It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by LoneGunMan
Thanks for replies folks. So Lone, is the above poster correct in saying that the FLIR measures skin temperature, and not the fire temperature? That doesn't seem right to me. The camera shots are of the opening where the fire was raging. I just want to clear that up please.
Originally posted by googolplex
Originally posted by dubiousone
reply to post by bluewaterservant
The pics of the angle cut beams have always troubled me. Has there been any attempt by "officialdom" to explain how those angle cuts on these main structural supporting beams came into existence? If so, is it a credible explanation?
I vaguely recall an ATS post in which someone opined that the angle cust were made as part of the after-the-collapse cleanup effort. But I believe that comment was made by a would-be debunker rather than an official source.
It make no sense to cut steel on angle if you were just cutting it up, a angle would be for demo when you want one piece to slide past other
Originally posted by dubiousone
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
Thanks for the additonal photos. But they don't lay the issue to rest. And they don 't answer the question whether the angle cut beam shown in the first and similar photos were part of the clean-up or part of a planned demolition of the towers. I agree, it would be helpful to know at which stage after the towers' destruction the photos were taken and by whom.
Originally posted by quantumtorpedo
There are many red-flags that come up with me about the whole 9-11 event, but none more so than the fact that building 7 (WTC #7) went down WITHOUT EVER BEING TOUCHED.
Originally posted by pteridine
The IR camera is measuring skin temperature, not fire temperature in the building.
Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Originally posted by quantumtorpedo
There are many red-flags that come up with me about the whole 9-11 event, but none more so than the fact that building 7 (WTC #7) went down WITHOUT EVER BEING TOUCHED.
Really?...REALLY?
Why? Why would 7 World Trade even need to be demo'ed..or whatever.
To shread papers..by scattering them about Manhatten?
The whole premise is dumb: ~ Lets needlesly risk our whole operation being found out while spending millions to blow up a building that no one really knows/cares about. ! ~
That's the ticket... with out this key event, no one will be on board for the NWO agenda. pffft.
It fell because of its design, its impact damage, and its uncontrolled fires.
FDNY knew it was compromised and created a collapse zone around the building 4 hours before it finally fell.
To say WTC 7 fell due to demolition is saying the FDNY was involved with the mass murder of their fallen brothers.. There is no other way for the WTC 7 to be a demolition event and the FDNY not to be a part of it. And for you to accuse the men who lost so much that day to be an intregal part of this snake-oil conspiracy makes me sad...real sad.
�A previous analysis [by WTC building designers], carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing�[2]
(Between Early 1984 and October 1985):
�However, O�Sullivan consults �one of the trade center�s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.� He is told there is �little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.��[3]
1993
�[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]
2001
�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.�[6]
[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.�[7]
[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]
Sept 3-7, 2001�just before 9/11
�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.�[9]
After 9/11
�The engineer who said after the 1993 bombing that the towers could withstand a Boeing 707, Leslie Robertson, was not available for comment yesterday, a partner at his Manhattan firm said. �We're going to hold off on speaking to the media,� said the partner, Rick Zottola, at Leslie E. Robertson Associates. �We'd like to reserve our first comments to our national security systems, F.B.I. and so on.��[10]
�The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access�and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access�to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns.�[11]
�[The] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in 2005 state that it has been �unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.��[12]
�In 2002, Leslie Robertson wrote: �To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.�[13]
�[Leslie Robertson:] I support the general conclusions of the NIST report� The [WTC] was designed for the impact of a low flying slow flying Boeing 707. We envisioned it [to be like] the aircraft that struck the Empire State building [during] WW II. It was not designed for a high speed impact from the jets that actually hit it� Yes there was a red hot metal seen [in the WTC rubble] by engineers. Molten�Molten means flowing�I�ve never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal, or by the way if they had seen it, if they had performed some kind of an analysis to determine what that metal was.� Steven Jones in discussion With Leslie Robertson [MP3] by KGNU Radio, Denver, CO, Oct 26, 2006
Analysis:
Robertson has made some glaring contradictions in his statements.
� 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]
� Robertson says that the building was not designed to survive jet fuel fires: �To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire�. This claim is suspicious for two reasons: why would they design the towers to survive plane crashes without considering the jet fuel? And more importantly, John Skilling claimed in 1993 that they did consider the jet fuel when they designed the buildings.[17] Given this fact, which statement is more likely to be correct about jet fuel fires being considered?
� NIST is also contradicted when they claim that there was no �evidence to indicate consideration of� thousands of gallons of jet fuel�. This statement is clearly false. See John Skilling�s statement: �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� The building structure would still be there.�[18]
� In an interview with Steven Jones, Robertson claims that he had �never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal.� This statement is extremely suspicious considering the fact that Robertson himself claimed to have seen it in a published news report! This contradicts his own statement about seeing molten metal: �Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.�[19]. As well, substantial eye-witness testimony supports observations of Molten Steel.[20]
� Robertson is also incorrect when he says that �if they had seen [Molten Steel, they had not] performed some kind of an analysis to determine what that metal was. This statement is false. FEMA analyzed samples of the molten steel.[21] However, NIST did not even mention the molten steel and called it �irrelevant to [their] investigation.�[22] This could have simply been a mistake by Robertson.
Is Robertson being pressured to lie and make false statements? Was he asked to leak a false statement just before 9/11 about the speed of the planes having an impact on their destruction? Are these contradictions by accident or mistake?
A news report stated that he wanted to give his opinion to the FBI before making his comments public. This in itself is not overly suspicious�but his contradictions are. No clear answers to these and similar questions can be obtained through speculation alone�Leslie Robertson must account for these himself. If another 9/11 investigation is obtained, it is clear that Leslie Robertson will have to answer these and other relevant questions.
Originally posted by Sherlock2009
Unbelievable!!!!
You swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
FDNY knew it was compromised and created a collapse zone around the building 4 hours before it finally fell.
To say WTC 7 fell due to demolition is saying the FDNY was involved with the mass murder of their fallen brothers.. There is no other way for the WTC 7 to be a demolition event and the FDNY not to be a part of it. And for you to accuse the men who lost so much that day to be an intregal part of this snake-oil conspiracy makes me sad...real sad.