9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: Names, Connections, Details Exposed...

[GuyPinestra]

If you cannot accept the NIST report, what is your answer then? What happened on 9-11-01?

I'm not claiming I KNOW what happened, I only know that the NIST report is not much more than half-baked, unsubstantiated, unPROVEable conjecture.

That is why we need a NEW investigation, one that doesn't protect the 'sacred cow' of government.

 

[GuyPinestra]

You offer nothing which proves the 320 was in higher production and none which proves that the 320 was used in the study. You just do a lot of assuming. What you ignore is the fact that even the early 320s had a load limit 20% lighter than the 767 and, according to the lead structural engineer for the Towers, was presumed to be a slow-moving 707 looking for an airport in the fog, so your assumption that increased speed would make up for the lack of weight is also shot to hell. Finally, it wasn't the impact alone that brought down the Towers and it wasn't the fires alone either. It was both.

Because it fits your narrative you insist the designs were done based on the smaller, lighter aircraft even though the larger, heavier one was the ONLY one capable of making a nonstop trans-Atlantic flight, flown out of and into NY/NJ airports.

You STILL claim Robertson was the "lead structural engineer" even though he was a green pea new hire and the WTC was his FIRST high rise.

You are dismissed, LIAR.

Posting directly from his article does not make me a liar, Jackass, and even assuming the heavier 707 was used in the study - and you offer no proof of such or that it was in greater production or use - the weight of the 707-320 of the time was still 20% lighter than the 767.
The study, according to Robertson, assumed a slow-moving 707, further diminishing its impact and your argument.

[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."

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.

Skilling was the guy that HIRED Robertson, I'll take his word for it.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

15%, not 20%, Princess. Another lie?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Jet fuel does not burn at steel melting temps. That's one of the good arguments from the CT crowd...the smoke was indicative of a fire burning relatively cool, and to argue that there was substantial jet fuel left after the initial explosions from impact is foolish. The ensuing fireballs was the combustion of the fuel. I was a firefighter in my younger days and I completed NJ certified fire school, so I would consider myself be somewhat credible in knowledge on this aspect.

I don't really care either way on this, I have no dog in this hunt. I have no idea why the towers collapsed and have no real theory on it...but to claim that it was because of jet fuel is naive.

But it is only the truthers who claim that steel melted........And what all did those fireballs set on fire?

It was all over the place that the steel melted, then you all changed your tune when that was proved bogus, it wasn't us that started that line of BS. Again it is up to you to explain the fire and what it did. It is the theory that you back up, so show why we should believe it. We've already explained and shown why we have our positions, and you claim you don't understand them so why are you continuing with this debate?
You can
t show we are wrong by your admitting to not understanding what we're talking about about so where are you trying to go with this?

Damn you're stupid. I never said I didn't understand all of this... I did say something about not understanding the advanced Physics that you fools pretend proves something.

Figure out what bowed in those towers yet?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Ah, the 120B. My previous statement was based on the 120. It seems BOTH planes were in production simultaneously, then. But your assertion that the 120B is the plane they designed for when the 320 was in higher production AND capable of non-stop trans-Atlantic flight sounds a bit ludicrous to me, considering that NY/NJ airports handled the VAST majority of those flights.

And **** your link, you don't provide them, neither will I.

Ignoring my link to what was really said about the the planes crashing?

Nope, but I give more credence to DeMartini and Skilling, since they were involved firsthand with the design and construction and aren't speaking based on suppositions.

I understand, you don't want to listen to one of the structural engineers who worked on the design unless they agree with what you want the truth to be.....
Because Mr Robinson was one of the engineers that did work on the WTC.....
Leslie E. Robertson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Paulie]

NAE Website - Reflections on the World Trade Center


Reflections on the World Trade Center
Author: Leslie E. Robertson


ooops!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jet fuel does not burn at steel melting temps. That's one of the good arguments from the CT crowd...the smoke was indicative of a fire burning relatively cool, and to argue that there was substantial jet fuel left after the initial explosions from impact is foolish. The ensuing fireballs was the combustion of the fuel. I was a firefighter in my younger days and I completed NJ certified fire school, so I would consider myself be somewhat credible in knowledge on this aspect.

I don't really care either way on this, I have no dog in this hunt. I have no idea why the towers collapsed and have no real theory on it...but to claim that it was because of jet fuel is naive.

But it is only the truthers who claim that steel melted........And what all did those fireballs set on fire?

Melted, weakened, whatever. A large majority of the aggravating factor in how much heat would even be present in there, the jet fuel, was burned at the time of impact. I don't know what the fireballs set on fire...whatever was flammable in there I guess. Nothing I can think of that would burn hot enough to be compromising that much structural integrity. Again, the color of the smoke is the indicator here.

If I had to put forth an honest opinion on how that should have looked...I would say that the impact points can certainly have compromised the structural integrity of that particular area, and the sections above that can certainly have collapsed...but I would expect to see only those sections collapse, and fall from the rest of the building down to the ground.

It really doesn't make any sense to me that the entire building progressively collapsed all the way down. I don't know why that makes sense to ANYONE.

The only way that would make sense is if that was purposely part of the engineering design of the building to facilitate an easy collapse of the building way in the future whenever it came time to take them down.

Maybe that's exactly how they were designed...for each floor to have certain points where structural integrity can be purposely removed so that such tall, skinny structures can be properly demolished at the point in time that it becomes necessary.

If that's the case it would be nice if they just came out and said that...that I could at least believe.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Jet fuel does not burn at steel melting temps. That's one of the good arguments from the CT crowd...the smoke was indicative of a fire burning relatively cool, and to argue that there was substantial jet fuel left after the initial explosions from impact is foolish. The ensuing fireballs was the combustion of the fuel. I was a firefighter in my younger days and I completed NJ certified fire school, so I would consider myself be somewhat credible in knowledge on this aspect.

I don't really care either way on this, I have no dog in this hunt. I have no idea why the towers collapsed and have no real theory on it...but to claim that it was because of jet fuel is naive.

Who said anything about melted steel? According to the Tower's lead structural engineer "The damage created by the impact of the aircraft was followed by raging fires, which were enormously enhanced by the fuel aboard the aircraft. The temperatures above the impact zones must have been unimaginable..."
Nobody mentioned melted steel - just weakened enough to cause the collapse.

Again in the days and weeks following the attacks, it was mentioned that the steel must have melted due to the "horrific" fires caused by the "jetfuel". The propagandists and the crowd of ignorant followers changed that tune and now you all say that it merely weakened, but then you must still answer for the way the steel was effected, how it would "creep" along slowly, and if it even failed, would produce a halting, staggered partial collapse.
This is what you do not even come close to touching. Both you and Ollie have claimed ignorance on these matters, so if you don't know shit about what is being discussed, how can you even participate in any rational debate?

Weakening is no better of an excuse, and does not absolve any responsibility in trying to explain what I mentioned above. Now are you capable of engaging in a debate regarding this or not?

So who are these people that made these claims before there was any report. I didn't start researching you guys BS until the first time I heard about "Loose Change". I watched it and knew it had more holes than swiss cheese.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Ignoring my link to what was really said about the the planes crashing?

Nope, but I give more credence to DeMartini and Skilling, since they were involved firsthand with the design and construction and aren't speaking based on suppositions.

I understand, you don't want to listen to one of the structural engineers who worked on the design unless they agree with what you want the truth to be.....
Because Mr Robinson was one of the engineers that did work on the WTC.....
Leslie E. Robertson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robertson was hired by Skilling, Skilling was the BOSS.

I'll take his word over Robertson's ANY day, since the WTC was Robertson's FIRST high rise.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Nope, but I give more credence to DeMartini and Skilling, since they were involved firsthand with the design and construction and aren't speaking based on suppositions.

I understand, you don't want to listen to one of the structural engineers who worked on the design unless they agree with what you want the truth to be.....
Because Mr Robinson was one of the engineers that did work on the WTC.....
Leslie E. Robertson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robertson was hired by Skilling, Skilling was the BOSS.

I'll take his word over Robertson's ANY day, since the WTC was Robertson's FIRST high rise.

Sure you want to go with that?

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.

OOPS Again.....
Business | Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision | Seattle Times Newspaper

 

[Samson]

I understand, you don't want to listen to one of the structural engineers who worked on the design unless they agree with what you want the truth to be.....
Because Mr Robinson was one of the engineers that did work on the WTC.....
Leslie E. Robertson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robertson was hired by Skilling, Skilling was the BOSS.

I'll take his word over Robertson's ANY day, since the WTC was Robertson's FIRST high rise.

Sure you want to go with that?

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.

OOPS Again.....
Business | Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision | Seattle Times Newspaper

Bravo Sarge,

Its a pleasure to see foolishness so effectively vanquished.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I understand, you don't want to listen to one of the structural engineers who worked on the design unless they agree with what you want the truth to be.....
Because Mr Robinson was one of the engineers that did work on the WTC.....
Leslie E. Robertson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robertson was hired by Skilling, Skilling was the BOSS.

I'll take his word over Robertson's ANY day, since the WTC was Robertson's FIRST high rise.

Sure you want to go with that?

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.

OOPS Again.....
Business | Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision | Seattle Times Newspaper

Yes, I'm VERY sure. 'Building mechanics' has not a flipping thing to do with structure, building mechanics is the HVAC, power delivery and plumbing.

From your link...

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.

"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."

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."

 

[GuyPinestra]

Robertson was hired by Skilling, Skilling was the BOSS.

I'll take his word over Robertson's ANY day, since the WTC was Robertson's FIRST high rise.

Sure you want to go with that?

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.

OOPS Again.....
Business | Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision | Seattle Times Newspaper

Bravo Sarge,

Its a pleasure to see foolishness so effectively vanquished.

It takes a moron to applaud a moron...

 

[SFC Ollie]

Robertson was hired by Skilling, Skilling was the BOSS.

I'll take his word over Robertson's ANY day, since the WTC was Robertson's FIRST high rise.

Sure you want to go with that?



OOPS Again.....
Business | Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision | Seattle Times Newspaper

Yes, I'm VERY sure. 'Building mechanics' has not a flipping thing to do with structure, building mechanics is the HVAC, power delivery and plumbing.

From your link...

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."

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."

Now go ask him that if those explosives would have been present would we have seen the explosions, heard the explosions, or find evidence of those explosions.....
My bet is he would say yes to all three..........

 

[GuyPinestra]

Sure you want to go with that?



OOPS Again.....
Business | Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision | Seattle Times Newspaper

Yes, I'm VERY sure. 'Building mechanics' has not a flipping thing to do with structure, building mechanics is the HVAC, power delivery and plumbing.

From your link...

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."

Now go ask him that if those explosives would have been present would we have seen the explosions, heard the explosions, or find evidence of those explosions.....
My bet is he would say yes to all three..........

Any particular reason you dropped these...?

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.

"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."

Why don't YOU go ask him, you dishonest ******* HACK!

 

[Samson]

Sure you want to go with that?



OOPS Again.....
Business | Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision | Seattle Times Newspaper

Bravo Sarge,

Its a pleasure to see foolishness so effectively vanquished.

It takes a moron to applaud a moron...

Rapier wit

impressive,

not.

 

[Samson]

Why don't YOU go ask him, you dishonest ******* HACK!

I'm not sure which is stronger....

the smell of your bullshit, or the smell of you meltdown.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Why don't YOU go ask him, you dishonest ******* HACK!

I'm not sure which is stronger....

the smell of your bullshit, or the smell of you meltdown.

That smell is your upper lip, moron.

You're too stupid to know what 'building mechanics' are, same as Ollie, but it sounded good to your uneducated ears, so you applauded it and demonstrated your ignorance for ALL of us to see.

Take a ******* hike, loser...

 

[SFC Ollie]

Point is that the planes and only the planes caused the buildings to fail and fall. There has been no proof shown here to refute that.

We now have one telling us that the government is wrong but they don't know why.......
DUH?

 

[SAYIT]

Robertson was hired by Skilling, Skilling was the BOSS.

I'll take his word over Robertson's ANY day, since the WTC was Robertson's FIRST high rise.

Sure you want to go with that?



OOPS Again.....
Business | Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision | Seattle Times Newspaper

Yes, I'm VERY sure. 'Building mechanics' has not a flipping thing to do with structure, building mechanics is the HVAC, power delivery and plumbing.

From your link...

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."

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."

After the first WTC terror attack in 1993 Skilling, who died in 1998, said the study conducted prior to building the WTC Towers showed they could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (he didn't specify which model) and that the real concern was the "horrendous" fire (he didn't say how long or how hot "horrendous" meant) that would follow. He was right on both counts. He further went on to say he believed the building would remain standing. He was wrong on that one. Two out of three ain't bad. Thankfully the Towers remained standing long enough for most peeps who were below the impact to get out.

 

[SAYIT]

Why don't YOU go ask him, you dishonest ******* HACK!

I'm not sure which is stronger....

the smell of your bullshit, or the smell of you meltdown.

That smell is your upper lip, moron.

You're too stupid to know what 'building mechanics' are, same as Ollie, but it sounded good to your uneducated ears, so you applauded it and demonstrated your ignorance for ALL of us to see.

Take a ******* hike, loser...

You mean building mechanics doesn't include fire alarms and fire-fighting systems or did you conveniently forget them, Princess. Did the study take into account the length of time the fires would burn, the number of floors impacted by the plane and fires, and the effect of the crash on the sprinkler system?

 

[Paulie]

Point is that the planes and only the planes caused the buildings to fail and fall. There has been no proof shown here to refute that.

We now have one telling us that the government is wrong but they don't know why.......
DUH?

And you don't question it with certain points of logic which would seem to make that explanation questionable in itself. You just accept it as gospel because it came from the government.

I realize that there's engineers who said that's how it happened...but there's also engineers who said that doesn't make sense.

So I remain skeptical.