9/11 Truth: MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
"A review of the basic design equations and allowable stresses for combined axial load and bending for the
6th Edition of the AISC Specifications (1963), which was in effect at the time of the design, indicates that
they are essentially identical to those of the 9th Edition (1989) design equations and allowable stresses."

Do you understand what this means?

Axial load is your dead load and live load (do to people). Or in other words all vertical loads.

Bending is your load from wind and siesmic. Or in other words all horizontal loads.

Notice they say "combined"?

"• For the original WTC design loading case and for the state-of-the-practice case, the load
combinations were those specified by the AISC Specification (1989) and the New York
City Building Code (NYCBC) 2001:
Dead Load
Dead Load + Live Load
Dead Load + Live Load + Wind Load
Dead Load + Wind Load "

These are load combinations. You do know that they take the load combination that results in the greater load correct?

They don't use all combinations. Just the most extreme one load combination.

Originally posted by Griff
Seymour,

How can you call these lies?

A white paper on the structure of the Twin Towers carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson contained eleven numbered points, including:

That's the paper from the PA, not Skilling, etc.

www.nytimes.com...

"Earlier statements by Port Authority officials and outside engineers involved in designing the buildings suggested that the designers considered an accidental crash only by slower aircraft, moving at less than 200 miles per hour. The newly disclosed documents, from the 1960's, show that the Port Authority considered aircraft moving at 600 m.p.h"

And Robertson was the lead structural engineer :

scott-juris.blogspot.com...

"But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counterattack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour."

"There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later."

[edit on 20-5-2008 by Seymour Butz]

Originally posted by Griff

They don't use all combinations. Just the most extreme one load combination.

Yes, I understand this perfectly.

I also understand that when Skilling says "live loads", he means live loads, and not total loads.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
www.nytimes.com...

"Earlier statements by Port Authority officials and outside engineers involved in designing the buildings suggested that the designers considered an accidental crash only by slower aircraft, moving at less than 200 miles per hour. The newly disclosed documents, from the 1960's, show that the Port Authority considered aircraft moving at 600 m.p.h"

Let's actually quote the real quote instead of doing what you claim us "twoofers" do which is quote mine.

Earlier statements by Port Authority officials and outside engineers involved in designing the buildings suggested that the designers considered an accidental crash only by slower aircraft, moving at less than 200 miles per hour. The newly disclosed documents, from the 1960's, show that the Port Authority considered aircraft moving at 600 m.p.h., slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers, Dr. Sunder said.

You do know who Dr. Sunder is right? He is the lead investigator for NIST.

And Robertson was the lead structural engineer :

Again wrong. Skilling was the lead structural engineer. Robertson was a 20-something year old engineer working for Skilling when the design was implimented.

So, unless you believe a 20-something year old is EVER considered the lead engineer in something, you are dead wrong.

edit: I take back the 20-something comment. He was more like 30-something.

Robertson's engineering career began in 1952, when he graduated from the Berkeley school of civil engineering. Robertson and his business partner John Skilling were the original structural engineers for the World Trade Center Twin Towers. Later on, Robertson established his own firm, Leslie E. Robertson Associates. In the early 1960s, Robertson was a leader of a young group of structural engineers who specialized in imaginative, and daring, approaches to grand-scale construction.

en.wikipedia.org...

So, about 10 years out of college he is considered a lead engineer?

That would amount to my boss and I designing something and when he dies, I get to claim I'm the lead engineer of the project?

And if Robertson is the lead engineer, then why was the firm that he worked for called: Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson?

Engineer: John Skilling and Leslie Robertson of Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson

www.skyscraper.org...

"There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later."

And I have already shown that I don't trust Robertson's word. Either because he is lying or not telling the whole truth because of feer of repricussion.

And I am suppossing that you believe that the PO are a bunch of retarded folk that couldn't have calculated this? Back when they had all access to the structural documentation.

Is this correct?

[edit on 5/20/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 5/20/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
I also understand that when Skilling says "live loads", he means live loads, and not total loads.

For some reason, I can't find the full quote by skilling. Can you and your jref friends help out here?

Thanks.

Originally posted by Griff
Let's actually quote the real quote instead of doing what you claim us "twoofers" do which is quote mine.

Earlier statements by Port Authority officials and outside engineers involved in designing the buildings suggested that the designers considered an accidental crash only by slower aircraft, moving at less than 200 miles per hour. The newly disclosed documents, from the 1960's, show that the Port Authority considered aircraft moving at 600 m.p.h., slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers, Dr. Sunder said.

Not only quote mining, but right after Seymour just got done telling us his story that he learned from his "debunker" friends, that Les Robertson (not only the "lead" engineer, but apparently the only one, or only one that 'jrefers' pay attention to) only did calculations after they were already up, and no other such calculations were ever done.

With even the guy leading NIST's WTC team directly contradicting what Seymour is saying, are we going to see some kind of correction in thinking, or are we just going to get a concentrated dose of JREF-esque blanket insults and condescension?

[edit on 21-5-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11


Not only quote mining, but right after Seymour just got done telling us his story that he learned from his "debunker" friends, that Les Robertson (not only the "lead" engineer, but apparently the only one, or only one that 'jrefers' pay attention to) only did calculations after they were already up, and no other such calculations were ever done.

LOL.

The full quote makes my statements about a PA architect making those statements about a 600 mph scenario even stronger because Dr Sunder says that "the PA considered....." and not Robertson or Skilling, etc. Thanks for making my case even stronger, I just didn't want to go piling on the evidence against the CT beliefs...

Again, the architect made that statement because there was opposition to putting up such a big building, led by Wien. The para with that background is in a post of mine above, with a link to the whole article. And Robertson did the calcs AFTER because it wasn't an issue for the design team until Wien brought the whole thing up. It wasn't necessary to design a building for this, so it wasn't.

So when will YOU admit that your views are skewed by bad info? Again, I'll repeat that looking for the truth is a good thing, but basing your views on lies and quote mining isn't the way to arrive at any valid conclusions.

And since you're kinda asking, I'll repeat this also. I'm SURE that the planes were flown into the buildings by Islamic radicals. I'm SURE that the plane strikes caused significant damage,but didn't cause an immediate collapse. I'm SURE that the building's contents then burned and resulted in thermal effects - creep and thermal expansion and contraction.

But I'm not sure about the collapse mechanisms. I've read both sides papers and do not have the background to evaluate Greening, Bazant, Ross, etc. But I also see absolutely NO compelling evidence of explosives or thermite being used. Nor do I see any ironworkers, FDNY arson investigators, or demo guys at the WTC, nor do I see any investigators at the landfill sites, where all the steel was visually inspected, making any statements about ANY of the steel showing effects of said explosives and/or thermite.

ETA: I also think it's foolish to claim that all the cleanup workers are "in on it" too since they haven't hesitated to sue over health issues,, etc. And also remember that ALL of the FDNY was p'oed when they were pulled off the site by Guiliani. So they're not at all hesitant to voice their opinions either and it boggles the imagination that anyone would think that they "feer" repurcussions.



[edit on 21-5-2008 by Seymour Butz]

[edit on 21-5-2008 by Seymour Butz]

Originally posted by Griff

For some reason, I can't find the full quote by skilling. Can you and your jref friends help out here?

Thanks.

Ask bsbray for it. Dr Griffin also used it in his paper.

He used the quote in another thread that resulted in my coming here and asking your opinion about just that.

Personally, I'd like to see a link to the article itself, because all I've EVER seen, from both sides, is parts of the article.

Originally posted by Griff

And I have already shown that I don't trust Robertson's word. Either because he is lying or not telling the whole truth because of feer of repricussion.

And I am suppossing that you believe that the PO are a bunch of retarded folk that couldn't have calculated this? Back when they had all access to the structural documentation.

Is this correct?

1- Why don't you go give your thoughts to Robertson yourself? He's right there in NYC. I'm sure he appreciates a fellow structural engineer calling him a liar or a 'fraidy cat.

2- PA? The PA was motivated by politics, namely the opposition to the towers being built, led by Wien. This apparently took precedent over truthful statements. Is there any surprise about this?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
The full quote makes my statements about a PA architect making those statements about a 600 mph scenario even stronger because Dr Sunder says that "the PA considered....." and not Robertson or Skilling, etc. Thanks for making my case even stronger, I just didn't want to go piling on the evidence against the CT beliefs...

Oh, I get it now. Since it wasn't Skilling or Robertson that made the statements then they are incorrect or as you put it, a "lie"? Because Skilling and Robertson are the only engineers worthy of the calculations.

Again, the architect made that statement because there was opposition to putting up such a big building, led by Wien. The para with that background is in a post of mine above, with a link to the whole article. And Robertson did the calcs AFTER because it wasn't an issue for the design team until Wien brought the whole thing up. It wasn't necessary to design a building for this, so it wasn't.

Let me get this straight. The PA architect made those statements because of opposition from Wien? In the '60's? Is this correct? Because that is when the 3 page paper is dated. 1964.

But, Robertson did calcs AFTER the towers were built in 1973 because there was no issue until Wien brought the whole thing up? In the 60's? Am I still following you correctly?

Isn't that one BIG contradiction in a mouthful?

So when will YOU admit that your views are skewed by bad info? Again, I'll repeat that looking for the truth is a good thing, but basing your views on lies and quote mining isn't the way to arrive at any valid conclusions.

So, just because it's a PA architect who said it instead of Skilling, it automatically becomes a lie? How telling.

But I also see absolutely NO compelling evidence of explosives or thermite being used.

I don't see any compelling evidence that damage and fire should have brought them down either. Somewhere has got to be the answer correct?

Nor do I see any ironworkers, FDNY arson investigators, or demo guys at the WTC, nor do I see any investigators at the landfill sites, where all the steel was visually inspected, making any statements about ANY of the steel showing effects of said explosives and/or thermite.

How does thermite treated steel after it has been in a rubble pile that has temperatures of thousands degrees look to the average person? Would it look any different than steel that has been in rubble piles that are thousands of degrees?

BTW, FEMA had some questions about how the steel corroded in the presence of sulfur. Too bad NIST didn't listen and find out what happened instead of just assumming gypsum did it. When they had nor have ANY precidence to back that up.

that they "feer" repurcussions.

Pointing out my spelling mistakes as a way to dicredit is very lame IMO. Maybe that works over at jref, but over here we're a little more intelligent than that.


[edit on 5/22/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 5/22/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Personally, I'd like to see a link to the article itself, because all I've EVER seen, from both sides, is parts of the article.

And this doesn't bother you that yet another piece of the puzzle is "missing"?

All these little things that would tell us what the hell is going on are all conveniently "missing" and/or under lock and key, and it doesn't bother you in the slightest?

I've even heard from people who claim that whole documentaries of the WTC are "missing". Why would this happen? For two of the most famous skyscrapers in the world (even before 9/11).

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
2- PA? The PA was motivated by politics, namely the opposition to the towers being built, led by Wien. This apparently took precedent over truthful statements. Is there any surprise about this?

So, then you're saying that the Port Authority of NY and NJ is liable for the deaths of all those policemen and firefighters who risked their lives because of this lie?

Where is the outcry from the FEDS and anyone else (including you) that this lie was perpetuated causing the deaths of our heros in NYC?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- Why don't you go give your thoughts to Robertson yourself? He's right there in NYC. I'm sure he appreciates a fellow structural engineer calling him a liar or a 'fraidy cat.

Because I will not condemn a fellow engineer for not foreseeing the future and covering his own ass because it wasn't his fault.

Originally posted by Griff

Because I will not condemn a fellow engineer for not foreseeing the future and covering his own ass because it wasn't his fault.

Ah yes, it's much better to accuse someone, from a position of anonymity, of being a liar, a 'fraidy cat, or now "covering his ass". Right?

Typical. CTerz want the truth, but will not even go question a main player in the event. I bet that if you could get an appointment and asked nicely, he'd answer you truthfully. But these answers wouldn't fit with the CT world view, and as such must be avoided.

What are you afraid of? Are you the 'fraidy cat now?

Originally posted by Griff

So, then you're saying that the Port Authority of NY and NJ is liable for the deaths of all those policemen and firefighters who risked their lives because of this lie?

Where is the outcry from the FEDS and anyone else (including you) that this lie was perpetuated causing the deaths of our heros in NYC?

You've lost it Griff.

The PA saying that Robertson's calcs showed the towers would take a 600 mph hit has NOTHING to do with what happened.

The only impact it MIGHT have had is getting public opinion to allow them getting built in the first place.

Originally posted by Griff

And this doesn't bother you that yet another piece of the puzzle is "missing"?

How do you get from me saying "I haven't seen the full engineering article from '64 before" to making statements that it is "missing"?

I haven't seen it. I'd like to.

Only a mind bent on seeing CT's everywhere would and/or could make this connection.

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Ah. Gotta love antagonism.

If I ask nicely? OK. The man has said very little since 9/11. Why do you think "if I ask nicely" he would say something to me?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
You've lost it Griff.

I'm not the one who called the PA liars who were...what was it? Politically motivated?

The PA saying that Robertson's calcs showed the towers would take a 600 mph hit has NOTHING to do with what happened.

First, how could the PA say that Robertson's calcs said anything in 1964 when Robertson didn't do calcs until the 70's? There's a flaw here.

Second, The PA saying that the towers could withstand an airplane impact of over 600 mph (which is more than what happened on 9/11) has nothing to do with what happened? Those brave souls entered that building on the word from the PA that it would be safe and wouldn't globally collapse. That is liability.

The only impact it MIGHT have had is getting public opinion to allow them getting built in the first place.

No. It had far greater impact than just that. If it was a lie, then they are directly responsible for the deaths of the men and women who believed that lie.

So, which is it?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
How do you get from me saying "I haven't seen the full engineering article from '64 before" to making statements that it is "missing"?

Because I can't find it either. So, until either you or I or someone else comes up with it, to me it is "missing".

Only a mind bent on seeing CT's everywhere would and/or could make this connection.

And only a closed mind doesn't see anything wrong with the very people we suspect holding onto ALL the evidence.

Originally posted by Griff

Oh, I get it now. Since it wasn't Skilling or Robertson that made the statements then they are incorrect or as you put it, a "lie"? Because Skilling and Robertson are the only engineers worthy of the calculations.

Let me get this straight. The PA architect made those statements because of opposition from Wien? In the '60's? Is this correct? Because that is when the 3 page paper is dated. 1964.
But, Robertson did calcs AFTER the towers were built in 1973 because there was no issue until Wien brought the whole thing up?

I don't see any compelling evidence that damage and fire should have brought them down either. Somewhere has got to be the answer correct?

How does thermite treated steel after it has been in a rubble pile that has temperatures of thousands degrees look to the average person? Would it look any different than steel that has been in rubble piles that are thousands of degrees?

BTW, FEMA had some questions about how the steel corroded in the presence of sulfur. Too bad NIST didn't listen and find out what happened instead of just assumming gypsum did it. When they had nor have ANY precidence to back that up.

but over here we're a little more intelligent than that.

1- The lie is that Robertson's calcs showed they would take a 600 mph hit. I'm sure that the PA could do it, but there's no evidence that they ever did.

2- No, you're not followwing along correctly. The whole thing happened before the towers went up, during the period that support from NYers was being drummed up.

3- correct.

4- these weren't average people. But you DO raise a good question. Has anyone ever done this before with a similar beam and photographed so that the guys working the piles and landfills could be questioned if they saw something like that? I'd guess not, cuz when they all answer no, CTer world view will be shattered and this must be avoided.

5- I'd like to see a link where NIST says that drywall is responsible. Otherwise you need to retract that statement.

6- I've seen very little evidence of this.