Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Former employee of Controlled Demolition, Inc. talks about the WTC collapses

page: 10
56
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
All this quibbling about what Robertson might have said 40 years ago regarding the WTC obscures the real problem

It is not enough to survivve the initial impact - you must also control the resulting damage and stabilize the situation

Robertson conducted some calcualtions concerniong aircraft impact into the
building along the lines of

Aircraft X weighting X pounds travelling at Y miles/hour will impact the
building with so many pounds of force

Will the building collapse? Roberston calculated it would not

This was born out by real life when both North and South Towers withstood the initial impacts

What happen next was the inability to control the subsequent fires

1) Damage to elevators prevented FDNY from reaching impact areas fast
enough - small group in South tower did reach 78th floor, lowest floor impacted, be did not have time to control the fires

2) Sprinkler systems were destroyed by the impacts - no way to control
the fire and prevent its spread over entire floor

3) Fireproofing knocked off the steel work exposed it to heat from the fires
casuing it to buckle

The Brits learned this fact during the Falklands Island War - several ships
were struck by Exocet missiles - all survived initial impact, but the missile
damaged the fire mains and remaining fuel set off fires which could not be controlled. The fires burned out of control and lead to loss of ships.




posted on May, 19 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


The building fell due to impact or fire and that makes them the first 3 steel reinforced skyscrapers to sucumb to fire in history and yet over the years many skyscrapers have caught fire, burnt for days and still didn't fall down.

Day before the building fell over congress was told $2.2tr had gone missing and a lot of the paperwork relating to this scandle was in building seven and as i'm sure you know it was not hit by a plane.

Connectic energy is obsorbed when one mass runs into another and puts paid to the theory that the building could come down at near free fall speed and not only do we have eye witnesses that talk about bombs going off we also have side blasts coming out the side of the buildings unless you would like to argue that someone managed to tamper with live CNN images.

99% of the world once belived the earth was flat 2000 years ago and not even the church could stand up to science once questions were being asked and we now have 1000's of scientists around the world saying all is not as it seems on 9/11 and it won't take 2000 years this time for the truth to come out.

Think for yourself and apply some logic and maybe we will see more eye to eye.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Can you please cite your source for the information you claimed here?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 19-5-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by LieBuster
 


All these posts with all these claims (both truther and debunker) and no one shows where they got the information from so that we can read for ourselves and be sure that we are not being spoon fed misinformation. I refuse to allow myself to be spoon fed information. I need to be sure that quotes or ideas are not being taken way out of context. Can people please start citing their sources for this information?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 

First of all it's not what Robertson had said 40 years ago, but what he has said since 911.

But I myself would like to forget all about Leslie Robertson, except we can't because of this: wtc.nist.gov...

What strikes me from this is this:



"NIST has concluded that the firm’s unique knowledge of the intended behavior of the original design is important to capture in developing its baseline model"



What unique knowledge did they have that they did not turn over to NIST?


Maybe this will give us a clue: wtc.nist.gov... page 7 of 82



"Review assumptions and level of detail"


What assumptions were made exactly?

Did these assumptions come from Leslie Robertson directly? The man who's memory may not be "too clear"?

Did NIST analyze these assumptions with the same scrutiny they used when they converted Leslie's quote "I don't know what happened there" into "The other view suggested that the fuel load and the subsequent fire damage may not have been considered in the design stage."?

Did Skidmore, Owings & Merrill give deference to what might have been Robertson's assumptions since he was there from the beginning?

More information would be nice, here.

It's my opinion that NIST should not have awarded Leslie E. Robertson Associates this contract if they wanted to "mitigate potential conflicts of interest." Maybe they should have given the contract to Skidmore, Owings & Merrill with Leslie E. Robertson Associates as the reviewer.

But that's just me being very skeptical and not trusting anyone.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by thedman
 


But that's just me being very skeptical and not trusting anyone.


I think that, before anyone process any information, they should assume that it's a lie and find out what evidence there is against it. Then go back to the original idea and try to find out how the original idea defends itself against the evidence against it.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It's still an established fact that Leslie Robertson was an engineer tasked with building the WTC.

Actually, he was tasked with designing the sway-reduction features of the WTC.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Leslie Robertson was one of three peopel who built the thing and he supports the FEMA and the NIST

Robertson has made many contradictions over the years. You can read about that here:

arabesque911.blogspot.com...



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
It will be noted that the 600 mph scenario was never based on any actual study and Leslie Robertson refutes it.

So, the Port Authority just made up the story of a study, and NIST added to their report because it was a false story? Give me a freakin break.



Originally posted by Alfie1
It certainly seems bizarre that anyone in the sixties seriously envisaged an aircraft at 600 mph at very low altitude over New York.

It's only bizarre to those that are unresearched. The towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 which was the largest jet at the time. The reason why the towers were designed as such is because of the crash of a B-25 bomber into the Empire State building.

The reason for the 600mph speed is from the analysis that was done to show that the buildings could sustain impacts from 707's at 600mph. That and that's the top speed of a 707, 606 mph to be exact.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


Yeah, I posted a link to some more of Robertson's contradictions up above. He's lying and can't keep his stories straight.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
I refuse to allow myself to be spoon fed information. I need to be sure that quotes or ideas are not being taken way out of context. Can people please start citing their sources for this information?

Not that I don't disagree about posting sources, but you will become spoon-fed in a different way if everyone does the research for you. If someone doesn't post a link, Google it! It's really not that hard. Google is your friend.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Alfie1
It will be noted that the 600 mph scenario was never based on any actual study and Leslie Robertson refutes it.

So, the Port Authority just made up the story of a study, and NIST added to their report because it was a false story? Give me a freakin break.


Been there. Done that:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So we know that WTC 1 and WTC 2 survived the impacts and we know that there was no reason to over-design the buildings for unlikely scenarios. (Imagine 707's flying at 600 mph at 1,000 ft altitude either in takeoff or landing patterns
)

So, just when did you say you'd be getting some kind of "new" investigation?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
"In any case, no building architects designed buildings to survive conditions beyond what might be expected under unusual conditions, like a plane in the fog at low speed trying to land at area airports. Jets are never expected, nor designed, to fly at 600 mph at such low altitudes."

If jets are not designed to fly at such a high rate of speed at such a low altitude, can you explain how a cave dwelling pilot who couldn't even keep a Cessna in the air managed to score such a direct hit with this "unlikely scenario"?


[edit on 19-5-2010 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 

Thanks for the link Bonez. I especially like this one:



The structural engineer who designed the towers said as recently as last week that their steel columns could remain standing if they were hit by a 707.

Les Robertson, the Trade Center's structural engineer, spoke last week at a conference on tall buildings in Frankfurt, Germany. He was asked during a question-and-answer session what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks, according to Joseph Burns, a principal at the Chicago firm of Thornton-Thomasetti Engineers.

Burns, who was present, said that Robertson said of the center, "I designed it for a 707 to smash into it."

- from www2.ljworld.com...


So I guess now we can assume Leslie Robertson, the polite old man, assumed that terrorists would only attack in the fog and that they would go into a landing pattern to carry out the attack.

Hmm...smart man... smart, and polite, and sometimes snappy man.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Oh and I wanted to post this a while ago in this thread since Controlled Demolition, Inc. is in the thread title. I thought these bits might be worthwhile to remember whenever Mark or Doug give their opinions.

All quotes from here: www.implosionworld.com...



A 1972 CDI sales brochure and an independent article in Baltimore Magazine both claim that the company felled 191 structures to that point. Fast-forward to summer 1995 when Mark Loizeaux made his first published claim of felling over 7,000 structures. When subtracting 191 from 7,000 and dividing that figure by the 22-½ years in between, the total is an amazing 300 structures per year. This would require imploding more than 1 structure every single workday, including holidays, for 22-½ consecutive years.




While some dismiss CDI's "We invented the industry" claim as an arrogant but harmless distortion of history, others deride it as a major ethical breach and an insult to the true blasting pioneers who lost their lives or risked physical harm to learn the lessons the Loizeaux family has so eagerly and publicly taken credit for, and they point to the fact that CDI continues to make their claims as evidence of that dishonesty.


And the kicker:



To set the record straight in the most objective manner possible, meticulous research performed by our team and many others indicates that no blasting contractor in history has created more damage problems, insurance claims, OSHA violations, injuries, fatalities, and overall poor blasting results than CDI. In addition, ethical questions and allegations of improper business practices have plagued the company for decades (including at least one federal indictment), and there is no shortage of general contracting teams, project managers, site developers, competitors and former employees willing to speak out on the subject. This is not to say CDI has not completed some successful projects, because they have. But the fact that the company regularly circumvents standard bidding processes and has taken to preying upon the naiveté of uninformed city officials or project owners to secure contracts - often after having tendered unsuccessful public bids through traditional means - seems to speak to the depth of the team's long term performance and ethical issues.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


BoneZ

If an "analysis" was done in respect of a 600 mph impact by a 707 perhaps you could point me to it please.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by LieBuster
 





The building fell due to impact or fire and that makes them the first 3 steel reinforced skyscrapers to sucumb to fire in history and yet over the years many skyscrapers have caught fire, burnt for days and still didn't fall down.


Forgetting something about jet airliners striking the building first?

The aircraft impacts damaged the structure. They also destroyed the
systems needed to control the resultant fires

No elevators - no fireman reaching the scene to extinguish fire

Plane careening through building destroys pipes carrying water - No sprinklers to suppress the fires

Aircraft and debris striking steelwork knocks off the fireproofing exposing
steel to to the heat



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 

Thanks for the link Bonez. I especially like this one:



The structural engineer who designed the towers said as recently as last week that their steel columns could remain standing if they were hit by a 707.

Les Robertson, the Trade Center's structural engineer, spoke last week at a conference on tall buildings in Frankfurt, Germany. He was asked during a question-and-answer session what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks, according to Joseph Burns, a principal at the Chicago firm of Thornton-Thomasetti Engineers.

Burns, who was present, said that Robertson said of the center, "I designed it for a 707 to smash into it."

- from www2.ljworld.com...


So I guess now we can assume Leslie Robertson, the polite old man, assumed that terrorists would only attack in the fog and that they would go into a landing pattern to carry out the attack.

Hmm...smart man... smart, and polite, and sometimes snappy man.


I can see why you are upset that Roberston was correct as both towers survived 767 collisions, albeit they couldn't reach 600 mph at such a low altitude.

Since the towers did survive the impacts and the assessment had also been made that jet fuel fires would have significant effect on humans in the towers but no formal studies had been done of the effects of fires burning out of control would, that leaves Robertson vindicated.

So, yes, that Truthers are upset that Robertson cannot be discredited is understandable. It's just another nail in the coffin of 9/11 "Truth."



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 

oh hello, jthomas. I'm not sure why you think I would be upset that Leslie Robertson was correct the towers would survive a collision with a plane crash. I believe most, if not all, the people involved with the design of the towers believed this. So I don't know why you would think that this one man saying the same basic concept as the others would upset me. I'm kind of a completely egalitarian kind of guy, so if it were true that I was upset about Leslie Robertson saying the buildings would survive an impact, I think I would be upset with all of them.

But I do see how you have become upset about how I've stepped on the toes of one of the darlings of the 911 investigations.

But I'm a fair man, and am willing to listen to Leslie Robertson explain how his imaginary study of a plane impact at 180mph would somehow protect against terrorists.

I'm fair enough to listen to his opinion of why the guy who wrote the SEAU newsletter mentioned molten steel (or molten metal in his notes) after listening to a lecture by him. This seems pretty odd since later Les said "I’ve never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal, or by the way if they had seen it, if they had performed some kind of an analysis to determine what that metal was." Doesn't he pay attention to his own lectures?

I'm also fair enough to listen to NIST's explanation of how, in their view, a man saying that he doesn't know if a fire study was done back then translates into the view that a fire study may not have been performed, especially since they found a document that indicated strongly how it probably had been done.

I'm also fair enough to listen to Mr. Robertson, or one of his associates, describe what assumptions they had to make when developing the structural model for NIST. I'm also fair enough to listen to NIST and SOM about their process for verifying these "assumptions."

So, JThomas, I'm glad you believe this sparkle in the 911 investigation's eye has been vindicated. More power to you. But me I will remain skeptical about him, until such a time as his story is consistent and he reveals his complete role in the investigation and that no conflict of interest had occurred. Until that time, I believe I'll consider him just a blabbing old man. Sorry.

Edited for spelling and grammar

Edited again because I misspelled the old bugger's name

[edit on 20-5-2010 by NIcon]

[edit on 20-5-2010 by NIcon]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Robertson has made many contradictions over the years. You can read about that here:


The only contradictions I'm seeing here is comign from you conspiracy people. You always make great mention that no steel structure ever fell exclusively from fire before or since 9/11, but you all religiously ignore the fact that no other steel structure of that design ever had 767s plowing into them either.

That's right up there with your complaint that "the towers fell in almost free fall speed", which you're milking to drop innuendo that it fell suspiciously fast. I keep asking just how fast the building actually should have fallen, given the design of the structure, and not a single person can do it. Is a Lamborghini travelling at 200 mph too fast? Is a Picasso Painting that costs $100 too expensive? You're not going to know unless you already know what "too fast" and "too expensive" already are. It is patently false for you to definitively say you know what should or should have happened when there is absolutely no previous model to base it on (and no, that WWII bomber crashign into the Empire state building doesn't count). You conspiracy people are simply guessing. You know that and so do I.

This of course doesn't even address the question: just why on EARTH would Roberson be making things up? Are you saying he's in on this conspiracy of yours?






top topics



 
56
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join