Posted on 06/14/2005 3:23:22 PM PDT by Matrix1948
Cause of their stunning record of being correct on matters of economics. natch. Oh they miss a few of those too?
"like steel did not melt from the heat at the point of impact, like top floors did not start pancake collapse from the top."
Let's not forget that these buildings were LIGHTWEIGHT steel constrution with 3/4" diameter barjoists providing the only structual connection between the inner and outer columns.
The fire proofing was applied by a company that went bankrupt on that job and that it takes relatively little heat to cause catostrophic failure.
Most of the jet fuel went right thru the building at 600 mph and that's what caused the massive fireball.
In the words of Trump, the buildings were built like "Gahhhbage"
Yes, it was a SEARCH AND RESCUE operation, you moron !!! And besides, it wasn't a hole, but a pile of wreckage some 7 stories high !!!
Yes, while this idiot was watching on TV (or fleeing the scene), brave FDNY firefighters were 'walking around .. where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel .. supposedly (!?!!?) was burning" ..... What a clueless dolt !!!
"What a maroon"
My favorite term... I like to say "morons on parade".
If I am not mistaken, much of the destruction and total failure of the buildings was caused by large quantities of burning jet fuel going down the elevator shafts, and the lack of asbestos in the construction.
well we all have our wing nuts
Field Day with foil LOL.
Is demo part of the economics curriculum these days?
Economist: same as a weatherman, except less accurate.
You will be attacked and told that you need tin foil.
Sonny meet your grandmapa.
"Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University,"
Is this the quality of people they get there?
I bet he is a Democrat leftover from the Clinton administration, that Bush allowed to stay.
Reynolds is only half of the factual problem here- freelancer Greg Szymanski is a whackjob journo with a law degree, a skanky blog and an anti-Bush take on things. Let's see, thats about 4 or 5 reasons to question his creds- makes sense that he'd find Reynolds.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%0D%0AGreg+Szymanski++&btnG=Google+Search
The author of this "piece" is a real wack job. This is not a very good news source IMO.
I saw a program on Discovery channel I think, anyway it showed the test results and opinions of several structural engineers and other skyscraper experts. They had two basic theories of why the buildings collapsed. There used to be a coating of some type on some of the supports that was different than what was usually used on that type of building. They said this change could explain why the steel twisted more than would be expected from a fire.
They also emphasized the point that the burning jet fuel made the fire so much hotter than a regular building fire- really they weren't surprised that the buildings failed. The intense heat caused the steel to warp, twist, strech and what have you until those top floors collapsed- the lower floors were not designed for that so wham, down they came.
They used pictures, video from 9/11, charts, graphs, test results and models to show how it most likely happened; NO ONE on that program in any way suggested demolition or other type of funny business.
Of course they did not have any Department of Labor economists give their opinion- so it could have all been BS. LOL
Yes, because we all know that Ben-Veniste, Gorelick, Kerrey, et al, are covering for the Bush administration.
Good grief.
Oh, I like that: Two of the buildings were ALLEGEDLY hit by aircraft.
The Islamofascist moles are everywhere.
Dum Administration....never mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.