Victims' Families Want To Air New 9/11 Truth Ad

[Rat in the Hat]

I understand that completely ..I also understand according to the NIST theory
that any similar fire regardless of how it was ignited would have created the same result...



how could anyone do that without a real investigation with full authority ,full disclosure and subpoena powers ?

You won't have a chance at a new investigation until you can provide a complete narrative on what happened that day, and why the government's findings are wrong.

So, let's hear what really happened, so we can get that ball rolling.

 

[eots]

You won't have a chance at a new investigation until you can provide a complete narrative on what happened that day, and why the government's findings are wrong.

So, let's hear what really happened, so we can get that ball rolling.

that is a ridiculous statement...however the forces we are working against are great and a new investigation may never occur but the battle is fought on may fronts .the powers behind wars of conquest and the military industrial complex are not one trick ponys and were active both before and after 9/11.the growing awareness and Resistance to the systems of control and the court of public opinion is were victories for truth have and will most likely occur

 

[eots]

New 9/11 Poll: Half Of New Yorkers Support New Investigation Into WTC7 Collapse

http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/...ependent_Research/Building 7 Poll Results.pdf

 

[Rat in the Hat]

New 9/11 Poll: Half Of New Yorkers Support New Investigation Into WTC7 Collapse

http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/...ependent_Research/Building 7 Poll Results.pdf

Your link leads to the same thing as NYCCAN's ad campaign. A blank white screen.

Maybe you should get Bobby "11.2 G" Balsalmo to help you set up the next ads.

But beware, he will force you to agree that the plane was north of the Citgo station.

 

[Gamolon]

Your assumption that somehow these men did not take into account the fires caused by such impacts is plain wrong, as the articles posted claim they did. What was done to facilitate safety in a fire at the WTC is documented throughout its history in many places. From sprinklers to fireproofing, to ventilation. These are considerations that came from the analysis, and were implemented as time went on.

Read the bolded parts of your quote above. Implemented over time and throughout it's history theses considerations were implemented???? Then, out of the other side of your mouth, you say this.

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.

So which is it? Were the towers built that way or were the "considerations" implemented over time. You just contradicted yourself. The fact is, the only thing they knew was that there would be horrendous fires caused by the impact that's it. Nothing was known about the affects of fire on the steel if the fireproofing or sprinkler systems failed (which they did).

These are facts, and why you would doubt that is beyond comprehension.

You mean the fact that Robertson directly refutes your claim with this quote?

To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

I pointed out the actual audio of this from Mr. Robertson, and the articles, while also admitting that anything on paper is missing, according to Robertson.
From what I have been studying, the best fire protection is the use of structural steel itself, for its properties have withstood the test of time concerning fires.

Is that why they need to fire proof steel? Because by itself, it can withstand the affects of fire????

The biggest question that to this day are in debate from many of these experts, and others, is what caused the actual collapse initiation, and the mechanics of the collapse, and its progression.
There are theories from both sides, and what I consider enough credible points made from independent experts to warrant a new investigation.
I have repeatedly said I am no expert in this field, but I have read enough to come to my own conclusion, mainly that it is still partially unexplained, while trying to take the totality of 9-11 into consideration.
We can argue this shit all day and night for days, but until these things are allowed in an independent non political inquiry it is useless.
The main problem is the unwillingness to admit that credible counter views and arguments do in fact exist, and that has been proven.

And I show you an exact quote from Robertson that refutes what you claim, yet you want me to admit that it's credible?

 

[Mr. Jones]

Your assumption that somehow these men did not take into account the fires caused by such impacts is plain wrong, as the articles posted claim they did. What was done to facilitate safety in a fire at the WTC is documented throughout its history in many places. From sprinklers to fireproofing, to ventilation. These are considerations that came from the analysis, and were implemented as time went on.

Read the bolded parts of your quote above. Implemented over time and throughout it's history theses considerations were implemented???? Then, out of the other side of your mouth, you say this.

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.

So which is it? Were the towers built that way or were the "considerations" implemented over time. You just contradicted yourself. The fact is, the only thing they knew was that there would be horrendous fires caused by the impact that's it. Nothing was known about the affects of fire on the steel if the fireproofing or sprinkler systems failed (which they did).

The statement I made above that you highlighted and is in red, came from an article I linked. It is obvious that Mr. Robertson, and to an extent Mr. Skilling have provided statements in audio. or to the written press, affirming these "considerations" and "analysis", and as I said before, what exactly was done, or put on paper is unknown.
The statements I made where based on what was said by both of those men.

You mean the fact that Robertson directly refutes your claim with this quote?

He contradicts himself, and Skilling.
Which is the reason I made a post about Robertson in the first place, to show that, what some people are saying is a credible, undisputed source, he in reality contradicts himself in the audio debate with Jones. If you go back and re-read the original post I made, concerning Robertson you should be able to figure this out.

I pointed out the actual audio of this from Mr. Robertson, and the articles, while also admitting that anything on paper is missing, according to Robertson.
From what I have been studying, the best fire protection is the use of structural steel itself, for its properties have withstood the test of time concerning fires.

Is that why they need to fire proof steel? Because by itself, it can withstand the affects of fire????

So what building material that is more impervious to steel would you use in the construction of your hirise building Mr. Structural Engineer? If there were no such thing as fire retardant, what would you recommend expert construction engineers use??

The biggest question that to this day are in debate from many of these experts, and others, is what caused the actual collapse initiation, and the mechanics of the collapse, and its progression.
There are theories from both sides, and what I consider enough credible points made from independent experts to warrant a new investigation.
I have repeatedly said I am no expert in this field, but I have read enough to come to my own conclusion, mainly that it is still partially unexplained, while trying to take the totality of 9-11 into consideration.
We can argue this shit all day and night for days, but until these things are allowed in an independent non political inquiry it is useless.
The main problem is the unwillingness to admit that credible counter views and arguments do in fact exist, and that has been proven.

And I show you an exact quote from Robertson that refutes what you claim, yet you want me to admit that it's credible?

And I show you, what the point of my original post was, to prove how what Robertson says is indeed contradiction, thus lowering his credibility, AND that he WAS NOT the original engineer for the project, it was in fact Skilling, who contradicts what Robertson says.

Waiting on your hirise building plans, using better base construction material then steel, along with your expert hypothesis on the collapse...with you being so knowledgeable and all..

 

[eots]

pentagon-papers-whistleblower -Daniel Ellsberg-says-that-the-government has ordered the media not to cover 911



Washington's Blog

 

[Patriot911]

pentagon-papers-whistleblower -Daniel Ellsberg-says-that-the-government has ordered the media not to cover 911



Washington's Blog

Awww.... truthard ***** are getting upset nobody will report on their same old tired bullshit, so now they have to pretend the government ORDERED the media to shut up. Of course, they ignore the fact the government doesn't have such power, especially since a lot of the media isn't based in the US.

There have been attempts by the government to ASK the media not to run stories like the NSA's wiretapping that the NYT exposed, yet you silly shits want us all to believe the media would sit on the story of the century to PROTECT the government? What will you bitches dream up next!

 

[Patriot911]

And I show you, what the point of my original post was, to prove how what Robertson says is indeed contradiction, thus lowering his credibility, AND that he WAS NOT the original engineer for the project, it was in fact Skilling, who contradicts what Robertson says.

Ah, what utter hypocricy from the king of the truthtards! So if YOU claim someone is contradicting themselves, then OBVIOUSLY they must be lying, yet you continue to use sources that have been PROVEN to have lied without even batting an eyelash.

Now, an honest person would look at how they treat their own sources vs. other sources and make sure they are held to the same level of integrity. Truthtards will believe anything that says what they want to hear regardless of the credibility of the source or how retarded the claim is.

And truthtards wonder why they are ridiculed and despised.

 

[Gamolon]

He contradicts himself, and Skilling.
Which is the reason I made a post about Robertson in the first place, to show that, what some people are saying is a credible, undisputed source, he in reality contradicts himself in the audio debate with Jones.

I just listened to the first audio debate with Jones you posted and not one mention was made by Robertson about an analysis made concerning the eaffects of fire on the structural steel, ONLY the impact. If you think otherwise, please post the timestamp for when you seem to have heard this supposed "quote" from Robertson.

I am now listening to the second audio you posted in the debate.

 

[Gamolon]

Just finished listening to audio number 2 of the debate. Not one mention of an analysis due to determine the affects of fire on the structural steel by Robertson

Again, if you seem to know where this "quote" is from Robertson, then please post the timestamp at which it occurs in the audio.

I am listening to audio number 3 of the debate.

 

[Gamolon]

Just listened to audio number 3.

Again. No mention of analysis for the affects of fire on the structural steel. Please post a timestamp from this audio where Robertson is "quoted" as saying what you claim he does.

 

[Gamolon]

First of all, Mr. Robertson was NOT the chief engineer as you stated in a prior post of yours, that would be John Skilling,

Wrong. Mr. Robertson was in fact the chief structural engineer. He was also a lead engineer as he satmped all the structural blueprints. Yoyu have never worked in an engineering firm so you have no lcue. Any engineer who stamps a complete set of drawings with his seal is in fact a LEAD ENGINEER.

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.

Do you know what a quote is? I don't so. You have yet to provide me or anyone else an exact quote where Robertson says that the towers were built with the consideration of the affects of fire. All you have posted is quotes about the study of the impacts and make a logical assumption that that also means they studied the affects of fire on the steel.

So supply me with the quote where Robertson says exactly what you are quoting him as saying. Otherwise you are just making things up.

 

[Mr. Jones]

First of all, Mr. Robertson was NOT the chief engineer as you stated in a prior post of yours, that would be John Skilling,

Wrong. Mr. Robertson was in fact the chief structural engineer. He was also a lead engineer as he satmped all the structural blueprints. Yoyu have never worked in an engineering firm so you have no lcue. Any engineer who stamps a complete set of drawings with his seal is in fact a LEAD ENGINEER.

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.

Do you know what a quote is? I don't so. You have yet to provide me or anyone else an exact quote where Robertson says that the towers were built with the consideration of the affects of fire. All you have posted is quotes about the study of the impacts and make a logical assumption that that also means they studied the affects of fire on the steel.

So supply me with the quote where Robertson says exactly what you are quoting him as saying. Otherwise you are just making things up.

"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."

The Seattle Times: Search Results

Regarding what Robertson says-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3738967-post1036.html

Regarding Skilling-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3739013-post1038.html

Now how about you answer the questions I posed to you regarding the better base construction material you would use instead of steel that would be more impervious to fires.
...Still waiting on your collapse hypothesis too

And BTW, claiming that Robertson was THE lead engineer, may be your opinion, but you haven't posted a link to back it up.

 

[Mr. Jones]

And I show you, what the point of my original post was, to prove how what Robertson says is indeed contradiction, thus lowering his credibility, AND that he WAS NOT the original engineer for the project, it was in fact Skilling, who contradicts what Robertson says.

Ah, what utter hypocricy from the king of the truthtards! So if YOU claim someone is contradicting themselves, then OBVIOUSLY they must be lying, yet you continue to use sources that have been PROVEN to have lied without even batting an eyelash.

No I posted this about Robertson to show you how he contradicts himself. After all, You were the one who mentioned him as a credible source for your information. And it is you that goes around screaming "LIAR" at sources you don't like, not me. There's proof of that in many of your insane posts.

Now, an honest person would look at how they treat their own sources vs. other sources and make sure they are held to the same level of integrity. Truthtards will believe anything that says what they want to hear regardless of the credibility of the source or how retarded the claim is.

Take your own medicine you hypocrite, and notice how your source Mr. Robertson contradicts himself in the posts I made a few pages back in response to your BS.

So have your meds balanced out your delirious mind yet, or do you still think there is a conspiracy involving the truth movement to take over the government?


The hypocrite is you, you ******* nutcase.

 

[Gamolon]

"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."

The Seattle Times: Search Results

Regarding what Robertson says-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3738967-post1036.html

Regarding Skilling-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3739013-post1038.html

Do you know what it means to say that someone is QUOTED as saying something? Obviously not because if you look at the above post from you, everything in there is about SKILLING. One link was back to what Robertson said in his audio debate. There is not one quote from Robertson that says the anything about their analysis having showing that the fires from a resultant impact would affect the steel.

I have asked you time and time again and you have yet to show the exact quote of Robertson saying anything about the analysis showing the affects of the fire. All you have are logical "jumps" in which you ASSUME they new the affects. There is not one exact quote form him. PERIOD.

Now how about you answer the questions I posed to you regarding the better base construction material you would use instead of steel that would be more impervious to fires.

Where did I EVER say that we should use materials other than steel? Now you're reaching.

...Still waiting on your collapse hypothesis too

Plane impact, damaged steel, fires weakened steel, overloaded steel failed, collpase ensues.

And BTW, claiming that Robertson was THE lead engineer, may be your opinion, but you haven't posted a link to back it up.

World Trade Center lead engineer to speak Wednesday // News // Notre Dame News // University of Notre Dame

NAE Website - Reflections on the World Trade Center

NOVA | Building on Ground Zero | TV Program Description | PBS

Narwhal Enterprises - Archives - Currents: 10-19-01

9-11 Documentaries | Top Documentaries.info

 

[Gamolon]

Ah, what utter hypocricy from the king of the truthtards! So if YOU claim someone is contradicting themselves, then OBVIOUSLY they must be lying, yet you continue to use sources that have been PROVEN to have lied without even batting an eyelash.

No I posted this about Robertson to show you how he contradicts himself. After all, You were the one who mentioned him as a credible source for your information. And it is you that goes around screaming "LIAR" at sources you don't like, not me. There's proof of that in many of your insane posts.

Now, an honest person would look at how they treat their own sources vs. other sources and make sure they are held to the same level of integrity. Truthtards will believe anything that says what they want to hear regardless of the credibility of the source or how retarded the claim is.

Take your own medicine you hypocrite, and notice how your source Mr. Robertson contradicts himself in the posts I made a few pages back in response to your BS.

So have your meds balanced out your delirious mind yet, or do you still think there is a conspiracy involving the truth movement to take over the government?


The hypocrite is you, you ******* nutcase.

You still have yet to post his exact quote saying that the analysis they did showed the affects of fire on the steel!!!!

The only thing you post are quotes from Skilling and supposed quotes from Robertson that one has to make an assumption about in order see what you are claiming. That is not a quote. Not even close.

 

[charles brough]

Hi Mr. Jones:

Spread the word and research what the real issues are with the NIST investigation and the problems the families of the victims of 9-11 and many others have with the explanation that was told to the country.

The entire US Federal, State and Local Govts are corrupt to the core and nobody cares. We have an illegal alien in the White House for God sakes who like Bush and Clinton and Bush let illegal aliens run around everywhere doing whatever they please. The fake 911Movement is running in place and nobody is ever brought to 911Justice and that is never going to change in this pathetic and corrupt nation of liars, murderers and thieves. America is simply not America anymore and the sheeple need to get accustomed to living in a third-world country where police state brutality is commonplace and the average subject can barely afford to pay for food.

You must have had a terrible day! Like the majority of Americans, I also believe our civilization and the US itself is in decline and have even, as an author, laid out the process so it can be understood. Yes, the moral backbone of the US public has sadly suffered, but what is "good" can only be evaluated in respect to or relative to what is "bad." It is not so much that we have degenerated compared to others throughout the world but that it is degenerating, as all civilizations have always eventually done, compared to our past and the earler age of any and all previous civilizations.

I try my best to take a fatalistic attitude and not let the obvious decline overpower me with negativity. It can turn people into manic-depressives who go berzerk and kill people.

 

[Mr. Jones]

You still have yet to post his exact quote saying that the analysis they did showed the affects of fire on the steel!!!!

The only thing you post are quotes from Skilling and supposed quotes from Robertson that one has to make an assumption about in order see what you are claiming. That is not a quote. Not even close.

My intention was to show the contradictions that have come from Robertson, and I have done that, and here they are in more detail.
It looks like in the article you linked, we also find a couple of the considerations that were utilized due to their analysis in case of fires:

"Another theory was developed to predict stack action and temperature-induced and wind-induced airflow within a high-rise building; an understanding of these airflows is crucial to controlling fire-generated smoke and reducing the energy consumption of the building."

"We developed the concept of and made use of the fire-rated shaft-wall partition system, which is now widely used in place of masonry and plaster walls. At that time, masonry was the standard enclosure for elevators, stairs, duct shafts, and other internal structures."
NAE Website - Reflections on the World Trade Center

And this, taken from the
NOVA article you linked:

"Exclusive footage shows off the skyscraper's massive structural shell, "refuge floors" with extra fire protection, and additional elevators designed for use by emergency personnel. While Robertson is relieved that the NIST investigation found no flaw in his engineering of the World Trade Center, the horror of what happened to the Towers still haunts him to this day."
NAE Website - Reflections on the World Trade Center

Regarding John Skilling and who was the boss:

"NIST found a three-page white paper that mentioned another aircraft-impact analysis, involving impact of a Boeing 707 at 600 miles per hour (970 km/h), but the original documentation of the study, which was part of the building's 1,200 page structural analysis, was lost when the Port Authority offices were destroyed in the collapse of the WTC 1; the copy was lost in WTC 7.[10] In 1993, John Skilling, lead structural engineer for the WTC, recalled doing the analysis, and remarked, "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."
Collapse of the World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you feel there is an error, perhaps you could edit the Wikipedia page and correct it, because here it mentions Skilling once again as being the lead engineer:
"John Skilling (October 8, 1921, Los Angeles, California – March 5, 1998, Seattle, Washington) was a civil engineer and architect, best known for being the chief structural engineer of the World Trade Center.[1]"

"John started working for the W.H.Witt Co. soon after graduation. In 1983, he became the chairman of the firm. Prominent constructions under his leadership include the World Trade Center, Rainier Bank Tower, the Seafirst Building, Seafirst Fifth Avenue Tower, Century Square, Columbia Seafirst Center and the Washington State Convention and Trade Center.[2]"

"John Skilling, American structural and civil engineer whose firm, Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire, designed over 1,000 buildings in 36 states and 27 countries; among his best-known work was the 110-story twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City (b. Oct. 8, 1921, Los Angeles, Calif.--d. March 5, 1998, Seattle, Wash.)."
John Skilling (American engineer) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

"Skilling became a principal of the Witt firm in 1950. He led the evolution of a small, regionally oriented firm into the nationally acclaimed structural engineering organization that it became over the nearly 45 years of his direction."
HistoryLink.org- the Free Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History


So, Robertson answered to Skilling, apparently until he was made a partner.
Leslie Robertson is often represented as the lead engineer in the engineering firm that designed the Twin Towers: Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson. Robertson has become an apologist for the official story, while the actual lead architect, John Skilling, is not alive to defend his buildings, having died in 1998.
Skilling seemed to remember considering fires in his analysis, but Robertson was not remembering any of it.

The controversy caused by contradicting statements is further detailed in an analysis of contradictions in statements by Building Designer Leslie Robertson--
What the World Trade Center Building Designers Said: Before and After 9/11

(Between Early 1984 and October 1985): Office of Special Planning Studies Vulnerability of WTC to Terrorist Attack


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), spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability. According to New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton, when Edward O’Sullivan, head of the OSP, looks at WTC security, he finds “one vulnerability after another. Explosive charges could be placed at key locations in the power system. Chemical or biological agents could be dropped into the coolant system. The Hudson River water intake could be blown up. Someone might even try to infiltrate the large and vulnerable subterranean realms of the World Trade Center site.” In particular, “There was no control at all over access to the underground, two-thousand-car parking garage.” 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.” [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004] The OSP will issue its report called “Counter-Terrorism Perspectives: The World Trade Center” late in 1985 (see November 1985).
Leslie Robertson



Between September 3, 2001 and September 7, 2001: WTC Structural Engineer Says Trade Center Designed for 707 Crashing Into It--
Leslie Robertson. [Source: Publicity photo]Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the Twin Towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, “I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,” though does not elaborate further. [Chicago Tribune, 9/12/2001; Knight Ridder, 9/12/2001] The Twin Towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane. [Robertson, 3/2002; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. 1-17] The Boeing 707 was the largest in use when the towers were designed. Robertson conducted a study in late 1964, to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers. He concluded that the tower would remain standing. However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly. [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 138-139, 366]

Also according to the authors of a book entiled City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center-By James Glanz and Eric Lipton
Robertson says in 1984-5 that there was "little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked." Page 224

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 (see February 27, 1993). In 2002, though, Robertson will write, “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.” [Robertson, 3/2002] The planes that hit the WTC on 9/11 are 767s, which are almost 20 percent heavier than 707s. [Scientific American, 10/9/2001; New Yorker, 11/19/2001]

More contradictions,
In the audio conversation, that I linked, and that Robertson had with Jones, Robertson claims that he had never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal. This statement is also a contradiction, considering the fact that Robertson himself claimed to have seen it in a published news report! This contradicts his own statement about seeing molten metal: Leslie Robertson, one of the structural engineers responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.

"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." -- Leslie Robertson, at the National Conference of Structural Engineers on October 5, 2001, James M. Williams, "WTC A STRUCTURAL SUCCESS," SEAUNEWS, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, Volume VI -- Issue II, October 2001, p.3.


Furthermore,
The World Trade Center (WTC) Towers[1] were the largest buildings ever conceived in 1960.[2] This meant that there was a considerable amount of planning:

“The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1, 200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings… The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure. The design concept is so sound that the structural engineer has been able to be ultra-conservative in his design without adversely affecting the economics of the structure.”[3]

In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the WTC Towers to be “the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind.”[4]

Like many modern structures and buildings, the WTC Towers were over-designed to withstand weight distribution in the event of structural damage. According to calculations made by the engineers who helped with the design of the Twin Towers, “all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.”[5] As well, “Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.

Continue reading at NowPublic.com: The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate Towers should have remained standing on 9/11 | NowPublic News Coverage The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate Towers should have remained standing on 9/11 | NowPublic News Coverage

Thompson explains that “besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.”[18] In fact, many of the building documents are unavailable because “the building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access—and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access—to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns.

It is demonstrable that the WTC building designers claimed that the Twin Towers would survive an event similar to 9/11. Either the WTC building designers were tragically wrong in their calculations and designs, or there is another explanation for the destruction of the WTC Towers. After 9/11, WTC building designer Leslie Robertson has made claims that are contradicted by statements and documents from as many as 40 years ago.
The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate Towers should have remained standing on 9/11 | NowPublic News Coverage

Is Robertson being pressured to lie and make false statements? Was he asked to leak a false statement just before 9/11 about the speed of the planes having an impact on their destruction? Are these contradictions by accident or mistake?

A news report stated that he wanted to give his opinion to the FBI before making his comments public. This in itself is not overly suspiciousbut his contradictions are. No clear answers to these and similar questions can be obtained through speculation alone Leslie Robertson must account for these himself. If another 9/11 investigation is obtained, it is clear that Leslie Robertson will have to answer these and other relevant questions.
What the World Trade Center Building Designers Said: Before and After 9/11

So this shows that my original intention,
to prove that Robertson has said conflicting things before, and after the WTC 9-11 attacks, is valid, and well documented.
Do you still think the designers did not do any analysis concerning plane impacts and the fires from the jet fuel?
You probably will, and in so doing degrade their intelligence to further your stubborn beliefs and assumptions.

Are you still going to ask for any documentation about the "analysis" when even NIST has admitted the difficulty in obtaining such documentation?
All we have is the words of the designers themselves. One who is not alive to comment, but is recorded by many sources to have said considerations and analysis were done, and the other who was hired by the owner of the firm, and who is well documented showing that he likes to change his story?

The engineer who said after the 1993 bombing that the towers could withstand a Boeing 707, Leslie Robertson, was not available for comment yesterday, a partner at his Manhattan firm said.
We're going to hold off on speaking to the media, said the partner, Rick Zottola, at Leslie E. Robertson Associates. We'd like to reserve our first comments to our national security systems, F.B.I. and so on.
Why would he have to wait to speak to the FBI? To get the story straight, and make sure it lines up with the "official accounts"?

I guess that depends on who you choose to believe.

 

[Patriot911]

Aww.... poor fucktard Jones STILL can't show where Robertson "contradicted" himself.

For the record, the towers BOTH withstood an impact far greater than the one that was calculated as has been shown to you numerous times.

So once again you fail on an epic scale.

Anyone surprised?

Anyone?

Anyone?