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

Originally posted by jthomas
So you are saying NIcon should not pay any attention to what Robertson said.

Robertson contradicted himself numerous times, lied, obfuscated. He's a disgrace. Nobody should be listening to him.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
So you are saying NIcon should not pay any attention to what Robertson said.

Robertson contradicted himself numerous times, lied, obfuscated. He's a disgrace. Nobody should be listening to him.

Please let NIcon know. I always thought the subject matter was completely irrelevant to anything.

The WTC towers were state-of-the-art designs but the reality and experience of the terroist attacks on 9/11 changes all that:


Scientific American
September 9, 2002
After the Fall
New thinking to make skyscrapers safer
By Steven Ashley

One year after the devastating attacks on New York City¿s 110-story, 1,365-foot-high World Trade Center towers, questions linger concerning the future of skyscrapers. After all, who wants to work or live in a grand, iconic structure that stands out in a crowd and thus makes an inviting target?....

New Ideas About Design

The attack did, however, lead engineers, architects and safety specialists to rethink high-rise design. Builders now favor more highly reinforced structures that "keep damaged buildings standing longer, so more people can escape," states Charles H. Thornton, chairman of the New York¿based firm Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers,...

Modern tall buildings are engineered so that the central core supports the weight or gravity load of the structure, whereas the surrounding exterior columns work like outriggers to keep the tower from overturning or sliding when exposed to hurricane-force winds or earthquakes. Meanwhile the floors tie the inner frame to the outer one, bracing the entire edifice.

Fragile Framing

In the case of the World Trade Center, which was a state-of-the-art design in the late 1960s, the steel-mesh exterior skeleton was highly robust, but the steel-truss floor framing turned out to be quite fragile, and the central core was not designed to handle significant lateral (sideways) loads, Thornton explains. When the planes hit the towers, they knocked out many internal and exterior support columns and dislodged much of the sprayed-on fire insulation that had protected the steel members. Although the remaining structure readily supported the new loads transferred to them when the columns were lost, it then had to contend with the insidious effects of the aviation-fuel fire that set all the flammable contents of the floors alight. "It was the intense fuel fire and the following inferno that led to the collapse," he says. The federally sponsored study of the disaster came to the same conclusion.

Thornton thinks that future mega-skyscraper designs are likely to make greater use of concrete. Reinforced with steel rods, it will be employed to make structural members. Concrete will also encase steel components, shoring them up and insulating them from fire.... And although concrete buildings tend to be markedly heavier and bulkier than steel ones, clever design can avoid the bunker look, according to architect Kohn....

Despite these measures, however, experts emphasize that there must be a first line of defense in protecting skyscrapers?namely, it must be to stop terrorist attacks from occurring at all.

Full article at:

www.scientificamerican.com...

[edit on 22-5-2010 by jthomas]

reply to post by jthomas

NIcon all ready knows nobody should be listening to Leslie Robertson, until, in my opinion, his views can be verified and corroborated through other means.

And you may be right.... What specifically did you think the subject matter was and why was it completely irrelevant to anything?

Edited to clarify my exact position in hopes that JThomas will not bastardize it, something which I find he's very apt at doing.



[edit on 22-5-2010 by NIcon]

[edit on 22-5-2010 by NIcon]

Originally posted by jthomas
It would be nice for you, or someone else, to choose one event of 9/11 that some believe as evidence of a conspiracy and then explore all of the requirements, implications, and consequences we can think of and see if could actually involve only a few people "in the know" and be kept quiet.

This is a good start:
The Real 9/11 Conspiracy, The Invention of Islamic Terrorism

I've long contended that it's entirely possible that the events of 9/11 transpired exactly as seen on the surface -- fast-moving planes, hijacked by terrorists, caused catastrophic damage to buildings -- and still be a very serious "conspiracy," on several levels, with complicit parties in various government positions.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Again, Leslie Robertson did not design the towers. He had nothing to do with designing the towers.

www.skyscraper.org...

Consulting Engineer: John Skilling and Leslie Robertson of W"orthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson"

"Yamasaki and engineers John Skilling and Les Robertson worked closely"

www.historycommons.org... scriptions=on&dosearch=on

"However, O’Sullivan consults “one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson"

"The other structural engineer who designed the towers, Leslie Robertson"

"Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center"

"Leslie Robertson, one of the structural engineers responsible for the design of the WTC"



[edit on 23-5-2010 by Joey Canoli]

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Saying it over and over doesn't make it so. But you can certainly try:

"There's no place like home."

"There's no place like home."

"There's no place like home."

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

NIcon all ready knows nobody should be listening to Leslie Robertson, until, in my opinion, his views can be verified and corroborated through other means.

What views would those be?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by jthomas
It would be nice for you, or someone else, to choose one event of 9/11 that some believe as evidence of a conspiracy and then explore all of the requirements, implications, and consequences we can think of and see if could actually involve only a few people "in the know" and be kept quiet.

This is a good start:
The Real 9/11 Conspiracy, The Invention of Islamic Terrorism

I've long contended that it's entirely possible that the events of 9/11 transpired exactly as seen on the surface -- fast-moving planes, hijacked by terrorists, caused catastrophic damage to buildings -- and still be a very serious "conspiracy," on several levels, with complicit parties in various government positions.

I will give the thread a read. Thanks.

reply to post by jthomas

That would be all of Leslie's views, jthomas.

I believe I am at the point that if I read an article tomorrow that says Leslie Robertson said "It was a sunny day on Monday." I would need to know what he said to other people about weather conditions on Monday and I would need to check three independent meteorological services to find the reported weather conditions of his location for that Monday before I would believe him.

For more specifics about the subject, feel free to review my posts in this thread as I included some of the quotes from Leslie that I'm concerned with.

But speaking of the subject, I think more importantly we should clear up your statement before continuing:

I always thought the subject matter was completely irrelevant to anything.

Jthomas, what specifically did you think the subject matter was and why was it completely irrelevant to anything?

Please be more specific than just a one line post.

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

That would be all of Leslie's views, jthomas.

How about providing his views relevant to the conversation that you would want me to know and are not corroborated.

For more specifics about the subject, feel free to review my posts in this thread as I included some of the quotes from Leslie that I'm concerned with.

And I have addressed some. You haven't acknowledged them. So this doesn't look to be a productive exercise.

reply to post by jthomas

How about providing his views relevant to the conversation that you would want me to know and are not corroborated.

They are in my previous posts.

And I have addressed some. You haven't acknowledged them. So this doesn't look to be a productive exercise.

I have counter addressed your addressing. But no this does not seem to be productive at this point, but we can make this productive again if you would please clarify your statement:

I always thought the subject matter was completely irrelevant to anything.

Jthomas, what specifically did you think the subject matter was and why was it completely irrelevant to anything?

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Just because Robertson claims to have designed the towers, doesn't mean he actually did.

That's a very good point Bonez. Why should we trust Leslie Robertson when he says he designed the building?

I hadn't been too concerned about that before, but what I'm finding is maybe I should be.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Saying it over and over doesn't make it so. But you can certainly try:

You talking to yourself again??????

Go to history commons.

Search for Leslie Robertson.

Results give:

From 1984:The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks (see Early 1984).......However, O’Sullivan consults “one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson

From 1993:In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center.

And who is the other again? Oh, that's right: The other structural engineer who designed the towers, Leslie Robertson, carried out a second study later in 1964.



So there's at least 2 original sources, dated WELL before 9/11 that considered him as one of the 2 engineers that designed the towers.

Please note that this is during the time when Skilling was alive, and yet, there were never any objections from him regarding Robertson's status.

So, Skilling was the head engineer. Robertson was the engineer of record.

So what is an engineer of record?

www.ci.livermore.ca.us...

"The architect or engineer of record shall be responsible for reviewing and coordinating all submittal documents prepared by others, including deferred submittal items, for compatibility with the design of the building”.

IOW, he reviews everyone else's work.

That puts him in charge.

Rational people recognize this......

reply to post by _BoneZ_


BoneZ

You do often come across as a serious researcher, and I commend you for that, but you can also come across as the most rabid illogical truther.

It appears to me, as someone who is not much concerned either way, that your apparently deep-seated hatred of Leslie Robertson rests largely on the fact that he does not say what you would like him to say.

So this obviously brilliant guy (Les Robertson) and all the other exceptional engineers, architects, etc. involved in the design/building of the Towers were smart enough to design the buildings to withstand a 200 MPH impact with the buildings, but not smart enough to go the extra step and design them to withstand a full speed impact?

You know...somebody a lot less intelligent than Robertson and Company can come up with other crash scenarios than just a slow low flying plane getting lost in the fog and impacting with the towers. There have been plenty of examples (even in the '60s) of planes losing control, falling out of the air and crashing at high speeds due to numerous reasons, such as mechanical failure, pilot error, etc.

To think that these intelligent engineers could not envision other more devastating crash scenarios than a slow low flying jet lost in the fog, is a tad inconsistent with their advanced intellectual capabilities, to say the least.

These buildings were being designed to survive future catastrophic scenarios involving future more advanced aircraft. To think that such an intelligent bunch overlooked or did not think of a full speed impact scenario is ludicrous.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Hindsight is a wonderful thing and are'nt all designers inclined to over-egg the virtues of their creations ?

White Star line described their latest liners Olympic and Titanic as " designed to be unsinkable ". Both were sunk within a decade.

For Pete's sake get off this sterile argument as to who said what. It has no relevance to what happened.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Hey Bonez, I'm not sure if you are aware of this quote, so I'd like to point it out to you. It just makes the point I've been trying to make a little stronger, too.

Take a look at this link I provided before, www.booknoise.net...

Robertson, who is seventy-three, wore a gray silk shirt that was open at the collar. His hair is mostly white, and longish, falling over his ears, and with bangs in front, which gives him a slightly bohemian look. His brown eyes are like very deep pools, and the flesh below the eyes was swollen, either with fatigue or with grief. As we talked, he frequently looked out the window. I felt the absence of the buildings in him. "That's how people introduced me," he said. "I was the designer of the World Trade Center. Although that was wrong, actually--I only assisted on the team that designed it. But that's who I was."

Yes, Les, people will introduce you that way if you go around saying ""I designed it for a 707 to smash into it." And maybe if you would correct them when they introduce you as such, it would stop happening.

So which is it Leslie, you "only assisted" or did you "design it"?

I may have to change my stance from considering him just a "blabbing old man" to just a "blabbing old man who's falling for his own media hype."

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
but not smart enough to go the extra step and design them to withstand a full speed impact?

What are you talking about??

BOTH BUILDINGS DID WITHSTAND THE IMPACT OF BOTH AIRPLANES!!!

THAT IS A HISTORICAL FACT!!!
AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ARE ALIVE THANKS TO THIS.



[edit on 25-5-2010 by rush969]

Originally posted by rush969

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
but not smart enough to go the extra step and design them to withstand a full speed impact?

BOTH BUILDINGS DID WITHSTAND THE IMPACT OF BOTH AIRPLANES!!!

THAT IS A HISTORICAL FACT!!!
AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ARE ALIVE THANKS TO THIS.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by rush969]

Do you have a source or is your claim "both buildings dis withstand the impact of both airplanes" 100% un expert opinion?

When you say that the above statement is a historical fact do you have a source or is that your 100% un-expert opinion?

I have some experts who disagree with your 100% un-expert opinion:

John E. Fernandez
Assistant professor of archiecture building tech program MIT

Eduardo Kausel
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Tomasz Wierzbicki
professor of applied mechanics MIT

Liang Xue
Ph.D. Candidate of Ocean Engineering MIT

Meg Hendry-Brogan
Undergraduate stuid of ocean engineering MIT

Ahmed Ghoniem
professor of mechanical engineering MIT

Oral Buyukozturk
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

franz-josef ulm, esther and harold edgerton
associate professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Yossi sheffi
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

"we do believe that the primary damage suffered by the South Tower via the initial impact alone was severe enough to bring it down with very little outside help."