Video Shows Concrete Core Wall Falling Into Core., No steel core columns ever seen in the core area. Options

[bjohnson]

Adding hyperlink of Leslie E. Robertson post on page 627 of PhysForum for convenience:

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...amp;#entry78752

Is there anyway to know if that poster is the real deal? Wouldn't want to use a reference like that only to find out it was a fraud. Wouldn't be the first time the truth movement has been duped by disinfo agents. However, if its legit, it would be great ammo to destroy many of those same tired, worn out debunker arguments pertaining to the design of the towers.

[dMz]

Whether this is Robertson or not, the pre 9/11 documentary evidence is on the side of there being a core.

My bigger question would be whether or not a L. Robertson should be trusted. Wasn't he the guy "thinking" of 600mph Boeings completely devoid of fuel and also subcontracted on the NIST report??

http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/LERA_Award.htm

This page would suggest some involvement in the FEMA/ASCE Pentagon report as well. Hmmmm....

http://www.lera.com/sep11.htm

Bjohnson, you might find contact info at that link above (it appears to be Robertson's web page).

[saturnaspider]

My bigger question would be whether or not a L. Robertson should be trusted.

"From our office, we watched as the second plane hit the South Tower." Saw Teen See (Wife of Robertson and Managing Partner of the LERA company.
http://www.lera.com/sep11.htm

This is the lady that describes UA175 as a blue and red plane:

"...we saw the, this blue and red plane coming by and er... smash into the, er.. . south tower..." (From 'How The Twin towers Collapsed.)

Blue and red plane?
(IMG:http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b757/b757_15.jpg)
Hmmmm - Maybe their Manhattan office actually overlooks the Pentagon and she was watching AA77! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

dMole, you are right. They are not to be trusted, IMHO.

(Edit: I suppose, in her defense, she could have been having a collective memory flashback, via the Naudets, of AA11 hitting the North Tower. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) )

This post has been edited by saturnaspider: Feb 20 2009, 12:09 AM

[Christophera]

Whether this is Robertson or not, the pre 9/11 documentary evidence is on the side of there being a core.

The Nova special on why the WTC towers fell went out of its way to cover this up.

I would imagine any documentary maker post 2003 or so would be aware of the technical controversy and avoid the core altogether except for sparse reference. The only reasearcher using FEMA structural data, this is the extent of it BTW, from

(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif)

Is Frank Greening. He is sincere and actually tries to explain the act of setting enough explosives properly around the supposed steel core columns. He explains it with elevator shutdowns. Something needed in any case, and did happen on a large enough scale to set dotonators in the concrete core but not nearly enough to construct cutting charges around 47 steel box tube core columns adequate to enable free fall and all of the pieces disappearing from 9-11 images. Greening is silent when I ask him about how the cutting charges may have been set around interior box columns where 1/2 of the box is in the hallway ringing the core on each floor. No one else has even tried.

BTW, a new educational video has been produced and uploaded to youtube that uses parts of the newly identified video showing that east piece of the WTC 1 concrete core,

YouTube - North Tower - Concrete Core

Not sure who made it but I suspect someone viewing the BFN thread as they use all of the points I use and share a link to my site.

This post has been edited by Christophera: Feb 20 2009, 02:19 AM

[Christophera]

My bigger question would be whether or not a L. Robertson should be trusted. Wasn't he the guy "thinking" of 600mph Boeings completely devoid of fuel and also subcontracted on the NIST report??

On September 13, 2001 I think he's straight forward, but I felt that after that, because no proper structural data was available on the web, he was suppressed. The S. jones interview had jones describing the steel core columns and Robertson not correcting him. A newer web site seems to identify steel core columns but is a little vague. Over time, they are getting to him.

The April fools day comment seems to be a curious break where he resisted the suppression safely.

This post has been edited by Christophera: Feb 20 2009, 02:26 AM

[bjohnson]

http://www.lera.com/sep11.htm

Bjohnson, you might find contact info at that link above (it appears to be Robertson's web page).

Well, I sent an inquiry to the e-address listed on that page yesterday- Friday, 20 February. I anxiously await a response, if I ever receive one. I guess I'll just keep my fingers crossed. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[stannrodd]

The Newsweek article does not report that Leslie E Robertson made such a claim about the towers cores.

“Beyond the reaction that any citizen has—the sadness that we all feel—you have to understand, I worked long hours, seven days a week on this project back when I was young and energetic,” says the 73-year-old, his voice breaking with emotion. “It was just terrible to watch, painful and horrible.”

“If they had fallen down immediately, the death counts would have been unimaginable,” he says. “The World Trade Center has performed admirably, and everyone involved in the project should be proud.”

“As the fire raged it got hotter and hotter and the steel got weaker and weaker,” he says, adding that building a skyscraper able to handle such a blaze would not have been viable, financially and functionally. “You could always prepare for more and more extreme events, but there has to be a risk analysis of what’s reasonable.”

“I felt like we had taken their best shot.”

“We just have to hope that this country doesn’t turn into a fortress in order to deal with people like this.”

This following text is not a quote of Robertson but written by Katherine Stroup who has admitted her mistake.

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.

Bold type added by me. The bold type is the word of the reporter Katherine Stroup not Robertson. Katherine has been contacted about this and admits that this information was assumed from a poor source in the rush to publish.

The guest post is false and is not Robertson. I have been in contact with the man.

The core of the Tower pictured here shows a steel column structure.

(IMG:http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/im958lguq5.jpg)

Also here

(IMG:http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/im_652_lg.jpg)

here as well ..

(IMG:http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/im_580_lg.jpg)

another..

(IMG:http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/im_1011_lg.jpg)

The Youtube video is by Christophera. You forgot to point out the Mars face Chris..!

(IMG:http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/face1.jpg)

The tacoma narrows bridge instability.. another red herring.

This is a steel frame building of 100 floors .. impossible ?

(IMG:http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/underconstruction22mo0.png)

(IMG:http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/underconstructionhancocyt4.png)

How it looks today .. in Chicago.

(IMG:http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/250px-Hancock_tower_2006.jpg)

Chris will now probably claim that I am a disinfo internet stalker who secretly planned mass murder on 9/11 from New Zealand .. actually I came here to see if anyone had posted a scientific paper on the ability of a 767 wing to cut through the WTC perimeter columns. .. anyone? .. I couldn't find anything yet.

Saw Chris was here to so thought I'd post something.

Cheers
Stann (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

This post has been edited by stannrodd: Feb 22 2009, 11:05 PM

[dMz]

.. actually I came here to see if anyone had posted a scientific paper on the ability of a 767 wing to cut through the WTC perimeter columns. .. anyone? .. I couldn't find anything yet.

Saw Chris was here to so thought I'd post something.

Cheers
Stann (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

So I suppose the deja-vu threads would be these 2 then?

Wtc Data Faked In Conspiracy To Mislead Research, Deception and collusion void truth quest
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=10014

Mkultra And The Post 9-11 Psyops, The possible role of a proven black ops in 9-11 disinfo
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13124

On the plane/fuselage vs. perimeter columns, that would probably entail computer modeled Finite Element Analysis (or FEA) (which I and GroundPounder actually considered in the Pentagon section for a while. That would require many accurate specifications from Boeing (which no one has found yet that I know of, although there were 3 pretty pictures in one of the NIST reports).

On the perimeter columns, I was doing some research on thermal modeling those (before a couple computer crashes), but my research is here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13091

Posts #5 and 8 are probably the most perimeter column specific above, but see also posts 41-46 and the thread here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10750076

I really doubt whether anyone has plans to get accurate computer modeling, as accurate, specific B767, B757, and WTC data is not even available that I have found. There appear to be 3-5 "camps" of papers on this, and I'm not convinced of the 100% validity of any that I've seen yet, as none have properly addressed mass distribution and the fraction of kinetic energy imparted into tower oscillation and/or cantilever beam bending rather than puncturing[EDIT: and/or shearing] select perimeter columns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantilever

I discussed some of these matters with "psikeyhacker" (and a few others) a long time ago:

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=87960&page=83

Although it doesn't focus on wings vs. P. columns, here is one of the better, more concise papers that I have read recently by David L. Griscom:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10763320

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters...vid-griscom.pdf

At some point, the question(s) should come down to economy of resources IMHO, and I will let the various factions haggle.

Hope this helps,
d

Reason for edit: Added shearing

[stannrodd]

So I suppose the deja-vu threads would be these 2 then?

Wtc Data Faked In Conspiracy To Mislead Research, Deception and collusion void truth quest
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=10014

Mkultra And The Post 9-11 Psyops, The possible role of a proven black ops in 9-11 disinfo
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13124

On the plane/fuselage vs. perimeter columns, that would probably entail computer modeled Finite Element Analysis (or FEA) (which I and GroundPounder actually considered in the Pentagon section for a while. That would require many accurate specifications from Boeing (which no one has found yet that I know of, although there were 3 pretty pictures in one of the NIST reports).

On the perimeter columns, I was doing some research on thermal modeling those (before a couple computer crashes), but my research is here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13091

Posts #5 and 8 are probably the most perimeter column specific above, but see also posts 41-46 and the thread here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10750076

I really doubt whether anyone has plans to get accurate computer modeling, as accurate, specific B767, B757, and WTC data is not even available that I have found. There appear to be 3-5 "camps" of papers on this, and I'm not convinced of the 100% validity of any that I've seen yet, as none have properly addressed mass distribution and the fraction of kinetic energy imparted into tower oscillation and/or cantilever beam bending rather than puncturing select perimeter columns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantilever

I discussed some of these matters with "psikeyhacker" (and a few others) a long time ago:

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=87960&page=83

Although it doesn't focus on wings vs. P. columns, here is one of the better, more concise papers that I have read recently by David L. Griscom:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10763320

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters...vid-griscom.pdf

At some point, the question(s) should come down to economy of resources IMHO, and I will let the various factions haggle.

Hope this helps,
d

Thanks heaps cobber .. yeah the deja vu thing does get a bit boring but sometimes one needs to revist bad dreams..

Cheers .. I will peruse at length. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

Stann

[paranoia]

for christophera:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=220348420973

This is raw footage of the construction of the World Trade Center buildings in New York City, including original footage of Ground Zero and lots of industrial visuals.


im not saying it is THE vid u have been referrencing,
nor am i saying i even agree that such a vid necessarily exists,
but perhaps this ebay one could be of some use.


(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[GroundPounder]

i have a wonderful pdf file made by a professor Hoo Fatt and grad student Karim at the Mechanical Engineering Dept of the University of Akron, showing the results of modeling the 767 crash into the WTC. it was written in jan 2005 and despite making some assumptions (500mph plane speed, full fuel load, no flooring) it is a stellar piece of work. they used LS-DYNA for the FEA (finite element analysis) and can be read by the layman. how can i make that available? upload?

[bjohnson]

Here is what I received in reply to my question sent to Leslie's firm:

"Hi there;

It should be patently obvious that these statements were not made by Leslie Robertson.

Anyone who knows anything about the WTC project knows that there is no reinforced concrete core in the towers. NIST's study ( NIST.gov ) has more details which are available to the public.

SawTeen See"

Which still doesn't help much, because they are basically brushing me off and directing me to NIST for more information. The problem is that NIST didn't have or at least didn't release the as-built structural documentation. Original blueprints are about as useless as taking NIST's word for it...

[kawika]

Because of that issue, and the molten steel in the basement, I researched the 1983 bombing and found that the FBI had supervised it as a sort of sting on the terrorists. Originally, fake explosives were planned, a dry run thing, not real clear about that. Eventually the FBI had said "park the van next to the core wall", in the depositions of the FBI it confirmed the final directions to the bombers were to move away from the core and depend on the damage to the floor diaphrams to cause maximum destruction.

The 1993 bomb was set under WTC3, not either tower. No core columns were threatened. This fantasy must be destroyed once and for all.

The bomb shattered a glass wall in the lobby of WTC3, allowing smoke to rise into the elevator shafts of WTC1. More smoke found its way through the garages and into WTC2, creating a huge illusion that the towers were on fire.

The after action report on the 1993 bombing can be found here:

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-076.pdf

You'll note demolition consistencies with 2001 evidence of basement explosions, IE marble blown off lobby walls and elevator doors ajar.

The 1993 bombing provided the opportunity to rework and retrofit the towers for the 2001 demolition. All done at taxpayer expense. Just like the urban removal scam accomplished on 911.

[Christophera]

for christophera:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=220348420973

This is raw footage of the construction of the World Trade Center buildings in New York City, including original footage of Ground Zero and lots of industrial visuals.


im not saying it is THE vid u have been referrencing,
nor am i saying i even agree that such a vid necessarily exists,
but perhaps this ebay one could be of some use.


(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

Damm, I missed it. That could have had some interesting construction images in it. Thanks for the tip. I'll try to browse my threads more completely from now on.

[Christophera]

The 1993 bomb was set under WTC3, not either tower. No core columns were threatened. This fantasy must be destroyed once and for all.

Hmmmmmm, I searched for 1993 bombing, WTC 3 and found nothing. But, I did find this when searching WTC,

http://www.scribd.com/doc/42751/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers

See page 15. A little square inset, "Following the February 26, 1993 bombing of WTC 1".

And, .......... there were no core columns to threaten, so that part is right on.

[Christophera]

Here is what I received in reply to my question sent to Leslie's firm:

"Hi there;

It should be patently obvious that these statements were not made by Leslie Robertson.

Anyone who knows anything about the WTC project knows that there is no reinforced concrete core in the towers. NIST's study ( NIST.gov ) has more details which are available to the public.

SawTeen See"

Which still doesn't help much, because they are basically brushing me off and directing me to NIST for more information. The problem is that NIST didn't have or at least didn't release the as-built structural documentation. Original blueprints are about as useless as taking NIST's word for it...

It is "patently obvious" that a Newsweek reporter and Leslie Robertson 2 days after 9-11 are going to get the structural aspects correct because 3,000 people just died in the buildings. It is also "patently obvious" that Newsweek has a great deal more credibility 2 days after than "SawTeen See" 8 years later.

If we could get what was presented at original blueprints, we could compare them to what is seen coming apart on 9-11, and they will match, if the are truly "original".

[Christophera]

The Youtube video is by Christophera. You forgot to point out the Mars face Chris..!

(IMG:http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/face1.jpg)

An error. S.N.A.F.U. at BFN found the original video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5b

and made the animated .gif here. Stan points out the detonation of the wall above the piece that topples into the core, erroneously trying to identify it as a "mars face".

(IMG:http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww168/S_N_A_F_U/core_animation_75.gif)

Chris will now probably claim that I am a disinfo internet stalker who secretly planned mass murder on 9/11 from New Zealand .. actually I came here to see if anyone had posted a scientific paper on the ability of a 767 wing to cut through the WTC perimeter columns. .. anyone? .. I couldn't find anything yet.

Saw Chris was here to so thought I'd post something.

Cheers
Stann (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

You are trying to impel people to dismiss quality information well evidenced and reasoned that substanciates that the Twin towers had a steel reinforced cast concrete tubular core and you are misrepresenting construction images because there is not one from 9-11 that show the supposed steel core columns in the core area.

Your construction images show elevator guide rail support steel and to substanciate that not one of them show the required horizontal and diagonal bracing steel core columns must have in order to be laterally stable and resist sway and torsion.

You are stalking me around the web.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread....808&page=34

http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopi...&start=6285

You are misrepresenting what I claim you are doing which is well evidenced everywhere you post. I claim you are supporting secret means of mass murder. But you get more emotional reasoning out of misrepresenting the facts.

This post has been edited by Christophera: Feb 23 2009, 08:02 PM

[DoYouEverWonder]

The 1993 bomb was set under WTC3, not either tower. No core columns were threatened. This fantasy must be destroyed once and for all.

The bomb shattered a glass wall in the lobby of WTC3, allowing smoke to rise into the elevator shafts of WTC1. More smoke found its way through the garages and into WTC2, creating a huge illusion that the towers were on fire.

The after action report on the 1993 bombing can be found here:

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-076.pdf

You'll note demolition consistencies with 2001 evidence of basement explosions, IE marble blown off lobby walls and elevator doors ajar.

The 1993 bombing provided the opportunity to rework and retrofit the towers for the 2001 demolition. All done at taxpayer expense. Just like the urban removal scam accomplished on 911.

I believe the 1993 Bombing was a test run for 9/11. One of the things they needed to know was how much damage, x amount of explosives could do to the sublevels.

The bomb was placed under the Vista Hotel, directly over the chiller system and electrical system for the entire Complex.

(IMG:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/DoYouEverWonder/Misc/WTC1993bombingmap.jpg)

The blast just so happened to be located at the point where it could do the most damage. It knocked out the power plant for the entire complex. This plunged into darkness over 50,000 people in the Twin Towers. No lights, no elevators, no heat, and lots of soot filled smoke. Most New York City television stations have their transmitters atop tower 1.This left only 1 TV station on the air (Channel 2 WCBS). Cable reception was not interrupted as the cable head end is fed directly from the studio and not the transmitter site. Many of the trapped occupants were listening to their radios for information. In some of the offices where televisions were located, they were watching channel 2.

http://www.fdnewyork.com/wtc.asp

This gave them an excuse to shut down the Towers for over a month and to launch a major renovation project to upgrade the mechanical systems in all of the buildings. The perps had 8 years to do whatever they wanted to prep the complex for demolition. Those 'terrorists' sure got lucky, again.

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Feb 23 2009, 08:48 PM

[Christophera]

I believe the 1993 Bombing was a test run for 9/11. One of the things they needed to know was how much damage, x amount of explosives could do to the sublevels.

The bomb was placed under the Vista Hotel, directly over the chiller system and electrical system for the entire Complex.

(IMG:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/DoYouEverWonder/Misc/WTC1993bombingmap.jpg)



This gave them an excuse to shut down the Towers for over a month and to launch a major renovation project to upgrade the mechanical systems in all of the buildings. The perps had 8 years to do whatever they wanted to prep the complex for demolition. Those 'terrorists' sure got lucky, again.

I would have to agree generally, with everything. My viewng that 1990 documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers" really sets a standard of explanatory, feasible, engineerable technology, along with the expose I read provided by Navy Seal divers building sub bases off San Diego in the early 1960's who invented the Explosive coated rebar grid explosive distribution/concrete containment idea. It was by accident and unauthorized as a reaction to being forced to go the the bottom in 160 foot waters and jackhammer a secret opening that all the plans intentionally left out. The divers had already hammerded 3 in same place and one was too pissed off about it and the needed decompression time and was prepared to kill who delivered the next order to go brek the secret hole in the sub base wall in exactly the same place they had already done it three times. He had an inspiration and used a solvent on issue C4 ordinance, made a thick goo depositing a reasonable mass of C4 on the rebar, spun them, tipped them distributed the C4 as the solvent evaporated making a thin layer, hung them to dry, took them to the bottom and went inside the opening size he had broken into finished sub base walls by a parallel dimension and tied them into the reinforcing grid here a candle wired to it sticking outwards to the forms as they are installed, carefully located, relocated when stripping the forms.
It paid off, a few days after the pour, just as the forms were to be stripped, the orders to break the opening showed up placing it at the same place, again.
After a 20 minute dive and almost no compression, a timer, a detonator inserted down the hole where the wax had been drilled out, next to the C4 coated rebar, with no orders to do so, somethign required, they detonated the rebar, took turns an short dives of 20 minutes apiece, and the jack hammer work was cut down to 4 hours from 16.
They were stoked until an officer showed with a seismometer recording showed with the unauthorized detonation spiking it.

He pressed them, the guilty inventor confessed angrily, there was no problem, the officer sent a team of DOD explosives and structural engineers, the diver was debriefed, some tests were done, 6 month laters all sub bases were completely constructed with the same coated rebar, soon missile silos were built that way.
Since 1999, 4,000 silos have been demoed, all built after 1965.

The cold war was created in order to justify secrecy, both side cooperating towards a common goal shared by the simualtaneous infiltration.

The 1993 bombing tested the "terror networks" cultivated for that purpose and also took care of a demolition oversight. The heavy bases of the perimeter columns and interior box columns surrounding the concrete core would make the demo very expensive and time consuming, so thermite liners under drywall were installed. It was important within the psyops decieiving and manipulating the public to get the site cleaned up and start planning a new WTC, so on that matter, a reason for an extensive remodel was needed.

If you look deep in the transcripts of interogetores and depositions on the FBI, by the bombers defense,

http://www.takeoverworld.info/

and I really wish I had more detail for you, you will find where the bombers were originally told to park it against the core, but then were instructed to move it out under the facilities you mention and floors.
However, the intial parking location indicates that someone knew the core was a continuous explosive circuit all the way to the top, and that, plus perhaps common sense of demolition, was the reason the van was moved in the plan. If the van had been next to the concrete core and it's blast had reached the C3 the entire would pop like a firecracker. Now, ......... that would be hard to explain.

Logically the deep secret of built to demolish would be very highly kept and street walking FBI agents might not know. So, saudi knowledge in overview by FBI handlers changed the plan perhaps.

Paul Laffoley,

http://www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=50655

states he heard a saudi concrete contractor ask "Where they should put the explosives?"

The notion was also put forth to a guy working on the elevator motor certifications.

http://www.rense.com/general48/chargesplacedinWTC.htm

This post has been edited by Christophera: Feb 23 2009, 10:51 PM

[stannrodd]

I claim you are supporting secret means of mass murder.

Can you prove this claim Chris ??


I find it very objectionable being accused of "secretly supporting mass murder"



Would you like to withdraw and apologize asshole !! Or at least explain yourself !!

Stann

This post has been edited by stannrodd: Feb 23 2009, 10:36 PM