Mossad did 9/11. Period.

[Jose Collado]

According to the link pixelsmith provided, "AE911Truth Slide Show Presentation," there are 560 architects and engineers calling for a new 9/11 investigation. Unfortunately, most of them aren't architects or engineers. In 2006 there were 1,500,000 actual employed engineers in the USA alone. There were 132,000 employed architects.

Architects, Except Landscape and Naval Reference 1
Engineers Reference 2

That's a grand total of 560 employed architects and engineers out of 1,632,000 who support 9/11 Truth. The majority of AE911Truth supporters aren't employed. They're retired. Many for decades now. There's also professors who teach architecture within the 560 head count.

Now take into consideration that the 560 head count is an international figure. So when we take into consideration the number of architects and engineers worldwide, the 560 head count seems more like a piss drop in the ocean. So we're looking at millions of architects and engineers worldwide and yet, only 560 support AE911Truth.

There's also no membership requirements for AE911Truth. So I wonder how many of the 560 head count are actually what they claim to be. Their member lists boasts the likes of Donald C. Meserlian, a "swimming pool engineer." Well, that was until his license as a Professional Engineer was revoked by the State of New Jersey. Nice....glad he's on their member's list.

How many subscribe to the theories perpetuated in this AE911Truth Slide Show Presentation? 560. I'm overwhelmed considering there are literally millions who don't subscribe and they're not even unlicensed swimming pool engineers.

I guess the remaining millions of employed engineers and architects are on the NWO payroll.

 

[pixelsmith]

According to the link pixelsmith provided, "AE911Truth Slide Show Presentation," there are 560 architects and engineers calling for a new 9/11 investigation. Unfortunately, most of them aren't architects or engineers. In 2006 there were 1,500,000 actual employed engineers in the USA alone. There were 132,000 employed architects.

Architects, Except Landscape and Naval Reference 1
Engineers Reference 2

That's a grand total of 560 employed architects and engineers out of 1,632,000 who support 9/11 Truth. The majority of AE911Truth supporters aren't employed. They're retired. Many for decades now. There's also professors who teach architecture within the 560 head count.

Now take into consideration that the 560 head count is an international figure. So when we take into consideration the number of architects and engineers worldwide, the 560 head count seems more like a piss drop in the ocean. So we're looking at millions of architects and engineers worldwide and yet, only 560 support AE911Truth.

There's also no membership requirements for AE911Truth. So I wonder how many of the 560 head count are actually what they claim to be. Their member lists boasts the likes of Donald C. Meserlian, a "swimming pool engineer." Well, that was until his license as a Professional Engineer was revoked by the State of New Jersey. Nice....glad he's on their member's list.

How many subscribe to the theories perpetuated in this AE911Truth Slide Show Presentation? 560. I'm overwhelmed considering there are literally millions who don't subscribe and they're not even unlicensed swimming pool engineers.

I guess the remaining millions of employed engineers and architects are on the NWO payroll.

Actually when the slide show was created not many architects or engineers even knew about the petition. As of a few months ago 1157 architectural and engineering professionals and 7809 other supporters including A&E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation. If you figure in how many fear for their jobs or families if they signed, the numbers would be vastly higher.

Did you even take time to view the slide show or do you prefer to keep your mind closed?

---------- Post added at 03:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:22 PM ----------

No sir. Present me some unbiased video evidence and I'll look. I presented a video that was made 18 years prior to the destruction of the towers. No bias.

Let's see a little bit of critical thinking here, not mindless following of this blather. Better yet, respond to the questions that have been asked of you. You told me I have no clue how these buildings were built. I responded directly to your assumption. If the video is in error, kindly point out those errors-and the documents you have to prove the errors.

I think you owe me that consideration as well.

I am well aware of the exterior columns. The central core columns are often left out of diagrams or simulations showing how the towers fell. Some even claim there is ONE column or that the columns were made of concrete. The tower was designed to withstand impacts from aircraft. Hell even the Empire State building stood just fine after an impact from a B 25 bomber.

 

[Xylo]

---------- Post added at 03:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:22 PM ----------



I am well aware of the exterior columns. The central core columns are often left out of diagrams or simulations showing how the towers fell. Some even claim there is ONE column or that the columns were made of concrete. The tower was designed to withstand impacts from aircraft. Hell even the Empire State building stood just fine after an impact from a B 25 bomber.

Red Herring.

The conversation you and I are having does not concern any impact. It concerns the the construction of WTC1 & 2. I believe I mentioned the center core in each of my posts, although I did call it a central elevator shaft in my first post. I didn't claim that there was one column, nor that the columns were constructed of concrete.

I am not comparing the construction of WTC to that of the Empire State Building. Nor am I qualified to make a judgement as to the survivability of either building during an impact with an airplane. Further, a B25 bomber is not a passenger jet.

The point I was making, and the point that I stand by is that one cannot compare the collapse due to fire (resultant of collision with aircraft) of WTC1 & 2 with the historical data of non-collapse of other steel framed buildings during fires. To do so is comparing two completely different types of events due to the construction of the buildings. Which negates the "fire has never caused the collapse of a steel framed building before" argument.

 

[pixelsmith]

Red Herring.

The conversation you and I are having does not concern any impact. It concerns the the construction of WTC1 & 2. I believe I mentioned the center core in each of my posts, although I did call it a central elevator shaft in my first post. I didn't claim that there was one column, nor that the columns were constructed of concrete.

I am not comparing the construction of WTC to that of the Empire State Building. Nor am I qualified to make a judgement as to the survivability of either building during an impact with an airplane. Further, a B25 bomber is not a passenger jet.

The point I was making, and the point that I stand by is that one cannot compare the collapse due to fire (resultant of collision with aircraft) of WTC1 & 2 with the historical data of non-collapse of other steel framed buildings during fires. To do so is comparing two completely different types of events due to the construction of the buildings. Which negates the "fire has never caused the collapse of a steel framed building before" argument.

Ok.... no problem, do not compare it to any other building in human history. I am fine with that.
Now explain:
1) molten metal in basements of all 3 WTC buildings.
2) how they ALL fell into nice tidy piles as opposed to toppling one way or another.
3) pulverized concrete into fine powder.
4) pyroclastic clouds with enough energy to pick people up off the ground and set them down a block away.

 

[Jose Collado]

As of a few months ago 1157 architectural and engineering professionals and 7809 other supporters including A&E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation. If you figure in how many fear for their jobs or families if they signed, the numbers would be vastly higher.

According to you, 1157 architectural and engineering professionals have signed. That's still a piss drop in an ocean of qualified, employed architects and engineers. The petition is global so only having 1157 is a joke. You make an assumption that the remaining millions "fear for their jobs". That's a pretty far fetched assumption.

7809 "other" supporters. I'm sorry....and? How exactly is that relevant? How many of those are actually qualified to tie their own shoes?

Please don't present an article or slideshow that quite clearly indicates it does not have the full support of a the architectural and engineering community.

I viewed the slideshow. Then I did some digging and found I won't be hiring Donald C. Meserlian to build my next pool.

 

[Xylo]

Ok.... no problem, do not compare it to any other building in human history. I am fine with that.
Now explain:
1) molten metal in basements of all 3 WTC buildings.
2) how they ALL fell into nice tidy piles as opposed to toppling one way or another.
3) pulverized concrete into fine powder.
4) pyroclastic clouds with enough energy to pick people up off the ground and set them down a block away.

First off Pixelsmith, I don't have any answers. I am looking for them myself. I find enough suspicion in the events of 9/11 and the days previous to it, as well as the few days after to keep me looking for those answers. I actually consider myself a "truther."

Yep. There. I said it.

But for me to consider myself such, I have to seek "the truth" not through innuendo or shoddy evidence-but through critical thinking and analysis. And yes, I rely upon professional opinion a great deal as I am NOT qualified to read blueprints, nor am I qualified enough in fire science to determine what critical temperatures were reached in that fire.

Let me, if you will, mention somethings regarding the post that I have quoted: You wish for me to explain

4) pyroclastic clouds with enough energy to pick people up off the ground and set them down a block away.

Hmmm.

Pyroclastic
–adjectiveGeology. composed chiefly of fragments of volcanic origin, as agglomerate, tuff, and certain other rocks; volcaniclastic.

pyroclastic <script language="javascript">AC_FL_RunContent = 0;</script><script type="text/javascript">var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "<img src=\"http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif\" border=\"0\" alt=\"pyroclastic pronunciation\" />", "6");interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsp.ask.com%2Fdictstatic%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fahsd%2FP%2FP0077200.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=45fa2dc8&u=audio"); interfaceflash.addParam('wmode','transparent');interfaceflash.write();</script><table><tbody><tr><td><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf" id="speaker" quality="high" loop="false" menu="false" salign="t" flashvars="soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsp.ask.com%2Fdictstatic%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fahsd%2FP%2FP0077200.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=45fa2dc8&u=audio" wmode="transparent" align="texttop" height="15" width="17"><noscript></noscript> (pī'rō-klās'tĭk) Pronunciation Key
<!--BOF_DEF-->Composed chiefly of rock fragments of explosive origin, especially those associated with explosive volcanic eruptions. Volcanic ash, obsidian, and pumice are examples of pyroclastic materials. </td></tr></tbody></table>

SOURCE
Reference

I do not believe that there are, or were any volcanoes present on Manhattan Island either on September 11, 2001 or today. So I'm going to guess that you mean the cloud of fire, debris, and smoke that resulted from the collapse of one or both of the WTC towers, which I will address.

The energy required to pick people off the ground would have been part of the shock wave associated with the rapid release of compressed matter from the collapse of the Towers. It would be easy enough to design an experiment to test this hypothesis. You do know that there was a shock wave, right?

I may be completely off my rocker, but I'm using logic to solve this conundrum.

You also want me to explain

3) pulverized concrete into fine powder.

Have you ever hit concrete with an airliner? Or a sledgehammer? Or a wrecking ball? Or a brick? Have you ever dropped concrete that was heated to 1000*F from 70 stories?

I have hit concrete with a sledgehammer, and pulverized it into a fine powder. I may have even thrown a brick at a concrete wall before. But the other choices I haven't done. Seems to me that with all the money the "truther" movement has, they could perform some experiments to answer their own questions.

I don't mind that there is suspicion. I don't mind that some people think there's a conspiracy. I think it's wonderful that there are people questioning the shoddy investigation (or lack thereof) by the government. But I HATE non-sensical, illogical, and asinine thinking. If the truther movement would just sit back and use common sense and a little bit of critical thinking, there would be more people willing to listen to their arguments. As of right now their representation of "the facts" is flawed and their arguments are misconstrued and illogical.

Pixelsmith, I like your passion, I just wish that you could temper your passion with, well, logic. Seek out the answers but don't be surprised when they are not the answers you wanted to find.

 

[pixelsmith]

Again you show just how little you about the WTC towers. They were in fact designed with the air craft impact scenario in mind. Do an ounce of research and you will discover this. Here let me help you.

The World Trade Center (WTC) Towers[1] were the largest buildings ever conceived in 1960.[2] This meant that there was a considerable amount of planning:

“The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1, 200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings… The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure. The design concept is so sound that the structural engineer has been able to be ultra-conservative in his design without adversely affecting the economics of the structure.”[3]

In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the WTC Towers to be “the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind.”[4]

Like many modern structures and buildings, the WTC Towers were over-designed to withstand weight distribution in the event of structural damage. According to calculations made by the engineers who helped with the design of the Twin Towers, “all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.”[5] As well, “Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.”[6]

In the planning of the buildings the designers considered potential attacks, and the WTC towers were designed to survive them. Between Early 1984 and October 1985 it was reported that:

“The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks, spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability…”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.’”[7]

One of these hypothetical examples was put to the test in the 1993 WTC bombing. This attack prompted more discussions about the safety of the WTC towers. In response to these concerns, WTC building designer John Skilling explained that they “looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… 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.”[8]

This statement indicates that the designers considered Boeing 707 airplane impact speeds of 600 mph. It seems likely that the designers considered this impact speed for the reason that the cruse speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph.[9] In comparison, both of the planes that hit the WTC Towers on 9/11 were Boeing 767’s. The FEMA report indicates that Flight 11 flew at a speed of 470 mph into the North Tower, and the second plane flew at a speed of 590 mph into the South Tower.[10] Not only were these speeds anticipated by the building designers, the Boeing 707 is similar in size to the ones flown into the towers on 9/11. According to Jim Hoffman, the planes used on 9/11 were “only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.”[11]
In fact, Hoffman observes that “a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size.”[13]

Commercial airliners typically fly with jet fuel, so it is not surprising that the designers would consider this problem. In 1993, Skilling explained that they performed an analysis that concluded that the WTC towers would survive the impact and jet fuel fires from 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… The building structure would still be there.”[14]


A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964.”[16] This ‘white paper’ concluded that:

“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.”[17]


The lack of access to WTC building documents remains a problem to this day. Indeed, in March of 2007, Steven Jones and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice finally obtained the WTC blueprints from an anonymous individual.[20]

Although the WTC was “over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it,” [21] the designers did not apparently consider controlled demolition:

“Skilling—a recognized expert in tall buildings—doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load. ‘However,’ he added, ‘I'm not saying that properly applied explosives—shaped explosives—of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage.’ Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down. ‘I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.’”[22]

One week before 9/11, WTC building designer Leslie Robertson reiterated the fact that the towers were designed to survive plane crashes:

“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.”[23]

Also according to Robertson, the WTC towers were “in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.”[24]

Not only were the towers designed to survive plane crashes, they were designed to potentially survive multiple plane crashes. This fact is supported by Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001:

“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.”[25]

Demartini appeared to be so confident that the towers would not collapse that he stayed behind to help save at least 50 people.[26] As a result of his actions, he lost his life on 9/11.

In summary, the World Trade Center designers not only contemplated jet fuel fires—they considered the plane crashes that would have caused them. They anticipated impact speeds of 600 mph as well as aircraft similar in size to the planes used on 9/11. The towers were designed to survive substantial column loss along with 100 mph winds. They were intended to survive bombings, earthquakes, and hurricanes. If the designers were sufficiently competent in the planning and realization of their award-winning WTC Towers as intended, they should have remained standing. Tragically, they did not. From this irreconcilable fact there can only be two conclusions; either the designers were inadequate in their designs, or there is an alternate explanation for their destruction on 9/11.

Immediately after 9/11 it was reported that “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.’”[32]

Later, in 2002, Robertson said: “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.”[33] In 2005, NIST also claimed that they had 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.”[34]

These statements ignore the fact that Skilling claimed in 1993 that “Our analysis [in 1964] 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.”[35]

As well, Robertson said the following in an interview with Steven Jones in October 2006:

“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.”[36]

Three of these claims are demonstrably problematic. The claim about “slow flying” aircraft has already been discussed.[37] The statement about molten metal is also contradicted by many eyewitness statements.[38] In fact, it is possible that Robertson himself saw this molten steel, but this fact is not confirmed at the present time.[39]

Not only had many witnesses claimed to have seen this molten metal, FEMA had performed an analysis of it. Their observations were recorded in Appendix C of their WTC Building Performance Study.[40] Ironically, Robertson stated that he was not aware if anyone had performed an analysis on the molten steel in an interview with Jones—who had also performed an analysis of previously molten metal samples from Ground zero.[41] Jones’ findings appear to be corroborated by the FEMA report which described “a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused ‘intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.’”[42] The New York Times described this as “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”[43] NIST did not even mention the presence of molten steel and called it “irrelevant to the investigation.”[44] Amazingly, NIST’s 10 000 page, $20 million report couldn’t find the space to mention the earlier findings about the molten steel analyzed in the FEMA report. There have even been reports of evaporated steel.[45]

The presence of molten steel would be very surprising because jet fuel fires are incapable of melting steel.[46] In fact, NIST reported that the highest recorded temperatures of the jet fuel fires from the WTC were not even enough to weaken the steel.[47]

continued-

 

[pixelsmith]

Conclusions

It is demonstrable that the WTC building designers claimed that the Twin Towers would survive an event similar to 9/11. Either the WTC building designers were tragically wrong in their calculations and designs, or there is another explanation for the destruction of the WTC Towers. After 9/11, WTC building designer Leslie Robertson has made claims that are contradicted by statements and documents from as many as 40 years ago. These contradictions must be resolved through the release of all of the pertinent WTC documents that have been withheld since 9/11.




[1] Research based on Paul Thompson’s Complete 9/11 Timeline and other sources. Leslie Robertson

[2] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, The Height of Ambition, New York Times, September 8, 2002.

[3] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, City in the Sky: The rise and fall of the World Trade Center, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003, pages 134-136.

[4] Angus K. Gillespie, Twin Towers: The Life of New York City's World Trade Center (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press 1999), 117

[5] Glanz and Lipton, City in the Sky, page 133.

[6] How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings, Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964: 48-49.

[7] Glanz and Lipton, City in the Sky, Page 227. See also Paul Thompson’s Complete 9/11 Timeline.

[8] Ibid. pages 131-132.

[9] Jim Hoffman, Towers' Design Parameters: Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's, 9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters.

[10] World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations, FEMA Report 403, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Washington, DC, 2002. Page 31.

[11] Hoffman, Towers' Design Parameters.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Eric Nalder, Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision, Seattle Times, February 27, 1993.

[15] James Glanz, and Eric Lipton, Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report Says, Fri March 29, 2002, New York Times.

“Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.”

Norman Glover, Fire Engineering, Fire Engineering journal, October 2002.

“Almost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire…”

[16] Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline. February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It

[17] Glanz and Lipton, City in the Sky, pages 131-2.

[18] Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline. February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It

[19] Hearing before the Committee on Science, House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, Second Session, March 6, 2002, Serial No. 107–46.

[20] Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Independent Investigators Release Suppressed Blueprints of Destroyed World Trade Center Tower, March 27, 2007. Scholars for 9/11 Truth Justice.

[21] Christopher Bollyn, Some Survivors Say ‘Bombs Exploded Inside WTC’, American Free Press, October 22, 2001.

[22] Nalder, Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision

[23] Towers Built to Withstand Jet Impact, The Chicago Tribune, September 12, 2001.

[24] Leslie E. Robertson, Reflections on the World Trade Center. National Academy of Engineering, Volume 32, Number 1 - Spring 2002.

[25] Prisonplanet.com, WTC Construction Manager: Towers Were Designed to Take Numerous Plane Crashes, Alex Jones' Prison Planet.com, November 14, 2004.

[26] “DeMartini will be in his office on the 88th floor of the north tower when it is hit on 9/11. He will die when the tower collapses, after helping more than 50 people escape.” [Associated Press, 8/29/2003; New York Times, 8/29/2003]

[27] Glanz and Lipton, City in the Sky, pages 138-9, 366.

[28] Nalder, Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision

[28] Towers Built to Withstand Jet Impact. See also: Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, Between September 3, 2001 and September 7, 2001: WTC Structural Engineer Says Trade Center Designed for 707 Crashing Into It. These articles from the day after 9/11 make clear the fact that this statement was made before 9/11: “Les Robertson, the Trade Center's structural engineer, spoke last week at a conference on tall buildings in Frankfurt, Germany.”

[29] See a partial transcript of this interview included below.

[30] Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It

[31] Glanz and Lipton, City in the Sky, Page 227. See also Paul Thompson’s Complete 9/11 Timeline.

[32] James Glanz, Believed to Be Safe, the Towers Proved Vulnerable to Jet Fuel Fire, The New York Times, September 12, 2001

[33] Robertson, Reflections on the World Trade Center

[34] National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, page. 13

[35] Nalder, Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision

[36] Steven Jones in discussion With Leslie Robertson, by KGNU Radio, Denver, CO, Oct 26, 2006. Media Blog . See also:

Gregg Roberts, Jones v. Robertson: A physicist and a structural engineer debate the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, Journal of 9/11 Studies

[37] See another statement by Robertson here: “The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field).” Taken from: Robertson, Reflections on the World Trade Center

[38] ‘George Washington,’ Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11? December 06, 2005. George Washington's Blog

[39] James M. Williams, SEAUNEWS, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, Volume VI- Issue II October 2001

Someone, quite possibly Leslie Robertson “describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.” See also:

Gregg Roberts, Jones v. Robertson: A physicist and a structural engineer debate the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center

“It is possible that Robertson himself said this. James Williams, SEAUNEWS, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October 2001. This was one of points listed by SEAU president Williams, after stating that Robertson ‘was a guest of SEAU’ and presented to them ‘a number of interesting facts’ including ‘some you might not have heard.’ ‘As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.’ page 3, 404 Not Found. An email sent to the Seau.org contact email address to clarify this point went unanswered.”

[40] See here for pictures and comments in FEMA’s report mentioning the melted steel:
9-11 Research: Forensic Metallurgy

“Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.”

“The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.” WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.”

[41] Paul Watson, Scientific Analysis Proves Towers Brought Down By Incendiaries, June 20, 2006. Alex Jones' Prison Planet.com “using advanced techniques we're finding out what's in these samples [of iron taken from Ground Zero]—we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese—these are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate.” See also:

Griffin, The Destruction of the World Trade Center and Jones, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?

[42] Joan Killough-Miller, The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel, WPI Transformations, Spring 2002.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Jim Hoffman, NIST's World Trade Center FAQ A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's ‘Answers to Frequently Asked Questions’. August 30, 2006.

[45] “Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened… ‘Fire and the structural damage… would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’” from:

James Glanz, Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated, New York Times, November 29. 2001.

[46] “The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.” Taken from: Eagar, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?” Science, Engineering, and Speculation”, Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:8-11 (2001).

[47] Kevin Ryan, A New Standard for Deception, June 4, 2006. See also: NIST and the World Trade Center.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Thanks pixel for your hard work on this subject.

 

[Jose Collado]

...and for keeping another 9/11 topic going even though there's multiple 9/11 topics and none have ever been resolved.

On a side note, how the hell does a swimming pool engineer get his license revoked? How hard is it to dig a hole and fill it with water?

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Re-post sort of:

Tell me how a passport can emerge unscathed from plane fuel fires, and the annihilation of two very large iron and concrete structures in which everything else was turned to dust ... and I may think that the government (run by GEORGE W BUSH) was right.

Nope ... still waiting ...

Good Point.

 

[Xylo]

Thanks pixel for your hard work on this subject.

Hard work? He cut and pasted that, from what could have been 100 sources. The original work was first published in 2003.

See: City in the sky By James Glanz, Eric Lipton.

His hard work is reiteration of half-truths and misconceptions along with misdirection and bad logic.

 

[Jose Collado]

Hey Xylo, would you allow Donald C. Meserlian to build your swimming pool? He's one of the very few people who signed the AE911Truth petition. I wonder what he does for a living now. Maybe he just cleans pools. Who knows. All I know is I'm glad he's one of the high calibre, successful and credible engineers who actually bothered to sign the AE911Truth petition. Truthers unite!

 

[Xylo]

Hey Xylo, would you allow Donald C. Meserlian to build your swimming pool? He's one of the very few people who signed the AE911Truth petition. I wonder what he does for a living now. Maybe he just cleans pools. Who knows. All I know is I'm glad he's one of the high calibre, successful and credible engineers who actually bothered to sign the AE911Truth petition. Truthers unite!

No more than I would let you read my blueprints!

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Hard work? He cut and pasted that, from what could have been 100 sources. The original work was first published in 2003.

See: City in the sky By James Glanz, Eric Lipton.

His hard work is reiteration of half-truths and misconceptions along with misdirection and bad logic.

So?
He's just presenting his case the best way he can just as you are. One could say the same about your presentations or anyone elses here. It all boils down to which side you are choosing in the debate. Either 911 was as Pixel/cottonz/paraschtckz describe it or as lance/irish/xylo's does.

People will always find sources of info to suit their argument even you!

 

[Xylo]

So?
He's just presenting his case the best way he can just as you are. One could say the same about your presentations or anyone elses here. It all boils down to which side you are choosing in the debate. Either 911 was as Pixel/cottonz/paraschtckz describe it or as lance/irish/xylo's does.

People will always find sources of info to suit their argument even you!

That's where you are wrong. First off I have NO idea how it happened. I have never said I did. But what I have done is follow logic and common sense. I have the same questions that many people have. But instead of presenting questions as my argument, I do a bit of research and try to answer those questions. I detest the lack of logic in presentation on the part of some truthers, (of which I consider myself a part.)

There is probably no Either/or in this situation, and I don't agree wholly with lance or irishseekers, so don't pigeonhole me. I have stated before in this thread that I don't agree with the official story, and I still don't.

My major bones of contentions are these: The passport. The quick identification of the "hijackers," the identification of "the responsible party (al qaeda,)" and the reported hedging on airline stocks a few days prior, the insurance debaucle of WTC, the collapse of building 7 (and more importantly that which was within,) the crash of the jet into the Pentagon, and a myriad of other concerns.

But I do not voice my concerns as arguments to prove my case and I hardly feel that cutting and pasting is hard work. I did say in an earlier post that I, too, rely upon the analysis and efforts of professional analysis to understand certain things. Eventually I will find the answers that I seek, but then again maybe I won't.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I detest the lack of logic in presentation on the part of some truthers, (of which I consider myself a part.)

Well you kinda pigeon-holed yourself there. You've placed yourself (even if in part) on the side of the "Truthers". Don't get me wrong, I agree with your stance and am about at the same stage as you in this debate. I think there is more to the story than meets the eye.

But I do not voice my concerns as arguments to prove my case and I hardly feel that cutting and pasting is hard work. I did say in an earlier post that I, too, rely upon the analysis and efforts of professional analysis to understand certain things. Eventually I will find the answers that I seek, but then again maybe I won't.

Well you do cut and paste.
Building the World Trade Center (1983) - Documentary

You pasted this as part of your discussion with pixel did you not? How is this any different than him cutting and pasting? And then used quotes from that same documentary to further your case.

Are you saying that your information provided is more believable than pixels or anyone else's? How would anyone know for sure. (my info's more reliable than yours!!)
Everyone here in this discussion has their own opinion and is not afraid to present info (usually from the Net) to bolster their argument. (even you).
Both sides or even those taking somewhat centrist positions have plenty of excellent thought provoking material for us to sift through. Your info being a part of that.

 

[paraschtick]

Good Point.

The Pair of Cats ... did you read the answer to my question above?? Sometimes thats all you need to know.

Oh and as Alan Sabrosky says all you need to do when trying to figure out who did 9/11 is FOLLOW THE MONEY ... and see who truly got something out of 9/11 and the wars that followed. The only answer that he could come up with ... and again, he knows what he's talking about was the arms manufacturers ... and ... ISRAEL. He also said that Israel was the only country outside of the US, UK and others capable and with the money and organisational skills to do 9/11. Forget Al Qaeda ... they're nobodies (quite literally) compared to Israel.

So we really don't need any arguments of about how the towers fell etc.. We have all the evidence to say that it definitely wasn't a bunch of Ay-rabs (who couldn't fly anyway) who did 9/11.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

The Pair of Cats ... did you read the answer to my question above?? Sometimes thats all you need to know.

Oh and as Alan Sabrosky says all you need to do when trying to figure out who did 9/11 is FOLLOW THE MONEY ... and see who truly got something out of 9/11 and the wars that followed. The only answer that he could come up with ... and again, he knows what he's talking about was the arms manufacturers ... and ... ISRAEL. He also said that Israel was the only country outside of the US, UK and others capable and with the money and organisational skills to do 9/11. Forget Al Qaeda ... they're nobodies (quite literally) compared to Israel.

So we really don't need any arguments of about how the towers fell etc.. We have all the evidence to say that it definitely wasn't a bunch of Ay-rabs (who couldn't fly anyway) who did 9/11.

I agree. No arguments here. The towers fell, a hole appeared in the pentagon and a another plane crashed. I too ask who had the most to gain from all of these things happening and the field narrows greatly at that point. The methods in which they appear to have happened are questionable to say the least.

And yes i did read the answer to your question.

 

[Kieran]

So?
He's just presenting his case the best way he can just as you are. One could say the same about your presentations or anyone elses here. It all boils down to which side you are choosing in the debate. Either 911 was as Pixel/cottonz/paraschtckz describe it or as lance/irish/xylo's does.

People will always find sources of info to suit their argument even you!

I personally think this thread is going nowhere and pointless, but I agree with you on this, it is up to the neutral reader to decide whose information made more sense to him or her. We've all got opinions on this, but for me, personally, i always will stick to my guns concerning 9/11 because i believe the evidence show's the combination of the planes hitting the towers, was the reason, a contributing factor at least, for why both towers collapsed.
Unless new information can be provided or found, by the people, who are on the opposing side to Lance, Jose, Paul, or me. Evidence that is worthy of taking a look at, then i stick to what i believe about 9/11

For cotton, I'm not sure was 9/11 allowed to happen? because there is ample evidence showing these guys were being tracked by German authorities and by other agencies from around the World. Two to three of the hijackers were students and living in Hamburg Germany and they flew to America thereafter.
There is documentation showing that the German intelligence knew about some of the hijackers. The problem, is they were only considered to be radicals and not a real threat to anyone, but September 11 was a wake up call and a shock to them. This caused the German police and German counter terrorism agencies to crack down hard on the Muslim Extremists since, they're aware there was a number of these groups within Germany. The Question is, did any of this information get passed on to the relevant officials within the United states and what was done with the information being passed to these officials.

Nobody can say for sure what they knew and what was done about it. It is hard to believe that the American intelligence agencies were so relaxed that they didn't no this guys were inside the United states and some were training to be pilots. Was there any surveillance on any of these men or were they just roaming American with impunity. Only one of this men needed to be watched, and certainly if a known terrorist was seen flying a plane no matter the size.

I would be suspicious about what this fella was up to and constantly watch him. But maybe there was no watchdog, watching, this men and September 11 happened due to the failing of intelligences not working together and providing each other with vital information.

There is a possibility, that is factually correct. Movies and Films often give a unreal insight to what intelligences agencies can do. There is always a Guy who saves the day provided with state of the art gear and he kills all the baddies before the Terrorists kill more people then they have already. In the real world, before September 11 2001 Intelligences were probably lot more kicked back, but not a sleep, but there was a number of flaws with the system that needed fixing.

Overall do i think it was allowed to happen. I can't say for sure, there is no evidence for it. But American became a dark place for eight years under Bush and his other evil shit heads. They attacked Iraq, a country not even involved with 9/11 and that fact is, Al Qaeda were mortal enemies of Saddam. Go figure that out for yourself's . I'm open to it without being dogmatic. I think it is a possible, but what ever happened on 9/11. There was planes involved and there was a number of men on board each plane, middle eastern men, and they crashed those four planes, three planes crashed into three separate buildings and the other plane hit the ground.