Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 11
56
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 20 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

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


So what do you have from Skilling that refutes this? I don't mean his comment back from 1993 that you're quoting out of context, becuase he was talking about the bombing, not the collapse. What do you have that shows he was specifically referencing these, "controlled demolitions" stories of yours and that he agrees with them?




posted on May, 20 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




This of course doesn't even address the question: just why on EARTH would Roberson be making things up?


I think the answer to this question would be the same as to why NIST thought there might be "potential conflicts of interest" by giving his firm the contract to come up with the structural models.

Source: wtc.nist.gov...



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by LieBuster
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.



Assuming there were planes and towers and planes hit towers and assuming the towers were set on fire I say:

Every single steel reinforced skyscraper that was hit by 110-150 ton 500 mile per hour airplanes and then set on fire has collapsed.

If the twin towers fell due to impact or fire and that makes them the first steel reinforced skyscrapers to sucumb to fire and 110-150 ton 500 mile per hour airplanes impacts in history.

I will never know the truth about what caused the collapse of any of the WTC towers.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by LieBuster
reply to post by thedman
 


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.



You always post a lot of theoires. I'm not saying that your theories are, or are not, possible. I am saying for the love of God cite your expert source for your theories!

You say that it won't take 2000 years for the truth to come out. Well it's 10 years later. All of the events surrounding 9/11 are still theories. It's impossible to prove the truth. How can you prove to someone who believes the earth is flat (and they still exist today) that someone saying that the earth is round is telling the truth?

It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove anything at all (ESPECIALLY when conspracies are concerned)! Go ahead. Try it on me. Show me the TRUTH when i make the claim:

The 100% truth is the earth is flat!


Prove that statement is a lie. i'll paypal someone 100 dollars if they can!



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


If it was impossible to prove anything at all then the justice system would be completely inoperable. Most of us understand the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and I think a large majority broadly accepts the "official story" of 9/11 on that basis.

So far as a flat earth is concerned how do you account for the fact that if you see a ship coming towards you from a distance you always see the superstructure before the hull ?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by iamcpc
 




1.If it was impossible to prove anything at all then the justice system would be completely inoperable. Most of us understand the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and I think a large majority broadly accepts the "official story" of 9/11 on that basis.

2.So far as a flat earth is concerned how do you account for the fact that if you see a ship coming towards you from a distance you always see the superstructure before the hull ?



1. FALSE. All the justice system does is present two sets of theories and has a group of jurrors vote on what theory they like the best. Never before in the history of the judicial system of any country in the entire world has a single FACT or TRUTH been presented in any case in the history of the entire world! NEVER. Not even ONE SINGLE TIME! Only theories and opinions have EVER been presented in the judicial system. I challenge everyone on here to present one FACT or TRUTH that has EVER been presented in the justice system EVER in the history of the ENTIRE WORLD. You can't prove anything without FACTS AND TRUTHS. All I need to do to refute every claim against this is to use one word. Conspiracy.

2. That happens because the earth is flat. If the earth was round we would have no oceans for ships to float on!

"But fluids are not static, especially not in the atmosphere and oceans. Great ocean currents run both at the surface and deep below, carrying water across huge basins, keeping the solution far from stagnant. Jet streams of air travel at hundreds of miles per hour through the atmosphere. And windblown rainclouds carry vast quantities of evaporated seawater across miles of ground, releasing their load far from its starting point. Water or air that (according to "round-Earth" theory) starts on one side of the planet could end up completely on the other side in a matter of only a few days. With all this turbulence and motion, if the world were round, the oceans should all fall "down" into the sky, leaving the planet dry and barren, and the atmosphere would simply float away. Why, just look at the moon. It is round, like a ball, and yet it has no atmosphere at all."

SOURCE: www.alaska.net...


You're not going to prove the earth is not flat by asking questions about why things happen the way that they do on this flat earth.



You attempt to show me the truth but I show you irrrefutable PROOF that the TRUTH is the earth is flat!!!

[edit on 20-5-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
I think the answer to this question would be the same as to why NIST thought there might be "potential conflicts of interest" by giving his firm the contract to come up with the structural models.



I thoroughly despise innuendo. It's just another way of making up any slanderous accusation you want against someone, all without actually coming out and saying it. This way, when someone calls the accuser on it he can weasel out of it by claiming plausible deniability and say that's not what he meant to say. I shouldn't have to point out this isn't the proper behavior of someone who genuinely wants to know the truth behind the 9/11 attack.

Please, come out and say what you mean to say. Are you claiming Robertson is consciously involved in the coverup of these controlled demolitions?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
You're not going to prove the earth is not flat by asking questions about why things happen the way that they do on this flat earth.


HA HA HA I could listen to you all day, iamcpc.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by iamcpc
You're not going to prove the earth is not flat by asking questions about why things happen the way that they do on this flat earth.


HA HA HA I could listen to you all day, iamcpc.



Still not one person can present one SHRED of scientific PROOF that the earth is round! Not even for 100 dollars via paypal! You round earthers are pathetic sheeple unable to support your own round earth LIES! Even when offered money!



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

I thoroughly despise how people make everything out to be about a coverup of controlled demolitions, too.

I don't think NIST was considering Leslie might cover up a controlled demolition when they were concerned about conflicts of interest with his firm being a part of the investigation. So....

Why do you think NIST may have thought that from what I posted?

Why do you think my saying the answer would be the same has anything to do with controlled demolitions?

Why don't you read what I wrote rather than flying off the handle about controlled demolitions?

But maybe you didn't read my other posts in this thread so I'll repost my stance about Leslie Robertson:

"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."

But to answer your question BLUNTLY: Since Les was part of the construction of the buildings he has his reputation on the line so he may not be the most objective person to consult on this matter. He may not want the phones to go dead at Leslie E. Robertson Associates because of something NIST may have found in the investigation

That's why I said:

"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."

Now if you have some information of why I should trust Leslie E. Robertson please post it. If you have any information about the concerns I raised about him, please post it and get off this controlled demolition stuff. Let's talk strictly about Leslie Robertson. Is he reliable or not?

I believe I posted exactly why I think he is not reliable, with the appropriate links. If you think he's reliable, please post why and with appropriate links to sources.

I will not accept because he's polite. Many people are polite that could have taken part in the investigation.

I will not accept because he's knowledgeable. Many people are just as knowledgeable as him that could have taken part in the investigation and would not have this possible conflict of interest.

I will not accept because his memory may not be too clear. That to me is another reason, along with the possible conflict of interest, why he should not be relied upon.

So if you think it's slanderous to say any of the above, please post why I'm wrong about his inconsistent statements, NIST's concerns about possible conflicts of interests, and Les' own admission of poor memory and lack of knowledge.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I can't help but notice that not even one sheeple will attempt to put forth one shred of evidence that supports the LIE that the earth is round! Not even for 100 dollars! Even more evidence to support the TRUTH!!!



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
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.


That was the take-away from your post.


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.


Yes, they believed from past evidence that it may be possible for an aircraft on approach to Newark or JFK, in the fog, at relatively low air speeds typical for jet aircraft on landing approaches, say 160 - 180 knots perhaps, might hit the towers if radar were not operating properly. Of course, none of them were fools and never intentionally over-designed the towers, or any skyscraper before or since, to withstand any jet aircraft flying at 600 mph at such low altitudes, actually an aerodynamic impossibility even for the modern jets designed long since the 707's debut in 1954 and in service as of 1958. That AA11 and UA175 achieved the speeds they did just before hitting WTC 1 and 2 was lucky and on the edge of aircraft breakup.

When the WTC towers were designed in the late 1960s, aircraft ground radars and those of aircraft were not nearly as sophisticated as those of today. Perhaps many here are too young to know that. New York had had the relatively recent experience in December 1960 of a DC 8 and a Constellation colliding in mid-air in the clouds over Staten Island, NY:


Accident

The two aircraft collided in mid-air in heavy cloud a mile west of Miller Field, a military airfield on Staten Island, at 10:33 a.m. Eastern Time. Weather conditions at the time were light rain and fog (which had been preceded by a snowfall).

According to information from the flight 826's flight recorder (the first time a "black box" had been used to provide extensive details in a crash investigation) the United plane was 12 miles (19 km) off course and in 81 seconds dived 3,600 feet (1,100 m) a minute and dropped its speed from more than 500 miles per hour (800 km/h) to 363 miles per hour (584 km/h) when it slammed into the right side of the TWA plane at between 5,250 and 5,175 feet (1,577 m).[1]

The collision occurred about a mile west of Miller Army Field.[2] The TWA Constellation crashed onto Miller Field, with some sections of the aircraft landing in New York Harbor on the Atlantic Ocean side. As the TWA plane spiraled down it disintegrated, dropping at least one passenger into a tree in the New Dorp neighborhood. It crashed into an empty field at the northwest corner of the field—although within a few feet of the neighborhood.[1]

The United plane was supposed to have been circling a point called "Preston" off the New Jersey coast, to have been at 5,000 feet (and not diving down from 8,700 feet) and to be traveling at no more than 240 miles per hour. United later said that the ground beacon was not working (pilots testified on both sides of the issue).[1]

At 10:21 a.m., Flight 826 advised its company radio operator that one of its VOR receivers had stopped working (although they did not notify air traffic controllers of the problem), making it difficult to navigate in instrument conditions. At 10:25 a.m., air traffic control issued a revised clearance for the flight to shorten its course to the Preston holding point by 12 miles (19 km)

en.wikipedia.org...



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.


You've done no such thing. In fact, just the opposite. It's just another nail in the coffin of 9/11 "Truth."



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 

Wow, jthomas, you really don't have any arguments showing how the paper that NIST found is wrong. You really don't have anything but your assumptions of what they must have been thinking at the time to counter the quote "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...." etc. etc.

When John Skilling said they "looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side" I guess somewhere squeezed in there it says "we constrained ourselves only to examples of previous events." I think I see it squeezed between "EVERY" and "POSSIBLE". Or maybe it's between "COULD" and "THINK." (I'd like to point out that no document has surfaced that has contradicted Skilling's recollection, like we have that contradicted Robertson's)

So I'm torn again.... should I trust Jthomas' assumptions about what they must have been thinking back then, or should I trust a passage from a document written back then.

Hmmm... That really is a tough decision.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


This exact type of accident almost happened in 1981 when Argentine 707
just missed collison with the radio antenna on WTC 1

Plane flying too low, in bad visibility




February 20, 1981: Boeing 707 Nearly Hits Television Mast atop World Trade Center A Boeing 707 belonging to an Argentine airline comes close to hitting the television mast atop the World Trade Center’s North Tower. The plane is flying in clouds at 1,500 feet, instead of at its assigned altitude of 3,000 feet, and descending toward Kennedy Airport. About four miles, or less than 90 seconds, from the WTC, the Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) in Hempstead, Long Island, becomes aware of the situation thanks to a new automated alarm system and is able to radio the pilot with the order to climb. The alarm system that sounds, called Minimum Safe Altitude Warning, has been in operation for about a year. When radar shows a plane at an altitude within 500 feet of the highest obstruction in a particular area and 30 seconds away, a buzzer sounds repeatedly at the TRACON. At the same time, the letters LA (for low altitude) flash on the radar scope next to the plane’s blip. [New York Times, 2/26/1981]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas
 

Wow, jthomas, you really don't have any arguments showing how the paper that NIST found is wrong. You really don't have anything but your assumptions of what they must have been thinking at the time to counter the quote "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...." etc. etc.


Gosh. Did you not observe that both towers survived the collisions, that they did not collapse because of the impacts? How could you claim otherwise? We all observed that easily.

Did you not read what Skilling actually stated back in 1993 that I have already posted?


"Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision"
By Eric Nalder
Seattle Times
Saturday, February 27, 1993

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"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," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...




When John Skilling said they "looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side" I guess somewhere squeezed in there it says "we constrained ourselves only to examples of previous events."


Did you not understand that skyscrapers were not intentionally designed in the late 1960s to meet conditions outside probabilistic norms like the really low probability of an aircraft traveling at speeds of 600 mph - above it's aerodynamics design limits - running into the towers?


I think I see it squeezed between "EVERY" and "POSSIBLE". Or maybe it's between "COULD" and "THINK." (I'd like to point out that no document has surfaced that has contradicted Skilling's recollection, like we have that contradicted Robertson's)


I gave you a document previously and above that states Skilling's recollections back in 1993. Did you also not read what NIST said:


As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

wtc.nist.gov...



So I'm torn again.... should I trust Jthomas' assumptions about what they must have been thinking back then, or should I trust a passage from a document written back then.


MY assumptions? Read more carefully.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
Why do you think my saying the answer would be the same has anything to do with controlled demolitions?

Why don't you read what I wrote rather than flying off the handle about controlled demolitions?


My apologies, and I retract my post. You're right, I did make incorrect presumptions over what you were saying, namely becuase I read you post immediately after reading Bonez' post, who IS accusing him of being involved in a coverup.


But to answer your question BLUNTLY: Since Les was part of the construction of the buildings he has his reputation on the line so he may not be the most objective person to consult on this matter. He may not want the phones to go dead at Leslie E. Robertson Associates because of something NIST may have found in the investigation


So if I understand your position correctly, there had been a fatal flaw in the design of the WTC which was only revealed when the planes hit the towers, and Les Robertson is dragging his feet in acknoledging that his design helped kill 3,000 people...?

Why then does he support the findings of the NIST report? I'd have thought he'd turn around and declare there were controlled demolitions, as it would let him evade responsibility from building a death trap by claiming his building could have withstood earthquakes, hurricanes, and the moon crashing into the Earth, had it not for those controlled demolitions people.



Now if you have some information of why I should trust Leslie E. Robertson please post it. If you have any information about the concerns I raised about him, please post it and get off this controlled demolition stuff. Let's talk strictly about Leslie Robertson. Is he reliable or not?


I consider his claims to be credible becuase a) He was intimately involved with the design of the towers so he'd know what its strengths and weaknesses were, and b) this likewise makes him an authority who'd know whether or not NIST was barking up the right ot wrong tree with their own assessment, not to mention c) the absence or any real evidence showing him to be a secret gov't agent.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 

A short response. Let's look at the statement from the paper again.



"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."


It does not say "The buildings have been intentionally designed..."

I says it was INVESTIGATED.... they did an ANALYSIS... i.e., they ran TESTS....

Let me type them more slowly so you can follow along:

I-N-V-E-S-T-I-G-A-T-E-D

A-N-A-L-Y-S-I-S

T-E-S-T-S

As for Skilling's statement, it does not say:

"We intentionally designed the buildings for every possible thing...."

But rather he says "looked" which, to me, is a strong indication that they INVESTIGATED, they did ANALYSES.

So what test did they do? To me, most likely the one listed in the document from 1964.

As to the circumstances of how the tests were for 600 mph came about, there really is not much we can derive from the statement. So to me this is still stronger evidence than the recollection of a single old man.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



My apologies, and I retract my post.


No problem



So if I understand your position correctly, there had been a fatal flaw in the design of the WTC which was only revealed when the planes hit the towers, and Les Robertson is dragging his feet in acknoledging that his design helped kill 3,000 people...?


Close. My position is that I'm not satisfied that any theory out there has been proven. So the possibility of a fatal flaw is still alive for me, the possibility of controlled demolitions is still alive for me, and the possibility of it was only the plane crash and fires is still alive for me, and even ideas that have not been thought of yet are still alive for me.

As to space beams, I looked into its proponents' arguments and found nothing convincing yet. As to the no plane theory, I looked into its proponents' arguments and found nothing convincing yet.



Why then does he support the findings of the NIST report? I'd have thought he'd turn around and declare there were controlled demolitions, as it would let him evade responsibility from building a death trap by claiming his building could have withstood earthquakes, hurricanes, and the moon crashing into the Earth, had it not for those controlled demolitions people.


You'd have to ask Les about that, as for me, I don't find his statements consistent, so I won't try to guess what's in his mind. But that brings up a good question: in this climate, would the phone still ring at an engineering firm that publicly went against mainstream opinion?

But one thing I do absolutely believe about him is that he should have been treated as a "witness" or maybe we could say a "consultant" (that might not be the correct term) rather than a "fellow investigator."



a) He was intimately involved with the design of the towers so he'd know what its strengths and weaknesses were


My opinion is this can be found through a thorough examination of the building, or it's remains.



b) this likewise makes him an authority who'd know whether or not NIST was barking up the right ot wrong tree with their own assessment


My opinion is it also leaves him in a good position to perhaps send them up the wrong tree intentionally. NIST seems to be satisfied with his work for them but they only told me about half of their actions, so I'm not satisfied that NIST is satisfied.



c) the absence or any real evidence showing him to be a secret gov't agent.


That's why I call him "just a blabbing old man" rather than "just a blabbing old secret gov't agent."



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas
 

A short response. Let's look at the statement from the paper again.



"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."


It does not say "The buildings have been intentionally designed..."


No kidding? It should be obvious to you by now why buildings were not intentionally designed to survive 600 mph impacts.


I says it was INVESTIGATED.... they did an ANALYSIS... i.e., they ran TESTS....


We have Skilling's statement I quoted above:


"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," he said. "The building structure would still be there."


And you still missed that both WTC 1 and 2 survived the impacts of AA11 and UA 175?


As for Skilling's statement, it does not say:

"We intentionally designed the buildings for every possible thing...."


Of course not. Because they weren't intentionally designed to survive 600 mph impacts. Why are you still confused about that?


But rather he says "looked" which, to me, is a strong indication that they INVESTIGATED, they did ANALYSES. So what test did they do? To me, most likely the one listed in the document from 1964.


We don't really know, do we? The fact that the towers did in fact survive the impacts tell us that they did survive the impacts, no?


As to the circumstances of how the tests were for 600 mph came about, there really is not much we can derive from the statement. So to me this is still stronger evidence than the recollection of a single old man.


You are still left in the same spot you were to begin with. No skyscaper was intentionally designed to survive 600 mph impacts but any confidence that WTC 1 and 2 could remain standing may have been well founded since they did, in fact, remains standing at somewhat less than 600 mph impacts.

All of which is a complete non-issue that you are unwilling to acknowledge.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

It does not say "The buildings have been intentionally designed..."

I says it was INVESTIGATED.... they did an ANALYSIS... i.e., they ran TESTS....



So then I take it that your understanding of the situation here, is that whenever a truther claims that the buildings were designed to survive a plane impacy, that they are spreading disinfo?

Why don't you start correcting them then, since it seems you've got it right?






top topics



 
56
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join