Here's what I posted the last time Rosie's nonsense was posted here:
She starts out by claiming that "ALL" the steel was removed and shipped off to "Canada" ... er ... "China", "right away". She says there is no metal to test. That is absolutely false. Hundreds of structural engineers and other investigators had plenty of time to visit the WTC site and see the steel insitu, before the steel was removed. Then it went to Fresh Kill where again they got to examine it and retain those samples they considered important to understanding what happened. And tens of thousands of pieces of steel are still being retained for historical purposes and future studies. Rosie is either uninformed or a partisan liar.
Next, in the video, she says that WTC 7 "got hit by nothing". She's either uninformed or a liar. It got hit by significant amounts of debris from the collapse of the towers. That debris ripped a huge hole out of the south side of building. According to the firemen who where on the scene, a 20 story high hole.
Then she claims there were "pools of molten steel" under all three buildings. Well I challenge you to name a single eyewitness who has actually and verifiably used the word "pool" to describe what they saw. I challenge you to name a single expert in fire or steel who says finding molten steel was impossible given the circumstances. I challenge you to tell us what kept any steel that was molten, molten for over 6 weeks after the collapse. Rosie seems to think it was bombs. Show me how that might work.
Next, she claims it took the towers "9 seconds" to fall and that is the same as "free-fall". Well her claim is FALSE. From numerous credible sources (including actual videos of the collapse which one can time) one can learn that the towers actually took about 15 seconds to collapse. One can look at hundreds of still images of the collapses and immediately see that there was debris free-falling much faster than the collapsing level of the towers were descending. She surely has to have seen these images. So Rosie is either a liar or hasn't bothered to apply the least bit of thought to interpreting what she saw or the least bit of energy into investigating the issue.
So not only do professionals in the areas of structures, demolition, materials, fire or macro-world physics NOT agree with Rosie. The facts of the matter don't either. All she is really doing is hurting the effort to find out what really happened on 9/11. There are good questions to ask but if *truthers* make no effort to stop idiots like Rosie from muddying the water with nonsense and lies, you will never find the truth. People like her are the *truth* movement's worst enemy.
And in anticipation of nolu_chan's "notice", let me add:
: Truth Movement members almost seem unable to post articles that aren't deceptive or contain outright lies about what happened to the WTC structures and the Pentagon. And they seem to have particular trouble dealing with visual materials that prove their claims false. Why is that?
They continue to claim the towers collapsed in 10 seconds when video clearly shows they took 15 seconds to collapse. They continue to claim the entrance hole in the Pentagon was less than 20 feet across when photos convincingly prove it was closer to 90 feet. They continue to make an assortment of similar, demonstrably false claims despite all efforts to get them to change their ways.
Why can't *truthers* face the truth? They (and we) will never find out what really happened on 9/11, if they can't do that. Because a *Truth Movement* cannot be founded on disinformation and outright lies. That should be obvious to all. But apparently they can't see that either. It is sad.
#21. To: BeAChooser, Nolu Chan, Christine, Zipporah, Kamala, Red Jones, SKYDRIFTER, Everyone Interested In How Silly The Government's Official Collapse Story REALLY Sounds (#1)
So not only do professionals in the areas of structures, demolition, materials, fire or macro-world physics NOT agree with Rosie. The facts of the matter don't either.
I wonder if someone had asked EVERY structural engineer and demolition expert in the world prior to 9/11 if it would work to bring down a structure like one of the twin towers by flying a large jet into the top third of it, how many would have said "Hey - that MIGHT work!"?????
Answer: PROBABLY NOT A SINGLE ONE WOULD HAVE.....
BUT, demolition experts the world over should be VERY thankful to OBL, and those 19 Mooslim cohorts that set out to prove the worlds "experts" wrong!!! They showed that not only DOES it work, but with an extremely high success rate! In fact, 100% success rate (it would have worked on the Pentagon too, but that one was a little to "sprawled out")!
Just think of all the profit potential this has for demolition firms... Hell, all they need is to purchase some decommissioned aircraft; have it outfitted with remote control capability (Systems Planning Corporation - [Zakheim's old haunt] can help them with that, it's their specialty); buy 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (around 30 grand at today's prices); and in less than 2 hours have that sucker down!!!!! It'll save god-only-knows how many man-hours rigging buildings for weeks and months in advance, plus the costs of the explosives themselves, and the need for high paid professionals to handle those explosives. And that's for one of the world's LARGEST structures!! Why shit, if it's a small enough eye-sore (like a 20 story run-down old office they need to "take out" to make room for a parking lot for the new bank) they could probably even get by with a little old twin-engine Cessna - and get the job done REALLY dirt cheap!!!
Wonder when Controled Demolition Inc is gonna start using this newfound technology???
I wonder if someone had asked EVERY structural engineer and demolition expert in the world prior to 9/11 if it would work to bring down a structure like one of the twin towers by flying a large jet into the top third of it, how many would have said "Hey - that MIGHT work!"?????
Answer: PROBABLY NOT A SINGLE ONE WOULD HAVE.....
Actually, I think you are wrong, in part because some structural engineers and demolition experts came forward right after 911 saying that they knew right away that the towers were in trouble.
http://www.usatoday.com/community/chat/2002-04-29-klein.htm "Why the Towers Fell': Larry Klein ... snip ... I had a chance to listen to someone who specializes in taking buildings down (imploding them), and he stated that when he saw the damage to the Towers he knew they were coming down, and he tried to call the New York City emergency agency and couldn't get through."
And if you told the rest of those professionals what we now know ... that the planes would impact the building at nearly maximum velocity, that the impact would shatter numerous structural members and severely damage fireproofing coatings on the remaining steel, that the planes had nearly full fuel tanks, that the fire suppression systems would NOT be functional in the towers, that fire fighters would be unable to reach and fight the fires either ... then I suspect a great many more would have had doubts about the structures, too.
This is what you quoted from innieway in your reply to him:
I wonder if someone had asked EVERY structural engineer and demolition expert in the world prior to 9/11 if it would work to bring down a structure like one of the twin towers by flying a large jet into the top third of it, how many would have said "Hey - that MIGHT work!"?????
Answer: PROBABLY NOT A SINGLE ONE WOULD HAVE.....
And the first line of your answer:
Actually, I think you are wrong, in part because some structural engineers and demolition experts came forward right after 911 saying that they knew right away that the towers were in trouble.
I guess you are still trying to learn the kindergarten version of the dictionary, yes, the one with all the full color pretty pictures in it.
I figured I would clue you in before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself than you already are (if at all possible) - but prior is the opposite of after.
I figured I would clue you in before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself than you already are (if at all possible) - but prior is the opposite of after.
ladybug, don't you think that what the experts said shortly after the collapse might be an indication of what they would have said before the collapse ... PROVIDED they knew all the facts we now know about the situation?
In other words (and I clarify this only because you seem to have had difficulty understand my reasoning the first time I stated it), if PRIOR TO 911, you told the professional engineering community around the world that large commercial jets would impact the towers at nearly maximum velocity, that the impacts would shatter numerous structural members and severely damage fireproofing coatings on the remaining steel, that the planes would have nearly full fuel tanks, that the fire suppression systems would NOT be functional, that fire fighters would be unable to reach and fight the fires ... then I suspect a great many more than "not a single one" would have had doubts about the structures surviving.
Now you once told me with great confidence that "there are structural engineers out there that KNOW that the official story is NOT POSSIBLE, but you will not listen to THOSE experts" so I'm challenging you to NAME some of those structural engineers who think the WTC towers were brought down by bombs or thermite or energy beams or nukes. Can you offer a name or are you just PRETENDING that there are structural engineers out there that agree with you and the rest of the 4um *truthers*? Last time I asked that question of you ... well ... you just vanished from the thread. Are we going to see a repeat performance, ladybug?
you just vanished from the thread. Are we going to see a repeat performance, ladybug?
I shall address your closing statement first.
Anyone who knows me (there are a couple on the forum) knows for a fact that I do not spend as much time online in the summer time. I spend the vast majority of my time producing our own food, including vegetable gardens, milking goats and a cow, and even growing our own feed for the milk animals. I also make our own butter, and so on. So that means I have much less time to address your drivel than you may like.
As to "experts", for starters, it only takes common sense to realize something is definitely wrong with the official 9/11 story, but if you need an expert to tell you this, here is a site that has several educated folks that can put common sense into "big words" for people like you that only believe what the "officials" tell you.
I am sure you will find a list of excuses why these officials don't count, but I really don't care what ignorant people like you think.
My point regarding your reply to inniway's post is simple. If flying planes into buildings is such a sure fired way to make the damn thing fall into it's own footprint, then you find me an expert that thinks this is such a great idea. After all, it worked so well on 9/11 - they dropped 3 buildings with only 2 planes.
Until you can provide me with such an expert, there is no need for you to grace me with one of your precious little 15 posts for the day.
Gosh, that must be hell on such a big mouth as you to be so limited.
"City in the Sky, The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center," James Glanz and Eric Lipton, Times Books, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 2003, First paperback edition 2004, ISBN: 0-8050-7691-3, p. 131
"Salient points with regard to the structural design of The World Trade Center towers" was the low-key title on the white paper in the Port Authority's files. Below the title were eleven numbered points on the structure, beginning with: "1. 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." At the end of the three-page document was the notation "MPL.fg" above the date "2-3-64" - meaning that the white paper had been typed for Malcolm P. Levy by his secretary, Florence Grainger, on February 3,1964.
Some of the numbered points gave routine summaries of the expected characteristics of the twin towers' engineering design. But halfway down the first page, the paper contained this astonishing statement:
3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 - DC 8) travelling 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.
Whatever the origin of the white paper, it suggests clearly that the Skilling firm - whether with or without the assistance of Port Authority engineers is not specified - looked at what would happen if a Boeing 707 or a McDonnell Douglas DC-8 rammed the World Trade Center.
Richard Roth, an architect and partner in the firm of Emery Roth and Sons who had worked with Yamasaki wrote the following:
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner 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 nd safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.
Chief Structural Engineer John Skilling stated in 1993:
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed."
However, Skilling said, "the building structure would still be there."
Not knowing the towers were readily collapsible and that the white paper was a fraud, and that many engineers knew the buildings were subject to total collapse failure, the insurance companies provided billions of dollars of coverage. The insurance companies evidently never heard of any of the many engineers who knew the buildings would collapse.
It should be noted that the firefighters did reach the impact zone in 2WTC. FDNY Chief Orio Palmer, who was a marathoner, led his group up to the 78th floor impact zone. He was the first to reach the impact zone of either tower.
At 9:52, Chief Palmer radioed, "We've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines."
He added, "Radio, radio, radio that -- 78th floor, numerous 10-45 Code Ones." [On the 78th floor there were numerous dead civilians.]
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed."
However, Skilling said, "the building structure would still be there."
This is misleading. Skillings was not necessarily saying the structure would survive the fires. What he wrote can easily be interpreted to mean only that he thought the structure would survive the impact. And indeed it did.
Furthermore, it isn't clear who actually did this claimed impact analysis. Leslie Robertson, who by most accounts was the lead structural engineer on the project, said there was an analysis but only for an impact at relatively low speed (180 mph) based on the assumption that such a plane would only hit the towers if it was lost in fog. This load condition makes sense ... studying the survival of the towers for a high speed impact does not. No other building design had contemplated such a loading and no instance of a building impact other than a plane lost in fog had occurred.
Furthermore, Skillings memo was intended to calm concerns about a number of issues related to the towers. With that as it's goal, Skillings could very well have chosen to exaggerate the towers' claimed safety. And the White Paper did not contain any details beyond what was quoted by nolu regarding the impact analysis. Whatever real documentation there was for those calculations was apparently lost in the intervening 40 years.
Furthermore, keep in mind that the analysis tools available back in the early 60's to examine impact and fire problems were at best crude. They lacked the computers, the software, and, in many ways, even the physics and material underpinnings to state with any confidence that the towers would survive high speed impacts and the fires that would subsequently result.
nolu_chan ... as usual, is trying to take something out of context.
It should be noted that the firefighters did reach the impact zone in 2WTC. FDNY Chief Orio Palmer, who was a marathoner, led his group up to the 78th floor impact zone. He was the first to reach the impact zone of either tower.
At 9:52, Chief Palmer radioed, "We've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines."
This is another attempt to deceive. NC is trying to implant the notion in your mind that there were only two small pockets of fire at the impact level of the South Tower just 7 minutes before it collapsed. This is clearly false, as both photo and video evidence proves.
Furthermore, the complete transcript of Chief Palmer's remarks and other firemen who were on that floor at the time indicates that both group of firemen were trapped in the stairwells by the fires and thus could not have been in position to speak to the existence or size of the fires anywhere else in the impact level ... which by the way encompassed multiple stories above the 78th floor that Chief Palmer had not even reached when he made that call.
Keep in mind with anything posted by nolu_chan that the context ... what he isn't telling you ... matters a great deal. Or you will be misled.
BAC #34: Yamasaki's design for the World Trade Center was unveiled to the public on January 18, 1964, with an eight-foot model.[27] So there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that any White Paper from 1964 affected the DESIGN. -- BeAChooser posted on 2007-04-20
BAC #45: The design of the major structural elements of the towers surely had to have been completed by February 1964. -- BeAChooser posted on 2007-04-21
Unlike BAC bullshit, there is incontrovertible evidence (repeated once again below) that Leslie Robertson was not even a licensed professional engineer until January 6, 1965. Design work on the towers began in 1963 and the design was presented to the public in January 1964. Leslie Robertson has never had an engineering degree and did not yet have enough experience under the tutelage of Chief Engineer John Skilling to obtain a license. Robertson was not yet a junior partner in Skilling's engineering firm, much less a named partner. Absent a license, the only engineering document Robertson could sign before 1965 was the lunch list.
In addition, Glanz and Lipton write that, "every facet of the [WTC] design was almost a photographic expansion of something that Skilling and his staff had used on earlier jobs." That is earlier, as in still more years before Robertson gained enough experience under the tutelage of Chief Engineer John Skilling to obtain a license.
The articles in Engineering News Record from 1964 do not even mention Robertson's name, nor was there any reason to do so. Absent a license, Robertson could not submit anything without getting his Daddy's signature. No matter how many "accounts" BACpimp can find echoed on the net, nothing will change the documented fact that Robertson did not obtain a license as a professional engineer until 1965.
Source: New York State Education Department Office of the Professions License Information 04/29/2007
Name : SKILLING JOHN B Address : Profession : PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
License No: 039286 Date of Licensure : 06/08/62 Additional Qualification : Status : DECEASED 03/05/98 Registered through last day of :
Until after the construction of the WTC was completed, Leslie Robertson had not yet risen to the level of junior partner in he engineering firm of John Skilling. Robertson was an employee, not a partner. Robertson eventually became a partner, but that did not happen until after construction was completed.
A series of articles from Engineering News Record from 1964 to 1971, refer to either John Skilling or Leslie Robertson. I have boldfaced each name in each instance and have left no instance unquoted from the linked source. Robertson did not receive a mention until 1971. Prior to that there are repeated references to John Skilling, but nary a mention of Robertson.
Architects are Minoru Yamasaki & Associates of Birmingham, Mich., and Emery Roth & Sons, of New York City. Structural engineers are Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson, of Seattle.
July 9, 1964
-----
The concept was explained to the New York Architectural League by John Skilling, a partner in Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson, of Seattle, consulting structural engineers on the World Trade Center (see p. 124).
April 2, 1964
-----
Walls resist wind. In designing the record-height towers against wind, Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson adopted a scheme that does not rely on the core at all to take wind. Each tower will act as a vertical, cantilevered hollow tube. The giant Vierendeel trusses forming the loadbearing exterior walls will provide the required rigidity and strength to resist wind. All the horizontal shear will be resisted by the sides of the building parallel to the wind, and most of the overturning moment will be taken by the exterior walls normal to the wind. For economy in resisting the stresses, the wall columns will be made of high-strength steels, as indicated in the diagram above.
April 2, 1964
-----
Minoru Yamasaki and Associates, Birmingham, Mich., and Emery Roth & Sons, New York City, are the Architects. Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson, of Seattle, are, the consulting structural engineers; Jaros, Baum and Bowles, of New York City, the consulting mechanical engineers; and Joseph R. Loring and Associates, New York City, the consulting electrical' engineers. These firms were assisted in the design by the World Trade Center Planning Division under the direction of Malcolm P. Levy, and the PNYA engineering department, John M. Kyle,' chief engineer.
January 23, 1964
-----
Fig . World Trade Center's towers will rise 1,350 ft in New York Fig . Proposed skyscrapers will dominate the skyline of downtown Manhattan. Fig . Floorbeams will span from exterior columns to elevator-core walls. Fig . Structural consultant John Skilling. Fig . Architects Richard (left) and Julian Roth and Minoru Yamasaki.
January 23, 1964
-----
To maintain uniform column and spandrel dimensions, structural engineers Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson, of Seattle, specified a variety of steel strengths and sections to resist varying stresses throughout the frame.
February 2, 1967
-----
Monti on management. Monti operates from the 10th floor of a building overlooking the WTC site. Although he concentrates most of his attention in areas where things go wrong, he maintains constant communication with the main contractors, with the architects and with the engineering consultants, Skilling, Helle, Christiansen, Robertson, Seattle, on structural design; Joseph Loring & Associates, New York City, on electrical work, and Jaros, Baum & Bolles, New York City, on mechanical.
February 11, 1971
-----
"City in the Sky, The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center," James Glanz and Eric Lipton, Times Books, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 2003, First paperback edition 2004, ISBN: 0-8050-7691-3, pp. 123-4
The World Trade Center, the agency said, "required engineering ingenuity from foundation to roof."
The truth was a little more prosaic. As outlandish as his design sounded to the Eastern engineering establishment, including the Port Authority's own hardheaded engineering department - which was deeply offended by Mal Levy's decision to have an outside firm do the work - every facet of the design was almost a photographic expansion of something that Skilling and his staff had used on earlier jobs. As far back as 1957, Skilling and Nathaniel Curtis, the New Orleans architect, designed a thirteen-story office tower in Pittsburgh that was among the first modern high-rises whose exterior walls would be built to resist all the lateral forces caused by wind - a system close to the "tube" concept of the World Trade Center. This design let Skilling and his engineers build fifty-seven-foot "clear spans," or floor spaces unencumbered by columns, just like the trade center. The design also used newly available high-strength steel, as the trade center would.
Even the conversion of Yamasaki's pinstripes into structural elements had already been done in the IBM Building in Seattle, a twenty-story, 272-foot high-rise completed in 1963. The steel pinstripes, separated by less than 3 feet, were encased in prefabricated concrete covers, like the prefabricated steel panels of the trade center.
Perhaps the most striking parallel, though, was embedded deep inside the Washington Building in Seattle. Ordinarily, the steel girders and beams supporting the floors get in the way of the ductwork, plumbing, and electrical wiring that must thread their way through the space between the ceiling of one story of the building and the floor of the next. From other engineers, Skilling borrowed the idea of using torches to cut a zigzagging pattern along the length of the support beams, sliding one of the halves a few inches horizontally and welding the pieces back together again. This "castellated beam" method left gaps for the ductwork to fit through, and it let Skilling reduce the total height of each story in the Washington Building by nearly a foot. He and his staff took the idea a step further in their design for the World Trade Center: they proposed replacing the beams entirely with airy, weblike networks of thin steel bars and angle irons called bar-joist trusses. Corrugated decking would be placed atop these floor trusses so that concrete could be poured on it to create the floors.
The ductwork could run without obstruction, and the diaphanous floor trusses would complete a design for the World Trade Center without precedent in its feathery, ethereal lightness. Skilling engineers calculated that for every cubic foot of space inside the Empire State Building, that skyscraper weighed 17 pounds; the World Trade Center would weigh just 10.5 pounds a cubic foot, lighter by an amazing 38 percent.
As with all of the Skilling innovations, the trusses came with several twists. First of all, the trusses that actually went into the building would be stouter than any similar support system ever devised, with cross-bracing and a redundant design unknown in the ordinary bar-joist trusses that are common in warehouse construction. Second, the trusses would be built in such away that the concrete of the floors would also add to the structural integrity of the system. Still, Skilling and his engineers had, once again, gone into a structural realm where no one else had been.
there is incontrovertible evidence (repeated once again below) that Leslie Robertson was not even a licensed professional engineer until January 6, 1965.
That doesn't mean he wasn't the lead structural engineer on the project. You don't have to be a partner to be the lead structural engineer on a project. Nor must you have been the visionary who chose the design concept in order to be the lead structural engineer who carried it to completion. Nor do you have to be the boss of the design firm to be the lead structural engineer on a project that firm has with someone. As you well know, I can and have posted credible source after credible source (and I could have posted many more) saying that he was the lead structural engineer on the WTC project. Saying he was the engineer who was on site in NYC where the design was done. Saying he was the project engineer. Are all those sources part of the conspiracy, nolu? Are all of them now lying to us? Is that *your* theory? Is your theory that only conspiracy websites tell the truth? ROTFLOL!
A series of articles from Engineering News Record from 1964 to 1971, refer to either John Skilling or Leslie Robertson. I have boldfaced each name in each instance and have left no instance unquoted from the linked source. Robertson did not receive a mention until 1971. Prior to that there are repeated references to John Skilling, but nary a mention of Robertson.
So what? Perhaps when Skillings ran things, he liked the limelight and therefore took credit, even where it was undeserved. That's not unheard of, is it? Curiously, none of those who also worked on the towers at the time have come forward to dispute the claim that Robertson was the lead structural engineer. Some have come forward to confirm it. Are they all part of the conspiracy too, nolu? Have they been paid off? Are they living in fear of Robertson? Are conspiracy website owners the only honest people on earth any more? ROTFLOL!
That doesn't mean he wasn't the lead structural engineer on the project. You don't have to be a partner to be the lead structural engineer on a project.
While you do not have to be a partner to be the lead structural engineer, you do have to be a licensed engineer. As you are well aware, Robertson's lack of such a license disqualified him to be the lead structural engineer. He eventually became the WTC engineer after completion of construction.
He was not eligible to obtain a license as a Professional Engineer when the design work was done. Robertson did not obtain a license until 1965. THAT means he was not eligible to be the lead structural engineer of record before that time.
The only paperwork he could lawfully sign for prior to 1965 was the lunch list.
And as BeAChooser has authoritatively stated, "The design of the major structural elements of the towers surely had to have been completed by February 1964."
"The design of the major structural elements of the towers surely had to have been completed by February 1964." -- BAC #45 2007-04-21 Link
Source: New York State Education Department Office of the Professions License Information 04/29/2007