Return to Index  

I can't see something if it's not there

September 21 2010 at 4:28 PM

Vince  (Login MoxiFox)
Von Klumpen

Response to From a Link from one of the Links that you gave...

Show me a quote by Robertson where he says that the towers had a concrete core ... and I'm ready to reconsider my belief!~

I saw Robertson on an interview and he looked genuinely sad. Yes he DID say that heat from the burning fuel weakened the structure and (seemingly) assumed that that must have been what brought them down.

So what would you say about Robertson then? That he's lying through his teeth because he ENGINEERED those buildings and KNOWS exactly what they could stand and what they couldn't?

Why is he "lying" when he "KNOWS" damned well they SHOULDN'T have collapsed?

Well the thing is -as you can see from this chief engineer himself- he just doesn't "KNOW" anything "anymore." It happens to EVERYONE when faced with situations that simply defy logic. They thought they knew for sure ... they followed the book on designing ... they did all the calculations and yet, suddenly, they see something happened which seems to defy all of that and they have no answer for it.

Should he have said, "it's damned obvious that explosives were used!" ?? Well, I'm sure he HAD such thoughts but ... everyone ELSE was saying that they just collapsed by themselves. And ... when one IS in a position such as his, one doesn't just shoot his mouth off because if one is wrong, one has totally destroyed his own credibility.

He was bewildered. He had little choice but to accept the "facts." So he did the best he could; made the best of a very bad situation.

And what DID he actually say? From my recollection of that interview, (and I listened keenly, let me tell you), he said, "we designed those buildings to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, which was the biggest plane in existence at the time. We visualized such a plane being, perhaps, lost in fog and not flying more than 200 mph. We had NO CONCEPT of anyone wanting to WILLFULLY crash a plane into these buildings but we thought that a plane lost in fog could conceivably crash into them but wouldn't be flying more than about 200 mph tops because they were lost in the fog.

"THESE planes were significantly larger and therefore, had more mass. They were also traveling at more than twice the velocity that we had imagined. That gave these planes over 4 times the energy -(doubling velocity gives a square of the energy so it isn't twice the energy but FOUR times the energy you get from doubling the speed) and we had just never IMAGINED such a scenario occurring."

So he said all of that but you could almost hear a bewilderment there in what he DIDN'T say and that was ... how the buildings managed to absorb these planes and not even seem to sway and then stand there for an hour and nearly 2 hours .. without even slightly shifting ... when there didn't even seem to be much fire there at all. The only thing he could venture was that they were "pressure" fires since we could see smoke coming out of the topper sealed windows. That would mean the fires were raging in the elevator shafts, fueled by fresh air coming in through the hole in the wall and going up the shaft like a chimney and somehow affecting the core columns or the cross supports in the floors between the core peripheral columns. Something/anything where the FIRE must have/had to have ... somehow affected the steel integrity.

Were there explosives involved, in Robertson's mind? Possibly, but ... HOW? I think that's the biggest hurdle to overcome. EVERYONE was agreeing that the collapses were perfectly natural and ... one in a position such as his, is NOT going to throw out some wild accusation without having some kind of plausible ideas on how it could have been done ... and he just didn't have any.

Neither do I. I still don't see how the entire 2 buildings could have been mined without detection of some kind. The time it takes would have HAD to be several weeks and would have had to be done in a way that didn't raise suspicion of any kind though. All the internal maintenance workers would have been doing routine inspections and would have SEEN disturbances and possibly even have found the explosives themselves when investigating the disturbances. So it all had to be done super quick and very close to the time when they'd be detonated. The logistics of that are just something I can't comprehend even yet, at this time. Did they have INSIDER maintenance workers somehow doing part of it without understanding what they were doing?

So what changed my OWN mind? I think I already explained that but I'll just add .... it was someone showing me something I'd not seen before -that the MAJORITY of debris was OUTSIDE of the footprint of those two towers. That was the trigger for me.

I don't get much help from people pointing out "stupidities" in my reasoning. I'm really TRYING to understand and comprehend and I'm trying to use logic and reasoning to explain everything that happened that day ... step by step.

Concrete core/no concrete core ... it makes no difference whatsoever to the fact that the buildings DID collapse that day. I already agree now that explosives HAD to have been used. Yet, people like Pope seem to want to create arguments over something that makes absolutely no difference to the final observation. Why? Some people seem to be obsessed with belittling others I guess.


 Respond to this message