@siredwards
Citazione:

citi da: KGNU Radio, Denver 26/10/2006?
citi dal: PBS show "why the towers fell"?
citi dallo show dlla BBC:“The Man Who Built the Twin Towers”?

ma siam così sicuri delle cose che affermi? perchè....
LINK

cmq le tue affermazioni, non possono che arrivare da Leslie Robertson:
[the founder and head of Leslie Robertson and Associates, a structural engineering firm based in New York, with many decades of experience in structural design for buildings and other structures around the world, including the World Trade Center. Leslie Robertson was the chief engineer on the World Trade Center project ]

voce autorevole, pero':
Gregg Roberts, Associate Editor of 911Research riporta che:
[ scusa non te li traduco integralmente, ma... quasi tutto si ]

1]
sentence might be incorrect and is certainly misleading, given the lack of any mention of John Skilling, who hired Robertson and is described in media accounts and books as the “lead,” “head,” or “chief” structural engineer on the World Trade Center
project.

[ cioè occhio che bisogna anche citare John Skilling che era il capo e il titolare di robertson. ing capo si, ma....sottopadrone. e che padrone! ]

2]
In a 1993 Seattle Times article, Skilling was described as the head structural engineer. Robertson was not mentioned there, nor in an article in the Engineering News-Record that discussed the design in 1964.2 In City in the Sky, Robertson is called the “rising young engineer with Skilling's firm” (p. 159). In Men of Steel, Robertson is referred to
during the design phase as “one of the up-and-coming engineers on [Skilling’s] staff,” Skilling’s “young associate,”...Clearly, Skilling was a senior partner at the firm and Robertson was his
subordinate.

[cioè un po' di citazioni dalle quali risalta la figura di Skilling e non tanto quella di Peterson ]

3]
The tallest building his firm had designed before then was 22 stories tall. It hardly seems likely that he sat back and smoked cigars while the 34-year-old Robertson – who at the beginning of the project had a bachelor's only in science and not in engineering – went off and designed the Towers without supervision. The project would clearly have had Skilling’s full attention.3

[ Peterson prima aveva solo costruito un palazzo di 22 piani, un po' pochno per pensare che sul progetto delle WTC Skillings non lo controllaasse e lo facesse lavarare sotto la sua supervisione ]


4]
Skilling made a number of factual claims about the World Trade Center towers’ design strengths that disagree with Robertson’s. Having died in 1998, Skilling is not alive to defend those claims or the conclusions they support.

[ Skilling ha fatto un serie di dichiarazioni a riguardo i WTC. essendo egli morto, ora ovviamente non puo' sostenere o smentire le sue proprie affermazioni. cmq, vediamone adesso qualcuna: passi seguenti ]

5]
The Seattle Times quotes Skilling as saying “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 [but] the building structure would still be there.”

[dichiarazione di Skilling a proposito di un (all'epoca improbabile eppure previsto nei parametri di costruzione ) impatto di un areoplano contro le terri : " LE NOSTRE ANALISI INDICANO CHE IL PROBLEMA PIU' GROSSO SAREBBE IL CARBURANTE CHE COLA GIU' NELL'EDIFICIO. CI SAREBBERO FIAMME TREMENDE, MA LA STRUTTURA DELL'EDIFICIO RIMARREBBE IN PIEDI" ]

6] [ roberston invece ha dichiarato ]
By contrast, on the PBS show “Why the Towers Fell,” Robertson stated: “With the 707, to the best of my knowledge, the fuel load was not considered in the design. Indeed, I don't know how it could have been considered.”

[roberston invece ha dichiarato: "IN PROGETTAZIONE NON ABBIAM TENUTO CONTO DEL CARBURANTE. NON SO COME AVREMMO PRENDERLO IN CONSIDERAZIONE". al che sorge la domandina: Who would design a building to be impacted by fuel-less aircraft? How would the aircraft get there? cioè: " MA CHI MAI PROGETTEREBBE UN EDIFICIO DA UN POSSIBILE IMPATTO DI UN AREOPLANO SENZA CARBURANTE? COME POTREBBE L'AREOPLANO ARRIVARE A COLPIRLO??? così difficile da prenderlo in considerazione??? lo progetti pensando a quel tipo di incidente e ti dimenti il carburante e gli incendi? mha!!! ]

7]
The project was designed for the impact of a, what we call a low-flying, slow-flying Boeing 707, that was the largest aircraft of its time, actually the intercontinental version. We envisioned it much as was the case for the aircraft that struck the Empire State Building in the Second World War, the same condition, lost in the fog, i.e. an accidental impact of an aircraft into the building. It was not designed for high-speed impact from the jets that actually hit it.

[riasssumendo cioè Robertston dice che era progettato per un impatto a bassa velocità, come quello dell'aeroplano perso nella nebbia che aveva colpito l'ESB, un impatto accidentale. come avevi riportato tu...ma... proseguiamo...con le smentite...]

8]
Robertson should know that his statement about the design parameters is not true. According to John Skilling, speaking after the basement bombing in 1993, “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 [about its maximum speed].
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…. There would be a horrendous fire [but] the building structure would still be there.”

[...ma... SKILLING, intervistato dopo l'attentato del 93 alle WTC, dice che: " GLI EDIFICI ERAN STATI CONTROLLATI E RITENUTI SICURI IN CASO DI UN'IPOTETICA COLLISIONE CON UN large jet airliner GRANDE AEREO DI LINEA (BOEING 707 - DC8), VIAGGIANTE ALLA VELOCITA' DI 600 MIGLIA ALL'ORA - QUASI LA VELOCITA' MASSIMA!!!! LE ANALISI HAN INDICATO CHE UN SIMILE IMPATTO AVREBBE CAUSATO SOLO DANNI LOCALIZZATI CHE NON AVREBBERO CAUSATO IL COLLASSO DELL'EDIFICIO, E CHE NON AVREBBE MESSO IN PERICOLO LE VITE DELLE PERSONE EVENTUALMENTE PRESENTI, SE NON QUELLE NELLA DIRETTA ZONA DELL'IMPATTO.... CI SAREBBE UN INCENDIO TREMENDO, MA LA STRUTTURA DELL'EDIFICIO RESTEREBBE IN PIEDI" ]

Citazione:
...e ricomincia pure a scendere!


PS: la prossima volta, metti anche i link.