Steve Jones and Leslie Robertson
MP3 Download - 22MB
Steven Jones was on KGNU radio in Denver this morning with Leslie Robertson, one of the structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers.
When Dr. Jones raised the molten metal issue, Mr. Robertson seemed to doubt that there was really molten metal under the Twin Towers after the collapse. (Here's proof there was -- Digg the proof).
Also, Mr. Robertson said that once the buildings began to collapse, they would have necessarily collapsed all the way down. However, Mr. Robertson admitted that he had not performed any calculations to prove that claim.
When Dr. Jones raised the issue of the fast collapse times, Robertson admitted that he had not looked into this, had performed no calculations, and really had no answer for the rapid collapse.
This interview is related to the upcoming event with Dr. Jones this weekend. You can find more about this event hosted by Colorado 9/11 Visibility here:
Scholars for 9/11 Truth - Denver, CO - 10/28
- Login to post comments
anyone know the name of the
anyone know the name of the show? here is today's listings:
http://kgnu.org/ht/listings.html?date=2006-10-26&show=All&host=All&displ...
I've asked Dr. Jones
which show he was on: haven't heard back yet.
georgewashington.blogspot.com.
found it.. go
found it..
go here:
http://kgnu.org/ht/listings.html?date=2006-10-26&show=All&host=All&displ...
its the 'morning magazine' show, and it starts 35:45 in.. im downloading and cutting it up now.
Found it? Where?
Can you give me the exact names of what you hit, after you link? Thanks!
example: Hit the link, then click on ??? what? Morning magazine show? then what?
in the right hand column
in the right hand column next to Morning Magazine you'll see download and listen buttons, here is the direct link to the mp3, altho it is a bit large and full of a lot of other stuff:
http://kgnu.net/audio/MorningMagazine_2006-10-26.mp3
hopefully i can get the clipped one up within the hour
Got it! thanks man!
thanks! i appreciate it.
Morning Magazine
at 8:35 am. Host Sam Fuqua.
georgewashington.blogspot.com.
Interesting
Leslie basically states that when designing the WTC they looked into the damaging effects a 737 would have if it crashed into the WTC structure. His position, which I am more than confident was the one accepted by FEMA and then added into their initial report back in 2002, assumes the planes were flying at reduced speeds(coming in for s landing-180mph).
The funny thing is, Port Authority Documents found by the NIST actually have the plane flying at 600mph.
_______________
http://wtc.nist.gov/NFPA_Presentation_on_WTC.pdf
Available Information on Safety of WTC
Towers in Aircraft Collision (1)
Type of Aircraft: Boeing 707 (largest jet aircraft in the air at that time)DC-8
Speed of Aircraft: 600 mph (Port Authority, February 1964)
180 mph (FEMA 403, 2002) [b](Actually, Leslie 2002)[/b]
Location of Impact: 80th floor (Port Authority, March 1964)
Structural design: It appears that the design of the WTC towers considered the impact of 707 aircraft and analysis indicated that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building
___________________
What can one say but, "shame on him".
audio?
Can we get the audio?
No calculations?!
How long does he need? Another 6 years???
http://911billofrights.blogspot.com/
audio is available now, the
audio is available now, the link has been added to the top of the article.
oops...beet me to it
oops...beet me to it hehehehe
Jones said he has more time for this type of stuff now......I can't wait!!...this was sweet :)
I think both of them needed
I think both of them needed more time to explain there points of view.
I wish SJ would of responded to the questions about how the bombs could of been placed in the building.
The thermite comment was a little crass and not really constructive.
All in all, there needs to be more discussion of the facts behind the towers and more open debate, as leslie wants evidence put under the rug, and then wants to avoid things by saying the 911 families want closure. SJ did a really good job answering that, the 911 familes want the truth to close things out.
Also, Leslie's comments about things he hasn't studied was good to hear.
Leslie was disingenuous
He tried every approach in the book:
* Avoidance: "I didn't look into that" on molten metal and wtc7. Or "no point in analyzing subsequent collapse"
* Pathos: "We should move on for the families sake and for closure". WTF! Great retort on that one Jones.
* Unsubstantiated assumptions: "You can't possibly place that much explosives in the buildings", "It will all collapse the top 14 floors are displaced."
Also Leslie clearly had more talk time overall.
Stephen Jones
Wow. That was the craziest debate. Leslie was not addressing the issues... He skirts them... and goes right to the "relatives" and how they would be upset (I would want to know my families REAL killers), and then to the "how could they put explosives in the buildings?" Let's get to the "were there explosives" before the "how did they get there". Stephen is perplexed! Let's argue the physics! Not emotions! Then Leslie comes right out and says Thermite! Like he knew it was coming! (Although i'm sure the chemical compounds Stephen named didn't escape him.) Then Leslie gets audibly upset and angry... whoa. You know what always struck me as unusual about people and the people in the twin towers? After an airplane hits your building, and you're evacuating, and then someone tells you to go back upstairs to your office... why the f_ck would listen? That's got to be the stupiest thing ever! Right? But now i'm not so sure... My conclusion? People will believe whatever you tell them, even when the evidence is right in your face. How did they get the explosives in without anyone getting suspicious? 1) People WERE suspicious. 2) All the other unsuspicious people trusted the security guards not only to protect them, but even to go back up into a catastrophe. Freaking nuts.
Very impressive...
Thank you Dr. Jones, and Colorado 9-11 Visibility.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Move on . . . don't look at the bodies . . .
"All of the data point to the need of further investigation" - Stephen Jones
This should be our simple mantra.
http://www.truthcult.com
sorry, didn't spell check
sorry, didn't spell check this before I posted - I was just raving....
Didn't fact check, either.
Steven Jones is a liberal? WTF are you talking about?
The last time I checked, the Church of Latter Day Saints was not noted for its production of leftists, and I have no reason to believe that Professor Jones is an exception.
Steven Jones is a self-described conservative
Steven Jones is a self-described conservative who says he voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 election.
I didn't say Jones was a
I didn't say Jones was a liberal. I was referring to the fact that he defended his position about as well as the liberals defend their reasons for being against Bush's stances on everything - impotent.
Shreading the Constitution and Bill of Rights
I think we all have a reason to be against the actions of the Bush Admin. If you back these violations against our civil liberties, you are a traitor and you are my enemy. Besides, anyone with a brain knows the left/right paradigm is a hoax.
so funny. you douchebag
so funny. you douchebag conservatives own the media. all of it. and you STILL bitch about liberals. liberals have no power. Olbermann is the ONLY "liberal" on cable news and hes forced to devote half of his show to celebs and crap each night. they have him on a very tight leash. please step out of the left/right shell game and come into reality. typical "liberal" brain freeze? what the hell does that mean? whats typical about that? christ, at least "liberals" tend to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions based on fact. instead of your side which tends to have blind trust. i know there are a lot of good, thoughtful conservatives out there. i disagree with them on most issues, but at least they dont fall for the bullshit like you do. i can respect a republican/conservative that is realistic. i cant respect one like yourself who is still stuck in the left/right paradigm throwing around liberal like its a slur. you obviously have been watching too much CNN, reading too much Time magazine. both corporate parties hate us. it doesnt matter what ideology you have. Steven Jones is conservative by the way. and a damn good one at that.
You people must have the
You people must have the brain power of a nat when pooled together. Ok, so you don't miss it for a third I will type reallllyyy slllowwwllyyy..
a) I'm not a conservative...
b) If you are unaware of what 'liberal brain freeze is" I suggest you watch just about any liberal in an interview try and say discuss what
they would do different in Iraq, or on homeland security, or on any other issue. They spew the same worthless lines that have ZERO
affect on moving anyone's opinion.
c) This is not to say they aren't right - they just can't articulte a point in a way to made a difference in peoples opinions. For the most part they
always come off as just "we don't know what we would do better, we just know it would be different then Bush".
d) In any event, Dr. Jones has huge oppertunity to blow this guy away and show him to know-nothing - but he didn't. Anyone non-truther
listening to this on radio would not have come away with "shit, the towers were brought down by CD!!!" Instead they are likely to
come away with "Gee, another JFK Conspiracy Nut"
You make a strong argument.
You make a strong argument. I thought stephen let the guy talk too long. I was thinking the same thing about the lack of logic. Kevin Burnett is a lot better spokesman. But his religion gets in the way. And I'm not being bigotted. I just know how the american public thinks. And don't trip about some of the posters on here, many people can't seem to understand basic context.
I still need to see the 47 steel box columns sticking out the top, if it did collapse as they say, not disintegrate in front of my very eyes. Some kind of something made those things dissapear, and melt for weeks afterwards. And now people in New York are dying from cancer. Sounds like someone got radiated.
Steven Jones kicked that
Steven Jones kicked that guys ass, good stuff!!!
obviously you have low
obviously you have low expectations...
Nope, not at all. That
Nope, not at all. That supposed "expert" had to fall back on tired old excuses like "I'm not familiar with that" or "I haven't studied that", and every time he did, Steven Jones followed up with: "Well, we DID investigate this issue, and this is what we found..."
That wasn't even a close fight, nice try scumbags.
Watch...
Your language please. :D
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Sorry, Steven Jones kicked
Sorry, Steven Jones kicked that guy right where he keeps his brains...
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
That's funny... Like this.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
molten metal
even the P.M. debunkers don't even try to deny molten metal at the WTC. What kind of expert is this?? If he bought the official version, this is almost unbelievable to be honest. Even if the magical "pancake collapse" is possible, the odds of it happening TWICE on the same day, symmetrically for both towers, and then a THIRD time with WTC7, these odds are beyond any rationale.
Possibillity of placing explosives/thermite,quantity of expl/th
1) SJ and LR discuss the possibility of placing the explosives/thermite, but it is not, as LR assumes, neccesary to blow every 3rd, 5th (or some number) floor up to get the collaps going rapidly. The floors will only create substantial resistance if they are connected to the loadbearing structure, ie. primarily the core (the outer colums just buckle when there is no lateral support, even if they can bear a massive load when supported and held firmly in place by the lateral structure, ie. the floors connected to the core). If this core is blown (which is exactly what controlled demolitions do), ALL resistance is gone - the floors go 'instantly' with the loadbearing structure if this is cut at a number of places at the right moment. And this can be done with a relatively small amount of explosives (especially if the cores to be cut at a precise moment - or most of the critical colums, with the very last critical ones to be blown at the precise moment with explosives - are weakened with fx. thermite).
2) Why should it be so difficult to make thermite cut vertical colums, as some argue? A prefabricated container made of (fx.) some ceramic material, fitting the bare column's outline, with a radiocontrolled igniter, will do the job.
When the buildings come down like that
That is the only time I have ever seen buildings come down like a Mount St. Helens eruption and I have seen many controlled demolitions.
Now the questions that get asked or the wondering of how much "ordinance" it would take to do the job and how it was done without people noticing can be hard to determine.
The disturbing aspects of what happened afterwards in regards to the effect on peoples health is significant in telling what may have been used to bring down the 2 towers.
The spectrum and percentages of cancer are massive. There are at least 4 classifications of blood-cell cancers: leukemia, lymphoma, Hodgkin's and myeloma. There are many more classifications of soft tissue cancers. There is brain cancer. There is breast cancer. For most of these there are subclassifications of many different types of specific cancer in each, so far not publicly disclosed. There are huge percentages of respiratory distress and loss of function. Multiple reports of 'irregular cycles' (miscarriages?). Most likely there will be several more types of cancer to follow. In particular, responders should be checked for thyroid cancer and function. There has been no noting of birth defects which also needs to be done. There is one thing and only one thing that can cause all these cancers and problems - RADIATION.
In response to this myriad of disease, a statement of environmental mercury has been claimed. That claim is not verified in testing of air and particle debris samples by private citizens and organizations. It is possible the mercury quotes are from the federal source of science, the United States Geological Survey's analysis of the WTC dust debris. The USGS's leached analysis did show mercury at the 3rd lowest concentration of metals at the mean value (mv) of 0.011 parts per Billion (ppB). The most abundant element concentration in the leaching tests was Strontium at 1,000 ppB (1 ppM) - 100,000 times more than the mercury value. It appears that the leaching of the sample was only partial and inadequate as the reader will see from the spectrometry values.
Why would only mercury be quoted when there were so many other more dangerous elements at higher concentrations than mercury? While the regular elements like Copper - mv 136 ppM, Silver - mv 1.66 ppM, and Vanadium - mv 31 ppM, some of the other significant elements were: Barium - mv 533 ppM, Strontium - mv 727 ppM, Cerium - mv 91 ppM, Yttrium - mv 57 ppM, Lanthanum - mv 46 ppM, Molybdenum - mv 11 ppM, Thorium - mv 9 ppM, Uranium - mv 3 ppM, Beryllium - mv 3 ppM, and Cesium - mv 0.6 ppM - partial listing. For readers that are not familiar with most of these elements, here is a link to their relevance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_products_(by_element)
There is also a claim of environmental benzene that 'permeated' the area in jet fuel as the cause of all of these problems. Once again, we have the quoting of the miraculous jet fuel that burns up in a massive fireball in the first few minutes, then like Christ's feeding the multitudes, still causes a massive fire inside that reaches the temperatures of a Hades that weakens massive fire proofed steel beams and trusses, then resurrects itself on the permeated ground to cause cancer in one hour of limited exposure.
In less than 1 hour, the first WTC building had collapsed and covered Manhattan, in at least 1/3 of a Million Tons of particulate debris. Unless the jet fuel makes a final appearance and is again resurrected by NIST in it's 3rd miracle, benzene is buried under 1/3 of a million tons of particulate debris after 56 minutes of exposure. Benzene is also a component of gasoline. The assertion that cancer was the result of 56 minutes of exposure to minimal amounts of benzene is ludicrous. If that was true, everyone in the US would be suffering from cancers. As the 3rd WTC building falls, Manhattan is covered in two Billion pounds of pulverized and aerosolized building.
Two billion pounds seemed like an extremely large amount of particulate matter from buildings whose total weight has been quoted at around 3 billion pounds. Debris removal has been quoted at 1.2 billion pounds. Based on these rough numbers 2/3rds of the building was indeed turned to dust or vaporized.
FANTASTIC !!!
Surprisingly, Robertson takes the side of the
government, just because he knows that his Boss
is Big Brother.
Thanks 911blogger for this radio program !!!
Leslie Roberston...
was not the "chief engineer of the WTC".
The primary engineer in charge of the design of the World Trade Center was Robertson’s boss, John Skilling. This was clearly described in articles by The Engineering News-Record from the time of construction.* We also know, from Glanz and Lipton’s book “City in the Sky”, that John Skilling said he performed analyses on the aircraft impacts and the resulting jet fuel fires and “the building structure would still be there”.
Robertson's primary contribution was the elastic dampers added to reduce the psychological effects of wind sway. By then, the major structural components had been designed and selected. The only other remarkable thing on this point is that, according to Karl Koch’s book “Men of Steel”, Robertson did not have an engineering degree at the time he was involved.
*For example, see "Structures Can Be Beautiful, World's Tallest Buildings Pose Esthetic and Structural Challenge to John Skilling", ENR, April 2, 1964.
duh.... class dismissed.
/////////////////////
911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info
I don't understand how
I don't understand how Robertson can lend himself to such obvious BS?
I,m just wondering
How much he was paid to LIE like that?
Or was he both paid and threatened with death?
Because there is no way in hell that anyone working on that building design wise would not have immediately looked into how it could possibly turned into DUST in 10 seconds because of a low heat short duration fire.
That is Bullshyte
how much?
Well, the pentagon is missing a few trillion.......
In regards to...
The unlikelihood of being able to plant explosives in an office building...
Listen to this.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Steven Jones Debate Rebroadcast
Due to the heavy snow, KGNU's transmission tower was down this morning when this interview was occurring, so Denver could not receive it. This interesting discussion will be aired tomorrow,
Friday, October 27th, at 4:00pm.
You may also go online to hear it: www.KGNU.org; then choose "listings," then look for the morning magazine for today, October 26 and then the time of 8:30am - 9:00am.
Here is the original message:
Sam Fuqua with KGNU will be interviewing Steven Jones, internationally renowned physicist, on his show this Thursday morning, October 26th at 8:35 AM via telephone.
Steven Jones will be debating and discussing with Les Robertson, the structural engineering designer of the World Trade Center. This should be very interesting!
Steven Jones, PhD. has written a peer-reviewed paper hypothesizing that the World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 collapsed due to controlled demolition. He will be speaking in Denver October 28th and Boulder on October 29th.
See www.colorado911visibility.org for more information.
Jones vs. Robertson debate
I've personally confronted Leslie Robertson about the 9/11 collapses and when I did, he rolled his eyes slowly to the right, looked back at me, then said, "there were no explosives used..." , before I even had a chance to mention "explosives"...I just told him that more and more Americans are doubting the official story.
Anyways, I think Robertson is just scared or threatened, I really don't think he's part of it, although his behaviour is certainly suggestive of being an accomplice in the coverup.
I really hope he realizes his time on this Earth is short and it's in his best interest to 'fess up real soon.
On a different note, I REALLY wish one of the scholars or Alex Jones would ask the 'debunkers'...."OK, well, where is the pancake you're talking about?!"....
Just think about it for a second...Where the hell is the 'pancake' result of the collapse these idiots and accomplices are talking about?!
The 9/11/01 WTC debris was shattered in small pieces, NOT PANCAKES DAMMIT!!!
8(
great interview
That was a great interview. It was civil, focussed, the moderator did a great job, and it never degraded into a shouting match/namecalling as these things so often do.
I was really interested in hearing a structural engineer - and especially one who was involved in the design of the WTC towers - address and respond to the specific issues that Steven Jones has been bringing up. I haven't really seen any structural expert who accepts the NIST report do so yet, except in an evasive manner.
Some of the points I took away from the debate:
1) On the 'freefall' time of collapse - LR states that he hasn't studied this. But he believes given the fires, collapse was inevitable and isn't really interested in the details of the collapse once it initiates.
2) The molten metal - LR didn't buy that there was 'flowing molten metal' and questioned the source.
3) WTC7 - LR didn't participate in designing this, so he had no comment.
4) planting explosives - LR believs that this would be logistically
What also struck me was the way in which LR focusses on his areas of expertise, and pleads incompetence as soon as questions are asked outside his area. There is a tendency for 'experts' it would seem, to focus uniquely on their speciality without sometimes taking a step back to consider the picture as a whole (I was astounded that LR had never taken the time to study the implications conservation of momentum and energy as applied to the collapse). This helps explain (to me at least) how you can gather a large number of experts to study an issue, and have them produce a massive report that makes no sense - noone considered the big picture.
Anyway, highly recommended listening. Steven Jones did an excellent job.
Your the man Dr. Jones!
THANK YOU!............This guy debating Jones is an idiot!
I thought he was an expert? I have'nt looked at all the facts ,but iam here to debate you.
Iam not going to comment on BLD #7
Dr.Jones ,you should have told him ....Well go do some research.Well do this when your educated