It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 Truth: MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
One quote by Mr. Robertson:


"Leslie E. Robertson, the lead structural engineer on the team that designed the towers, wrote that "The events of September 11 are not well understood by me . . . and perhaps cannot really be understood by anyone." As NIST would also conclude"


No source of where he wrote this though.

I wonder why I haven't been able to find anything on it yet? Am I looking in the wrong places or is Mr. Swampfox pulling this out of his you-know-what? Not sure just yet, but if Mr. Robertson has publicly said anything, you'd think it would be easier to find. No?

Or is he keeping quiet to avoid any future lawsuits?


During a 1984-85 Office of Special Planning study into the vulnerability of the WTC to a terrorist attack, Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, assured investigators that whether the towers suffered a bomb attack or were hit by an airplane, there was "little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked."



In 2001, Leslie Robertson again stated, "The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane."



"As investigators have pointed out, immediately after 9/11 Leslie Robertson refused to discuss the collapse of the buildings with the media but he later recanted and agreed with NIST's conclusions"



Immediately after 9/11 it was reported that “the engineer who said after the 1993 bombing that the towers could withstand a Boeing 707, Leslie Robertson, was not available for comment yesterday, a partner at his Manhattan firm said. ‘We're going to hold off on speaking to the media,’ said the partner, Rick Zottola, at Leslie E. Robertson Associates. ‘We'd like to reserve our first comments to our national security systems, F.B.I. and so on.’” arabesque911.blogspot.com...

Mr. Robertson has said some very interesting things worth inquiring about.



"I designed it for a 707 to smash into it," he told a conference in Frankfurt Germany.


www.911blogger.com...

Some quotes so far.


[edit on 5/13/2008 by Griff]


Looks like this man Mr. Robertson has either been bought off or threatened by the government. I find Jeff King's analysis very credible and would love to see how the government apologists deal with the powdered concrete and computer chips issue.

Everybody forgets about the gold bullion that disappeared out of the basement. Where did that go? Who has custody of that?

I also heard some empty headed woman the other day on television saying that nobody could have come in an wired the place without the employees knowing. YES THEY COULD, AND IN FACT DID. President Bush's brother's company had a contract in the weeks before 9-11 to do service work in the mechanical areas of the WTC. These areas are used for maintenance and are never visited by the regular employees. They allow maintenance workers to operate behind the scenes and out of the way of the regular business employees and customers. These areas would have encompassed the elevator shafts and steel columns. In most high rise buildings entire floors are dedicated to mechanical machinery and heating and ventilation ducting. Regular employees are never allowed there. Only maintenance personel.

[edit on 5-17-2008 by groingrinder]




posted on May, 17 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 


Except for a few points.....

there were still chunks of concrete that had to be hauled away and Marvin Bush LEFT the board of directors of Securacom in June 2000 before his brother was even the GOP nominee for President. OOPS...kinda blows a couple of holes in your theory doesnt it?



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 


oops on me...Forgot to add that the gold buillon didnt disappear, but was recovered and returned to its rightful owners.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Swampy, how much concrete exactly? Enough for a dumpster? Gov. Pataki said it was vaporized.

Here's a reminder of where most of it went:





posted on May, 17 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
I am sorry I didn't spell it out further, you believe the plane crash and resulting office fires weakened columns enough to result in collapse initiation but your computer model couldn't show the global collapse?

Assuming they were right and 15% of the columns were severed, with few steel showing it had reached 600 degrees, with an estimated SOF of 4, where does that put us now?


Yes.

If you'd like to state a case against the collapse, go ahead, since I am unsure that the collapses should have happened. I have stated this in another thread. Right now I lean towards collapse happening though because I have seen no compelling evidence that would make me question it enough. Explosives have been absolutely ruled out. thermaite has its issues too.

But if you decide to make a case, make sure that you're NOT repeating lies that you've learned from other truthers. Research what debunkers have to say first about what you're going to post. Posting something that is a difference of opinion is fine. But posting a lie like your previous 707 statement and the 2000% lie will instantly discredit you.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Wow, that was a complete 180 on the response I was expecting. I guess we are basically on a pretty level playing field, just standing on opposite sides of the fence. I had missed the post you speak of in another thread and just assumed from some of your past posts that you were heading towards hardcore debunker like Captain Obvious. It's nice to hear that you are open to evidence that contradicts the government's story so long as it's truth.
I, myself, will not make a case, though. I don't think I will ever have enough evidence and processing power to explain what went on. I just like to see and occasionally participate in debate that might help myself and others come closer to the real truth.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
But posting a lie like your previous 707 statement and the 2000% lie will instantly discredit you.


The "2000% lie"? What in the hell is that about? 2000% is FoS = 20, not 4; he didn't even mention the source you're referring to, but even if he did, it's not a "lie," it's a completely legitimate source for what information is actually given. Not something that "will instantly discredit you," unless your mind is warped.

NIST says that the perimeter columns were at about 1/5 their reserve capacity on the morning of 9/11. That means they could take a factor of about 5x the loading that morning before their elastic limits would be reached and permanent deformation would begin to occur in the steel (not the instant collapse of everything at the same time). The number they generalized for the core columns was something like 1.65. Without the structural documentation, those two numbers and John Skilling's firm's mention of a factor of 20 on some of the perimeter columns are the only references we have on specifically how over-engineered the towers were.

NIST could even lie or intentionally cherry-pick poor representations of the towers' overall strength, and there would be no way anyone else could tell. The ASCE has already been accused of publishing misleading data about the WTC Towers' collapses by a fellow engineer that was on FEMA's BPAT team during the early investigation, and it's been essentially the same people behind those reports and FEMA's report, and later NIST's report. It's been documented elsewhere, but the same nucleus of people has been juggled around for a few years between different agencies.

[edit on 18-5-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The "2000% lie"? What in the hell is that about? 2000% is FoS = 20, not 4; he didn't even mention the source you're referring to, but even if he did, it's not a "lie," it's a completely legitimate source for what information is actually given. Not something that "will instantly discredit you," unless your mind is warped.


While Skillings statement is true - that the perimeter columns at the base has a safety rating of 2000% for the live loads - that does NOT give a FOS of 20 at the base because it doesn't include the dead loads. FOS of the TOTAL load is what matters.

But more importantly, what does a FOS of xx at the base matter when the collapse began higher up? The FOS at the base is irrelevant to this question. What matters is what the FOS was at the impact zone.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


Do you even bother to actually read the posts, or do you skim and then post the garbage you do? WOW Governor Pataki, for all of the 10 hours or so he might have spent on the site, thought all the concrete had been pulverized. How many pounds of concrete chunks were recovered, nobody knows, they didnt bother to weigh it. And yes, alot of concrete did end up pulverized. My post was to straighten out his inaccuracies. Nothing more, nothing less. Although I should have expected a comment from the peanut gallery I guess.......



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
While Skillings statement is true - that the perimeter columns at the base has a safety rating of 2000% for the live loads - that does NOT give a FOS of 20 at the base because it doesn't include the dead loads. FOS of the TOTAL load is what matters.


So what exactly does that establish in regards to what was just posted? Where is the "lie" part?


But more importantly, what does a FOS of xx at the base matter when the collapse began higher up?


I still haven't seen whatever relates Skilling's firm's statement to a specific part of the building. I must have missed that post (but am interested to see). A FoS of 5 is what NIST offers for perimeter columns that morning in general, right?



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


So what exactly does that establish in regards to what was just posted? Where is the "lie" part?

I still haven't seen whatever relates Skilling's firm's statement to a specific part of the building. I must have missed that post (but am interested to see). A FoS of 5 is what NIST offers for perimeter columns that morning in general, right?


1- Actually, there's 2 lies.
a- that the FOS at the base would have any effect on the collapse zone. It's irrelevant so why do CTerz even repeat it? Because the ignorant will read Skilling's quote and not notice that he's speaking about the first story in that quote. It's typical Ct out of context lies in the hopes of furthering whatever goals they have. "The Truth" shouldn't include lies.
b- that a 2000% FOS of the live loads at the base is the same as an FOS on total loads. A point you edited out without comment. Interesting.

2- It's right in the quote you provided in the other thread before this discussion got dragged over here.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


I'm sorry Seymour, but I really cant take you as someone who is open minded.

Why?

"Typical CT lies"
"twoother"

etc., etc. has shown all of us, where you have drawn your line. I may be wrong, but I highly doubt it.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
a- that the FOS at the base would have any effect on the collapse zone. It's irrelevant so why do CTerz even repeat it?


I think they repeat it because the first floor actually collapsed along with the entire building. So, where did this tremendous amount of force come from to cause a member that has a FOS of 2000% to fail? It is relevant IMO.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I think they repeat it because the first floor actually collapsed along with the entire building. So, where did this tremendous amount of force come from to cause a member that has a FOS of 2000% to fail? It is relevant IMO.


All this and yet-

1- no statement on whether or not a 2000% safety factor of the live loads at the first story = an FOS of 20 for the total loads.

2- no statement on whether or not the FOS of the first story would have any effect on the FOS of the impact zone.

3- no discussion on how the first story , with an FOS of 20 for the live loads only, might be able to NOT collapse when 300,000 tons fall on it at 70 mph.

Useless post there Griff...........



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I'm sorry Seymour, but I really cant take you as someone who is open minded.

Why?

"Typical CT lies"
"twoother"

etc., etc. has shown all of us, where you have drawn your line. I may be wrong, but I highly doubt it.



I embellish, granted.

But is it wrong when I point out that the towers were NOT designed to take a 707, fully loaded, at 600 mph?

Is it wrong to point out that an FOS of 20 for the live loads does NOT equal an FOS of 20 for the total loads?

I thought y'all were searching for truth? There's 2 places to start. Why don't y'all begin here by advocating the removal of these errors from the "evidence" used by CTerz?



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- no statement on whether or not a 2000% safety factor of the live loads at the first story = an FOS of 20 for the total loads.


I have already explained that when designing a member ALL loads are factored into an equivalent load for analysis.


2- no statement on whether or not the FOS of the first story would have any effect on the FOS of the impact zone.


Why would it? I thought we've already been oover this?


3- no discussion on how the first story , with an FOS of 20 for the live loads only, might be able to NOT collapse when 300,000 tons fall on it at 70 mph.


How does 300,000 tons fall on a vertical column at 70 mph? Pile driving?


Useless post there Griff...........


I wasn't aware that my posts had to pass your "usefulness" test.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
But is it wrong when I point out that the towers were NOT designed to take a 707, fully loaded, at 600 mph?


I was under the impression that Skilling's people were the ones who said this. Not the CTers?


Is it wrong to point out that an FOS of 20 for the live loads does NOT equal an FOS of 20 for the total loads?


When those members where designed they were designed to incorporate all loads. And the load that would most likely govern would be the wind load. Meaning that if they had a FOS of 20 for wind load (the load that causes the most stress in the member), they would also have a FOS of 20 for all loads seperately. When combined, the FOS was probably 5 like NIST says.


I thought y'all were searching for truth? There's 2 places to start. Why don't y'all begin here by advocating the removal of these errors from the "evidence" used by CTerz?


Because without the proper documentation (again it comes up) to verify that these are untrue, there is no way of knowing.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I have already explained that when designing a member ALL loads are factored into an equivalent load for analysis.

How does 300,000 tons fall on a vertical column at 70 mph? Pile driving?


1- that's not how they were originally designed. loads were first figured separately:

wtc.nist.gov...

"A review of the basic design equations and allowable stresses for combined axial load and bending for the
6th Edition of the AISC Specifications (1963), which was in effect at the time of the design, indicates that
they are essentially identical to those of the 9th Edition (1989) design equations and allowable stresses."

"• For the original WTC design loading case and for the state-of-the-practice case, the load
combinations were those specified by the AISC Specification (1989) and the New York
City Building Code (NYCBC) 2001:
Dead Load
Dead Load + Live Load
Dead Load + Live Load + Wind Load
Dead Load + Wind Load "

So when Skilling says " live loads", he is talking about live loads only. And not combining all loads and then giving it afactor of .6Fy.

2- A LOT of the base columns survived, both core and exterior. Some people survived in the core stairways. There's many photos of the base ext columns available, before they "split" into threes. The "story" was demolished - floors, etc.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Seymour,

How can you call these lies?


A white paper on the structure of the Twin Towers carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson contained eleven numbered points, including:

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

--City in the Sky, p 131


pilotsfor911truth.org...

Notice that the 3 page white paper is actually comming from the NIST report.

Or do you have a preconcieved notion that it is a lie? Just because you want to?



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I was under the impression that Skilling's people were the ones who said this. Not the CTers?



Nope. And here is a perfect example of why these kind of lies that are reapeated by CTerz need to be corrected. They have all the info available to them to see that this is incorrect, but they continue to repeat them.

Robertson did some calcs AFTER the towers were designed that showed that the towers would survive an impact by a landing 707. A Port Authority architect made an erroneous statement that they would survive a fully loaded 707 at 600 mph. Nobody corrected him. So CTerz take this wrong statement as "evidence" that the towers couldn't have fallen. All the while ignoring the fact that Robertson says that the architects statements are bs and he didn't know that they were made back in the 60's.

Again, even YOU didn't know this fact. Just like you didn't know that the steel in the ext columns got thinner as they gained height.

Lotsa bad info floating around over there friend....



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join