by sammielee24 217 Replies latest members politics
If popular mechanics had agreed with your view, would you still talk about them in the same way?
The 911 truthers have alot of evidence, Popular Mechanics did a one sided hit piece on them.
"Instead of an Add-Hominem, perhaps you should consider the technical questions"
Perhaps, because I really see people like the 911 truth movement on the front lines of a bigger fight for free speech and transparancy in government. edited
This is a nutjob magnet thread. Have fun.
This is a nutjob magnet thread. Have fun
Yeah look at the number of hits, people can't stay away.
RGB: "The 911 truthers have alot of evidence, Popular Mechanics did a one sided hit piece on them.".
Such as? Lets return to your statement: "All Time Jeff, the building construction manager of the Trade Towers said the buildings were built to withstand several jets flying into them.". The person who performed the calculation was called Leslie Robertson and was the lead structural engineer.
According to Robertson, he took his time AFTER the buildings had been designed to calculate if they could withstand the impact of a large jetliner (namely a 707, roughly the same size as the 747 that impacted the towers 40 years later). His assumptions was that the jetliner was last in the fog and was which would therefore impact the towers at relatively low speed (180mph vs. 450mph for the actual jetliner).
Notice there is a difference of a factor 6.2 in the kinetic energy of the two collisions (assuming equal mass). That is quite a differene!
The port authorities later (in the 60's) exagerated this claim to be 600mph, but robertson has later said this was not true: he never performed a calculation at that velocity. Unfortunately Robertsons original report has been lost.
Notice the last points are quite mood: The towers DID withstand the impact of a large jet. It did not withstand the effect of the resulting fire, something Robertson did not consider by his own admission.
So this raise the following 4 central questions:
I look forward to your response.
questions:Who is the "the building construction manager" you are referring to, and what did he exactly say? Specifically: What type of impact (velocity/mass of plane) did he anticipate? Did the study take into account the effect of a fire? (THE central questions. I would like to see quotes from people who have actually seen the report on this, because according to the person who alledgedly performed the calculation, that was NOT taken into account)I look forward to your response.
Frank DeMartini WTF Construction Manager, he disappered after 911 assumed dead in the building, but if I can come across any of the original studies on it I will post it or pm it to you.
BTW: Some of the firefighters reported that most of the fires in the Tower they were in had been put out by the sprinkler system by the time they arrived.
If you go to u tube and put in Frank DeMartini you should pull up the video of him saying what I said he said. or maybe this link will work...
Frank A. Demartini:] ?The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.? Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.[8]
edited
Thank your for the information RGB.
Frank A. DeMartini was hired after the 1993 bombing by Leslie Robertson and had NO connection to the original study by Robertson. Thus it appear he is quoting Robertson and perhaps the articles released by the Port authorities in the 1960's (also based on Robertsons study allthough they appear to report a wrong figure for the speed of airliner in question).
Thus i will maintain that Robertsons study is the only study of an airline impact with the WTC and according to Robertson himself he 1) based his calculation on a lower airspeed (but his conclusion remained valid, the WTC remained standing after the impact itself) and 2) did not take the effect of the fire into account.
Will you agree that the only detailed study on the effect or an airliner impact was done by Leslie Robertson and it did not take the effect of a major fire into account?
"? Robertson claims that the building was designed to only survive plane crashes at speeds of 180 mph. Interestingly he made this claim only a few days before 9/11.[14]A quote by Building Designer Skilling indicates that ?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?.[15]Robertson must resolve this apparent contradiction. It is a very suspicious statement given the fact that it would be reasonable to consider the maximum speed of a plane flying into the Twin Towers. Is it possible that Robertson was asked to leak this ?deliberately misleading information? just before 9/11? However, this is just speculation. 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.?[16"
How could you anticipate a jet plane crashing into the building and not anticipate a major fire following it? edited
RGB: Instead of implying it, how about saying it directly - Was Leslie Robertson a part of the conspiracy?
The WTC could withstand the impact of a jetliner at 450mph. That we know for sure; the experiment was performed twice. I dont question that!
What i ask is if a study was ever done regarding the effect of an impact and a large fire. We have Leslie Robertsons word that such a study was never done - the only alternative is that a) someone else made such a study (who, when, how, if the study done in 1964 was not done by Robertson?) or b) He did actually make such a study, but never mentioned he took into account the fire, nor did he show it to anyone, nor did he write about it otherwhere, and today he is lying about it.
There is also the alternative c) that no study regarding the fire was ever performed.
Which one is it?
And on a personal note - I dont think the accusation that a person is willing to cover up the murder of 3000 men, women and children should be made lightly or without very convincing evidence.
?[Building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could 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.? But, he says, ?The building structure would still be there.?[4]
?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]
