Former employee of Controlled Demolition, Inc. talks about the WTC collapses

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by NIcon

It does not say "The buildings have been intentionally designed..."

I says it was INVESTIGATED.... they did an ANALYSIS... i.e., they ran TESTS....

So then I take it that your understanding of the situation here, is that whenever a truther claims that the buildings were designed to survive a plane impacy, that they are spreading disinfo?

Why don't you start correcting them then, since it seems you've got it right?

Are we seriously debating if the buildings were or were not intentionally or unintentionally designed to withstand airplane impacts? Are we seriously debating if or if not the towers were designed to withstand airplane impacts?

Cars are intentionally designed to protect the driver in the event of a head on collision. They are rigerously tested and experimented on to find the best possible way to protect the driver in a head on collision. People still get seriously injured in head on collisions. QUICK GUYS lets argue about the use of the word "intentionally"!

It seems to be the case that there are no computations in existence relating to an aircraft strike to the WTC.

Leslie Robertson, the main man still alive who played an important part in the WTC design, says that he did a study assuming a strike from a Boeing 707 which was lost and at a low speed (200 mph or less ). He says that he did not compute the effect of the burning of the plane's fuel load and he does not know how that could have been calculated at the time.

The reference to a 600 mph impact seems to have come from an anonymous Port Authority architect but was based on Robertson's calculations. Robertson says, in relation to that, "that's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did ".

So, whatever calculations were made, the results are vague and wooly. What is beyond dispute is that no-one envisaged a fully laden Boeing 767 smacking into the towers at 4-500 mph.

At the end of the day, is it not all academic ? The White Star line put out a brochure about their new twin liners, Olympic and Titanic, saying " these two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable ". In 1911 "Shipbuilder" magazine commented that Titanic " was practically unsinkable."

Why should anything someone said decades ago be a guarantee that the WTC towers could never fall from plane strikes and subsequent fire ?

reply to post by jthomas

Why are you still confused about that?

Again with the "confused" comments, JThomas? I don't believe there is any confusion on my end, but rather the confusion lies on your end.

I believe I have never commented on the significance of this documented 650 mph test as regards the towers' actual performance, but rather I have been commenting on the relevance of this documented 650 mph test as to the credibility of Leslie Robertson and his comments.

There's a reason that "Les", "Leslie","Robertson", "his", or "old man" is included in all but one of my posts. (that one post being about CDI)

Why are you trying to take my comments to mean more than they do? Why do you always do that when we meet?

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

Why are you still confused about that?

Again with the "confused" comments, JThomas? I don't believe there is any confusion on my end, but rather the confusion lies on your end.

So you didn't write the following?:

"So I guess now we can assume Leslie Robertson, the polite old man, assumed that terrorists would only attack in the fog and that they would go into a landing pattern to carry out the attack. "

I could have sworn you wrote that.




[edit on 21-5-2010 by jthomas]

reply to post by jthomas

Yes, I wrote that.

Maybe I'm assuming too much but I gathered an intelligent person reading this would realize that:

Leslie stated a week before 911 in response to what he had done about a possible terrorist attack on the towers:

"I designed it for a 707 to smash into it."

So what did Leslie claim he actually did that concerned a 707? Leslie has said he did the tests for a 707 at 180 mph and in fog and that is all he did.

So I thought an intelligent person, if they were to combine these two statements, would come to the conclusion that in Leslie's mind his foggy 180 mph crash test and protecting the towers from terrorist attacks are somehow linked. So if we take both his statements literally, that's what I come up with.

Now granted what I wrote was rather absurd, but that's what I find when going through Leslie's statements...absurdity.

I thought I had clarified this in my response to your post by stating:

"But I'm a fair man, and am willing to listen to Leslie Robertson explain how his imaginary study of a plane impact at 180mph would somehow protect against terrorists."

I believe I was making a point about the inconsistency of his statements.

So I guess I should remember that Thursdays on ATS are not good for reading comprehension.

So please, jthomas, if you could, please explain to me how you took this as confusion on my part.

Originally posted by NIcon


I believe I was making a point about the inconsistency of his statements.

It's pretty simple. Any reasonably intelligent person should be able to figure it out. He didn't design the towers to take the impact of jets hitting the towers at 600 mph, nor by terrorists doing so on a clear day, when he was designing the towers in the late 1960s.

Nobody was designing skyscrapers under those absurd assumptions - in the late 1960s.

So when someone asked:

"He was asked during a question-and-answer session what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks, according to Joseph Burns, a principal at the Chicago firm of Thornton-Thomasetti Engineers..."

What do you think would be going through Robertson's mind at such a question?

How about, "Is this guy nuts? Who in their right mind would be designing skyscrapers in the 1960s for a concept that wasn't even thought of until 30 odd years later?"

So you think Robertson should have said what he thought? Or perhaps say exactly what he designed it for, to wit:

"I designed it for a 707 to smash into it."

Exact and succinct in answer to an absurd question.




[edit on 21-5-2010 by jthomas]

reply to post by jthomas

My personal opinion is that when asked about a terrorist attack a week before 911 happened, I would have thought the first thing that would have crossed Leslie's mind would be a bombing.

But that didn't happen, somehow he linked "terrorist attack" with a "707" and then I further linked that with his "foggy 180 mph crash test."

The guy didn't ask about planes flying into the building, nor should we assume that he did as 911 had not happen yet. What I gather from the article is Leslie made the connection himself.

Terrorism has been a reality for more than 30 years, you know. And bombs in buildings have been, too.

Edited to add:

So you think Robertson should have said what he thought?

I like how you can paraphrase for Leslie and say what he thought. Alfie1 did it before in this thread. Are you guys able to read minds? Or do you have a source that shows this is what he thought?


Edited to add again:

I'd like to point out that this conference happened between the TERRORIST ATTACK BOMBING of 1993 of the buildings in question and 911. So it's even odder to me his first thought would be a 707, rather than a bomb.


[edit on 21-5-2010 by NIcon]

[edit on 21-5-2010 by NIcon]

I got tired of adding on to my last post. But I wanted to point this out:

Leslie E. Robertson Associates (LERA), R.L.L.P.;....... the engineer of record for the repairs made after the 1993 bombing

-from wtc.nist.gov...

Maybe he should have mentioned the improvements made after the last actual terrorist attack made on the buildings?

It really does boggle my mind that the first thought Leslie had when asked about a terrorist attack was a 707 crashing into the building.

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

My personal opinion is that when asked about a terrorist attack a week before 911 happened, I would have thought the first thing that would have crossed Leslie's mind would be a bombing.

I think he was rather specific what he designed the towers to withstand in the late 1960s. Why you would assume he would consider something he never stated he considered?

But that didn't happen, somehow he linked "terrorist attack" with a "707" and then I further linked that with his "foggy 180 mph crash test."

No such link is evident or demonstrated. He stated quite clearly:

"I designed it for a 707 to smash into it."

Nowhere did he state that he designed the towers to withstand a "bombing" or a "terrorist bombing." Nor did he state he even considered it. Nor, IMO, would he or anyone know in what form a "bombing" could take place then or in the future. The dynamics of a 707 hitting the towers is much more quantifiable, wouldn't you agree?

In any case, he stated what he designed the buildings to withstand, a 707 hitting it. Nothing else, nothing more. It's clear as a bell.

The guy didn't ask about planes flying into the building, nor should we assume that he did as 911 had not happen yet. What I gather from the article is Leslie made the connection himself.

Again, no such connection exists. Robertson was quite clear what he designed the building to withstand when he designed it. He made no connection between "707s" and "terrorist bombings." There is no reason to think he did considered bombings during the design process. Whether he should have is an entirely different question, of course.

Terrorism has been a reality for more than 30 years, you know. And bombs in buildings have been, too.

That's quite irrelevant. What is relevant is what he designed the towers to withstand. You are making a judgment that Robertson should have considered terrorist bombings, not that he did. Robertson never stated that he did, so you are making assumptions that have no basis in what is known or presented any evidence that Robertson considered bombings in the design of the towers.

So you think Robertson should have said what he thought?

I like how you can paraphrase for Leslie and say what he thought. Alfie1 did it before in this thread. Are you guys able to read minds? Or do you have a source that shows this is what he thought?

Apparently, you do, as you made clear above.

Edited to add again:

I'd like to point out that this conference happened between the TERRORIST ATTACK BOMBING of 1993 of the buildings in question and 911. So it's even odder to me his first thought would be a 707, rather than a bomb.

Well, you are doing it again, assuming that Robertson would design the towers for "terrorist bombings" rather than what he actually stated he designed it for, to wit:

"I designed it for a 707 to smash into it."

So Robertson stated what he designed the towers to withstand, nothing else, but you want him to have made some other connection for reasons having no basis in what is known.

Now, if you can find where he stated somewhere in the past that he designed the towers to "withstand terrorist bombings", then we would have something to actually talk about.

Just my 2 cents worth...I don't think I've ever posted a reply on the 9/11 topic, so here goes. I know it is possible that 9/11 was an "inside job." However, with all my heart I can't comprehend why or how other human beings could do that to their own country. It brings me to tears to think otherwise. I will never forget that morning. I was at work and my boss ran across the hall in front of my desk to a conference room which had a small TV set. I'll never forget his words..."My wife called and said something really bad is happening in NY" I just cannot let myself think about the un-thinkable. Thanks.

Originally posted by maybee
Just my 2 cents worth...I don't think I've ever posted a reply on the 9/11 topic, so here goes. I know it is possible that 9/11 was an "inside job." However, with all my heart I can't comprehend why or how other human beings could do that to their own country. It brings me to tears to think otherwise. I will never forget that morning. I was at work and my boss ran across the hall in front of my desk to a conference room which had a small TV set. I'll never forget his words..."My wife called and said something really bad is happening in NY" I just cannot let myself think about the un-thinkable. Thanks.

To believe that it is possible for 9/11 to be an inside job requires many assumptions that would have to be true in order for the "plot" to work.

Foremost among them are the number of people that would have to know of the "plot" before and after the fact whom would have to keep quiet. You'll find that Truthers dismiss that fact and actually believe only a handful of people would have to know and execute the plot.

The list of tenuous assumptions are many.

Originally posted by jthomas
The list of tenuous assumptions are many.

There are many conspiracy scenarios, ranging from highly-speculative to reasonably plausible, for which the list of "insiders" could be relatively small, if not low single digits, and still qualify as an "inside job."

For example, as Bin Laden was connected to the CIA during their covert funding of the Mujahideen, one need not stretch rational too far to imagine there are still covert operatives able to push him in one direction or another. If that were the case, we still have an "inside job" scenario of a small handful of people.

Many have speculated (in some cases with convince arguments) that many of the more outlandish 9/11 conspiracy theories are part of a disinformation campaign of over-information to create an impossible amount of confusion. Again, an "inside job" scenario in which very few people need be involved.

It's still too sad to think about. I still have an American flag on our front porch. It's the first thing you see when you come into the driveway. My heart aches at the level of evil in the world. I guess that's one reason I like gardening so much. When I'm outside in the yard, I tend to put away such sad thoughts. My husband recently went to NY and went to Ground Zero. He said it was a truly humbling experience. Blessings to all and good night.

reply to post by jthomas

Wow, JThomas, what kind of convoluted ramblings are you up to now? There is nothing in your post I find any merit to comment on as you so completely bastardized my opinion to such a great extent I don't know where to begin to even try to straighten it out. But what seems rather strange is your attempt to use your bastardized version of my opinion to some how justify Leslie's reply to such an "absurd" question.

Please read what I wrote again in my last two posts and try not to bastardize it too much again.

Edit to add:

I did find one thing to comment on in your post:

You're right I did paraphrase Les by taking two of his statements and combining them in a logical sequence and then I paraphrased.

And I was wrong. You (and Alfie1) did not paraphrase Les. You (and Alfie1) just claimed you knew what he was REALLY thinking deep down.


[edit on 22-5-2010 by NIcon]

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

Wow, JThomas, what kind of convoluted ramblings are you up to now? There is nothing in your post I find any merit to comment on as you so completely bastardized my opinion to such a great extent I don't know where to begin to even try to straighten it out.

You quite clearly stated:

"So what did Leslie claim he actually did that concerned a 707? Leslie has said he did the tests for a 707 at 180 mph and in fog and that is all he did.

"So I thought an intelligent person, if they were to combine these two statements, would come to the conclusion that in Leslie's mind his foggy 180 mph crash test and protecting the towers from terrorist attacks are somehow linked. So if we take both his statements literally, that's what I come up with."

I showed you why Roberston did not make a connection between the two statements. He never made, implied, or stated anything about "terrorist attacks."

Nothing could be more clear.



[edit on 22-5-2010 by jthomas]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by jthomas
The list of tenuous assumptions are many.

There are many conspiracy scenarios, ranging from highly-speculative to reasonably plausible, for which the list of "insiders" could be relatively small, if not low single digits, and still qualify as an "inside job."

For example, as Bin Laden was connected to the CIA during their covert funding of the Mujahideen, one need not stretch rational too far to imagine there are still covert operatives able to push him in one direction or another. If that were the case, we still have an "inside job" scenario of a small handful of people.

Many have speculated (in some cases with convince arguments) that many of the more outlandish 9/11 conspiracy theories are part of a disinformation campaign of over-information to create an impossible amount of confusion. Again, an "inside job" scenario in which very few people need be involved.

Part of the issue is what constitutes "outlandish" conspiracy theories versus "reasonable" conspiracy theories. Some believe CIT's NO A-77 theory is outlandish. Some believe that NYFD firemen who stated that WTC 7 was going to collpase and therefore were "in on it" is reasonable.

I think testing conspiracy theories against what would have to happen as well as the implications and consequences of those theories ultimately reveals their viability as possible or not. I have yet to see a 9/11 conspiracy theory posited that would not require more than a handful of people knowing in advance and/or after the fact. I think it is impossible for any small group of plotters to anticipate and deal with independent evidence and eyewitnesses after the fact.

This brings up a whole topic on its own. It would be nice for you, or someone else, to choose one event of 9/11 that some believe as evidence of a conspiracy and then explore all of the requirements, implications, and consequences we can think of and see if could actually involve only a few people "in the know" and be kept quiet.

reply to post by jthomas

He never made, implied, or stated anything about "terrorist attacks."

Hmmm, Jthomas, you have brought up a good thought. Maybe there is an option I never thought of before.

Maybe I'm more correct than I know when I say I consider him just a "blabbing old man," maybe he is literally a "blabbing old man."

The article doesn't mention it but maybe he was also banging his head up and down on the podium as he blurted out his completely irrelevant non sequitur to a question about "terrorist attacks".

Thanks for playing and thanks for the tip.

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

He never made, implied, or stated anything about "terrorist attacks."

Hmmm, Jthomas, you have brought up a good thought. Maybe there is an option I never thought of before.

Maybe I'm more correct than I know when I say I consider him just a "blabbing old man," maybe he is literally a "blabbing old man."

The article doesn't mention it but maybe he was also banging his head up and down on the podium as he blurted out his completely irrelevant non sequitur to a question about "terrorist attacks".

Thanks for playing and thanks for the tip.

I think stating what he designed the building to survive - a hit by a 707 lost in the fog - pretty much answers any question on the subject on what he considered when he designed the towers. I've given you succinct reasons why his response is both appropriate, to the point, and the furthest thing from a "non-sequitur."

Originally posted by jthomas
I think stating what he designed the building to survive...

I think stating the he designed the buildings at all is misinformation, a lie, and incorrect. Just because Robertson claims to have designed the towers, doesn't mean he actually did. Just because NIST made guesses and calculations doesn't mean those guesses and calculations are correct either. You can't put your blind faith in someone or an organization without some sort of research.

Again, Leslie Robertson did not design the towers. He had nothing to do with designing the towers. John Skilling and his firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle, and Jackson were tasked with designing the towers. Leslie Robertson was recruited by Skilling's firm to help with the project. Robertson was responsible for the sway-reduction features of the towers.

Robertson was a right-hand. A helper. Robertson's name is not in Worthington, Skilling, Helle, and Jackson. Nor was he a partner and didn't become a partner until the WTC project was complete. When Robertson says he designed the towers, he's lying to your face and your taking it in like a big ol' cup of gullible soup.

Robertson is a fraud and a coward, taking the credit away from John Skilling when Skilling isn't even alive to defend himself or his buildings.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Robertson is a fraud and a coward, taking the credit away from John Skilling when Skilling isn't even alive to defend himself or his buildings.

So you are saying NIcon should not pay any attention to what Robertson said.


[edit on 22-5-2010 by jthomas]