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.

 

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

page: 9
56
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I have posted a new thread to cover the topics I have brought up in this thread.

Thank You

MolecularPHD




posted on May, 15 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





...but you STILL haven't answered the question. The building collapsed starting at the point of impact of the planes and the chain reaction of structural failure worked its way sequentially down from that point to the bottom through each floor, like vertical dominos. It didn't collapse in groups of floors at a time, as controlled demolitions are set up to do. It collapsed one floor at a time, in sequence. This is what every video of the collapse shows so if you are attempting to claim it fell in any other way then you are lying. Likewise, you are now acknowledging that not every floor had these imagined controlled demolitions on it, so if you're trying to deny THAT now, you will be lying.



The buildings were designed to take fully loaded multiple jet impacts of about the same size that hit them. The most that should have happened according to the experts is that the building could have fallen over at the impact area leaving the rest of the building intact.
As you go down, the buildings steel reinforced core gets thicker and thicker. The Twin Towers were the first to have both a steel reinforced core and an outer steel reinforcement. Due to the success of the design most sky scrapers built today have the same design.

One of the buildings began to fall over but then disintegrated before it could fall into the streets below. Then after the piece of the building disintegrated the rest of the building blew itself to pieces. Looks like radio remote control demolition to me.

Show us just one Global Collapse of a similar constructed steel reinforced building.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doctor Smith

Show us just one Global Collapse of a similar constructed steel reinforced building.


Show a global collapse of a building like WTC1?

How about WTC2? It was constructed identical to WTC1, and had a similar impact and similar fires. Seems both collapsed.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Impossible to plant explosives they say, the floor truss seats on the exterior steels could be accessed by a window cleaners cradle np`s whatsoever, there we go that`s half the job done, also.... Explain these straight cuts when the exterior steels were a half bond, ah the workshop areas.....



Then anyone care to explain why these *none bonded steels* have no ratchet access holes in them?.



Or was it deemed that the none bonded area steels did not need to be bolted to the steels above and below?.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 





Show a global collapse of a building like WTC1? How about WTC2? It was constructed identical to WTC1, and had a similar impact and similar fires. Seems both collapsed.


Well. It's pretty clear the same thing happened to WTC1 and WTC2. Building 7 also collapsed on the same day and it wasn't struck by an airplane. What a coincidence.

I'm talking about some other steel reinforced building before or after that day. You might as well go get me the Holy Grail.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron

Originally posted by Doctor Smith

Show us just one Global Collapse of a similar constructed steel reinforced building.


Show a global collapse of a building like WTC1?

How about WTC2? It was constructed identical to WTC1, and had a similar impact and similar fires. Seems both collapsed.


So how was such obvious flaws in the tower designs overlooked by the respective architects and structural engineers that draughted them in the 1st place, even Bin Laden knew this would happen (see Bin Laden`s video which he openly discusses and exposes structural weaknesses around the 80th - 90th storeys of the towers, that are heavily prone for exact displacement of aviation fuel and A4 paper, none inflammable furniture and fittings to combine in the relative elevator shafts, thus causing temperatures in excess of the temperatures needed to weaken tempered steel and reduce to dust - 110 acres of concrete per tower, how the hell did all those guys with University degrees etc, etc, overlook such easy to spot flaws?).

Did the relative agencies responsible for the towers design flaws get charged with negligence and gross incompetence, resulting in the loss of human life, for these blatantly obvious design flaws?.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by MolecularPhD
 


I know nothing about aircraft engines but , apparently this guy is convinced that a Rolls-Royce engine was found in the wreckage at the Pentagon : www.aerospaceweb.org...



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
The buildings were designed to take fully loaded multiple jet impacts of about the same size that hit them. The most that should have happened according to the experts is that the building could have fallen over at the impact area leaving the rest of the building intact.


I don't know where you're getting that factoid, but you've been misinformed. In a 2006 interview with Alex Jones, WTC designer Leslie Robertson said, "I support the general conclusions of the NIST report. The [WTC] was designed for the impact of a low flying slow flying Boeing 707. We envisioned it [to be like] the aircraft that struck the Empire State building [during] WW II. It was not designed for a high speed impact from the jets that actually hit it". This is definitely Robertson's viewpoint because Jones goes on to try to convince us how Robertson is really a secret gov't agent.



As you go down, the buildings steel reinforced core gets thicker and thicker. The Twin Towers were the first to have both a steel reinforced core and an outer steel reinforcement. Due to the success of the design most sky scrapers built today have the same design.


Non sequitor. The NIST report, the FEMA report and the MIT report, all concur the point of failure was in the horizontal support braces that held up the floors, not the core columns, and they were of a standard design throughout the building. If one could be caused to fail then they all could be caused to fail.


Show us just one Global Collapse of a similar constructed steel reinforced building.


Well, if you're going to go that route, then show us just one building that remained standing after a Boeing 767-200 passenger jet had hit it.

Thus, in one post we have the conspiracy movement's entire claim to fame in a nutshell- false facts, red herring arguments, and double standards in logic. I said it before and I'll say it again- if these conspiracy people would only hold their own conspiracy stories up to the same stringent level of critical analysis that they do the commission report, they wouldn't be conspiracy people for very long.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
So how was such obvious flaws in the tower designs overlooked by the respective architects and structural engineers that draughted them in the 1st place, even Bin Laden knew this would happen (see Bin Laden`s video which he openly discusses and exposes structural weaknesses around the 80th - 90th storeys of the towers, that are heavily prone for exact displacement of aviation fuel and A4 paper, none inflammable furniture and fittings to combine in the relative elevator shafts, thus causing temperatures in excess of the temperatures needed to weaken tempered steel and reduce to dust - 110 acres of concrete per tower, how the hell did all those guys with University degrees etc, etc, overlook such easy to spot flaws?).


Would you mind terribly posting a link to said Bin Laden's discussion of the inherent flaws in the design of the WTC towers? Either he said no such thing, or he's quoting info from a report that had been put together *after* the collapse. Either way, methinks you conspiracy people are embellishing again.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It was not designed for a high speed impact from the jets that actually hit it".

Robertson was lying out of the side of his ass, probably to save himself from any type of lawsuit. NIST has documents from the Port Authority that showed the towers could withstand an impact from a jetliner traveling at 600mph.

Do I dare post the link to NIST's document so that you can ignore it yet again, Dave?

Leslie Robertson was a right hand and he was not the chief engineer. John Skilling was the chief engineer along with his firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle, and Jackson. Robertson was invited by Skilling to join the WTC project. So let's make sure everyone is clear on that fact.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Below is an excerpt from a New York Times article which shows that Robertson was not the only one who lied out of his rear end; so did the Port Authority. By the way, did Robertson or the Port Authority present any official documents for their allegedly fraudulant 200 MPH claim?

"Earlier statements by Port Authority officials and outside engineers involved in designing the buildings suggested that the designers considered an accidental crash only by slower aircraft, moving at less than 200 miles per hour. The newly disclosed documents, from the 1960's, show that the Port Authority considered aircraft moving at 600 m.p.h., slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers, Dr. Sunder said."

www.nytimes.com...

[edit on 18-5-2010 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It was not designed for a high speed impact from the jets that actually hit it".

Robertson was lying out of the side of his ass, probably to save himself from any type of lawsuit. NIST has documents from the Port Authority that showed the towers could withstand an impact from a jetliner traveling at 600mph.


Been there already. The towers did survive the impacts.

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.

That WTC 1 and 2 survived long enough is a credit to the architects and structural engineers you disparage.

It would be nice if Truthers could stop rehashing old claims and try to bring some actual evidence to the table to support their claims.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Leslie Robertson was a right hand and he was not the chief engineer. John Skilling was the chief engineer along with his firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle, and Jackson. Robertson was invited by Skilling to join the WTC project. So let's make sure everyone is clear on that fact.


What the heck difference does that make? It's still an established fact that Leslie Robertson was an engineer tasked with building the WTC. He worked with John Skilling, who both in turn worked with architect Minoru Yamasaki, meaning he has first hand intimate knowledge of what went into building the WTC, which makes him a hell of a far sight more credible than that Richard Gage guy who never designed anythign taller than two stories. Your declaring him to be a liar based upon nothing but your own political agenda and your abject pranoia isn't making him look bad. It's making you look bad.

Leslie Robertson was one of three peopel who built the thing and he supports the FEMA and the NIST evaluations stating it was the fires that did it in. Deal with it.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Below is an excerpt from a New York Times article which shows that Robertson was not the only one who lied out of his rear end; so did the Port Authority. By the way, did Robertson or the Port Authority present any official documents for their allegedly fraudulant 200 MPH claim?

"Earlier statements by Port Authority officials and outside engineers involved in designing the buildings suggested that the designers considered an accidental crash only by slower aircraft, moving at less than 200 miles per hour. The newly disclosed documents, from the 1960's, show that the Port Authority considered aircraft moving at 600 m.p.h., slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers, Dr. Sunder said."

www.nytimes.com...

[edit on 18-5-2010 by SphinxMontreal]


This article provides some interesting info on WTC possible plane impact speeds :-

www.911myths.com...

It will be noted that the 600 mph scenario was never based on any actual study and Leslie Robertson refutes it. It certainly seems bizarre that anyone in the sixties seriously envisaged an aircraft at 600 mph at very low altitude over New York.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Below is an excerpt from a New York Times article which shows that Robertson was not the only one who lied out of his rear end; so did the Port Authority. By the way, did Robertson or the Port Authority present any official documents for their allegedly fraudulant 200 MPH claim?

"Earlier statements by Port Authority officials and outside engineers involved in designing the buildings suggested that the designers considered an accidental crash only by slower aircraft, moving at less than 200 miles per hour. The newly disclosed documents, from the 1960's, show that the Port Authority considered aircraft moving at 600 m.p.h., slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers, Dr. Sunder said."

www.nytimes.com...

[edit on 18-5-2010 by SphinxMontreal]


This article provides some interesting info on WTC possible plane impact speeds :-



It will be noted that the 600 mph scenario was never based on any actual study and Leslie Robertson refutes it. It certainly seems bizarre that anyone in the sixties seriously envisaged an aircraft at 600 mph at very low altitude over New York.


I try to avoid using a website like 911myths.com.

The published article by MIT's independant investigation of the WTC plane impacts I would consider to be a more reliable source.

SOURCE:web.mit.edu...

chapter 3: Speed of aircraft


North tower 429 MPH
South tower 503 MPH



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Leslie Robertson about his reported statement about molten metal in the October 2001 SEAU newsletter:



"I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge."

-from www.911myths.com...


This sounds familiar. He doesn't remember and, in any case, he wasn't in the right position to know. Where, oh where, did I hear this before... that's right.... I read it here:



"The next step would have been to think about the fuel load, and I've been searching my brain, but I don't know what happened there, whether in all our testing we thought about it. Now we know what happens--it explodes. I don't know if we considered the fire damage that would cause. Anyway, the architect, not the engineer, is the one who specifies the fire system."

-from www.booknoise.net...


I see a small pattern here...

He doesn't recollect/know and he wasn't in a position to know/it was the architect's problem anyway.

The funny thing is NIST used the above quote as corroboration that some people may have thought they didn't consider a fire after a plane crashed into the building (footnote 3 page 5 of NCSTAR 1-2). Too bad he said point blank he didn't know if they were done or not in that statement, Mr. Nist... he didn't suggest anything.

So what else does Leslie Robertson not remember?

What else does he not know?

What other "position" was Leslie Robertson not in that prevented him from having the required knowledge?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Also, where exactly did this "plane lost in fog hitting the building at 180 mph" claim come from in the first place? In the first part of the quote above Leslie reminisced about the Empire State Building accident, but he doesn't say that is what they tested for specifically.

Here's the whole of the above quote:



"I'm sort of a methodical person, so I listed all the bad things that could happen to a building and tried to design for them. I thought of the B-25 bomber, lost in the fog, that hit the Empire State Building in 1945. The 707 was the state-of-the-art airplane then, and the Port Authority was quite amenable to considering the effect of an airplane as a design criterion. We studied it, and designed for the impact of such an aircraft. The next step would have been to think about the fuel load, and I've been searching my brain, but I don't know what happened there, whether in all our testing we thought about it. Now we know what happens--it explodes. I don't know if we considered the fire damage that would cause. Anyway, the architect, not the engineer, is the one who specifies the fire system."

-from www.booknoise.net...


NIST doesn't attribute it to Leslie Robertson, but rather they attribute it to the FEMA report:



""The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 403 (2002) report indicated that it was assumed in the 1960's design of the WTC towers that a Boeing 707 aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, might strike the towers while low on fuel and at a landing speed of 180 mph."

- from NCSTAR 1-2 pg 4


Did FEMA rely solely on Robertson's memory?

Did Robertson then read the FEMA report and then report in September 2002 that the tests were actually for 180 mph?

Why didn't NIST use the September 2002 article by Glanz and Lipton as corroborating evidence, rather than the May 2002 FEMA report?

Because there's no documents to support him? ("he says he cannot find a copy of the report")

Because none of his coworkers could corroborate his claim? ("Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study.")

Because they had a document that contradicts him? (NCSTAR 1-2 page 306)

Because no one disputed the 600 mph speed before? ("he never spoke up about the discrepancy" and "No one else issued a correction")

Maybe they knew Glanz and Lipton were relying too much on Robertson's unsupported memory that was contradicted by documents they had found?


[edit on 19-5-2010 by NIcon]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
Leslie Robertson about his reported statement about molten metal in the October 2001 SEAU newsletter:



"I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge."

-from www.911myths.com...


This sounds familiar. He doesn't remember and, in any case, he wasn't in the right position to know. Where, oh where, did I hear this before... that's right.... I read it here:



"The next step would have been to think about the fuel load, and I've been searching my brain, but I don't know what happened there, whether in all our testing we thought about it. Now we know what happens--it explodes. I don't know if we considered the fire damage that would cause. Anyway, the architect, not the engineer, is the one who specifies the fire system."

-from www.booknoise.net...


I see a small pattern here...

He doesn't recollect/know and he wasn't in a position to know/it was the architect's problem anyway.

The funny thing is NIST used the above quote as corroboration that some people may have thought they didn't consider a fire after a plane crashed into the building (footnote 3 page 5 of NCSTAR 1-2). Too bad he said point blank he didn't know if they were done or not in that statement, Mr. Nist... he didn't suggest anything.

So what else does Leslie Robertson not remember?

What else does he not know?

What other "position" was Leslie Robertson not in that prevented him from having the required knowledge?


Leslie Robertson is a polite man. In your first instance a blunter man would have said " Of course I didn't say any such thing, how would I know ?"

In your second instance, where he is being asked to reach back several decades, it is not entirely surprising that he does not remember everything clearly.

What is your suggestion ? that he is in on it ?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 

In your first instance, I would politely ask this polite, but blunter old man to clarify seeing as he was probably in a position to know seeing that "Leslie E. Robertson Associates (was) assisting the various teams that are investigating the towers' collapse." ( www.booknoise.net... )

Also I'd point out that according to this www.nistreview.org... he was there at ground zero himself.



"One week after the tragic collapse of the World Trade Center, supported by this GSER, he travelled to New Yourk (sic) and stayed for two weeks in Hotel Tribeaa which was few blocks from Ground Zero. First he met with Mr. Leslie Robertson and vsisted (sic) Ground Zero with him."


In your second instance, you hit upon my EXACT POINT, i.e. "he does not remember everything clearly."


My suggestion is that everything Leslie Robertson says should be taken with a grain of salt as he may "not remember everything clearly." So I will "politely" disregard what he says until some collaboration is shown that he does remember "clearly".


[edit on 19-5-2010 by NIcon]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I'd also like to point out this quote from the page you referred to:



''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later."

-from www.911myths.com...


Not only is Leslie Robertson "a polite man," as you claim, but it seems he can be rather snappy, too.

Does this not qualify as bluntness?



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join