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

Author Topic: 9/11/MLK/RFK  (Read 3536 times)

Offline Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 784
Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #20 on: May 28, 2018, 12:26:00 AM »
“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.”[7]

[Leslie Robertson:] “The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.”[8]

Also suspicious is the fact that he said in 1984-5 that there was “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”[17]- Reference link not found by my server

“The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.”[5]

And then there is this
“The Boeing 707 was the largest in use when the towers were designed. [Leslie] 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. [Robertson] concluded that the tower would remain standing. However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly.”[10]

 At least Robertson was alive and should have known what happened to his analysis

 I am interested on what has happened on the references for Robertson quote of 84-85, and am also annoyed by the so called truther communities ability to network with one another to answer mysteries such as this So hopefully i might get some response


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.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. 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. ...
« Last Edit: May 28, 2018, 12:38:48 AM by Matt Grantham »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #20 on: May 28, 2018, 12:26:00 AM »


Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 871
Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #21 on: May 28, 2018, 06:07:33 AM »

 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]

I can't understand what you were trying to say in that.

Quote
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

It has direct bearing on what Skilling stated. Robertson's paper explains the scenario that they considered with the 707.

Quote
The former was alive to do so

Correct.

Quote
Tim said

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

  How do you know? Robertson?

Yes.

Quote
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 

I have no idea where you got that from. I'll wait for a link to it before I comment any further on it. The same goes for anything else that you do not properly source.

Quote
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

That is correct.

Quote
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?

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

Yes.

 
Quote
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

Are you questioning the integrity of Leslie Robertson?

Matt, you really should try to learn the use of the quote function.

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 871
Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #22 on: May 28, 2018, 06:36:25 AM »
Matt,



This is how it will look:


Offline Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 784
Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #23 on: May 28, 2018, 04:12:08 PM »
 Thank you for trying to assist me with the quote function and i agree it is a problem At the same time this tred is so fragmented i am not sure it is a good place to practice For the moment I just want to address this

 DeMartini and Skilling 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.

 I assume you are relying on the term at full speed as "an operative term" that was missing from their statements?  Are saying the Feb 3 1964 is not authored by Skilling? Full speed is certainly cited in that paper

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 871
Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #24 on: May 28, 2018, 09:48:57 PM »
Thank you for trying to assist me with the quote function and i agree it is a problem At the same time this tred is so fragmented i am not sure it is a good place to practice For the moment I just want to address this

 DeMartini and Skilling 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.

 I assume you are relying on the term at full speed as "an operative term" that was missing from their statements?  Are saying the Feb 3 1964 is not authored by Skilling? Full speed is certainly cited in that paper

By "Feb 3 1964" I assume you mean the White Paper that you referred to previously. Without seeing the White Paper itself, I cannot comment on it.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #24 on: May 28, 2018, 09:48:57 PM »


Offline Mike Orr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #25 on: June 03, 2018, 03:22:23 AM »
There are many who feel that the 4 jets crashing on 9/11 was a False Flag operation that had nothing to do with hijackers or Osama Bin Laden . Not one jet engine was found at any of the four crash sights . The Twin Towers and Bldng. 7 all fell at free fall speed ( 9 to 10 seconds ). The so-called jet that hit the Pentagon at first left about a 15 to 17 foot hole until the collapse of the surrounding area.

Offline Jack Nessan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #26 on: June 03, 2018, 03:58:56 AM »
There are many who feel that the 4 jets crashing on 9/11 was a False Flag operation that had nothing to do with hijackers or Osama Bin Laden . Not one jet engine was found at any of the four crash sights . The Twin Towers and Bldng. 7 all fell at free fall speed ( 9 to 10 seconds ). The so-called jet that hit the Pentagon at first left about a 15 to 17 foot hole until the collapse of the surrounding area.


If you haven't already you should watch the History Channel Documentary "The Road to 911" especially the last few episodes. In the end the FBI agents accuse the CIA of helping the terrorists. It is stated the reason why we needed to attack Iraq is because there is not enough places to bomb in Afghanistan. The biggest question is the part where the CIA financially broke Bin Laden, he then winds up in a cave in Afghanistan supposedly financing terrorists with no money. At any rate the history that led to 911 is interesting.

Offline Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 784
Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #27 on: June 03, 2018, 04:03:58 AM »
 I agree the whole is smaller Those who argue for a larger hole seem to be referring  a fifty area where you see damage but not a continuous span where all the supporting posts and other facial components are intact at intervals along the way This whole does not seem to be a hole in the common sense, certainly not the type of wholes we see at WTC which shows the clear outline of the plane, As far as the wing folding, well I don't believe there were previous examples of this phenomenon nor were the wings found inside the building

 Good point about the engines. I though there was a story about an engine that was discovered right at the bottom of one of the towers before the collapse The story was quite fishy, and included witness who claimed trucks pulled up to the area with some tarps or something to hide their activity I can't find it know, and sense the 9/11 community has no way of talking to one another I may give up on it

 No black boxes being found is also a stark anomaly to say the least If one says nothing else about 9/11 is that virtually every expectation on could have had both regarding the people involved but the way objects behaved as well

 Have you ever looked at the Ace Baker stuff? I would not even consider it until a couple of years ago, but will save my opinion for now

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #27 on: June 03, 2018, 04:03:58 AM »


Offline Richard Rubio

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #28 on: June 03, 2018, 04:40:53 AM »
Quote
Why wasn't one single black box recovered from any of the crashes on 9/11? Because… you aren’t paying attention.

Both recorders were recovered from Flight 77, right at the point it hit the outer wall of the Pentagon and disintegrated. All data was recovered from the flight data recorder’s solid state drive, but the magnetic tape in the cockpit voice recorder was, well, this:

Continued at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/02/13/why-wasnt-one-single-black-box-recovered-from-any-of-the-crashes-on-911/#e3810191be3b

Offline Richard Rubio

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #29 on: June 03, 2018, 04:42:10 AM »
There is pretty compelling information that Saddam was committing genocide against the Kurds, that's not why we went in there; but I do think we should always fight genocide when we can, "Never Again".

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #29 on: June 03, 2018, 04:42:10 AM »


Support The Forum - Make A Small Donation