Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[tfk]

Robertson's comments from 2006 KGNU discussion with Steven Jones.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Roberts_AnnotatedJones-RobertsonTranscript.pdf

You have to ignore completely the inane comments by Gregg Roberts.

ROBERTSON: —This is a very robust floor system, rather different from that portrayed in the British press, but in any event—the other issue having to do with the failure mechanism, again, I’ve not performed an in-depth study on the matter, but I carried the event far enough along so that I became convinced that if you dropped the floors above onto the floors below, i.e., caused a collapse in the middle of the building some place, that without question, the collapse would continue, right down to the foundations. There’s no way that the structure below would be able to carry, let us say 14 floors. Not possible, not even close to being possible.

I am not aware of any calculations that Robertson has done on collapse dynamics for the WTC towers post 9/11.

Note: Neither has Bjorkman done any calculations. Bjorkman does prose. Incorrect prose.

tk

 

[tfk]

Less would be more T. This is just repetetive, circular and boring. Better to stick with the debunkng while it lasts given that you have no future in creative writing.

.

I actually thought that it was pretty fair writing.

I was amused. And, according to the "Bill Smith Rules for Posting", that is ALL that is required.

Excuse me while I "LoL" my way outta here...

Tom

 

[Justin39640]

Leslie Robertson has said some curious things since 911, as some of them seem to contradict things that John Skilling had previously said and even things Robertson said in the past himself.

It is a shame Skilling isn't alive.

care to elaborate?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

care to elaborate?

His comment that as far as he knows they didn't consider the fuel from the aircraft in the analysis. Skilling says they did.

 

[alienentity]

A resistance of 0.3g is comparable to the material of the building moving through custard. But people like you say "oh, look there was resistance!", so it couldn't have been a demolition.

The 0.3g resistance is due to the lower structure having 10% of it's normal 300% plus resistance remaining.

This reply should also answer some of the other naysayers here, who said the same thing you did about this facet of the collapses.

How would you know about Hardfire?

Your boy wonder, David Chandler, has measured the WTC 1 collapse at 6.31 m/s^2 for the upper block of WTC 1 and says that this is equal to 64 % of g.

I know you truthers love to use the terms 'near-freefall speed', like Dr. Steven Jones and Richard Gage do. Since this 'freefall speed' handle is like a kind of holy grail to the 'truth' movement, isn't it inconvenient that WTC 1 fell at a much slower rate?

Based on a scale of 1 to 100, 64 is just past midway, isn't it? When I was in University, I could've used the truther scaling effect when my parents asked about my grades: 'oh, almost 100%, or full marks' (actually, 64%!!)

Luckily I didn't need cheap tricks like that to obfuscate reality, but you guys do.

That's pretty obvious.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Your boy wonder, David Chandler, has measured the WTC 1 collapse at 6.31 m/s^2 for the upper block of WTC 1 and says that this is equal to 64 % of g.

I know you truthers love to use the terms 'near-freefall speed', like Dr. Steven Jones and Richard Gage do. Since this 'freefall speed' handle is like a kind of holy grail to the 'truth' movement, isn't it inconvenient that WTC 1 fell at a much slower rate?

Based on a scale of 1 to 100, 64 is just past midway, isn't it? When I was in University, I could've used the truther scaling effect when my parents asked about my grades: 'oh, almost 100%, or full marks' (actually, 64%!!)

Luckily I didn't need cheap tricks like that to obfuscate reality, but you guys do.

That's pretty obvious.

When I was in school 64% would have been described as a lot closer to 2/3 than 1/2 or 1. But that is just me.

I don't think you use cheap tricks when you obfuscate reality.

 

[triforcharity]

64%=FAIL. Here is a common grading scale.

A+ 98-100
A 95-97
A- 93-94
B+ 90-92
B 87-89
B- 85-86
C+ 82-84
C 79-81
C- 77-78
D+ 74-76
D 72-73
D- 71-69
F <69

So, with a 64%, its a FAIL!!!

 

[Justin39640]

His comment that as far as he knows they didn't consider the fuel from the aircraft in the analysis. Skilling says they did.

citation?

to model those fires accurately was impossible with pen and paper in the 60s

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

did they have the particle modeling systems required for such a humongous simulation?
of course not

i think he was being optimistic if he did say it
real world scenarios proved him wrong

i cant understand why you and bill would think les robertson would need to be arrested
he designed it and gave his opinions after

from his interviews i really feel for him
he feels directly responsible for every death in the towers
his hindsight is his torture
i dont feel he deserves it
he did nothing wrong
i say leave the man alone

you morons spew your "opinions" (crapola) all over the internet and at GZ itself
maybe you should count your lucky stars you live in a free country that doesnt punish people for having stupid ideas
or you 2 would have been gone long ago

us callin you out on it i feel would be considered a check and balance not censorship or being NWO disinfo agents (how dumb and paranoid can you be?)

 

[Gamolon]

Did you miss this questions Tony?

You said this:

Do you know that each floor could support 12 times it's own weight or 29 million lbs.?

On page 7 of your paper you say this:

The mass above the 98th floor, from the mass analysis, is 68,295,000 lbs.,[?QUOTE]

Is 68,295,000 lbs. not more that 29 million lbs.?

 

[Gamolon]

First this:

Leslie Robertson has said some curious things since 911, as some of them seem to contradict things that John Skilling had previously said and even things Robertson said in the past himself.

It is a shame Skilling isn't alive.

Then this:

His comment that as far as he knows they didn't consider the fuel from the aircraft in the analysis. Skilling says they did.

Two questions for you:
1. Do you have links to both parties comments? I haven't seen this claim before.
2. You said "curious comments" as in plural, more than one. What other comments/contradictions between Skilling and Robertson are you talking about?

 

[funk de fino]

Please don't use fire weakening as an excuse here as there is no physical evidence of the steel experiencing high enough temperatures to even weaken it.

You ran away from this when I called you on it. I say this is false and you are lying. Care to take a wager on it?

 

[bill smith]

Leslie Robertson has said some curious things since 911, as some of them seem to contradict things that John Skilling had previously said and even things Robertson said in the past himself.

It is a shame Skilling isn't alive.

Suppose Robertson is eventually called before some kind of tribunal. What do you think would be the most awkward question they could ask him in that context ?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Did you miss this questions Tony?

You said this:


On page 7 of your paper you say this:
Tony's paper "The mass above the 98th floor, from the mass analysis, is 68,295,000 lbs."

Is 68,295,000 lbs. not more that 29 million lbs.?

Your contention that the columns would all land on the floors is impossible and not even worthy of consideration.

I only showed the fact that the floors could handle 29 million lbs. to show that they were not insignificant.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Suppose Robertson is eventually called before some kind of tribunal. What do you think would be the most awkward question they could ask him in that context ?

I would have to think about it but I would say it would be about one of the below issues

- the comment he made about jet fuel not being considered in the analysis

- about the second analysis he claims to have done in late 1964 where he says he looked at a plane lost in the fog and looking to land moving under 200 knots. They would ask him if he considered jet fuel in his alleged analysis and if not why not

- why if there already was an analysis did he perform a second analysis

There is no trace of that analysis as opposed to the February 1964 analysis that describes a fully loaded 707 moving at 600 mph, which is 30% more kinetic energy than either of the two aircraft that hit the towers would have had.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You ran away from this when I called you on it. I say this is false and you are lying. Care to take a wager on it?

Show where the NIST has anymore than a few pieces which experienced up to 600 degrees C. The vast majority of what they have did not experience more than 250 degrees C, where steel has not even begun to lose strength.

 

[funk de fino]

Show where the NIST has anymore than a few pieces which experienced up to 600 degrees C. The vast majority of what they have did not experience more than 250 degrees C, where steel has not even begun to lose strength.

Arwe you shifting the goalposts again Tony?

Do you stand by this claim?

Please don't use fire weakening as an excuse here as there is no physical evidence of the steel experiencing high enough temperatures to even weaken it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

First this:


Then this:


Two questions for you:
1. Do you have links to both parties comments? I haven't seen this claim before.
2. You said "curious comments" as in plural, more than one. What other comments/contradictions between Skilling and Robertson are you talking about?

Skilling made a number of comments to the Seattle Times in 1993 which you can find on-line.

Robertson making the fuel comment can be seen on 911 Mysteries. I think it was from an interview for the show How the Towers Fell.

He also made comments in 1984/85 along the lines of no matter how the buildings were attacked that a collapse would be very unlikely.

 

[bill smith]

I would have to think about it but I would say it would be about one of the below issues

- the comment he made about jet fuel not being considered in the analysis

- about the second analysis he claims to have done in late 1964 where he says he looked at a plane lost in the fog and looking to land moving under 200 knots. They would ask him if he considered jet fuel in his alleged analysis and if not why not

- why if there already was an analysis did he perform a second analysis

There is no trace of that analysis as opposed to the February 1964 analysis that describes a fully loaded 707 moving at 600 mph, which is 30% more kinetic energy than either of the two aircraft that hit the towers would have had.

I've always noticed that the guys I mentioned strive to stay just outside outright lying. At such a tribunal that could be enough to get them off the hook.We should be looking for and recording any existing outright lie and devising questions that would force them to lie in order to maintain the official fiction.

 

[funk de fino]

He also made comments in 1984/85 along the lines of no matter how the buildings were attacked that a collapse would be very unlikely.

They said the Titanic was unsinkable Tony. Do you believe everything you hear?

 

[funk de fino]

There is no trace of that analysis as opposed to the February 1964 analysis that describes a fully loaded 707 moving at 600 mph, which is 30% more kinetic energy than either of the two aircraft that hit the towers would have had.

Not pushing that old falsehood are you Tony?