Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: 9/11/MLK/RFK  (Read 30809 times)

Offline Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 902
Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #8 on: May 26, 2018, 04:11:03 AM »
Advertisement
Through the hole that it made in it.



 
What is the convincing proof that the towers should have remained standing?

What is the size of the hole ?

 Do you agree Skilling was one of leading engineers of the time and made his calculations based on established science This is the starting point in the discussion 

 Are you asserting NIST ever made a calculation for the entire global collapse of the structures?
« Last Edit: May 26, 2018, 04:23:39 AM by Matt Grantham »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #8 on: May 26, 2018, 04:11:03 AM »


Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #9 on: May 26, 2018, 05:49:03 AM »
What is the size of the hole ?

About 50 feet in width.

Quote
Do you agree Skilling was one of leading engineers of the time and made his calculations based on established science This is the starting point in the discussion 

Yes.

Quote
Are you asserting NIST ever made a calculation for the entire global collapse of the structures?

I have not made that assertion.

Offline Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 902
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: 1824
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

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
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 »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: 9/11/MLK/RFK
« Reply #12 on: May 27, 2018, 03:10:56 PM »


Offline Richard Rubio

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
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: 902
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: 902
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