He is one of the premier structural engineers in the world, yet he doesn't make the claims of others like Richard Gage who aren't credible enough in engineering to lick Robertson's boots. Why is that? Hmmmm. Funny how you tie your credibility to known losers while ignoring the true experts.
There are many many more people other the Gage and architects you stupid fool! Real engineers, scientists, physicists, mathematicians, who took their time and didn't rush a BS theorie out 2 days after the attack like Bazant and Zhou, as if they actually had time to address something so complicated in just 2 ******* days!?
First of all, Mr. Robertson was NOT the chief engineer as you stated in a prior post of yours, that would be John Skilling, but they both have been quoted as saying the towers were built with consideration of the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of the fires.
Robertson also admits there were a lot of modifications made throughout the years for different tenant requirements
strengthening done here or there to satisfy their needs-
He's not surprised the towers stood up well after the impacts-
Jones says the NIST report says they contracted with UL to test the trusses, they tested 4 test specimens and that they held up for 2 hrs without collapsing -both towers collapsed in less then 2 hrs. Leslie Robertson did not observe these fire tests-
The NIST report only takes their analysis where the buildings are poised to collapse, and does not explain the actual collapses-
The behavior of the collapse is not addressed in the NIST report
But it is analyzed by Gordon Ross and other seemingly credible engineers, who criticize the NIST version of collapse.
Robertson states that the building collapsed as designed!? WTF??
He says that engineers always have a collapse scenario in mind when constructing such buildings, so as to minimize a collapse, and strengthen any weak points... T
Then he goes on to admit that he has not performed an in depth study of the failure mechanisms of the collapses. See the contradiction in his statements??
So the question still remains, what actually caused the collapse mechanism? The fires were not hot or intense enough to cause collapse initiation.
Astonishingly Robertson says NIST to have continued, and perused to study the actual collapses beyond the point they did, would NOT be beneficial to future engineers!
Other structural engineers have looked at this however, and the fact that NIST doesn't carry the study any further, doesn't mean that we can assume that collapse will be complete after the initiation.
Gordon Ross who has a published paper on this, and others that are qualified to speak on it, say that when you consider conservation of momentum, and energy, that the time required for the collapses is much larger then free fall time, where as they fell in about 10 seconds, according to the 9-11 commission report, you all say is they undisputed truth.
ENERGY MUST ALSO BE CONSERVED, and when you take these into account the collapse will be significantly slowed down-it is basic physics-
Drop a ball and it will fall in free fall time, so obviously when you have 47 core columns and 240 perimeter columns in the way, plus all the concrete, hundreds of thousands tons., that will slow the progress of the fall. So, The only way to achieve the fast times of the collapse is to move the mass out of the way.
Robertson admits he hasn't even studied the question of the time required for the roof to arrive at the plaza level
But he assures us all that once the upper started to fall, there was nothing that could have saved those towers,
But that doesn't explain the fast collapse times, he admitted to not knowing about, He dodged the question!
He even says that they would have collapsed and in his opinion collapsed "symmetrically" or more or less symmetrically, all the way down to the plaza level and partly into the foundation.
Mr. Ken Cutler, a professor in mathematics has studies it though-and he agrees with the mechanical engineer Gordon Ross, that the time to total collapse would be much larger then 10 secs, he gives a time figure estimate of 36 secs.
Anyway Robertson admits to not doing any chemical analysis at the site either, but that there were many engineering firms that ( he admits also acknowledged, that there was red hot METAL seen by these engineers) but that no analysis was done to confirm what the molten metal actually was.
Well, if you're not too interested in it why would you bother to analyze it, again this is another thing left out of the investigation that clearly did not follow the fire analysis guidelines in the NFPA Codes and Standards handbook
NFPA :: Codes & Standards
When Leslie Robertson finally confronts the CD theory Jones lays out, he acts overwhelmed, and then he resorts to the same tired line of using a string of common logical fallacies, like questioning the motive for a CD and how it would be achieved, which is a common dodge to try to deny the actual questions posed to him about the collapse and the science of what actually happened and was witnessed, and measured, that seems to ignore the laws of physics.
He then rambles on about the plane crash into the N tower-and tries to make the listener think of that in an obvious attempt to distract from the main points of the discussion, just like you lying ***** try to do all the time! Now I see where you get it from.
So is he of the opinion that if you can't prove HOW it was done, it somehow makes the OCT correct?
That is that the placing of explosives or whatever into the towers, because in his opinion it would be too big of a feat, it is OK to assume the collapses happened like they did, disregarding the laws of physics and mathematical calculations that other experts have taken into account about this. LOL!!
NIST says that about 15% of the columns were effected or destroyed in the N tower-This is the core AND perimeter columns-
That's 85% still left.- I have to double check on that to be sure, but..
Robertson continues to say that a CD would require a "monumental effort" to rig, insinuating an impossibility, basically saying that the science and calculations of the others are wrong because they can't explain to him how this "monumental task" is achieved!
Robertson agrees that perhaps tons of explosives or incendiaries may not be needed-
But cmon now, honestly anything can be accomplished if you have unlimited resources, and have complete control of the target. Something that, as we look into this further, seems to almost eliminate Al Qaeda from doing this "monumental task" as Robertson claims.
Perhaps Al Qaeda was used for certain parts of the program, like being the patsy's to take the blame, and recruit the hijackers to throw suspicion away from the real masterminds behind such a huge project.
And he goes on to mention this would have to get by security police etc..Again this is something beyond the debating scientists realm, or responsibility, they aren't FBI or detectives. He STILL is trying to distract and sidetrack from the SCIENTIFIC FACTS that the building came down TOO FAST according to credible experts he can not answer, by turning the debate into a "too big to be plausible" scenario-
If it's too much of a monumental task for anyone in the US government to achieve, how the **** is Al Qaeda supposed to have done what they are claimed to have done--all by themselves?? But you idiots refuse to even think about things like this, or you probably do but you aren't here to think, only to discredit with BS at all costs.
If this man admits to not even studying the collapse scenario,
What the **** is he doing even debating someone who has?
Plus he seemingly hasn't put any thought into anything else about 9-11.
The strategics, and highly first time in the history of the ******* planet, improbable bat shit insane pure lies, NIST and the government want us to believe?
Like about CD devices, how they could have been planted past security, or even knows who actually was IN CHARGE OF THE SECURITY THAT MIGHT HAVE TURNED THE OTHER WAY, IF THE SECURITY EVEN KNEW ANYTHING AT ALL!!
But, OK, that is not his or the scientists job to figure out, SO HE SHOULD STICK TO THE SCIENCE OF THE DEBATE-
they are supposed to be discussing.
Robertson feels that continuing to talk about 9-11 is hurting the families, but he does not speak for all of them, especially the ones that this thread is referring to who support the WTC 7 awareness campaign.
He wants to put this whole thing away and move on, just sort of forget all the BS that does not explain 9-11 accurately, a so what attitude, lets just forget about it?
**** you!
Jones on the other hand likes to stick with the science for answers and not whether the job of planting explosives would be feasible, in other words Robertson, despite having "expert" credentials in constructing buildings and touted as though that is enough, by Parrot, admits he has NOT STUDIED THINGS AS THOROUGHLY AS JONES AND HIS EXPERTS HAVE, Robertson is satisfied with leaving the questions on the table and using the excuse, that a CD scenario would be " too large and complicated to do" and does not explain the collapse mechanisms like Jones and co. at least TRY to do!
And Jones understands that 9-11 victims families are still indeed seeking closure, but should have a FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE EVENTS THAT KILLED THEIR RELATIVES, and not be left with unanswered questions and doubts,
like the TILMAN FAMILY WAS.
Many families like the ones that support awareness about building 7 feel that 9-11 may not only have been caused by Muslim hijackers, but that there were others involved too, because of the
"Monumental effort" Robertson admits was needed on 9-11
and they are hopeful, that the science, particularly the speed of collapse, and the molten metal, along with other facts, like the highly improbable NIST BS about building 7, will clear it all up.
All of the data collected by the independent people who want to get to the truth, point to the need for further analysis and a new independent investigation, free of political bias.
Many good credible and honest people, from all walks of life, know that what they have presented is enough to show that NIST and the government are wrong, ( or are lying)
the circumstantial evidence alone is staggering, but it will never be proven without one,
But then again that is precisely why you people fight so hard against one, and against your own Cognitive dissonance
The FEAR that something other then what you were told will come to light, and what the repercussions to the nation will be.
It's so unbelievably irresponsible, and dangerous to ignore and dismiss what these credible people have shown us, but to also ignore the past atrocities done to us and to others for decades by criminals that lied to us, FROM OUR OWN GOVERNMENT to acquire the power to this and many other atrocities.
And the only thing you people can do is to call them "liars" and "truthtards" as a way to hide from your insecurities, and from the truth is pathetic.
That complete debate is in this video/audio-
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAdcNEa6PTQ]YouTube - ‪LESLIE ROBERTSON AND STEVEN JONES DEBATE PT1‬‏[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=053IpeEBji0&NR=1]YouTube - ‪LESLIE ROBERTSON AND STEVEN JONES DEBATE PT2‬‏[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMZ38mY31cM&NR=1]YouTube - ‪LESLIE ROBERTSON AND STEVEN JONES DEBATE PT3.‬‏[/ame]
