Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: 9/11/MLK/RFK  (Read 3535 times)

Offline Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 784
Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #10 on: May 26, 2018, 06:56:58 PM »
About 50 feet in width.

I assume that is there are some supports still standing in the 50 foot width you are describing And your explanation for the wings, tail rudder, and engines?
[/quote]

Yes.

[/quote]

That is objective of you

[/quote]
I have not made that assertion.
[/quote]

 If you agree that Skilling, and others at the time of their construction of the towers, represented the leading edge of scientific understandings of building engineering and behavior then the collapse of the towers should have been seen as anomalous in 2001 Therefore it is odd that none of the media made any note of the anomalous nature of said event But the only question I am asking you is in regard to the nature of the NIST explanation. I don't want to put words in your mouth but I assume their failure to either provide a scenario for a global collapse and not making any of their results for peer review, is justified either by the idea that releasing such information could be used by terrorists in future attack or simply concluding that since they collapsed after the impacts of the planes that said proximate cause was the ultimate cause I get that to a degree, but it is not science

 There is also the question of the collapse time I am probably going to explain this more poorly than usual since I have some kidney stone issues and am on meds and it is difficult to explain anyway Maybe I will dig up the You Tube that made it clearer to me The example they used that helped me was simply  showing two automobiles smashing into one another and explaining that the force, as in speed and mass is converted into damage of the vehicles Thus when the towers fell if they destroyed material below them required force to be lost from the upper portion This is why the pancake theory could have worked since it did not really require destruction of the lower portion of the buildings but unfortunately the fact was the material was pulverized Amateur hour is over for now

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #10 on: May 26, 2018, 06:56:58 PM »


Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 871
Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #11 on: May 27, 2018, 01:49:02 AM »
I assume that is there are some supports still standing in the 50 foot width you are describing


Hmmm...I think not.  Although,  it's hard to tell from the images.

Quote
And your explanation for the wings, tail rudder, and engines?

The wings folded back towards the fuselage. Do the tail rudder and engines need explaining? I'm not positive about this but I seem to recall that the engines were found at the exterior of the building.

Quote
If you agree that Skilling, and others at the time of their construction of the towers, represented the leading edge of scientific understandings of building engineering and behavior then the collapse of the towers should have been seen as anomalous in 2001 Therefore it is odd that none of the media made any note of the anomalous nature of said event But the only question I am asking you is in regard to the nature of the NIST explanation. I don't want to put words in your mouth but I assume their failure to either provide a scenario for a global collapse and not making any of their results for peer review, is justified either by the idea that releasing such information could be used by terrorists in future attack or simply concluding that since they collapsed after the impacts of the planes that said proximate cause was the ultimate cause I get that to a degree, but it is not science

 There is also the question of the collapse time I am probably going to explain this more poorly than usual since I have some kidney stone issues and am on meds and it is difficult to explain anyway Maybe I will dig up the You Tube that made it clearer to me The example they used that helped me was simply  showing two automobiles smashing into one another and explaining that the force, as in speed and mass is converted into damage of the vehicles Thus when the towers fell if they destroyed material below them required force to be lost from the upper portion This is why the pancake theory could have worked since it did not really require destruction of the lower portion of the buildings but unfortunately the fact was the material was pulverized Amateur hour is over for now

Skilling's statement in 1993 was lacking in detail. The claim was that the buildings were built to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707 and from the burning of the fuel within the building. That's it. Nothing more was offered. But surely an impact at the 106th story level would result in different stress variables than an impact at the level of the 80th floor or lower. What was the velocity of the impacting 707? How much fuel was onboard? How many passengers were on board?

Are you familiar with Leslie Robertson? He was the lead structural engineer for the construction of the twin towers.


I won't try to speak for NIST. As far as explanations for the tower collapses go, I recall reading a paper by an engineer by the name of Frank Greening. It was fairly easy to understand and was quite convincing. I can look it up for you if you like. Greening also wrote a critique of NIST's building 7 collapse theory.

Offline Richard Rubio

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #12 on: May 27, 2018, 03:10:56 PM »
RFK Jr. seriously questioning the events of the RFK assassination:

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Who-killed-Bobby-Kennedy-His-son-RFK-Jr-doesn-t-12946227.php
« Last Edit: May 27, 2018, 04:29:59 PM by Richard Rubio »

Offline Richard Rubio

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #13 on: May 27, 2018, 04:35:20 PM »
Michael Medved has as a regular feature on his show, "Conspiracy Thursday" (or Wednesday,  I forget which day)... when 911 truthers call, he refers them to the Popular Mechanics debunking of 911, for whatever that's worth.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a49/1227842/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

I see other links out there, some alleging to debunk what Popular Mechanics said. Since, I am not going through these links thoroughly and have no idea what kind of websites they are, I would say, one can find them for oneself.

Offline Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 784
Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #14 on: May 27, 2018, 07:43:22 PM »
 Tim Said

Skilling's statement in 1993 was lacking in detail. The claim was that the buildings were built to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707 and from the burning of the fuel within the building. That's it. Nothing more was offered. But surely an impact at the 106th story level would result in different stress variables than an impact at the level of the 80th floor or lower. What was the velocity of the impacting 707? How much fuel was onboard? How many passengers were on board?

Are you familiar with Leslie Robertson? He was the lead structural engineer for the construction of the twin towers.

 Tim I find this response really disappointing especially calling into question Skilling's credentials

  Nothing else was offered?
 He was doing an interview with a newspaper Did you expect him to bring blueprints with him Sorry if there is some sarcasm here, but it is a real question  Yes I know of Robertson and his study which examined a smaller plane, but Skilling did his own calculations and they are spelled out to a so called White Paper from 64. Official story folks will point to fact that the document is not signed by Skilling That begs the question who else would be doing a study on the WTC other than the person who said he did at this time Yes stress variables can be different under various circumstances, but the redundancy of support apparatus is beyond these minor variables by many order of magnitude  In general all the floors, beams, and the exterior shell are consistent throughout the structure, so which floor an impact occurs is relatively meaningless

 Leslie Roberton Lead engineer
 John Skilling CHIEF Engineer

 If you read the following links you will see Robertson as saying the WTC would likely survive any type of attack before 2001

 Is it really your suggestion and his engineers never made blueprints and the kind of structural calculations you are looking for? The fact that they are not publicly available is a surprise? Hate to say it Tim but it seems like you are just lapping out the rhetoric of the debunkers websites Occasionally I draw a firm line with my opinions, and my suggestion here is that if you cannot except that the designers of the WTC, who are clearly some of the top credentialed engineers on the planet at the time, made clear claims that they were as good as certain it would withstand a fully fueled jetliner , and that was the standing science of the time then I believe this is a pretty clear indicator that your biases have gotten the better of you

 It is not the end of the game to admit that Skilling and the WTC designers did build a structure that by all scientific expectations should have easily survived the impacts and fires Maybe they were wrong, but the overriding point is the onus is on NIST to create some extraordinary proof for the extraordinary claim that the existing science of the time was so far off


http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #14 on: May 27, 2018, 07:43:22 PM »


Offline Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 784
Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #15 on: May 27, 2018, 08:35:29 PM »
RFK Jr. seriously questioning the events of the RFK assassination:

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Who-killed-Bobby-Kennedy-His-son-RFK-Jr-doesn-t-12946227.php

 Hi Richard that is good news thanks for posting it  Perhaps you saw I am struggling with a kidney stone I posted that mostly to explain to Tim i am a bit off my game While it is almost a burden to think and type it does serve as a nice discretion from the pain I am not sure if you want to discuss anything in particular The whole Sirhan, and whether he was mind controlled, in some manner is kind of a category to itself Not sure if you knew RFK left film director John Frankenheimer's house in Malibu before going to the Ambassador hotel that fateful night Frankenheimer's film the Manchurian Candidate the film deals with a sleeper agent who will blindly obey orders without any memory of his actions,and carries out political assassinations Maybe not significant in any practical way, but the coincidence seems like a bit of mind bender to say the least

Offline Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 784
Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #16 on: May 27, 2018, 09:34:12 PM »
 From Larry Teeter's site


As a result of both (1) the blackmailing of defense attorney Cooper and his resultant collaboration with the prosecution and (2) the systematic withholding and falsification of evidence by the prosecution, the jury which convicted Sirhan never knew the following:

1. Senator Kennedy was shot in the back and from behind. Yet all witnesses placed Sirhan as standing face-to-face in front of RFK.

2. Sirhan's gun was placed by all witnesses at between 2 and 5 feet from the victim, but the autopsy report states that the distance between the assailant's gun and the victim was between 1 and 2 inches.

3. The shots entering the victim's body were fired at a sharp upward angle, but the defendant was seen by all witnesses to hold his gun horizontally.

4. The autopsy report which exonerates the defendant was withheld from the court and the defense by prosecutors for at least four months, until after defense counsel had conceded to the jury that their client was the killer--something which the autopsy report demonstrates to be impossible.

5. Thane Eugene Cesar, a recently-hired part-time private security guard who worked full-time for Lockheed Aircraft, admitted to police that he was standing behind and in actual contact with Senator Kennedy, that he dropped down into a crouching position and that he pulled his gun when the shooting began. This account puts the security guard and not the defendant in position to have shot RFK.

6. Cesar falsely advised police that he had sold his .22 revolver before the crime. A receipt proves that it was actually sold after the crime. One witness, media assistant Don Schulman, stated that Cesar actually fired his gun during the assassination. The prosecution ignored and even pressured this witness along with others whose accounts suggested a conspiracy.

7. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) never test fired Cesar's gun or even asked to see it once Cesar admitted having been in position to have fired the shots which struck RFK. The FBI was later told that the gun had been stolen from the home of the person who purchased it from Cesar.

8. The police inventory accounted for eight .22 cal. bullets discharged at the crime scene. Seven were removed from victims, and the eighth was described as having been lost in the ceiling.
A police officer observed police criminalists dig two bullets out of a door frame in the pantry area within which the victim was killed, bringing to 10 the total number of shots that were fired during the attack.

9. These extra bullets were never disclosed to the defense or the court and were never mentioned in the police property report. The police and prosecution have continued to deny their existence.

10. FBI documents describe holes depicted in the pantry door frame as "bullet holes", and William Bailey, the first FBI agent on the scene, has stated that he saw a bullet in one such hole. An AP photograph shows a bullet lodged in a door frame.

11. The police continue to maintain that only one gun was fired during the attack. The FBI has never deviated from its endorsement of this view, which is inconsistent with its own photographs and inventory as well as the observations of the first FBI agent on the crime scene.

12. The police test fired two different weapons and obtained test shots from both but have continued to claim that only one gun was involved in the case.

13. A police photograph with the police "DR number" for this case shows a different weapon than the one introduced into evidence at trial.

14. The second gun that was test fired by police as though it had been recovered at the crime scene was in police custody even before the attack.

15. The police continued to claim that this gun was available to the defense during the trial. However, it was actually destroyed by police within less than 2 months after the assassination, long before the trial's commencement.

16. The police created a "comparison photomicrograph" ("Special Exhibit 10") which they claimed showed a match between a test bullet fired from the defendant's gun and the bullet that was removed from the murder victim's neck. In 1975, a panel of experts concluded that this photomicrograph showed a match between two different victim bullets. A report prepared during this 1975 examination proves that the bullets viewed by the experts at that time were actually different from the ones that were removed from the victims in this case. Thus, the police created a photograph showing a match between two fake victim bullets and then claimed that their exhibit proved the defendant's guilt. This photograph depicting fraudulent bullets was made less than 48 hours after the assassination.

17. Although security guards left the scene without their guns being checked, a 15 year old who photographed the attack was thrown to the ground and arrested at gun point. His camera and film were seized. No photographs of the attack were ever made available to the defense or the court. (When the photographer, James Scott Enyart, requested the return of his films from the State Archives 20 years later, he was told that his films were probably among 2,410 photographs connected with this case that were burned by police in a hospital incinerator less than 3 months after the attack. Enyart brought suit. Police investigators then claimed to have themselves found the young photographer's pictures at the Archives. Because these photographs did not show the shooting itself and were taken on film different from the film he used, the photographer requested their transport to Los Angeles so that they could be examined for possible signs of alteration or substitution. The suspect photographs then disappeared after supposedly being stolen from the car of a state-selected courier. A Los Angeles jury awarded the photographer over half a million dollars in a verdict. The verdict was successfully appealed, but the City settled rather than risk a retrial.)

Apologists for the prosecution like to assert that only honest mistakes were made. Yet our petitions and exhibits demonstrate a number of instances in which the prosecution and police engaged in demonstrably intentional misconduct. Here are some examples--in addition to the overriding fact that defense counsel was blackmailed by the prosecution and made a deal to save himself (see above):

1. Withholding a document showing that according to a police officer witness, someone followed Sirhan into a police firing range on June 1, 1968 (three days before election day) and signed Sirhan's name into the roster to show practice-firing by the fall-guy-to-be! In other words, Sirhan had a handler (see below). The defense never saw this document, which I found in 2002.

2. Concocting Special Exhibit 10; (See paragraph 16 above).

3. Withholding the autopsy report until after defense counsel had conceded Sirhan's status as the assassin--a concession that is refuted by the autopsy report itself;

4. Lying to the court in December of 1968 by falsely representing that the autopsy report, which was completed in September or October of 1968, was not yet available;

5. Incinerating 2,410 assassination-related photographs;

6. Suppressing a photograph of a second gun connected with this case;

7. Suppressing extra bullets removed from the crime scene door frames, door jam and possibly ceiling panels;

8. Destroying the pantry door frames, door jam and ceiling panels before Sirhan's appeal process even commenced;

9. After admitting in the judge's chambers that the prosecution could not authenticate the bullets supposedly involved in the crime, offering substitute bullets into evidence, without disclosing that they were fraudulent (see paragraph 16 above).

10. Destroying the second gun during the month after the assassination and then suppressing the fact of this destruction;

11. Test firing the second gun as a crime scene weapon and then suppressing the fact that test bullets used for police identification purposes were the result of this test firing.

12. Withholding the entire Sheriff's Department file on this case from the defense prior to and during the trial;

13. Withholding from the defense the vast bulk of the LAPD and FBI files on this case;

14. Offering into evidence a gun that was never identified as Sirhan's by any witness and which was materially different from the weapon observed in Sirhan's possession at a gun range on election day by the only witness to describe Sirhan's gun with any specificity.

I have listed only some of the instances in which the prosecution intentionally and deliberately suppressed, altered, destroyed or fabricated material evidence prior to, during or immediately following the trial. There are many acts of misconduct which have taken place during and since that time.

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 871
Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #17 on: May 27, 2018, 10:15:43 PM »

Tim I find this response really disappointing especially calling into question Skilling's credentials

Matt, I have not questioned Skilling's credentials. In fact, I acknowledged them when I agreed that Skilling was one of the leading engineers of the time.

 
Quote
Nothing else was offered?
 He was doing an interview with a newspaper Did you expect him to bring blueprints with him Sorry if there is some sarcasm here, but it is a real question


Yes, nothing else was offered. I'm not criticizing him for it. I'm just stating a fact.

Quote
Yes I know of Robertson and his study which examined a smaller plane,

A smaller plane? Robertson's paper examined a Boeing 707 and compared it to other aircraft.

 
Quote
but Skilling did his own calculations and they are spelled out to a so called White Paper from 64. Official story folks will point to fact that the document is not signed by Skilling That begs the question who else would be doing a study on the WTC other than the person who said he did at this time Yes stress variables can be different under various circumstances, but the redundancy of support apparatus is beyond these minor variables by many order of magnitude  In general all the floors, beams, and the exterior shell are consistent throughout the structure, so which floor an impact occurs is relatively meaningless

What is this White Paper from 64 that you refer to and where can I find it?

 
Quote
Leslie Roberton Lead engineer
 John Skilling CHIEF Engineer

Ok. The former offered detail about what they looked at in regards to a 707 impact. The latter did not.

Quote
If you read the following links you will see Robertson as saying the WTC would likely survive any type of attack before 2001

http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html


Sorry but I clicked on the link and don't see where Robertson said the WTC would likely survive any type of attack before 2001. You're going to have to highlight the statement for me.

 
Quote
Is it really your suggestion and his engineers never made blueprints and the kind of structural calculations you are looking for?

Yes it is. They never made calculations for every possible scenario of a Boeing 707 impact. They looked at one possible scenario only. That being a Boeing 707 traveling in the fog and at a low speed striking the building at one of the top floor levels.

Quote
The fact that they are not publicly available is a surprise? Hate to say it Tim but it seems like you are just lapping out the rhetoric of the debunkers websites Occasionally I draw a firm line with my opinions, and my suggestion here is that if you cannot except that the designers of the WTC, who are clearly some of the top credentialed engineers on the planet at the time, made clear claims that they were as good as certain it would withstand a fully fueled jetliner , and that was the standing science of the time then I believe this is a pretty clear indicator that your biases have gotten the better of you

Top credentialed engineers on the planet at the time did NOT make clear claims that they were as good as certain it would withstand a fully fueled Boeing 767 jetliner traveling at full speed.

Quote
It is not the end of the game to admit that Skilling and the WTC designers did build a structure that by all scientific expectations should have easily survived the impacts and fires Maybe they were wrong, but the overriding point is the onus is on NIST to create some extraordinary proof for the extraordinary claim that the existing science of the time was so far off

Skilling and the WTC designers did not build the towers to survive the impacts of fully loaded and fully throttled Boeing 767s.

Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pvEge5HPJU

"I believe that the building probably could sustain"


Oh yeah, that's convincing.  ::)

« Last Edit: May 27, 2018, 10:19:47 PM by Tim Nickerson »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #17 on: May 27, 2018, 10:15:43 PM »


Offline Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 784
Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #18 on: May 27, 2018, 11:04:24 PM »
Matt, I have not questioned Skilling's credentials. In fact, I acknowledged them when I agreed that Skilling was one of the leading engineers of the time.

 Very Good to hear that reinforced

 Maybe you can clarify your concern with seeing the exact technical analysis he did? Or is your question just more general and you nee a little more on what his ideas were in the the buildings resiliency in regards to a jetliner impact And finally I assume there is no reason to believe an expert of this stature did not do what he said he did Could you demonstrate that such an analysis should be available to the public We both agree that it would be nice to have some of said analyses, but up to this point I fail to see their absence as in anyway dismissive that experts did what they said they did

Tim Said
A smaller plane? Robertson's paper examined a Boeing 707 and compared it to other aircraft.

  This of little consequence unless you are claiming this somehow has bearing on what Skilling stated



Tim said
Ok. The former offered detail about what they looked at in regards to a 707 impact. The latter did not.

 The former was alive to do so


Tim said

Yes it is. They never made calculations for every possible scenario of a Boeing 707 impact

  How do you know? Robertson?

 Further possibilities have parameters If I building can carry live loads then you will need something in excess of that load do you have any evidence of such a load

Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 9 


Tim also said

. They looked at one possible scenario only. That being a Boeing 707 traveling in the fog and at a low speed striking the building at one of the top floor levels.

 This is Robertson quoting his analysis


Tim said
Top credentialed engineers on the planet at the time did NOT make clear claims that they were as good as certain it would withstand a fully fueled Boeing 767 jetliner traveling at full speed.

 Who are DeMartini and Skilling?


 Skilling and the WTC designers did not build the towers to survive the impacts of fully loaded and fully throttled Boeing 767s.


 Did you look at the calculation regarding the size, speed, and amount of fuel that is shown on the link


 The quotes from the bottom link have the calculations from the White Paper I have seen it online once somewhere, but imagine why it might be difficult to find

 In regard to Robertson he first quotes the 180 MPH publicly days before 9/11 where was he in 93 when the structural integrity of the towers was very much up for concern, and Skilling makes a very public statement that Robertson had to have heard With so much on the line he chose not to say anything Yes the link for the other quote of Robertson is missing, perhaps part of fake news cleansing project
« Last Edit: May 28, 2018, 12:13:54 AM by Matt Grantham »

Offline Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 784
Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #19 on: May 27, 2018, 11:33:02 PM »

"I believe that the building probably could sustain"


Oh yeah, that's convincing.  ::)


 Well so far you have not officially discredited Skilling, but I assume we can say you have chosen to do so with DeMartini Do you know something more about this than he did?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #19 on: May 27, 2018, 11:33:02 PM »


Support The Forum - Make A Small Donation