 Tbsp butter
1/2 C milk
salt to taste

Cut the potatoes into 1" chunks and cook until tender (your choice of
method, I sprinkle with water, sprinkle with salt and microwave them,
covered, for 10 to 15 minutes or until soft to the touch.)

Meanwhile: Stem the cilantro (leaf stems are OK) and process with the
butter until you have as smooth a paste as you can achieve.

Mash the potatoes well. Add milk as necessary to soften the mash. Fold
in the processed cilantro until throughly incorporated. The color change
and release of aroma will be dramatic, and the result is really very
yummy.
 >> Stay informed about: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition 
Back to top
Login to vote
Bob Ward

External


Since: Nov 06, 2007
Posts: 3



(Msg. 8) Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:47 pm
Post subject: Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:08:30 -0500, "JA" <noyb.DeleteThis@noyb.com> wrote:

>
>> What's worse? A Conspiracy kook, or someone who TOP POSTS a single
>> line, then quotes a 170 line rambling diatribe
>
>GFY! HAPPY?
>
You learn quicker than some...
 >> Stay informed about: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition 
Back to top
Login to vote
LoogyPicker

External


Since: Oct 08, 2007
Posts: 199



(Msg. 9) Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:50 pm
Post subject: Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: rec>boats (more info?)

On Nov 6, 1:00 pm, Gene Kearns <gene.boat... DeleteThis @myworkshop.idleplay.net>
wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:27:46 -0800, Bob Ward penned the following well
> considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
>
> >What's worse? A Conspiracy kook, or someone who TOP POSTS a single
> >line, then quotes a 170 line rambling diatribe
>
> Uh, somebody that cross posts OT drivel to a gazillion newsgroups?
>
> --
>
> Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.
>
> Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/
>
> Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguidehttp://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats

Besides that, Gene, if you look at his calculations, it's quite a
piece! It shows that gravity does exist, and does so in a way that can
be resisted, but is very predictable!
 >> Stay informed about: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition 
Back to top
Login to vote
John H.

External


Since: Dec 12, 2005
Posts: 2074



(Msg. 10) Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:50 pm
Post subject: Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:23:30 -0500, Gene Kearns
<gene.boating DeleteThis @myworkshop.idleplay.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:50:52 -0000, LoogyPicker DeleteThis @gmail.com penned the
>following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
>
>>On Nov 6, 1:00 pm, Gene Kearns <gene.boat... DeleteThis @myworkshop.idleplay.net>
>>wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:27:46 -0800, Bob Ward penned the following well
>>> considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
>>>
>>> >What's worse? A Conspiracy kook, or someone who TOP POSTS a single
>>> >line, then quotes a 170 line rambling diatribe
>>>
>>> Uh, somebody that cross posts OT drivel to a gazillion newsgroups?
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.
>>>
>>> Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/
>>>
>>> Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguidehttp://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
>>
>>Besides that, Gene, if you look at his calculations, it's quite a
>>piece! It shows that gravity does exist, and does so in a way that can
>>be resisted, but is very predictable!
>
>It really wasn't worth my time to verify that figures don't lie, but
>idiots can figure....
>
>.... been there, done that, in the marathon "catenary" thread with the
>master of Speedos....

That *was* one hell of a thread!
 >> Stay informed about: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition 
Back to top
Login to vote
Jim

External


Since: Jan 22, 2006
Posts: 72



(Msg. 11) Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:31 pm
Post subject: Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>fan>cecil-adams, others (more info?)

Isn't this easier? (See below)



Bob Ward wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 07:20:02 -0500, "JA" <noyb.TakeThisOut@noyb.com> wrote:
>
>
>>sum(k=0)^N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g=NUTBAG!
>>
>><schoenfeld.one.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1194260106.012939.230260@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.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
>
>
>
> What's worse? A Conspiracy kook, or someone who TOP POSTS a single
> line, then quotes a 170 line rambling diatribe


I'll never understand the complaining about "top posting." If people
posted to the top you would not have to scroll down through an article
you just read to see the reply.

See above.
 >> Stay informed about: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition 
Back to top
Login to vote
LoogyPicker

External


Since: Oct 08, 2007
Posts: 199



(Msg. 12) Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:39 pm
Post subject: Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: rec>boats (more info?)

On Nov 7, 10:23 am, Gene Kearns <gene.boat... DeleteThis @myworkshop.idleplay.net>
wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:50:52 -0000, LoogyPic... DeleteThis @gmail.com penned the
> following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 6, 1:00 pm, Gene Kearns <gene.boat... DeleteThis @myworkshop.idleplay.net>
> >wrote:
> >> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:27:46 -0800, Bob Ward penned the following well
> >> considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
>
> >> >What's worse? A Conspiracy kook, or someone who TOP POSTS a single
> >> >line, then quotes a 170 line rambling diatribe
>
> >> Uh, somebody that cross posts OT drivel to a gazillion newsgroups?
>
> >> --
>
> >> Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.
>
> >> Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/
>
> >> Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguidehttp://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
>
> >Besides that, Gene, if you look at his calculations, it's quite a
> >piece! It shows that gravity does exist, and does so in a way that can
> >be resisted, but is very predictable!
>
> It really wasn't worth my time to verify that figures don't lie, but
> idiots can figure....
>
> .... been there, done that, in the marathon "catenary" thread with the
> master of Speedos....
>
> --
>
> Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.
>
> Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/
>
> Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguidehttp://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh, yeah! I surely didn't check all of his math, I do enough of that
for myself! But, if you look at the *essence* of his logic and calcs,
you'll find that, just like you say, the figures don't lie, they just
don't tell a whole lot!
 >> Stay informed about: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition 
Back to top
Login to vote
Short Wave Sportfishing

External


Since: Mar 02, 2007
Posts: 3620



(Msg. 13) Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:16 pm
Post subject: Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:50:52 -0000, LoogyPicker.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:

>On Nov 6, 1:00 pm, Gene Kearns <gene.boat....RemoveThis@myworkshop.idleplay.net>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:27:46 -0800, Bob Ward penned the following well
>> considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
>>
>> >What's worse? A Conspiracy kook, or someone who TOP POSTS a single
>> >line, then quotes a 170 line rambling diatribe
>>
>> Uh, somebody that cross posts OT drivel to a gazillion newsgroups?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.
>>
>> Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/
>>
>> Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguidehttp://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
>
>Besides that, Gene, if you look at his calculations, it's quite a
>piece! It shows that gravity does exist, and does so in a way that can
>be resisted, but is very predictable!

If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.

Gravity works - who 'da thunk it.
 >> Stay informed about: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition 
Back to top
Login to vote
Bob Ward

External


Since: Nov 06, 2007
Posts: 3



(Msg. 14) Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:52 pm
Post subject: Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>fan>cecil-adams, others (more info?)

On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:20:34 -0500, "JA" <noyb RemoveThis @noyb.com> wrote:

>
>"Bob Ward" <bobward RemoveThis @email.com> wrote in message
>news:mqg2j313q4r8viqr7gkm6k9be64jaqlqau@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:08:30 -0500, "JA" <noyb RemoveThis @noyb.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> What's worse? A Conspiracy kook, or someone who TOP POSTS a single
>>>> line, then quotes a 170 line rambling diatribe
>>>
>>>GFY! HAPPY?
>>>
>> You learn quicker than some...
>>
>
>Nothing to learn. I have no concern for "top posting" when I'm not trying
>to continue a discussion. I did not intend for the thread to go on.
>

Your lack of concern proves that you DO have a lot to learn about
Internet etiquette - but it's not worth my time to try to educate you
when I can solve the problem for myself with my killfile. Others will
follow suit, until no one but yourself is seeing your spew.
 >> Stay informed about: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition 
Back to top
Login to vote
LoogyPicker

External


Since: Oct 08, 2007
Posts: 199



(Msg. 15) Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:34 pm
Post subject: Re: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: rec>boats (more info?)

On Nov 7, 11:16 am, Short Wave Sportfishing <em....RemoveThis@swsports.org>
wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:50:52 -0000, LoogyPic....RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Nov 6, 1:00 pm, Gene Kearns <gene.boat....RemoveThis@myworkshop.idleplay.net>
> >wrote:
> >> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:27:46 -0800, Bob Ward penned the following well
> >> considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
>
> >> >What's worse? A Conspiracy kook, or someone who TOP POSTS a single
> >> >line, then quotes a 170 line rambling diatribe
>
> >> Uh, somebody that cross posts OT drivel to a gazillion newsgroups?
>
> >> --
>
> >> Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.
>
> >> Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/
>
> >> Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguidehttp://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
>
> >Besides that, Gene, if you look at his calculations, it's quite a
> >piece! It shows that gravity does exist, and does so in a way that can
> >be resisted, but is very predictable!
>
> If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
>
> Gravity works - who 'da thunk it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Exactly!
 >> Stay informed about: WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition 
Back to top
Login to vote
Display posts from previous:   
Related Topics:
Atlantic Towers in NJ - Anyone have any negative experiences with this company (Atlantic Towers) that makes custom arches, hardtops, etc? I've placed an order, it's WAY past due, and I'm getting the run-around with various excuses. They accepted my deposit with open arms..

For the boat towers among us - This is from Autoweek: Raising the Bar Ford to introduce F-150 with diesel engine by 2009 By RICHARD TRUETT | AUTOMOTIVE NEWS 6:00 am, October 11, 2006 DETROIT - Ford Motor Co. will launch its F-150 pickup with a diesel engine in 2008 or 2009, a former...

The case for Bush is the case against him - From Slate http://slate.msn.com/id/2096654/ Extract From foreign to economic to social policy, Bush's record is a lesson in the limits and perils of conviction. He's too confident to consult a map. He's too strong to heed warnings and too steady to...

alternator case - Have busted front housing on my alternator..Anyone know where to locate just the case for the alternator OMC 3853853 Volvo-Penta 3853853-4 . Prestolite 51 amp 12v negative gnd.. Thanks Larry

Yet Another Tragic Case...... - This time it was three guys from NJ. Apparently they thought the primary purpose of having PFD aboard a small boat was to palacate the USCG in case of inspection. What a shame. Considering wives, kids, friends, coworkers, employers, employees, and..
   Boating Forums (Home) -> Boat General Discussion All times are: Pacific Time (US & Canada) (change)
Page 1 of 1

 
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



[ Contact us | Terms of Service/Privacy Policy ]