Originally posted by mmiichael
with all the claims of controlled demolition we have seen no substantiated forensic evidence
False.
Active Thermitic Material Found In WTC Dust.
Independent Researcher Confirms Thermitic Material Found In WTC Dust.
Originally posted by mmiichael
(no) characteristic sequenced explosions
False.
There are numerous documented witnesses to sequenced detonations as both towers were destroyed. Numerous first responders (also documented) reported
seeing low-level flashes going up, down and around both towers with popping or exploding sounds. These flashes were seen at the lower to middle levels
while the collapses started near the top.
First responders also reported pre-collapse detonations which have also been recorded and are corroborated by the documentary "9/11 Eyewitness".
Originally posted by mmiichael
Buildings with unusual structural designs
The designs were not unusual. Most skyscrapers since the 1960's have tube structures, and the WTC wasn't the first. There is also a miniature WTC
tower still standing today in Oklahoma. You can read more about the above information here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by mmiichael
were impacted by fuel laden planes
According to NIST, the plane impacts only severed or damaged 14%-15% of the columns in the impact areas. That means 85% of the columns in the impact
areas were intact and undamaged.
Further, the chief structural engineer of the WTC built the towers to withstand 600mph plane impacts and the resulting fires.
And before you start quoting Leslie Robertson, just know that Robertson wasn't the chief structural engineer. He was one of the head structural
engineers, but John Skilling was the
chief structural engineer of the
WTC's.
Also as a side note, Leslie Robertson was responsible for the
WTC's sway-reduction
features. In otherwords, Chief Structural Engineer John Skilling and his engineering firm were responsible for the design of the WTC towers'
structure and Leslie Robertson was only responsible for the sway-reduction features of the towers.
But let's take a look at what Robertson has said:
Leslie Robertson
But mostly it (the 767) was flying a lot faster (than the 707 that the buildings were designed to withstand).
A false claim. A 3-page white
paper dated February 3, 1964 concluded that:
“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.”
Leslie Robertson
to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design
To the best of his knowledge? Either the fuel load was considered or
it wasn't. Since Robertson wasn't responsible for the engineering of the main structure, then he either wouldn't know, or he's just flat-out
lying.
I would say Robertson is lying because working directly with the chief structural engineer John Skilling, Robertson would know that Skilling says
otherwise:
John Skilling - "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the
building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. The building structure would still be there."
The analysis that Skilling was referring to would be the one done by his engineering firm, Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson. The analysis was
"the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1,200 pages and involve over
100 detailed drawings. The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure."
Leslie Robertson
I don't know how it could have been considered
This quote would be hilarious if it weren't for the serious nature of the topic. This quote
alone shows the incompetence of Robertson as an engineer. Maybe that's why he was only responisble for the sway-reduction features and not the actual
structure itself.
He doesn't know how jet fuel fires could have been considered? You do not design buildings to withstand the impact of any plane without considering
it's fuel load and resulting fires. You don't have to be a structural engineer to know this simple fact.
Therefore, based on the above facts and since fire has never caused a steel-structured highrise to globally collapse in history, fire and the plane
impacts are completely irrelevant as the cause of the demise of the twin towers.
Unfortunately, Mr. Skilling passed away March 5, 1998, so he's not here to defend himself or his structures.
Well, Mike, you're batting 0-for-0. Not a single thing you've said in this thread has been factual or truthful. Keep trying though. The facts
far-outweight anything you could possibly type onto your screen.
