Leslie Robertson/Steven Jones "Debate"

Walter Ego · 28th March 2009, 05:13 AM

This just turned up on You Tube and dates from 2006.

Leslie Robertson, chief structural engineer of the World Trade Center in New York, discusses the collapse of the WTC on KGNU Community Radio, Boulder, Co., on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 with Steven Jones.

It’s less of a debate than an amicable discussion. Jones is particularly pathetic and is demolished rather easily by Robertson. Jones was given the heave-ho by Brigham Young University just a month later.

This is part one below. Parts two and three here and here or view all three parts on a play list on my blog.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Pardalis · 28th March 2009, 08:52 AM

Right from the start Jones is lying, he calls Kevin Ryan's and Gordon Ross' papers "peer reviewed".

Stupid ass truthers don't count as "peers", Jonesey.

Lennart Hyland · 28th March 2009, 08:57 AM

I love that debate. Robertson is very convincing. And ofcourse correct.

This must be very troubling for the truthers, that the chief structual engineer of the building actully agrees with the official explanation. Instead they have Heiwa and Gage.

RKOwens4 · 28th March 2009, 10:53 AM

It's been on YouTube for years. And yes, it is great, Jones gets schooled. In one hilarious part (which I included in one of my YouTube videos) Jones actually responds to Robertson's statements that it would be impractical to walk into a functioning office building and setting explosives without no one noticing, by saying that there was a major shut down at the WTC, likely referring to the thoroughly debunked email by "Steve Forbes" of the power down just prior to 9/11.

For those unfamiliar with this story, get ready to laugh. Around 2004, a guy sent an email to some 9/11 truth sites calling himself Steve Forbes and claiming to have worked at the World Trade Center and saying that there was a 36-hour shutdown in power at the World Trade Center the weekend prior to 9/11, which would allow for explosives to be planted with no one noticing. Even though this email provided no documentation of the shut down, nor proof that the emailer had ever worked at the World Trade Center, and regardless of the fact that not 1 of the 50,000 people known to actually work at the World Trade Center ever noticed this shut down, nor did any newspapers at the time report on it... 9/11 truthers JUMPED ON IT as smoking gun evidence. LOL. Ya can't make this stuff up! A lot of truthers backed away from it, but many still cling to it.

fourtoe · 28th March 2009, 12:38 PM

With Joneseses' being such a big character in the truth movement I'm surprised this debate isn't referenced in all the debunking arguments that I've read, listened to and watched.

I love your blog,btw

fourtoe · 28th March 2009, 12:52 PM

The photo montage that goes with the audio is really good. I have to not look at it when listening cause I can't pay attention to what they're talking about, haha.

Lennart Hyland · 28th March 2009, 01:36 PM

I love the speed of the debate. Both Jones and Robertson are calm and doesnt cut-off each other as in many other truther-debates.

Homeland Insurgency · 28th March 2009, 06:44 PM

I had to bump this.

Is there anyone here by now who doesn't know that Robertson's after 9/11 expert opinion is different then his before 9/11 opinion?

Please. Don't make me rub your debunker noses in the smelliness of it all.

Pardalis · 28th March 2009, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

Is there anyone here by now who doesn't know that Robertson's after 9/11 expert opinion is different then his before 9/11 opinion?

Could you repeat that in English?

firecoins · 28th March 2009, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

I had to bump this.

Is there anyone here by now who doesn't know that Robertson's after 9/11 expert opinion is different then his before 9/11 opinion?

Please. Don't make me rub your debunker noses in the smelliness of it all.

he had an opinion on the collapse of the WTC 1,2 & 7 proior to 9/11/01? I guess it must have been a CT.

Sword_Of_Truth · 29th March 2009, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

I had to bump this.

Is there anyone here by now who doesn't know that Robertson's after 9/11 expert opinion is different then his before 9/11 opinion?

Please. Don't make me rub your debunker noses in the smelliness of it all.

The hijacked planes of 9/11 were larger than the one used in Robertsons original hypothetical scenario.

The 9/11 impacts occurred at higher speed than Robertsons scenario.

Robertson did not take into account the fires following the impact in his scenario. He ran the numbers only for the initial impact.

Any difference between his pre-9/11 and post-9/11 opinions is non-existant.

beachnut · 1st April 2009, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

I had to bump this.

Is there anyone here by now who doesn't know that Robertson's after 9/11 expert opinion is different then his before 9/11 opinion?

Please. Don't make me rub your debunker noses in the smelliness of it all.

Wrong on this wrong on 911. Why do you lie?

Robertson design was for a 707 lost in the fog. The only rational accident to plan for and you don’t understand.

Then came the terrorists you apologize for. They take fully fueled jets with 7 to 11 time the impact energy and destroy the WTC towers.

Robertson designed the towers to resist the impact of an aircraft at 180 mph. This impact would result in local damage and the towers would survive, most the fuel would spill down the outside of the WTC. New studies prove this was true; your shallow failed research is your personal problem; why make up lies about Robertson?

Rub what in what? Robertson does not have an opinion, he built the WTC towers he understands what happen and why, you have the failed opinion, Robertson has the facts. You have to call Robertson a liar to have your delusion maintained as manufactured by failed 911Truth sources as you repeat the prepackage directive from your leaders in 911Truth delusion inc.

Newtons Bit · 1st April 2009, 03:35 PM

Are there any truthers here who still don't understand that engineers in the '60's did not have analysis methods capable of accurately analyzing a plane impact into a building?

Architect · 1st April 2009, 04:01 PM

Perhaps they don't realise just how recent decent computing power is, for a start?

You know, when I started secondary school in 1981 at the tender age of 12 we still got taught how to use slide rules and log tables (more out of interest, we obviously had calculators). The ZX81 was still hot, and the best computer we had in the school was an Apple II (*)

When I got to university we had more complex structural programmes on the Vax mainframes, but to be honest my Blackberry Storm has more computing power......

So how, I have to ask myself, do Truthers think highly, highly complex issues such as aircraft impacts were modelled at the tower?

(*) Note to fellow Scots. No jokes about the Nicholson Institute here. I was schooled on the mainland. We had pens, and paper, and everything.

Mr. Skinny · 1st April 2009, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

Are there any truthers here who still don't understand that engineers in the '60's did not have analysis methods capable of accurately analyzing a plane impact into a building?

Originally Posted by Architect

Perhaps they don't realise just how recent decent computing power is, for a start?

You know, when I started secondary school in 1981 at the tender age of 12 we still got taught how to use slide rules and log tables (more out of interest, we obviously had calculators). The ZX81 was still hot, and the best computer we had in the school was an Apple II (*)

When I got to university we had more complex structural programmes on the Vax mainframes, but to be honest my Blackberry Storm has more computing power......

So how, I have to ask myself, do Truthers think highly, highly complex issues such as aircraft impacts were modelled at the tower?

(*) Note to fellow Scots. No jokes about the Nicholson Institute here. I was schooled on the mainland. We had pens, and paper, and everything.

Good point(s).

When I started engineering school I used a slide rule and an add/subtract/multiply/divide/square root TI calculator cost $120 USD.

Now they have this where I work: DoD Supercomputing Resource Center http://www.afrl.hpc.mil/

ElMondoHummus · 1st April 2009, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by Mr. Skinny

Good point(s).

When I started engineering school I used a slide rule and an add/subtract/multiply/divide/square root TI calculator cost $120 USD.

Now they have this where I work: DoD Supercomputing Resource Center http://www.afrl.hpc.mil/

Deities don't engineer, they merely command into being.

All right! Who are you, and what have you done with Mr. Skinny?

R.Mackey · 1st April 2009, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

Are there any truthers here who still don't understand that engineers in the '60's did not have analysis methods capable of accurately analyzing a plane impact into a building?

Given that they claim the vastly superior analysis methods used by NIST in 2004 came up with the wrong answer, you'd think the above would be obvious...

...but then, having a self-inconsistent world view is practically a requirement for membership.

jaydeehess · 1st April 2009, 07:55 PM

I got my first calculator when I went to university. It cost $120 and did + - / and X. It had one memory location and was the size of my entire open palm.

My next calculator was TI that did the above as well as sqrt, squares, trig function (as well as inverse and hyperbolic) x^y and exponential notation. It did not do cartesian to polar transforms BUT two years later I used it in my electronics course and could do those transformations as fast as those youngsters who had calculators that did it in fewer keypad strokes AND since I understood better how it was done I also understood when the result showing on the calculator just could not be right (keypad entry mistakes = GIGO)
Of course I could also divide 10⁸ by 10² and get 10⁶ without using the calculator, unlike some of the youngsters who would use theirs and get 5 X 10⁷
(and I quote from one pup who did not return after the first semester "Well that's what my calculator says and you didn't even use a calculator")

I graduated that college course the same year that Radio Shack came out with the trash80. Until then pretty much no one had a computer at home. That was 1982.

I am now reminded of the time on PfT when I was told that Flt 77 descended so very quickly. The poster (bill) gave his numbers and I had to then point out that he had divided the height drop by the number of minutes to do so and was telling me that the result was in feet per second. Oops out by a factor of 60.

BigAl · 2nd April 2009, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

I got my first calculator when I went to university. It cost $120 and did + - / and X. It had one memory location and was the size of my entire open palm.

Circa 1971 I worked with someone who was thrilled to buy a 4-banger the size of a shoebox with a 120VAC power cord for $99. I could have told him, based on my knowledge of the electronics industry that a battery pocket model would be out shortly but it was irrelevant since he was on deadline to deliver a thesis that was all about statistics and it meant he could work at home instead of booking time on the school's Monroe mechanical beasts in "the lab".

By 1973, the HP 35 calculator was out. What a change. A friend had one with such a low serial number that it was recalled for an error in one of the trig functions.

Mr. Skinny · 2nd April 2009, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Deities don't engineer, they merely command into being.

All right! Who are you, and what have you done with Mr. Skinny?

Engineering is just an occupation for my Clark Kent-like persona. It helps me keep in touch with "the people".

28th March 2009, 08:57 AM	#3
Lennart Hyland Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 349	I love that debate. Robertson is very convincing. And ofcourse correct. This must be very troubling for the truthers, that the chief structual engineer of the building actully agrees with the official explanation. Instead they have Heiwa and Gage.
	__________________ L.H 1919 - 1993 R.I.P Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views. David Scott - CTBUH Chairman

28th March 2009, 10:53 AM	#4
RKOwens4 Thinker Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 208	It's been on YouTube for years. And yes, it is great, Jones gets schooled. In one hilarious part (which I included in one of my YouTube videos) Jones actually responds to Robertson's statements that it would be impractical to walk into a functioning office building and setting explosives without no one noticing, by saying that there was a major shut down at the WTC, likely referring to the thoroughly debunked email by "Steve Forbes" of the power down just prior to 9/11. For those unfamiliar with this story, get ready to laugh. Around 2004, a guy sent an email to some 9/11 truth sites calling himself Steve Forbes and claiming to have worked at the World Trade Center and saying that there was a 36-hour shutdown in power at the World Trade Center the weekend prior to 9/11, which would allow for explosives to be planted with no one noticing. Even though this email provided no documentation of the shut down, nor proof that the emailer had ever worked at the World Trade Center, and regardless of the fact that not 1 of the 50,000 people known to actually work at the World Trade Center ever noticed this shut down, nor did any newspapers at the time report on it... 9/11 truthers JUMPED ON IT as smoking gun evidence. LOL. Ya can't make this stuff up! A lot of truthers backed away from it, but many still cling to it.
RKOwens4 Thinker Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 208	__________________ "It's amazing, amazing, that with all the access to accurate information, that people could be so pathetically uninformed." -CNN's Jack Cafferty

28th March 2009, 01:36 PM	#7
Lennart Hyland Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 349	I love the speed of the debate. Both Jones and Robertson are calm and doesnt cut-off each other as in many other truther-debates.
	__________________ L.H 1919 - 1993 R.I.P Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views. David Scott - CTBUH Chairman

28th March 2009, 08:29 PM	#10
firecoins Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Nyack, NY Posts: 3,191	Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency I had to bump this. Is there anyone here by now who doesn't know that Robertson's after 9/11 expert opinion is different then his before 9/11 opinion? Please. Don't make me rub your debunker noses in the smelliness of it all. he had an opinion on the collapse of the WTC 1,2 & 7 proior to 9/11/01? I guess it must have been a CT.
	__________________ NY Paramedic, skeptic, 9/11/01 Reality-ist. I am both right wing nut and left wing lunatic. Deal with it.

1st April 2009, 02:40 PM	#12
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,881	Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency I had to bump this. Is there anyone here by now who doesn't know that Robertson's after 9/11 expert opinion is different then his before 9/11 opinion? Please. Don't make me rub your debunker noses in the smelliness of it all. Wrong on this wrong on 911. Why do you lie? Robertson design was for a 707 lost in the fog. The only rational accident to plan for and you don’t understand. Then came the terrorists you apologize for. They take fully fueled jets with 7 to 11 time the impact energy and destroy the WTC towers. Robertson designed the towers to resist the impact of an aircraft at 180 mph. This impact would result in local damage and the towers would survive, most the fuel would spill down the outside of the WTC. New studies prove this was true; your shallow failed research is your personal problem; why make up lies about Robertson? Rub what in what? Robertson does not have an opinion, he built the WTC towers he understands what happen and why, you have the failed opinion, Robertson has the facts. You have to call Robertson a liar to have your delusion maintained as manufactured by failed 911Truth sources as you repeat the prepackage directive from your leaders in 911Truth delusion inc.
	Last edited by beachnut; 1st April 2009 at 02:57 PM.

28th March 2009, 08:52 AM	#2
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Right from the start Jones is lying, he calls Kevin Ryan's and Gordon Ross' papers "peer reviewed". Stupid ass truthers don't count as "peers", Jonesey.

28th March 2009, 12:38 PM	#5
fourtoe Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Northridge, Ca Posts: 1,015	With Joneseses' being such a big character in the truth movement I'm surprised this debate isn't referenced in all the debunking arguments that I've read, listened to and watched. I love your blog,btw

28th March 2009, 12:52 PM	#6
fourtoe Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Northridge, Ca Posts: 1,015	The photo montage that goes with the audio is really good. I have to not look at it when listening cause I can't pay attention to what they're talking about, haha.

28th March 2009, 06:44 PM	#8
Homeland Insurgency Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,705	I had to bump this. Is there anyone here by now who doesn't know that Robertson's after 9/11 expert opinion is different then his before 9/11 opinion? Please. Don't make me rub your debunker noses in the smelliness of it all.

28th March 2009, 08:25 PM	#9
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency Is there anyone here by now who doesn't know that Robertson's after 9/11 expert opinion is different then his before 9/11 opinion? Could you repeat that in English?

29th March 2009, 05:58 PM	#11
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency I had to bump this. Is there anyone here by now who doesn't know that Robertson's after 9/11 expert opinion is different then his before 9/11 opinion? Please. Don't make me rub your debunker noses in the smelliness of it all. The hijacked planes of 9/11 were larger than the one used in Robertsons original hypothetical scenario. The 9/11 impacts occurred at higher speed than Robertsons scenario. Robertson did not take into account the fires following the impact in his scenario. He ran the numbers only for the initial impact. Any difference between his pre-9/11 and post-9/11 opinions is non-existant.

1st April 2009, 03:35 PM	#13
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,879	Are there any truthers here who still don't understand that engineers in the '60's did not have analysis methods capable of accurately analyzing a plane impact into a building?
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,879	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein My website.

1st April 2009, 04:01 PM	#14
Architect Chief Punkah Wallah Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: UK Posts: 8,477	Perhaps they don't realise just how recent decent computing power is, for a start? You know, when I started secondary school in 1981 at the tender age of 12 we still got taught how to use slide rules and log tables (more out of interest, we obviously had calculators). The ZX81 was still hot, and the best computer we had in the school was an Apple II () When I got to university we had more complex structural programmes on the Vax mainframes, but to be honest my Blackberry Storm has more computing power...... So how, I have to ask myself, do Truthers think highly, highly complex issues such as aircraft impacts were modelled at the tower? () Note to fellow Scots. No jokes about the Nicholson Institute here. I was schooled on the mainland. We had pens, and paper, and everything.
	__________________ When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies. James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party Last edited by Architect; 1st April 2009 at 04:06 PM.

1st April 2009, 06:50 PM	#15
Mr. Skinny Alien Cryogenic Engineer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 8,192	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit Are there any truthers here who still don't understand that engineers in the '60's did not have analysis methods capable of accurately analyzing a plane impact into a building? Originally Posted by Architect Perhaps they don't realise just how recent decent computing power is, for a start? You know, when I started secondary school in 1981 at the tender age of 12 we still got taught how to use slide rules and log tables (more out of interest, we obviously had calculators). The ZX81 was still hot, and the best computer we had in the school was an Apple II () When I got to university we had more complex structural programmes on the Vax mainframes, but to be honest my Blackberry Storm has more computing power...... So how, I have to ask myself, do Truthers think highly, highly complex issues such as aircraft impacts were modelled at the tower? () Note to fellow Scots. No jokes about the Nicholson Institute here. I was schooled on the mainland. We had pens, and paper, and everything. Good point(s). When I started engineering school I used a slide rule and an add/subtract/multiply/divide/square root TI calculator cost $120 USD. Now they have this where I work: DoD Supercomputing Resource Center http://www.afrl.hpc.mil/
	__________________ U.S.L.S 1969-1975 "thanks skinny. And bite me. :-) - The Bad Astronomer, 11/15/02 on Paltalk "He's harmless in a rather dorky way." - Katana "Deities do not organize, they command." - Hokulele Last edited by Mr. Skinny; 1st April 2009 at 06:52 PM.

1st April 2009, 07:02 PM	#16
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,938	Originally Posted by Mr. Skinny Good point(s). When I started engineering school I used a slide rule and an add/subtract/multiply/divide/square root TI calculator cost $120 USD. Now they have this where I work: DoD Supercomputing Resource Center http://www.afrl.hpc.mil/ Deities don't engineer, they merely command into being. All right! Who are you, and what have you done with Mr. Skinny?
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

1st April 2009, 07:40 PM	#17
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit Are there any truthers here who still don't understand that engineers in the '60's did not have analysis methods capable of accurately analyzing a plane impact into a building? Given that they claim the vastly superior analysis methods used by NIST in 2004 came up with the wrong answer, you'd think the above would be obvious... ...but then, having a self-inconsistent world view is practically a requirement for membership.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

1st April 2009, 07:55 PM	#18
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,798	I got my first calculator when I went to university. It cost $120 and did + - / and X. It had one memory location and was the size of my entire open palm. My next calculator was TI that did the above as well as sqrt, squares, trig function (as well as inverse and hyperbolic) x^y and exponential notation. It did not do cartesian to polar transforms BUT two years later I used it in my electronics course and could do those transformations as fast as those youngsters who had calculators that did it in fewer keypad strokes AND since I understood better how it was done I also understood when the result showing on the calculator just could not be right (keypad entry mistakes = GIGO) Of course I could also divide 10⁸ by 10² and get 10⁶ without using the calculator, unlike some of the youngsters who would use theirs and get 5 X 10⁷ (and I quote from one pup who did not return after the first semester "Well that's what my calculator says and you didn't even use a calculator") I graduated that college course the same year that Radio Shack came out with the trash80. Until then pretty much no one had a computer at home. That was 1982. I am now reminded of the time on PfT when I was told that Flt 77 descended so very quickly. The poster (bill) gave his numbers and I had to then point out that he had divided the height drop by the number of minutes to do so and was telling me that the result was in feet per second. Oops out by a factor of 60.
	Last edited by jaydeehess; 1st April 2009 at 08:04 PM.

2nd April 2009, 08:56 AM	#19
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	Originally Posted by jaydeehess I got my first calculator when I went to university. It cost $120 and did + - / and X. It had one memory location and was the size of my entire open palm. Circa 1971 I worked with someone who was thrilled to buy a 4-banger the size of a shoebox with a 120VAC power cord for $99. I could have told him, based on my knowledge of the electronics industry that a battery pocket model would be out shortly but it was irrelevant since he was on deadline to deliver a thesis that was all about statistics and it meant he could work at home instead of booking time on the school's Monroe mechanical beasts in "the lab". By 1973, the HP 35 calculator was out. What a change. A friend had one with such a low serial number that it was recalled for an error in one of the trig functions.
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	__________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept.

2nd April 2009, 12:08 PM	#20
Mr. Skinny Alien Cryogenic Engineer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 8,192	Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus Deities don't engineer, they merely command into being. All right! Who are you, and what have you done with Mr. Skinny? Engineering is just an occupation for my Clark Kent-like persona. It helps me keep in touch with "the people".
	__________________ U.S.L.S 1969-1975 "thanks skinny. And bite me. :-) - The Bad Astronomer, 11/15/02 on Paltalk "He's harmless in a rather dorky way." - Katana "Deities do not organize, they command." - Hokulele