Les Robertson's contradictions...

[roundhead]

DeMartini was right, the design impact could take a 707, and possible multiple impacts. But see, energy is equal to one half mass times velocity squared, and I doubt if you understand velocity squared based on your blind allegiance to false information and lies of 9/11 truth. The design speed for an aircraft impact of a 707 was 180 mph. 9/11 jets were not going 180 mph. you lost this round.

Darn he is not an expert. What speed did DeMartini think the design was for. What was DeMartini again. He was a WTC construction manager. Oops not an expert on this topic. Failure is yours again.

Wrong again. He was hired by the structural engineering firm Leslie E. Robertson Associates to help with the repairs of the 1993 terrorist bombing at the World Trade Center. Do you get anything close to right about 9/11?

Oops, 9/11 planes were speeding, darn, the design was out the window, and DeMartini was not wrong, he died in the WTC, not because he was wrong, but due to terrorist killing him. You must of missed the on purpose part of 9/11, and not that DeMartini was talking about an accidental aircraft impact.

Robertson takes responsibility for his building falling. But he did design it for an impact of a 707 at 180 mph, he said so, and it makes sense he picked the speed a 707 would be doing at 1000 feet. No one got stupid, the WTC was designed for an impact of a 707, you have no clue what energy is, or how to apply rational thought to 9/11. You grab a quote from DeMartini, with no parameters, and use his quote out of context to support your inability to form rational conclusion on 9/11.

Robertson is a slurper. His boss stated a fully loaded 707 wouldnt create what we saw on 9/11.

A fully loaded 707 has more mass than the 9/11 plane did that wasnt fully loaded.


You guys scatter like cockroaches hit by a flashlight.


when Sjilling made his statement Roberson wasnt hardly wet behind the ears, if he was, i find no record of him saying anything to the contrary all these years, until AFTER 9/11.


Not to mention te original study"getting lost" somewhere that nobody can find. I find that alone to be unbelievable. Studies like that dont just walk off and dissapear.

 

[beachnut]

Robertson is a slurper. His boss stated a fully loaded 707 wouldnt create what we saw on 9/11.

A fully loaded 707 has more mass than the 9/11 plane did that wasnt fully loaded.


You guys scatter like cockroaches hit by a flashlight

You are still wrong and do not understand physics.

Frank A.Demartini was not involved in the WTC building project in the sixties and seventies. Frank A.Demartini was hired by the structural engineering firm Leslie E. Robertson Associates to help with the repairs of the 1993 terrorist bombing at the WTC. He stayed, becoming the construction manager. You would see Frank when you wanted to move a wall or rearrange the plumbing.

Frank was a great person. You don't understand 9/11 and your every post diverges from the truth.

Robertson was the chief structural engineer, his boss never said anything about aircraft speed. Why do you make up lies? If only you would cite your junk ideas. Skilling never said a fully loaded 707 at 600 mph.

 

[Architect]

You guys scatter like cockroaches hit by a flashlight.

How quaint. Do you intend to bring meaningful technical insight to the discussion or just try and get suspended by bandying around poor quality insults?

 

[Blender Head]

when Sjilling made his statement Roberson wasnt hardly wet behind the ears, if he was, i find no record of him saying anything to the contrary all these years, until AFTER 9/11.

“However, O’Sullivan consults ‘one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’ He is told there is ‘little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.’”

Uh-oh, Truther sheeple, debunked by your fellow cultists.

 

[DC]

And, as has been remarked here countless times, the original calculation only appeared to have treated the impact.

The Towers did survive the impacts. There is absolutely no reason to suspect the rough calculation, carried out before the Towers were even built, said anything about the fire.

This particular straw has been grasped at for years.

ah lies from the MIC corner......

By Eric Nalder

Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.

"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."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

He took note of the fact that smoke and fire spread throughout the building yesterday. He said that is possibly because the pressurizing system that stops the spread of smoke didn't work when the electric power went off. Skilling, 72, was not involved in the design of the building mechanics.

Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."

link

 

[Alt+F4]

I wish a "truther" could explain to me how any of this matters. Their theory is that based on pre-9/11 information the evil doers believed that the towers would not collapse from the plane crashes alone therefore a CD was needed to make sure the buildings fell.

Why the need to have the towers fall? The "truthers" say that if "only" 600 or 700 hundred died (estimate if the buildings didn't fall) it wouldn't be a high enough death toll to generate the call to war. How do they know what this "magic number" would be? How did they know 3,000 would be enough? Why not 10,000?

Historically, it doesn't make sense either. Since World War II the U.S. has entered many conflicts/wars without a single American death as the instigation. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War, etc. All that was needed was the generation of fear, mostly of communism. If the master plan was a Middle East invasion, just plant some our WMDs in Iraq, dig them up and scare the heck out of everyone. It's a plan that's proven to work.

 

[roundhead]

Just wanted to add (although it's been said before) that there was absolutely no way to model the behavior of jet fuel or the resulting fires back in the 1960's. All they could do was calculate the force of the plane itself against the strength of the columns.

Thus, whatever calculation anybody did do back then would have been woefully inadequate.

And, of course, there was no reason to suspect in the 1960s that anybody would fly a huge passenger jet into a building at full speed. For that matter, there was almost no reason to suspect in on September 10, 2001.

That seems a pretty stupid thought you have, that there would be no reason to suspect a plane being flown into the towers, when war games going on that morning, which were obviously planned well IN ADVANCE, were regarding this very scenario.

 

[DC]

I wish a "truther" could explain to me how any of this matters. Their theory is that based on pre-9/11 information the evil doers believed that the towers would not collapse from the plane crashes alone therefore a CD was needed to make sure the buildings fell.

Why the need to have the towers fall? The "truthers" say that if "only" 600 or 700 hundred died (estimate if the buildings didn't fall) it wouldn't be a high enough death toll to generate the call to war. How do they know what this "magic number" would be? How did they know 3,000 would be enough? Why not 10,000?

Historically, it doesn't make sense either. Since World War II the U.S. has entered many conflicts/wars without a single American death as the instigation. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War, etc. All that was needed was the generation of fear, mostly of communism. If the master plan was a Middle East invasion, just plant some our WMDs in Iraq, dig them up and scare the heck out of everyone. It's a plan that's proven to work.

the impact of an airliner and the "collapses" of the Towers live on TV all over the world.
and the new Enemy was born.
the MIC needs a huge and strong enemy, so they can keep going their bussines. after the fear of communism wasnt that much enymore, the USA was without such a huge enemy, then CIA agent Osama Bin Laden came in handy, just on time. the new enemy was born, radical islamism. terrorists, finally Reagen's War on Terror can be started and the taxdollars kept rolling to the MIC.

pretty easy.

 

[roundhead]

You are still wrong and do not understand physics.

Frank A.Demartini was not involved in the WTC building project in the sixties and seventies. Frank A.Demartini was hired by the structural engineering firm Leslie E. Robertson Associates to help with the repairs of the 1993 terrorist bombing at the WTC. He stayed, becoming the construction manager. You would see Frank when you wanted to move a wall or rearrange the plumbing.

Frank was a great person. You don't understand 9/11 and your every post diverges from the truth.

Robertson was the chief structural engineer, his boss never said anything about aircraft speed. Why do you make up lies? If only you would cite your junk ideas. Skilling never said a fully loaded 707 at 600 mph.

Your a bald faced liar, he did state 600mph, why do you lie about that??


The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “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.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.”[5]

“[Building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could 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.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there


Skilling's statement"his people" carried out an analysis, should include his underling at the time, Robertson. He could not have been unaware of this study, and likely was a part of it.

The fact it "came up missing" allows Robertson to now slurp, as damagng documentation that he was obviously privvy to at the time, and likely even involved with in writing that would fly in the face of his now Govt slurping, is "gone"

He can now parrot his Govt paymasters, without having to defend a technical study of the towers that said a 600 mph fully loaded 707 wouldnt do jack to the buildings.


Skillings analysis, and the damning DeMartini quote, are the reality that anybody with a grain of common sense believes. Robertsons revisionist, Govt slurping apologist tale surely isnt.





And i know exactly what De Martini's job title and qualifications were.

 

[Dave Rogers]

That seems a pretty stupid thought you have, that there would be no reason to suspect a plane being flown into the towers, when war games going on that morning, which were obviously planned well IN ADVANCE, were regarding this very scenario.

Well, it might be stupid if that were true. There was a war game, Vigilant Guardian, going on that involved a hijack, but in that scenario the hijacked plane wasn't being flown into a building, rather it was being taken to Cuba. Elsewhere, there was an evacuation drill going on at the NRO that assumed an airliner had hit a building, but the scenario was a crash due to engine problems on takeoff. Therefore, your assertion that "this very scenario" was wargamed is incorrect.

http://www.911myths.com/html/war_games_cover_for_9-11.html

and references therein.

Dave

 

[roundhead]

The exact Demartini quote(and my opinion is that its not a quote he would make, having the professional respect he had, without having been intimately aware of the findings of Skillings study)

""The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

 

[Mark Felt]

That seems a pretty stupid thought you have, that there would be no reason to suspect a plane being flown into the towers, when war games going on that morning, which were obviously planned well IN ADVANCE, were regarding this very scenario.

Consider the fact that before 9/11 there had never, never, never been a hijacking that used the plane involved as a missile.

 

[roundhead]

Robertson is a proven revisionist liar



Robertson has made some glaring contradictions in his statements.

· Robertson claims that the building was designed to only survive plane crashes at speeds of 180 mph. Interestingly he made this claim only a few days before 9/11.[14] A quote by Building Designer Skilling indicates that “A previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing”.[15] Robertson must resolve this apparent contradiction. It is a very suspicious statement given the fact that it would be reasonable to consider the maximum speed of a plane flying into the Twin Towers. Is it possible that Robertson was asked to leak this “deliberately misleading information” just before 9/11? However, this is just speculation. Also suspicious is the fact that he said in 1984-5 that there was “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”[16]

· Robertson says that the building was not designed to survive jet fuel fires: “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire”. This claim is suspicious for two reasons: why would they design the towers to survive plane crashes without considering the jet fuel? And more importantly, John Skilling claimed in 1993 that they did consider the jet fuel when they designed the buildings.[17] Given this fact, which statement is more likely to be correct about jet fuel fires being considered?

· NIST is also contradicted when they claim that there was no “evidence to indicate consideration of… thousands of gallons of jet fuel”. This statement is clearly false. See John Skilling’s statement: “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… The building structure would still be there.”[18]

 

[applecorped]

To quote RoundHead:

"And no, i am 52, a sucessful businessman, one who usually doesnt believe conspiracies, and quite sane"

Just in case anyone forgot.

 

[roundhead]

Frank De Martini had a passion for old cars, motorcycles, sailing and everything Italian. He also loved restoring Brooklyn brownstones, and was fascinated with the World Trade Center. Mr. De Martini, an architect, started working at the twin towers when he was hired to assess the damage from the 1993 bombing

De Martini was hired(By Robertson) to ASSESS THE DAMAGE

 

[roundhead]

To quote RoundHead:

"And no, i am 52, a sucessful businessman, one who usually doesnt believe conspiracies, and quite sane"

Just in case anyone forgot.

Thanks for again pointing that out. As there have been literally hundreds of "conspiracy theories" just in my lifetime, many of which turned out to be true, and a great many more not true, the fact i believe in only several of these(9/11 being one) should quantify my statement.


Btw.. The official Govt 9/11"tale" lets remember, is itself a conspiracy theory. That is a perfect example of a conspiracy theory I DONT believe.


You need to open a myspace account, it seems. You seem more interested in somebody's background on the internet, that in staying on topic in a discussion.(Typical of someone with a poor arguement)
Are you a stereotypical teenager? If so, i understand your minset better within that frame of reference, i had a couple of teenage daughters, who are older now.

 

[roundhead]

Well, it might be stupid if that were true. There was a war game, Vigilant Guardian, going on that involved a hijack, but in that scenario the hijacked plane wasn't being flown into a building, rather it was being taken to Cuba. Elsewhere, there was an evacuation drill going on at the NRO that assumed an airliner had hit a building, but the scenario was a crash due to engine problems on takeoff. Therefore, your assertion that "this very scenario" was wargamed is incorrect.

http://www.911myths.com/html/war_games_cover_for_9-11.html

and references therein.

Dave

liar



The idea was hardly new. A mass casualty (MASCAL) exercise of the Pentagon's command and emergency services, using the scenario of a plane hitting the building, had already been conducted by hundreds of personnel at the Pentagon in October 2000. Two clinics at the Pentagon rehearsed the same script in May 2001.


Hard evidence for the hypothesis first began surfacing in August 2002, when it was revealed that the CIA had scheduled an evacuation drill at the National Reconnaissance Office on the morning of Sept. 11, based on the script of an "errant plane" hitting the NRO headquarters. The drill was cancelled when the real-world events began, and most of the NRO staff, who control the military-intelligence establishment's surveillance satellites, were sent home. One man who helped plan the drill, John Fulton, actually put it on his resume as an example of his prescience

However, Vigilant Guardian appears to have scripted simulated attacks within the continental United States. NORAD personnel in Rome, New York who received first reports of hijackings within NORAD'S Northeastern sector, including Col. Robert K. Marr and Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, are reported to have asked if this was "real world or exercise." This implies that the scenarios for the wargames on September 11 were strikingly similar to the actual attacks that unfolded that morning--as was the supposedly unrelated CIA/NRO exercise

 

[beachnut]

Robertson is a proven revisionist liar

Robertson has made some glaring contradictions in his statements.

· Robertson claims that the building was designed to only survive plane crashes at speeds of 180 mph. Interestingly he made this claim only a few days before 9/11.[14] A quote by Building Designer Skilling indicates that “A previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing”.[15] Robertson must resolve this apparent contradiction. It is a very suspicious statement given the fact that it would be reasonable to consider the maximum speed of a plane flying into the Twin Towers. Is it possible that Robertson was asked to leak this “deliberately misleading information” just before 9/11? However, this is just speculation. Also suspicious is the fact that he said in 1984-5 that there was “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”[16]

· Robertson says that the building was not designed to survive jet fuel fires: “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire”. This claim is suspicious for two reasons: why would they design the towers to survive plane crashes without considering the jet fuel? And more importantly, John Skilling claimed in 1993 that they did consider the jet fuel when they designed the buildings.[17] Given this fact, which statement is more likely to be correct about jet fuel fires being considered?

· NIST is also contradicted when they claim that there was no “evidence to indicate consideration of… thousands of gallons of jet fuel”. This statement is clearly false. See John Skilling’s statement: “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… The building structure would still be there.”[18]

Oops, Skilling never said 600 mph, you are a liar. Not a liar, a bad researcher, maybe the worse one on 9/11 topics.

You have taken Prison Planet junk and made it yours.
Your source is the dumber than dirt, Prison Planet. Great post, just copy it...

 

[beachnut]

liar


The idea was hardly new. A mass casualty (MASCAL) exercise of the Pentagon's command and emergency services, using the scenario of a plane hitting the building, had already been conducted by hundreds of personnel at the Pentagon in October 2000. Two clinics at the Pentagon rehearsed the same script in May 2001.


Hard evidence for the hypothesis first began surfacing in August 2002, when it was revealed that the CIA had scheduled an evacuation drill at the National Reconnaissance Office on the morning of Sept. 11, based on the script of an "errant plane" hitting the NRO headquarters. The drill was cancelled when the real-world events began, and most of the NRO staff, who control the military-intelligence establishment's surveillance satellites, were sent home. One man who helped plan the drill, John Fulton, actually put it on his resume as an example of his prescience

However, Vigilant Guardian appears to have scripted simulated attacks within the continental United States. NORAD personnel in Rome, New York who received first reports of hijackings within NORAD'S Northeastern sector, including Col. Robert K. Marr and Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, are reported to have asked if this was "real world or exercise." This implies that the scenarios for the wargames on September 11 were strikingly similar to the actual attacks that unfolded that morning--as was the supposedly unrelated CIA/NRO exercise

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050830185334880 lifted word for word.

Your source now is a dumb 9/11 web site! Stupid stuff flows… How can you fall for this tripe?

You are just SPAM! You copy junk ideas from truth sites and post like a good little truther with no real thinking of your own, just posting pure junk ideas from your truth movement masters.

You post without thinking! When is the last time you had an original thought on 9/11?

I..., i had a couple of teenage daughters, who are older now.

We hope they are not as gullible as you are to fall for the stupid ideas and lies of 9/11 truth. Do they know you believe in false ideas about 9/11 and make up lies by freely regurgitating PrisonPlanet junk?

 

[roundhead]

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050830185334880

Your source now is a dumb 9/11 web site! Stupid stuff flows… How can you fall for this tripe?

You are just SPAM! You copy junk ideas from truth sites and post like a good little truther with no real thinking of your own, just posting pure junk ideas from your truth movement masters.

You post without thinking! When is the last time you had an original thought on 9/11?

And you quote the unscientific, secret, and Govt Nist Report constantly.

Do yourself a favor, question why the govt would not allow people to survey the wreckage at WTC who were tasked to do so, remove evidence from a crime scene, withold eyewitness statements for years and tie them up in courts, appoint administration insiders to the commision, not allow victims families to have they're questions answered, allow the Pres and VP to testify behind closed doors and not under oath..I could go on and on.
As a taxpayer and US citizen, these politicians answer to me, not the other way around.. I want access to everything that happened that day, and it gets withheld, i want whistleblowers to be able to be heard, and all scientific findings and tests be made public.
Thats what this country is all about.
And you support this anti science and secrecy we as citizens have every right to see, shame on you man.