WTC Head Structural Engineer John Skilling

[TC329]

Days after the 1st WTC bombing by the FBI, the Seattle Times interviewed the head structural engineer for the WTC John Skilling. Skilling was one of the worlds top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center. Here is what he had to say regarding the massive structures and the supporting columns which he said are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

"We 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,"

"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," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

"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."

But what does he know?

Right JREF?

He was just one of the worlds leading structural engineers. Just because he is responsible for much of Seattle and several of the worlds tallest structures doesn't mean he is competent or qualified enough to have a belief such as this.

As many of you here already know better than him. After all while he was giving the world so many massive structures you were all doing absolutely nothing noteworthy.....

Yep that would make you guys the experts!

[DGM]

The 'Titanic' was "unsinkable".:eek:

[Mr. Skinny]

Do you have a link so we can read the interview?

[CHF]

Hey I've got an idea: let's ask Skilling whether he thinks the towers fell from CD.

Oh right, we can't cuz he died in 1998.

So let's just assume the dead guy supports your theory, right TC329?

[Myriad]

So, he said a bunch of stuff that's all true, when you also replace the sentence that you carefully omitted from the quote (it follows the first sentence you quoted): "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

In other words, the plane crash scenario that would result in the building still being there was of an accident, not a suicidal ramming attack at full cruising speed.

So, what's the issue here? How do Skilling's words in 1993 in any way suggest an inside job conspiracy on 9/11?

Respectfully,
Myriad

ETA: Link to the article. Note that the article contains quotes selected by the reporter, not the complete transcript of an interview. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

[X]

Wasn't Skilling referring to the impact from a plane coming in for landing?

I think the thinking was that if a landing plane got lost in fog, it could concievable hit a tall building.

However, a landing plane would be flying much slower than 600 mph.


What you seem to be saying, TC329, is that since the designers took into account the accidental impact of an aircraft flying at slow speed, the towers must have been demolished following an impact at a much larger speed.

You are aware that the velocity term in kinetic energy claculations is squared, right?

[DC]

maybe Skilling forgot to include the direction of gravity in his "Analysis"

and he should have informed mister Robertson that they did consider the fires.

[bynmdsue]

I guess it's a good thing he died before having to say "It appears I was wrong".

[Drudgewire]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100489

For those who prefer the nostalgic version to this impending remake of the topic being explained away and twoofers putting their fingers in their ears and going LALALALALAA!!

[chillzero]

Great, another thread on this matter.

Hang on though...
Days after the 1st WTC bombing by the FBI

... when was that?

[DGM]

maybe Skilling forgot to include the direction of gravity in his "Analysis"

and he should have informed mister Robertson that they did consider the fires.

No. The lying sack of [rule 10] "truth" movement quote mined it to appear to show support. What part of "truth" do you think this pertains to?

[uk_dave]

Well since Structural Engineering isn't akin to alchemy and the secrets of the craft do not die with a particular engineer, what Skilling said can easily be verified by other structural engineers with similar practical experience.

Off you go 'truthers', go speak with some structural engineers.

PS - I know you guys like practical experiments to (dis)prove your theories so you could always get a couple of 110 storey steel 'tube in tube' towers and crash a couple of fuel laden passenger aircraft into them at high speed, and then see if they collapse. What? Been done before?

Uh huh

[jhunter1163]

Using Truther logic, since Skilling has the same last name as Jeffrey Skilling, former president of Enron (and we all know how eeeeeebil Enron was) we can dismiss Skilling as being in on it. Right, Truthers? What's good for the goose....

[Myriad]

maybe Skilling forgot to include the direction of gravity in his "Analysis"

and he should have informed mister Robertson that they did consider the fires.


DC, unless you can state specifically how Skilling's comments in 1993 in any way suggest a conspiracy on 9/11, there is no relevant topic here to discuss.

Threads with no relevant topic to discuss belong in AAH.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[DC]

No. The lying sack of [rule 10] "truth" movement quote mined it to appear to show support. What part of "truth" do you think this pertains to?

im not really interested in the part about explosives, im very interested in the part of the jetfuel fires.
he seems to remembering considering fires in his analysis, but robertson was not remembering it.

[jhunter1163]

im not really interested in the part about explosives, im very interested in the part of the jetfuel fires.
he seems to remembering considering fires in his analysis, but robertson was not remembering it.

DC, they did not model fires when designing the WTC because they couldn't. You have more computing power on your desk right now than there was in the whole world in 1964.

[DGM]

im not really interested in the part about explosives, im very interested in the part of the jetfuel fires.
he seems to remembering considering fires in his analysis, but robertson was not remembering it.

So! Do you really think they could have designed the building to withstand what happened on 9/11? (They could but no one could afford to build it).

[X]

Great, another thread on this matter.

Hang on though...


Days after the 1st WTC bombing by the FBI


... when was that?



Nice catch. I missed that.

I'm very interested to hear TC's answer.

[~enigma~]

;3694320']Nice catch. I missed that.

I'm very interested to hear TC's answer.
What answer do you expect? You know TC and most of the 9/11 bowel movement think the FBI admitted bombing the WTC in 1993, at least that's what the bowel movement claims. As an aside, why would anyone want to be known as a part of a bowel movement?

[DC]

So! Do you really think they could have designed the building to withstand what happened on 9/11? (They could but no one could afford to build it).

skilling lied?
he said the structure would still be there. why was he such a liar?

[Drudgewire]

skilling lied?
he said the structure would still be there. why was he such a liar?

To get chicks. Duh. :rolleyes:

[16.5]

"Days after the 1st WTC bombing by the FBI...."

Holy cripes. Seems pretty clear that after CIT was forced to abandon their silly Pentagon flyover theory, they have also abandoned their minds.

Say, by the way, Dom, your vituperative and cowardly attacks on the members of this board elsewhere have not gone unnoticed.

[Alt+F4]

skilling lied?
he said the structure would still be there. why was he such a liar?

Skilling said no such thing. It's you that is the liar.

Neither Skilling or Robertson or anyone else studied what the effect would be of a an almost fully fueled 767 hitting one of those buildings. Skilling was referring to a study from the 1960s about a 707 hitting the building.

[TC329]

So, he said a bunch of stuff that's all true, when you also replace the sentence that you carefully omitted from the quote (it follows the first sentence you quoted): "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

In other words, the plane crash scenario that would result in the building still being there was of an accident, not a suicidal ramming attack at full cruising speed.

You JREF invented a lie that the plane was calaculated at landing speeds. You have not one single shred of evidence to support this other than the fact you all parrot it and if enough people say it enough times that makes it true. Unfortunately it doesn't.

And your claim that accidental plane crashes are less severe than intentional plane crashes is the most laughable thing i have ever heard. Can I nominate you for a stundie?

Do I need to show you what "accidental" plane crashes look like so you can do some comparisons?

[TC329]

So, he said a bunch of stuff that's all true, when you also replace the sentence that you carefully omitted from the quote (it follows the first sentence you quoted): "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

In other words, the plane crash scenario that would result in the building still being there was of an accident, not a suicidal ramming attack at full cruising speed.

You JREF invented a lie that the plane was calculated at landing speeds. You have not one single shred of evidence to support this other than the fact you all parrot it and if enough people say it enough times that makes it true. Unfortunately it doesn't.

And your claim that accidental plane crashes are less severe than intentional plane crashes is the most laughable thing i have ever heard. Can I nominate you for a stundie?

Do I need to show you what "accidental" plane crashes look like so you can do some comparisons?

[DGM]

skilling lied?
he said the structure would still be there. why was he such a liar?

When? Maybe he didn't consult as deeply with Leslie Robertson (the actual head engineer) as he should have. What does this matter? DO YOU THINK A BUILDING COULD BE (practically) BUILT TO WITHSTAND THE EVENTS OF 9/11?

[uk_dave]

Do I need to show you what "accidental" plane crashes look like so you can do some comparisons?

Only if you can show us some deliberate plane crashes for comparison as well.

[DC]

Skilling said no such thing. It's you that is the liar.

Neither Skilling or Robertson or anyone else studied what the effect would be of a an almost fully fueled 767 hitting one of those buildings. Skilling was referring to a study from the 1960s about a 707 hitting the building.

"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," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Source (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698)

did you lie?

[DGM]

Do I need to show you what "accidental" plane crashes look like so you can do some comparisons?

Do I need to show you evidence that the 'Titanic' sank? This is past lame (even for you)

[Mr.Herbert]

You JREF invented a lie that the plane was calculated at landing speeds. You have not one single shred of evidence to support this other than the fact you all parrot it and if enough people say it enough times that makes it true. Unfortunately it doesn't.

And your claim that accidental plane crashes are less severe than intentional plane crashes is the most laughable thing i have ever heard. Can I nominate you for a stundie?

Do I need to show you what "accidental" plane crashes look like so you can do some comparisons?

Can I Stundie his Stundie???

[DC]

When? Maybe he didn't consult as deeply with Leslie Robertson (the actual head engineer) as he should have. What does this matter? DO YOU THINK A BUILDING COULD BE (practically) BUILT TO WITHSTAND THE EVENTS OF 9/11?

Nuclear Plants are designed to withstand that.

[uk_dave]

Nuclear Plants are designed to withstand that.


ooooooooooo now, take that thought a little further....you can do it.....

....a nuclear power plant could survive a direct hit from a passenger plane because, unlike the wtc towers.................

....go on, give it a go.

[DGM]

Nuclear Plants are designed to withstand that.

So? What does that have to do with an office building that HAS to be "commercially viable"?

[Drudgewire]

Nuclear Plants are designed to withstand that.

That would be a great point if the towers were 10 stories tall, built with curves, and didn't have any windows or floors in order to house inhabitants.

"The Great Wall of China could withstand a car crash, so how come they can go through a storefront?"

Note to MagZ: I said "storEfront." Don't worry, no one's planning to destroy your favorite website's home office. :p

[DC]

ooooooooooo now, take that thought a little further....you can do it.....

....a nuclear power plant could survive a direct hit from a passenger plane because, unlike the wtc towers.................

....go on, give it a go.

oh good point.

and the pentagon is made out of?

[DC]

That would be a great point if the towers were 10 stories tall, built with curves, and didn't have any windows or floors in order to house inhabitants.

"The Great Wall of China could withstand a car crash, so how come they can go through a storefront?"

Note to MagZ: I said "storEfront." Don't worry, no one's planning to destroy your favorite website's home office. :p

maybe the Chinese wall will globally progressively collapse when the car is burning long enough?

[DC]

So? What does that have to do with an office building that HAS to be "commercially viable"?

aah the goalposts aer now set to office building.

[DGM]

oh good point.

and the pentagon is made out of?

You don't think the Pentagon building performed very well? You really don't know anything about structures do you?

[DGM]

aah the goalposts aer now set to office building.

The WTC towers were not "office buildings"?:boggled: Are you daft?

[Par]

And your claim that accidental plane crashes are less severe than intentional plane crashes is the most laughable thing i have ever heard. Can I nominate you for a stundie?Can I Stundie his Stundie???


There would be something aesthetically pleasant about it, and it was a rather stupid thing to say.

[DC]

The WTC towers were not "office buildings"?:boggled: Are you daft?

DO YOU THINK A BUILDING COULD BE (practically) BUILT TO WITHSTAND THE EVENTS OF 9/11?

your words

[Drudgewire]

You don't think the Pentagon building performed very well? You really don't know anything about structures do you?

Color me stunned. :rolleyes:

[DGM]

your words

The diligent "truth seeker" is arguing semantics. You know damn well what we were talking about. Back to ignore troll.

[Par]

The diligent "truth seeker" is arguing semantics. You know damn well what we were talking about. Back to ignore troll.


So, you had taken him off ignore?

[DGM]

So, you had taken him off ignore?
No. Silly me just decided to read a few of his posts. (I'm bored, my girl friends out with her son for mothers day dinner)

[Quad4_72]

Is there really a thread about what a structural engineer speculated about 15 years ago that has no relevance to what happened on 9/11? I thought we already covered that what people speculated about the kind of impact the towers could withstand prior to 9/11 means precisely DICK. Seriously CFs, you guys are RETARDED.

[Par]

No. Silly me just decided to read a few of his posts. (I'm bored, my girl friends out with her son for mothers day dinner)


Oh, I see. Yeah, that’s a bad idea. One should never stop ignoring Dictator Cheney, unusual circumstances notwithstanding.

[Par]

Is there really a thread about what a structural engineer speculated about 15 years ago that has no relevance to what happened on 9/11? I thought we already covered that what people speculated about the kind of impact the towers could withstand prior to 9/11 means precisely DICK. Seriously CFs, you guys are RETARDED.


While I don’t much care for your terminology, your point is perfectly valid. The original post cites the brief comments of an engineer who died before the attacks and so necessarily lacked the epistemic benefit of having witnessed the attacks or having read the subsequent reports on the collapses, etc. This is a classic example of truthers preferring worse evidence over better evidence. It’s analogous to the way in which they cite confused news reports from the same day as the attacks.

[SpitfireIX]

You JREF invented a lie that the plane was calaculated at landing speeds. You have not one single shred of evidence to support this other than the fact you all parrot it and if enough people say it enough times that makes it true. Unfortunately it doesn't.


Leslie Robertson, interviewed for the PBS documentary The Center of the World (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/filmmore/pt.html):

One of my jobs was to look at all of the possible events that might take place in a highrise building. . . . We were looking at aircraft that was lost in the fog, trying to land. It was a low-flying, slow-flying 707, which was the largest aircraft of its time. And so we made calculations, not anywhere near the level of sophistication that we could today. But inside of our ability, we made calculations of what happened when the airplane goes in and it takes out a huge section of the outside wall of the building. And we concluded that it would stand. It would suffer but it would stand. And the outside wall would have a big hole in it, and the building would be in place. What we didn't look at is what happens to all that fuel. And perhaps we could be faulted for that, for not doing so. But for whatever reason we didn't look at that question of what would happen to the fuel. [bolding mine]


Leslie Robertson, writing in an article (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB) that appeared in The Bridge, a publication of the National Academy of Engineering:

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).


So of course you're now going to admit that you were wrong about our not having a shred of evidence, and apologize for calling us liars and parrots, right TC329?

And your claim that accidental plane crashes are less severe than intentional plane crashes is the most laughable thing i have ever heard. Can I nominate you for a stundie?

Do I need to show you what "accidental" plane crashes look like so you can do some comparisons?


What's laughable, frankly, is your breathtaking ignorance of aviation. Aircraft in controlled airspace below 10,000 ft ASL are generally limited to speeds of 250 kts; American 11 and United 175 were traveling nearly twice that fast. Further, the approach speed of a 707 is considerably lower; it's less than 200 kts.

[DC]

The diligent "truth seeker" is arguing semantics. You know damn well what we were talking about. Back to ignore troll.

true, sorry

i hang out with the wrong peoples. i seem to get used to that JREF style

[Drudgewire]

So of course you're now going to admit that you were wrong about our not having a shred of evidence, and apologize for calling us liars and parrots, right TC329?


http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/cricket.gif

[DC]

Leslie Robertson, interviewed for the PBS documentary The Center of the World (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/filmmore/pt.html):




Leslie Robertson, writing in an article (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB) that appeared in The Bridge, a publication of the National Academy of Engineering:




So of course you're now going to admit that you were wrong about our not having a shred of evidence, and apologize for calling us liars and parrots, right TC329?




What's laughable, frankly, is your breathtaking ignorance of aviation. Aircraft in controlled airspace below 10,000 ft ASL are generally limited to speeds of 250 kts; American 11 and United 175 were traveling nearly twice that fast. Further, the approach speed of a 707 is considerably lower; it's less than 200 kts.

Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson White Paper

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.

[uk_dave]

So of course you're now going to admit that you were wrong about our not having a shred of evidence, and apologize for calling us liars and parrots, right TC329?


Oh come on, in 'truther' eyes Leslie Robertson is part of the conspiracy and will say anything his lords and masters dictate, whereas Skilling is dead so they can use his words any way they damn well please.

What amazes me is why the all powerful NWO allowed this state of affairs to exist. Surely it is within their power to make sure all wtc engineers, whether alive or dead, have stayed on the same page .... I mean, what chance of reducing the world population by 80% if they can't get this one small detail through without giving the 'truthers' something to cling to......
.....

.......unless.........................

[Par]

So of course you're now going to admit that you were wrong about our not having a shred of evidence, and apologize for calling us liars and parrots, right TC329
http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/cricket.gif


I am only aware of two of TC329’s characteristics. Those are telling lies and typing “lol” into forums. I’ve never seen him admit that he is wrong or apologise to somebody.

[uk_dave]

Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson White Paper

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.

NIST disagrees. You need to find a structural engineering company equivalent to the above to confirm that:

1. It was possible to design within those parameters
2. It was necessary (and economic) to design within those parameters
3. That the buildings were in fact designed within those parameters
4. That the design was competent to meet those parameters

Will you do that?

[Minadin]

You JREF invented a lie that the plane was calaculated at landing speeds. You have not one single shred of evidence to support this other than the fact you all parrot it and if enough people say it enough times that makes it true. Unfortunately it doesn't.

And your claim that accidental plane crashes are less severe than intentional plane crashes is the most laughable thing i have ever heard. Can I nominate you for a stundie?

Do I need to show you what "accidental" plane crashes look like so you can do some comparisons?

The "landing speed" idea was a lie invented by JREF? No evidence? I would think you could do a little better research than that, but then again you are a conspiracy theorist.

Here's some helpful figures:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1253245ae6cf556e33.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3690)


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1253245ae6d16eee80.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3693)

But they're not from JREF (or even the JREF Forums) but are rather from The Bridge magazine, published by the NAE (That's the National Academy of Engineering). The original format of the PDF has been archived and the images are no longer displayed, however, you may still read the article at this link if you wish:

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/BridgePrintView/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

Upon further searching, I found the article saved eslewhere in its original Format:

http://www.caets.org/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf?OpenElement

By the way, if you would like to see what real engineering experts think about the collapses, here's another good place to check out:

http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/report.php

[Corsair 115]

;3694266']Wasn't Skilling referring to the impact from a plane coming in for landing?

I think the thinking was that if a landing plane got lost in fog, it could concievable hit a tall building.

However, a landing plane would be flying much slower than 600 mph.Nah, civilian passenger jets are always zooming along at 600 miles per hour at 1,000 feet. Happens all the time!

Maybe TC329 meant an A-3 flying along at 600 mph at 1,000 feet hitting the WTC. After all, if that's what he thinks hit the Pentagon, then why not the WTC as well?

[firecoins]

FACT: There were no explosives in WTC 1, 2 or 7. There is no need to keep the debate alive. Please stop giving credit to these "truthers" via debate.

[X]

Nah, civilian passenger jets are always zooming along at 600 miles per hour at 1,000 feet. Happens all the time!

Maybe TC329 meant an A-3 flying along at 600 mph at 1,000 feet hitting the WTC. After all, if that's what he thinks hit the Pentagon, then why not the WTC as well?



It does seem to be his opinion that jets routinely operate at cruising speed at low altitude.

I can't remember the thread, but somewhere I made a rough estimate of engine capabilities and concluded that the jetliner in question could theoretically travel 600 mph at such a low altitude.
Beachnut pointed out a rather large problem that I missed involving high speed at low altitude (pressure differential and probably friction), and how it would cause structural damage to the aircraft.

I simply cannot fathom how TC329 can claim that Skillings statements pertain to anything other than low-speed flight.

Assuming that the towers were designed to take a 600 mph impact is absurd.
It is not a situation that is likely to occur, and accomplishing it required considerable intent.
I think Skilling can be forgiven for not taking into account suicidal hijackers when he designed the building. Unles TC329 can honestly say that it's something that was routinely accounted for when the buildings were designed.

Anybody who claims that the buildings were designed to take a 600 mph hit is quite fankly off their rocker.

It's an utterly absurd notion, and all that is required to realize this is 2 seconds of rational thinking.

[Drudgewire]

;3694783']It's an utterly absurd notion, and all that is required to realize this is 2 seconds of rational thinking.

Well see, the problem with that is...

[Tweeter]

Wow.. Why isnt one of the many Jrefs engineers designing 100 story buildings since they know more than the guy who designed the WTC?

[DGM]

Wow.. Why isnt one of the many Jrefs engineers designing 100 story buildings since they know more than the guy who designed the WTC?
Your comment is moronic. The sad part is you don't know why.

[pomeroo]

skilling lied?
he said the structure would still be there. why was he such a liar?


No, Skilling was not a liar. You are a liar. A lie is a statement that is a) untrue and b) known to be untrue by the person making it. Ergo, Skilling was not lying. You lie.

[pomeroo]

Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson White Paper

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.


You have been told many times that estimates made in the 1960s were unreliable because it was impossible to use the sort of computer analysis that is available today. What don't you grasp?

[Tweeter]

Your comment is moronic. The sad part is you don't know why.


Because engineers dont design buildings?
Because there are engineers here that actually are engineers and they know more than Skilling?
Do fires act differently now than they did in the 70`s?

[SpitfireIX]

Wow.. Why isnt one of the many Jrefs engineers designing 100 story buildings since they know more than the guy who designed the WTC?


The "guy who designed the WTC" is Leslie Robertson; he signed the plans. Skilling was Robertson's supervisor. See my previous post for Robertson's comments on the aircraft-impact scenario considered and the crudeness of the calculations.

[DGM]

Because engineers dont design buildings?
Because there are engineers here that actually are engineers and they know more than Skilling?
Do fires act differently now than they did in the 70`s?
See what I mean. Not a clue. (you do know lurkers read and understand)

[WildCat]

The truthers have finally found their structural engineer, and he died 3 years before 9/11!

:dl:

[DC]

You have been told many times that estimates made in the 1960s were unreliable because it was impossible to use the sort of computer analysis that is available today. What don't you grasp?

so it was just a big fat lie, no Analysis at all?
but i agree, Skilling was prolly not a liar.
you are a liar.

[twinstead]

It appears the estimates made in the 1960's are INDEED reliable, at least as long as they support ones arguments.

[Mr. Skinny]

Because engineers dont design buildings?
Because there are engineers here that actually are engineers and they know more than Skilling?
Do fires act differently now than they did in the 70`s?
(bolding mine)

Actually, fires do act differently over time.

For example, in the '70's manufacturing facilities started using far more plastics that burned far hotter and produced more smoke and toxic byproducts.

They also started storing said plastics in 20 to 25 ft. high racks in warehouses.

Things like this affect how a fire burns and what measures are required to fight these fires.

I would imagine that there are new materials and processes in the 2000's that make fires burn differently, e.g. composites.

Even office fires burn differently these days compared to the '70's. There are far more plastics from computers for example.

Anyhow, just wanted to point out that the answer to your question is "yes".

[Stellafane]

oh good point.

and the pentagon is made out of?

Oh DC, DC...you have indeed been hanging around the wrong people, as you said in an earlier post. But they aren't JREFers, they're the CTers such as those who have been participating in this thread, for whom the truth means nothing, it's all about some online game of "Gotcha!" that no one else is playing but they still manage to lose.

Tell me, which came off worse on 9/11, the WTC buildings or the Pentagon? In fact, isn't a big thing with you guys the fact that the Pentagon looked too good afterward, with a tiny hole that was much smaller than a jetliner should have made (or so goes the CT theories)?

When you find yourself saying things like this, things that are just plain silly, just to score some hypothetical rhetorical points and avoid admitting you're wrong, then I think it's time to re-think this whole Truther thing. There's got to be better ways to use your brain, don't you think?

[Newtons Bit]

Because engineers dont design buildings?
Because there are engineers here that actually are engineers and they know more than Skilling?
Do fires act differently now than they did in the 70`s?

In 1994 the engineering world was greatly surprised when state of the art moment frames, designed to resist huge earthquakes in California, failed during earthquakes that were smaller than the design loads. Subsequently, all moment frame systems in regions of high seismicity must have full-scale tests before they can be used.

Was the earthquake an inside job or did the engineering community at large (not just a single engineer) predict the performance of these buildings wrong?

[Blender Head]

Thanks to TC I now know that the damage Corey Lidle's plane crash caused is greater than or equal to the flights that hit the Towers.

[SpitfireIX]

Thanks to TC I now know that the damage Corey Lidle's plane crash caused is greater than or equal to the flights that hit the Towers.


:dl: :dl:

[MarkyX]

Great, I've heard of this one.

Here's a big problem that TC omitted: There was no detailed analysis on Skilling's claim. None.

We are literally listening to an opinion, not a fact.

[firecoins]

We are literally listening to an opinion, not a fact.
Right. But the fact is there was no controlled demolition. No mysterious explosives were involved at all.

[quicknthedead]

Hi TC329,

John Skilling said he imagined it could be done, so much so that he would even bet on it.

That reminds me that I gave up gambling years ago 'cause I'm so bad at it.

All the same, his statement is not hard evidence that explosives were used in the collapse of the towers.
I know I shouldn't, but I'd even bet on that.

Please stick to hard evidence regarding 9/11 being an inside job.
You may conclude there is none. :checkmark

[quicknthedead]

skilling lied?
he said the structure would still be there. why was he such a liar?

Skilling did not lie. As a matter of fact, his statement, I believe, is absolutely true...about explosives experts.
Of course they could...they can bring down ANY BUILDING if they are allowed to do the job (and do it right).

Nevertheless, there is no hard evidence of any explosives being used on 9/11...from anywhere, and this is the truth.

[beachnut]

Robertson was the chief structural engineer for the WTC. He designed the structural for the impact of a 707 at landing speed. That was the threat from an accident. Only 9/11 truth is Robertson a liar, like the call all who tell the truth.

Very ironic, the movement of anti-intellectuals, known as 9/11 truth, is not looking for truth.

When will TC get something right?

[beachnut]

Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson White Paper

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.


You have been show with evidence that the 600 mph is stated by error. Unless you present facts to support it you are wrong. Big error, and you repeat your errors, where most people correct their errors; go ahead post some errors I have corrected. .

I have shown you the facts with first person support. You are posting an error. You are like 9/11 truth, full of errors. Cool, you are like what you are looking for.


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. Local damage is from a slow speed impact. You need an engineer to help you. This statement proves it was slow speed impact. Airliners do not go 600 mph at 1000 feet.

you are 9/11 truth, facts are not required. Just hearsay and opinion.

[quicknthedead]

Here is some good information on the subject.

From "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking" by Ryan Mackey, pg. 8:

Mr. Robertson’s comments to the BBC, taken in context, include the
following:

We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth. [Sic; actually triple velocity means nine times the kinetic energy.]

And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully, fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Uh, just absolutely no comparison between the two. [19]

As we can plainly see, Mr. Robertson does not support Dr. Griffin’s assertions.
He suggests that the WTC Towers were designed to handle a 707 impact, but that the actual requirement stipulated a much lower speed collision, with “absolutely no comparison” between the requirement and the actual events of September 11th. Mr. Robertson also indicates that a thorough analysis would have been impossible with the tools of the time. It also bears pointing out that his firm LERA was a contributor to the NIST Report, rather than disputing it, as Dr. Griffin suggests.

4. It is unclear to the author how the late John Skilling’s comments are at variance with the actual events of September 11th – both towers were struck, but remained standing, and there were “horrendous” fires. To my knowledge, Mr. Skilling never claimed that the Towers would remain standing indefinitely, particularly given the fires and the impossibility of fighting them. Even if he had, there are no calculations given in support, nor has anyone been able to replicate such a result. The burden of proof remains upon Dr. Griffin.

[DC]

You have been show with evidence that the 600 mph is stated by error. Unless you present facts to support it you are wrong. Big error, and you repeat your errors, where most people correct their errors; go ahead post some errors I have corrected. .

I have shown you the facts with first person support. You are posting an error. You are like 9/11 truth, full of errors. Cool, you are like what you are looking for.


Local damage is from a slow speed impact. You need an engineer to help you. This statement proves it was slow speed impact. Airliners do not go 600 mph at 1000 feet.

you are 9/11 truth, facts are not required. Just hearsay and opinion.

i have seen no evidence, that the 600 MPH is an error, i also have seen no evidence that would confirm it. same for the 180 MPH.
we only can speculate about it.

old documents say 600 MPH, and Robertson that cant remember the they did consider the fires think its 180 MPH.

he best keep searching for the Calculations, so he can backup his claims.

[peteweaver]

TC, its common knowledge that the buildings had been designed to withstand the collision of an off course 707 crashing whilst landing in fog.

Landing speeds fall well below those at which the 767's collided with the towers, and the fuel load of a 707 having to make an emergency landing in fog, is negligable.

The full speed collision of a Boeing 767 fuelled up for a coast to coast flight, is a different kettle of fish, travelling with more kinetic energy (thus more damage), and starting fierce fires which would be fuelled by the jet fuel ignited furnishings of the buildings.

[The Doc]

I don't get what the conspiracy theorists are trying to argue here...

"The planes couldn't initiate a collapse, therefore explosives did", appears to be what they're aiming at. I have yet to have a conspiracist answer how on earth shaped-charges can survive an airliner impact, being that it is plainly obvious that collapse initiated from the point of impact.

[BigAl]

TC, its common knowledge that the buildings had been designed to withstand the collision of an off course 707 crashing whilst landing in fog.

Landing speeds fall well below those at which the 767's collided with the towers, and the fuel load of a 707 having to make an emergency landing in fog, is negligable.



If a 707 was trying to land in the fog it would probably mean that it was very low on fuel, otherwise it would divert to a field with better conditions.

[WildCat]

old documents say 600 MPH,
What old document?

[DC]

If a 707 was trying to land in the fog it would probably mean that it was very low on fuel, otherwise it would divert to a field with better conditions.

strange
DiMartini said :

"The Building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash in to it......"

source (http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=bDGInaB0eQM)

[DC]

What old document?

you didnt read the NIST report?

[A W Smith]

i have seen no evidence, that the 600 MPH is an error, i also have seen no evidence that would confirm it. same for the 180 MPH.
we only can speculate about it.

old documents say 600 MPH, and Robertson that cant remember the they did consider the fires think its 180 MPH.

he best keep searching for the Calculations, so he can backup his claims.

can you provide us with evidence that a 707 flew at 600MPH at 1000 feet of altitude over a metropolitan area, ever. in the history of time? And if not. why engineers would even consider that scenario in the ninteen sixties?

[WildCat]

you didnt read the NIST report?
Yes, did you?


1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?
As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

[MarkyX]

He won't listen. It's already been confirmed that no document have been found detailing on this analysis was made.

[DC]

Yes, did you?

ah i see, but when Robertson says 180MPH and low on fuel and no Fire considered, thats a fact, without documents.

but when other WTC engineers say, fully loaded, or that the biggest problem would be Fire, that must be misstakes, it cannot be backedup with the calculations.....

where is robertsons backup?

[Alferd_Packer]

maybe Skilling forgot to include the direction of gravity in his "Analysis"

and he should have informed mister Robertson that they did consider the fires.


Oh Realy?

That's not what Leslie Robinson said.


Leslie Robertson: One of my jobs was to look at all of the possible events that might take place in a highrise building. And of course there had been in New York two incidences of aircraft impact, the most famous one of course being on the Empire State Building. Now, we were looking at an aircraft not unlike the Mitchell bomber that ran into the Empire State Building. We were looking at aircraft that was lost in the fog, trying to land. It was a low-flying, slow-flying 707, which was the largest aircraft of its time. And so we made calculations, not anywhere near the level of sophistication that we could today. But inside of our ability, we made calculations of what happened when the airplane goes in and it takes out a huge section of the outside wall of the building. And we concluded that it would stand. It would suffer but it would stand. And the outside wall would have a big hole in it, and the building would be in place. What we didn't look at is what happens to all that fuel. And perhaps we could be faulted for that, for not doing so. But for whatever reason we didn't look at that question of what would happen to the fuel.

[A W Smith]

ah i see, but when Robertson says 180MPH and low on fuel and no Fire considered, thats a fact, without documents.

but when other WTC engineers say, fully loaded, or that the biggest problem would be Fire, that must be misstakes, it cannot be backedup with the calculations.....

where is robertsons backup?

wheres your backup? this is not a difficult question. again

can you provide us with evidence that a 707 flew at 600MPH at 1000 feet of altitude over a metropolitan area, ever. in the history of time? And if not. why engineers would even consider that scenario in the ninteen sixties?

[Blender Head]

but when other WTC engineers say, fully loaded.....

DeMartini was a WTC engineer?

[ref]

but when other WTC engineers say, fully loaded

DeMartini stated, that he believes that the building probably
could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners. Emphasis on the words believes and probably. Frank A.Demartini was hired by the structural engineering firm Leslie E. Robertson Associates to help with the repairs of the 1993 terrorist bombing at the World Trade Center. He stayed on, becoming the construction manager, the man to see when you wanted to move a wall or rearrange the plumbing. He was not involved in the original WTC building project in the 60’es - 70’es.

[A W Smith]

DeMartini stated, that he believes that the building probably
could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners. Emphasis on the words believes and probably. Frank A.Demartini was hired by the structural engineering firm Leslie E. Robertson Associates to help with the repairs of the 1993 terrorist bombing at the World Trade Center. He stayed on, becoming the construction manager, the man to see when you wanted to move a wall or rearrange the plumbing. He was not involved in the original WTC building project in the 60’es - 70’es.

Correct. furthermore DeMartini never had a reason or opportunity to run those calculations.

[beachnut]

i have seen no evidence, that the 600 MPH is an error, i also have seen no evidence that would confirm it. same for the 180 MPH.
we only can speculate about it.

old documents say 600 MPH, and Robertson that cant remember the they did consider the fires think its 180 MPH.

he best keep searching for the Calculations, so he can backup his claims.
You can remain ignorant of the fact Robertson said slow-flying, which is not 600 mph.

You can also remain ignorant of the fact Skilling confirms the local damage, and never says 600 mph. Skilling was the talk man, Robertson was the chief structural engineer who did the work. You use, NIST but quote mine you ideas, you fail to get the big picture, and get the details correct. Why are you unable to learn? Why do you call Robertson a liar?

You can not explain why a plane would be going 600 mph at 1000 feet in an accident scenario of a plane lost in the fog. I am a pilot of heavy jet aircraft, there is no rational scenario of hitting the WTC unless you were low on fuel and lost in the fog. This would be a slow-flying event.

Although the WTC tower can handle hurricane winds, which are greater in energy than multiple aircraft impacts, the WTC can not handle an aircraft impact of 600 mph due to major structural damage and fire. The design for a slow-flying aircraft meets all the talk you can dredge up of local damage, whereas major core damage in a high speed impact is no longer local damage.

The impacts on 9/11 had the energy of 7 to 11 times the design. A quick look at the core damage see the 7 times greater impact destroyed 6 core columns, and the 11 times design impact destroyed 10. Thus entering the building took all the energy of the design impact. The design impact would leave a hole in the building but not damage the core; do the math, look up the strength of steel. An engineer in 1960 can do the basic calculations to estimate the damage done to the WTC.

The accident of a plane hitting the WTC would be at approach speeds. When a plane leaves 1000 feet to land, it is going slow. That is slow-flying for you truthers, that is more in line with 180 mph not 600 mph. Someone needs to ask a pilot; I am a pilot for who has flown heavy jets since 1976. There is only one reason to fly a large jet at 350 KIAS at 1000 feet, and it would be to quickly leave the MEZ in a war zone. As an engineer since 1974, and with a masters degree in Avionics and Armament it is easy to see the impacts on 9/11 are global compared to the local damage describe even when the 600 mph speed is mentioned.

The fact is, only people who lack maturity fail to see the 600 mph is not backed up by any person who built the WTC, it is just a mistake in a paper. You can see NIST has the 180 mph speed clearly stated, but 9/11 truth tends to be lack of knowledge, no maturity, cherry-pickers, who want to mislead others and remain in the dark ages of 9/11 truth return to hearsay opinions of false information.

With 9/11 truths super poor research and lack of maturity, 600 mph becomes the kind of hearsay they love to glom on to due to ignorance of engineering, lack of reading comprehension, and lack of flying knowledge. When will 9/11 truth use knowledge?

You have joined the forces of ignorance on 9/11, you are doing very well spreading false information. Good post, you are doing well as a no fact 9/11 truth member, who distorts and spreads false information freely, over and over again without understanding.

[DC]

Oh Realy?

That's not what Leslie Robinson said.

"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," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

its what Skilling said

[DC]

Beachnut
Robertson can also not backup his stuff, he cannot even remember what they analysed.

[DC]

DeMartini was a WTC engineer?

no afaik he was Architect.

[A W Smith]

its what Skilling said

I do not see 600 MPH in that Skilling quote.

Do we have to wait another seven years for troofers like you to produce no evidence?

again, this question is not going away.

can you provide us with evidence that a 707 flew at 600MPH at 1000 feet of altitude over a metropolitan area, ever. in the history of time? And if not. why engineers would even consider that scenario in the ninteen sixties?

[DC]

DeMartini stated, that he believes that the building probably
could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners. Emphasis on the words believes and probably. Frank A.Demartini was hired by the structural engineering firm Leslie E. Robertson Associates to help with the repairs of the 1993 terrorist bombing at the World Trade Center. He stayed on, becoming the construction manager, the man to see when you wanted to move a wall or rearrange the plumbing. He was not involved in the original WTC building project in the 60’es - 70’es.

oh why did you IGNORE the FULLY LOADED?

[A W Smith]

oh why did you IGNORE the FULLY LOADED?
when you are turned away at the gate and the attendant says. sorry, the plane is fully loaded. what does that mean?

When it is said that a plane is "fully loaded" it means cargo or passengers.

speaking of "why do you ignore'

can you provide us with evidence that a 707 flew at 600MPH at 1000 feet of altitude over a metropolitan area, ever. in the history of time? And if not. why engineers would even consider that scenario in the nineteen sixties?

[DC]

and its you Conspiracy-Deniers that claim the Whitepaper from 64 is wrong.

provide evidence.

[beachnut]

and its you Conspiracy-Deniers that claim the Whitepaper from 64 is wrong.

provide evidence.
It is wrong unless you mean it would not shear off the WTC, or knock it over. But then you are not an engineer, and you do not understand they failed to get the engineer to produce that white paper that does not include the figures used by Robertson. I gave you the source for the slow-fling impact study, you are calling Robertson a liar. Cool, you use NIST but cherry pick. Good truther, you must not be an engineer or a pilot.
NIST has the slow-flying reference, you must of missed it, or out of ignorance have left it out so you can post false information more freely.

[Blender Head]

no afaik he was Architect.

He was not an architect for the WTC Towers.

[Blender Head]

Bah.

[Alferd_Packer]

Bah.

My sentiments exactly

[ref]

oh why did you IGNORE the FULLY LOADED?

You can insert fully loaded in there. What does it change? The man who joined the WTC personnel in the 1990'es believed the towers would probably have sustained the impacts. He was a hero and died on 9/11. Stop using his name trying to prove your point.

[ktesibios]

If the underlying assumption behind the "what would happen if a tower got hit by a plane" review was an accidental strike, a corollary assumption would be that the plane was being flown by a pilot who would want to:

A. continue living
B. keep his license and his job

which in turn means that he wouldn't be flying at high speed at less than 1300 feet.

Unless they considered the possibility of a plane flown by a homicidal loony who wanted to hit the tower, or an out of control plane falling from a greater altitude that just happened to hit the tower, there would have been no good reason to consider a 600 mph impact.

[A W Smith]

DC. I am still waiting. Answer this or accept defeat

can you provide us with evidence that a 707 flew at 600 MPH at 1000 feet of altitude over a metropolitan area, ever. in the history of time? And if not. why engineers would even consider that scenario in the nineteen sixties?

[ref]

And if not. why engineers would even consider that scenario in the nineteen sixties?


They probably wanted to make it appear that the towers were overdesigned to withstand everything, in order to get the acceptance for the towers.

I don't remember exactly, but IIRC there was some resistance and controversy surrounding the safety/desing specifics in the 1960'es. The people building the WTC wanted to convince everybody that the towers were a good idea. That's why the speed is so overexaggerated, making it appear as if they were going to be supertowers. No calculations found to support these claims, though.

[Alferd_Packer]

James Glanz wrote an excellent series of articles about the history of the construction of the WTC.

part One (http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/The%20Height%20of%20Ambition%20Part%20One.pdf)

part Two (http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/The%20Height%20of%20Ambition%20Part%20Two.pdf)

part Three (http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/The%20Height%20of%20Ambition%20Part%20Three.pdf)

part Four (http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/The%20Height%20of%20Ambition%20Part%20Four.pdf)

part Five (http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/The%20Height%20of%20Ambition%20Part%20Five.pdf)

part Six (http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/The%20Height%20of%20Ambition%20Part%20Six.pdf)

part Seven (http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/The%20Height%20of%20Ambition%20Part%20Seven.pdf)


Well worth the read, it deals with many of the issues in this thread.

[Alt+F4]

and its you Conspiracy-Deniers that claim the Whitepaper from 64 is wrong.

provide evidence.

Here's your evidence:
The paper in question was published in 1964. The Boeing 767 was put into service in 1982.

[aggle-rithm]

If the underlying assumption behind the "what would happen if a tower got hit by a plane" review was an accidental strike, a corollary assumption would be that the plane was being flown by a pilot who would want to:

A. continue living
B. keep his license and his job

which in turn means that he wouldn't be flying at high speed at less than 1300 feet.

Unless they considered the possibility of a plane flown by a homicidal loony who wanted to hit the tower, or an out of control plane falling from a greater altitude that just happened to hit the tower, there would have been no good reason to consider a 600 mph impact.

Back in 1964, if someone had come up with a movie idea about events like we all witnessed on 9/11/2001, it probably would have been rejected as being too unbelievable -- unless it was perpetrated by a flamboyant James Bond villain.

[gc051360]

So an engineer supposing that the towers could survive an airplane crash, is proof that they would have survived an airplane crash?

Well, they didn't. He was wrong.

End of thread. Unless you have evidence that something other than the planes caused the collapse, or that it would be impossible for the planes to cause the buildings to collapse. But you don't. So you mine quotes.

It's odd that an interview with a man, who was dead before the events of 9-11 is way more reliable than a 10,000 page report by NIST, on the actual events. The truther mind works in mysterious ways.

[DC]

DC. I am still waiting. Answer this or accept defeat

can you provide us with evidence that a 707 flew at 600 MPH at 1000 feet of altitude over a metropolitan area, ever. in the history of time? And if not. why engineers would even consider that scenario in the nineteen sixties?

are you claiming the 1964 whitepaper is wrong? what is your evidence?

[uk_dave]

are you claiming the 1964 whitepaper is wrong? what is your evidence?

The towers collapsed.

[DC]

The towers collapsed.

not wrong in that, but wrong about the 600 MPH.

[adoucette]

are you claiming the 1964 whitepaper is wrong?

Why should anyone care?

Particularly since no one has come up with the assumptions or calculations that were supposedly used.

[uk_dave]

not wrong in that, but wrong about the 600 MPH.

Show me the analysis which backs up the 600mph claim.

Not available? Okay, fair enough. We have an unsupported claim that the towers could withstand the impact and fire from a 600mph plane crash.

You know what you've got to do now?

Yep, you probably guessed.

You have two options. Either:

1. Get together with all your 'truther' chums and raise enough money to pay an independant firm of structural engineers to do the analysis necessary to see if the towers could withstand the impact and fires from a 600mph plane crash.

Or

2. Become a US citizen and, together with your 'truther' chums, lobby the presidential candidates to include in their manifesto a commitment to paying an independent firm of structural engineers etc etc etc

Otherwise all you will ever have is an unsupported claim made over forty years ago which contradicts the statements made by leslie robertson and is a claim of over design which even today no insurance company or building codes would require.

You could do some research into that also. Perhaps the original insurers had a stipulation regarding the towers ability to survive a plane crash given certain parameters. If they didn't, then why on earth did the designers go to the trouble and expense of designing against a threat which didn't exist until our modern age of terrorism?

[Alferd_Packer]

You didn't read the articles in the links I provided.

For whatever reason,
Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the
impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He
says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching
for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded
that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and
the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after
the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more
than strong enough to withstand such a blow.

Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost --
he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked
with him at the time, including the director of his computer department,
say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port
Authority, eager to mount a counterattack against Wien, seized on the
results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working
for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a
prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved
that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600
miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had
considered. If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up
about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question
was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be
expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances.

There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of
the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing
to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the
Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later.

The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires
that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly
as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire
protection would become its Achilles' heel.

[DC]

Skilling
"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," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
Robertson
The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires
that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly
as the B-25's had.

[beachnut]

are you claiming the 1964 whitepaper is wrong? what is your evidence?
This is easy stuff, if you try. Impact energy of the design 707 impact = 187 pounds of TNT energy, call it, unit 1. Impact of 11 was 7 units; impact of 175 was 11 units; impact of your error study never done, 14 units! (BTW, when you mention there I go with the TNT again, you are not showing any of that thermo/engineering education you say you have)
So you think the speed was 600 mph for a fully loaded 707, which means an engine or two and a landing gear or two would cut through the building and land over 6 blocks away, you call that LOCAL DAMAGE! If you took physics, you forgot it!?
No 600 mph study was done, you can't prove it was; and you dismiss Robertson as a liar. I have posted ad nauseam Robertson's work, oh and then the irony is…
, the person who was said to perform the ('600mph") study, was Robertson. A port authority architect made a mistake and said Robertson did your 600 mph study, but you fail to understand, your error. Can't prove a 600 mph study existed by Robertson, cause he did the slow-flying one. Irony.

The Port Authority was fighting bad publicity and said the things in the White Paper, and some idiot architect (like a bad newspaper story) put in the 600 mph statement without thinking. You need to fix your faulty logic and get with the program.

Robertson provides proof the of the 600 mph error. It is clear if an impact of a fully loaded 707 at 600 mph took place (which is greater than 9/11), there would be much more than "LOCAL DAMAGE"! With 2000 pound parts flying for blocks, and damage to over 12 core columns, that is major damage. We are not supermen now with computers. Engineers have built things and understand how to design, and can calculate the damage of impacts, even back in the 60s!
Robertson calculated the strength of his exterior and he expect only local damage from a landing aircraft impact.

[adoucette]

Skilling

Quote:
"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," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
Robertson

Quote:
The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires
that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly
as the B-25's had.

These aren't mutually exclusive.

The first can be about the HUMAN impact of a multifloor fire.

The second statement can be about the STRUCTURAL impact of a multifloor fire.

The ability to deduce the first is rather obvious.

The ability to model the latter was likely far beyond their ability back in the early 60s considering that to model the damage from the plane, the insulation and the fires to the loading on the structure, and given the ACTUAL event to constrain the model, took MONTHS of computer simulations by NIST.

[A W Smith]

are you claiming the 1964 whitepaper is wrong? what is your evidence?


I'm claiming that you cannot produce evidence thata 707 flew at 600 MPH at 1000 feet of altitude over a metropolitan area, ever. in the history of time. And you cannot explain why engineers would even consider a 707 flying at that speed and that elevation in 1964.

[SpitfireIX]

Skilling

Robertson


These two statements are not in conflict, despite your obvious attempt to imply otherwise. Skilling is saying that the fuel fire would kill a lot of people. He never says that the effect of the fire on the structure was considered. Further, he may well have assumed that the fireproofing would have remained intact and protected the structure.

This leads to another point that I don't think has really been explored (at least not in the year that I've been posting here), namely, even if a study was done showing that the towers could have survived the impact of a fully-fueled 707 traveling at 600 mph, such a study would still not be applicable to the September 11 attacks, even if it had considered the fires' effect on the structure.. The reason for this is that when the purported 600 mph study was done, plans called for the structure to be fireproofed with asbestos. However, health concerns about the material eventually caused other, likely less effective, fireproofing to be used. See here (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D02E1DF143BF93BA2575AC0A9679C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) for more information.

[BenBurch]

Cruising speed for a 707 was 540 knots, not 600 knots, BTW, and I believe that was for 10,000' ASL.

[SpitfireIX]

Cruising speed for a 707 was 540 knots, not 600 knots, BTW, and I believe that was for 10,000' ASL.


540kts = 615 mph :boxedin:

ETA: The early 707s had a cruise speed of 540 kts. The heavier 707-320 had a cruise speed of 525 kts = 604 mph.

[DC]

"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," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

but hey, belive what you want.

when someone can show the calculations im happy to look at it and correct my 600 MPH.

PS: No teacher ever expressed any amount of energy with TNT. maybe thats normal in the US, but not in Switzerland.

[beachnut]

At the slow-flying speed, the structure would still be there. But at 600 mph, there would be major damage on a global scale to the core. (grade schools stuff)

Where is TC when you need some math?

[DC]

At the slow-flying speed, the structure would still be there. But at 600 mph, there would be major damage on a global scale to the core. (grade schools stuff)

Where is TC when you need some math?

you are Contradicting Bazant, i like that :)

[DC]

Although the structural damage inflicted by aircraft was severe, it
was only local.

Bazant

[beachnut]

The "landing speed" idea was a lie invented by JREF? No evidence? I would think you could do a little better research than that, but then again you are a conspiracy theorist.

Here's some helpful figures:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1253245ae6cf556e33.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3690)


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1253245ae6d16eee80.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3693)

But they're not from JREF (or even the JREF Forums) but are rather from The Bridge magazine, published by the NAE (That's the National Academy of Engineering). The original format of the PDF has been archived and the images are no longer displayed, however, you may still read the article at this link if you wish:

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/BridgePrintView/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

Upon further searching, I found the article saved eslewhere in its original Format:

http://www.caets.org/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf?OpenElement

By the way, if you would like to see what real engineering experts think about the collapses, here's another good place to check out:

http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/report.php
Good post

Robertson did the work.

In fact the truthers have made the error of missing the point of the white paper, which alludes to Robertson's impact study (lol)! But gets the speed wrong. 9/11 truth can not fix the facts. Why is 9/11 truth lacking knowledge and the ability to make rational conclusions based on facts?
Why do they glom onto hearsay and false information? Are they that ignorant on all of 9/11 issues?

[DC]

Did Robertson find his Analysis already?

[BenBurch]

540kts = 615 mph :boxedin:

ETA: The early 707s had a cruise speed of 540 kts. The heavier 707-320 had a cruise speed of 525 kts = 604 mph.

Ah. Correct. My bad.

I am told that cruise on that aircraft was in fact calculated for 27,500 ASL.

So 615 mph is not a speed a jet searching for LaGuardia in the fog would ever fly. Such an aircraft, which obviously would be lost and equally obviously would be out of contact with the ground or it would not be lost, would absolutely be going as slowly as it could safely be flown. He also would likely have wanted to be at least a few hundred feet above the know terrain altitude, but, well, pilots screw that part up sometimes as any reading of accident reports will reveal.

[Drudgewire]

Why do they glom onto hearsay and false information? Are they that ignorant on all of 9/11 issues?

It's a willful ignorance. All CTers confront it at some point. It gets justified away internally by "well OK that doesn't make sense, but then neither does some of the 'official' story and they keep promoting it so it all evens out in the wash."

Regardless of whether that's really true or not, it sure sounds good bouncing around inside the head.

Man if I could just go back and slap my 90s self in the head with a 2x4 life would be so sweet. :o

[beachnut]

When Skilling talked about the building structure being intact, he referred to the work done by Robertson. (wonder why he never said 600 mph; wonder how the Port Authority messed this up; someone who lack the attention to detail and unable to correct their errors)

Robertson planned on a slow-flying plane. The source is Robertson, it is common knowledge. Grade school stuff.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtckcrobertson.jpg
Robertson planned on a slow-flying plane. The source is Robertson, it is common knowledge. Grade school stuff.

How many joules is that? You know the 600 mph impact would be 14 times the kinetic energy of the design impact? You could express the joules in pounds of TNT to give it some meaning. You see a 2000 pound bomb hit a building, and equating the kinetic energy of the impact to TNT gives a feel for why the impact of 175 looked like a 2000 pound bomb to me. Wowzer. Joules would not be a impressive, unless you studied physics and had a feel for it. 4,380,000,000 joules does not sound like much. But 2093 pounds of TNT may get your attention.

The design impact was 187 pounds of TNT kinetic energy. 175 impacted with 2093 pounds of TNT, and it looked like a bomb (guess the fire ball helped) The fuel had even more energy, albeit in the form of heat equal to the energy of 315 TONS of TNT. Lots of fire.

[DC]

i find Joules far more impessive than TNT :)
but i really have no problem with the TNT. it seems to be used alot in the US.

[lapman]

but hey, belive what you want.

when someone can show the calculations im happy to look at it and correct my 600 MPH. When you can show anything close to an actual calculation that would account for the 600mph, then I might just take your posts seriously. Until you apply the same standards that you require of us, you are just grasping at straws in a pathetic attempt at supporting your fantasy. You have yet to give us anything close to a legitimate reason why anyone would consider the 600mph scenario. So far, it looks like a typo or misrepresentation of what was actually analyzed. No one would consider that the fuel would just "dump" into the building and catch fire at 600mph.

[DC]

but hey, they designer the building for an 180 MOH impact and it withstood an impact of nearly 600 MPH.
Thats overengineering.
i was really impressed how the building withstood the impacts.
and thats the reasson i really think they designed it for 600 MPH.

but that does not mean it is for sure it would withstand.

Skilling never mentioned the fireproofing.

and thats what Bazant points out. he even said would the impact not have dislodged the fireproofing, the building would still be there.

im sorry, but i think they took 600 MPH.

but i cant proof it, nor cant Robertson proof his 180 MPH.

but infact it does not mather. even if the took Mach 1. You can Analyse aslong you want, its still theory. Theory and Reality are 2 diffrent things. something i often had to hear from our mechanics :)

[DC]

When you can show anything close to an actual calculation that would account for the 600mph, then I might just take your posts seriously. Until you apply the same standards that you require of us, you are just grasping at straws in a pathetic attempt at supporting your fantasy. You have yet to give us anything close to a legitimate reason why anyone would consider the 600mph scenario. So far, it looks like a typo or misrepresentation of what was actually analyzed. No one would consider that the fuel would just "dump" into the building and catch fire at 600mph.

well actually its exactly that what happened.

like skilling said, the fires would be the biggest problem. and indeed it turned out to be true.

he was was convinced that the structure would survive. but that does not mean that his assumption or analysis was correct or would come true.

but i will stop the debate about 180 or 600 MPH.

no side can bakup the claim.

[BenBurch]

When you can show anything close to an actual calculation that would account for the 600mph, then I might just take your posts seriously. Until you apply the same standards that you require of us, you are just grasping at straws in a pathetic attempt at supporting your fantasy. You have yet to give us anything close to a legitimate reason why anyone would consider the 600mph scenario. So far, it looks like a typo or misrepresentation of what was actually analyzed. No one would consider that the fuel would just "dump" into the building and catch fire at 600mph.

Is he still sticking to his 600 mph lie?

He KNOWS its false by now, and therefore it has become a lie.

Truthers ALWAYS lie when you threaten the core of their fairy tale.

[DC]

Is he still sticking to his 600 mph lie?

He KNOWS its false by now, and therefore it has become a lie.

Truthers ALWAYS lie when you threaten the core of their fairy tale.

so you clam the 1964 Whitepaper is a lie.

Welcome to Ignore :)

[beachnut]

Bazant
Funny, an engine impacted blocks away. Local? Funny. Did you read the section you are talking about? Did you actually use some logic and rational thinking to come up with your quip?

Next time please read the section you so freely quote mine, and cherry pick and fail to make a point.

You seem to have a problem with definitions. Local for me is the wall, breaching the wall, no core damage.

Local damage is what a slow-flying aircraft gives.

The speeds on 9/11 give more than breaching the wall damage, they destroy parts of the core.

A 600 mph impact of a fully loaded 707 would be greater damage than 9/11. 2000 pound parts of the plane landing blocks from the WTC is not local damage.

Bazant said at 301 mph! That is less than 4 times the impact energy of the design; Bazant is correct, I would call that the upper bound of local damage. What do you think? Why did you miss the speed of impact Bazant picked? I doubt you understand the point of the paper; do you understand it?


A simple estimate based on the preservation of the combined
momentum of the impacting Boeing 767-200 (;179,000 kg
x550 km/h) and the momentum of the equivalent mass Meq of
the interacting upper half of the tower (;1413106 kg3v0) indicates
that the initial average velocity v0 imparted to the upper part
of the tower was only about 0.7 km/h50.19 m/s. The response
may be assumed to be dominated by the first free vibration mode,
of period T1 . Then the maximum deflection w05v0T1/2p. Approximately,
T1514 s, based on estimating ~very roughly! the
bending stiffness of the tower and approximating it as a vibrating
cantilever of a uniform mass distribution. This gives w050.4 m,
which is well within the range of the elastic behavior of the tower.
So it is not surprising that the aircraft impact per se damaged the
tower only locally.
The World Trade Center was designed for an impact of a Boeing
707-320 rather than a Boeing 767-200. But note that the
maximum takeoff weight of that older aircraft is only 15% less
than that of a Boeing 767-200. Besides, the maximum fuel tank
capacity of that aircraft is only 4% less. These differences are
well within the safety margins of design. So the observed response
of the towers proves the correctness of the dynamic design.
What was not considered in design was the temperature that
can develop in the ensuing fire. Here the experience from 1945
might have been deceptive. That year, a two-engine bomber ~B-
25!, flying at about 400 km/h, hit in fog the Empire State Building
~381-m tall, built in 1930! at the 79th floor ~278 m above
ground!—the steel structure suffered no significant damage, and
the fire was confined essentially to one floor ~Levy and Salvadori
1992!.

Reading is fundamental… Understanding is priceless…

[BenBurch]

You don't expect him to read that and ever change his mind, do you beachnut?

[DGM]

I might be wrong but;
Wasn't the original claim in 1964 of 600 mph not sourced?

Excuse me if I missed it in this thread.

[beachnut]

I might be wrong but;
Wasn't the original claim in 1964 of 600 mph not sourced?

Excuse me if I missed it in this thread.
The Port Authority did a white paper to counter the guys saying bad things bout the WTC towers.

The claim the towers would survive an aircraft impact, they added 600 mph in error.

The study they cite in the white paper, was done by Robertson, but they added the speed themselves. Robertson said they looked at the slow-flying aircraft lost in the fog.

I can not find a source for the 600 mph, and since Robertson was the person in charge of the studies and the structural work of the towers; the 600 mph was in error.

No reason a plane would be going 600 mph at 1000 (an airliner or transport). It is a stupid idea. That being said, if you are stupid, like a terrorist, you can push up the throttles and the plane will exceed 600 mph! It is easy to go too fast in a plane. If you were going to plan on an aircraft accident, you would be looking at a slow-flying impact.

The funny post was TC saying something about the terrorist impacts. An accident at slow speed is significantly different than what the terrorist did. TC was making fun of someone, but he is not very well versed in physics.
You JREF invented a lie that the plane was calculated at landing speeds. You have not one single shred of evidence to support this other than the fact you all parrot it and if enough people say it enough times that makes it true. Unfortunately it doesn't.

And your claim that accidental plane crashes are less severe than intentional plane crashes is the most laughable thing i have ever heard. Can I nominate you for a stundie?

Do I need to show you what "accidental" plane crashes look like so you can do some comparisons?

[BenBurch]

So, the Port Authority made up the 600 mph. That does seem to make that white paper a lie, doesn't it?

Not that this surprises me; Governmental agencies stretch the truth sometimes to calm critics.

[DC]

Funny, an engine impacted blocks away. Local? Funny. Did you read the section you are talking about? Did you actually use some logic and rational thinking to come up with your quip?

Next time please read the section you so freely quote mine, and cherry pick and fail to make a point.

I can never beat you in Cherry Picking.

You seem to have a problem with definitions. Local for me is the wall, breaching the wall, no core damage.

Local damage is what a slow-flying aircraft gives.
Local is indeed relative.


The speeds on 9/11 give more than breaching the wall damage, they destroy parts of the core.

indeed, and NIST did good work in calculating the damage to the core, well in my eyes.

A 600 mph impact of a fully loaded 707 would be greater damage than 9/11. 2000 pound parts of the plane landing blocks from the WTC is not local damage.

then Skilling et all did consider even more impact damage?


Bazant said at 301 mph! That is less than 4 times the impact energy of the design; Bazant is correct, I would call that the upper bound of local damage. What do you think? Why did you miss the speed of impact Bazant picked? I doubt you understand the point of the paper; do you understand it?



Bazat said 400 Km/h that is 248.56 MPH. mmmh thats more than 180 MPH.
why would they consider 180 MPH?
wasnt 250 mph near top speed of a B-25`? (300 MPH is top speed i think) (ETA: Top Speedwas 275 MPH)

Reading is fundamental… Understanding is priceless…
i indeed do agree that understanding is the most important thing about reading.

[DC]

i dont know if Bazant used 300 MPH, but i know he used 400 KM/H

Here
the lulling experience from 1945 might have been deceptive; that year, a two-engine bomber
(B-25), flying in low clouds to Newark at about 400 km/h, hit the Empire State Building
(381 m tall, built in 1932) at the 79th floor (278 m above ground)—the steel columns (much
heavier than in modern buildings) suffered no significant damage, and the fire remained
confined essentially to two floors only (Levy and Salvadori 1992).

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

[Bobert]

Hey I've got an idea: let's ask Skilling whether he thinks the towers fell from CD.

Oh right, we can't cuz he died in 1998.

So let's just assume the dead guy supports your theory, right TC329?

LOL!! So TC quotes a dead guy who doesn't even clearly state that the towers were brought down by CD but then TC makes this statement
doesn't mean he is competent or qualified enough to have a belief such as this.
What is his belief?
Are you saying he believes that the towers were brought down by CD?
How do you draw a conclusion like this from his statement?
Then this bizarre statement
As many of you here already know better than him. After all while he was giving the world so many massive structures you were all doing absolutely nothing noteworthy.....
How do you know what everyone here has done with their lives?
I have prevented SEVERAL teens from attempting to kill themselves and risked my safety to physically intervene and prevent teens from beating one another and trying to kill themselves.
Have you ever saved someones life TC?
Heres another for TC
I helped open up a maximum security unit for violent teens and put myself at risk by working on a daily basis with murders.
Is this good enough for you TC?
Why don't you tell us about what you have accomplished BEFORE you try and judge everyone as "doing absolutely nothing noteworthy"
Edited for civility
Are you still kicked out of the CIT clubhouse?

[beachnut]

well actually its exactly that what happened.
No, the buildings did not survive on 9/11 due to massive damage and fires. But you failed to make a point on this. If the impacts had been at 180 mph, you would have a point, but you failed. The buildings would survive a 180 mph impact, the fire would be a problem because global collapse would not be.
like skilling said, the fires would be the biggest problem. and indeed it turned out to be true. This is the problem. Yes, at the slow-flying impact, the biggest problem is the fire. The impact damage is only local, and barely breaches the shell! Yes the fire is the only problem, the impact does not kill people all over the building. Do you see the logic problem? The slow-flying plane would not inject the building with fuel and destroy the fireproofing, but the fire would be the only problem to face; the impact would be local damage, no major core damage. Your idea may be due to faulty logic.
he was convinced that the structure would survive. but that does not mean that his assumption or analysis was correct or would come true. Yes, he was correct, the structure would survive a slow-flying impact as in the study Robertson did. Again, you have made an error in logic.
but i will stop the debate about 180 or 600 MPH. The 600 mph is an error, you have been shown that it is. If you did not say you were Swiss, I would suspect you are from MO. The 600 mph is an error you do not understand. It takes maturity and some physics, some logical thinking and a grade school education. Hang in there, you will get it. You have lost the debate by presenting hearsay to back your point and then you basically call Robertson a liar by rejecting his work.
no side can bakup the claim. Oh, wrong. I have show it, proven it, provide sources, show why the white paper was political tripe, show how a high speed impact spewing parts for thousands of feet is not local damage.

The fire problem would be such at slow speed; it would be the only problem. At high speed the impact severely wounds the building. The fire is not the problem now, global failure is the problem. You have a problem identifying the problem.

The slow-flying aircraft impact has been backed up and proven. As shown, faulty logic is the problem sticking with 600 mph. Why does 9/11 truth love to make up false information and stick with it despite evidence showing their error?

[DC]

1 Km/h = 0,6214 mph
or is that wrong?

[beachnut]

i dont know if Bazant used 300 MPH, but i know he used 400 KM/H

Here
the lulling experience from 1945 might have been deceptive; that year, a two-engine bomber
(B-25), flying in low clouds to Newark at about 400 km/h, hit the Empire State Building
(381 m tall, built in 1932) at the 79th floor (278 m above ground)—the steel columns (much
heavier than in modern buildings) suffered no significant damage, and the fire remained
confined essentially to two floors only (Levy and Salvadori 1992).

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

You said local damage. Bazan used 300 KIAS(550kph) in his example; the upper limit of local damage for me. What about you? Seems you are not catching on to this engineering stuff. You need to take your time, so far you have failed to show why a slow-flying aircraft was not assumed in Robertson's study. You said you stopped working on it. Why did you miss the speed in the section you lifted the "local" damage from?

Wait, are you calling local damage such that 2000 pound objects are ejected for 6 blocks? wow

I gave you the section where he uses the speeds. The speed is below the impact speed of 9/11; not sure why. He uses a heavy 767.


http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf (http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf) ---
Appendix I. Elastic Dynamic Response to Aircraft Impact
A simple estimate based on the preservation of the combined momentum of the impacting Boeing 767-200 (˜ 179,000 kg ‚ 550 km/h) and the momentum of the equivalent mass… So it is not surprising that the aircraft impact per se damaged the tower only locally.
Thus you need to read your sources before you make up ideas not supported by your evidence. The damage he talks about is related to his appendix. You are making up support for what? Nothing?

[DC]

550 KM/H = 341.77 MPH :/

and according to NIST impact speed WTC1 = 443 MPH and WTC2 = 546 MPH.

http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session3/3Fahim2.pdf

but explain to me, why they would consider a slower speed than impacting speed of the B-25?

[beachnut]

550 KM/H = 341.77 MPH :/

and according to NIST impact speed WTC1 = 443 MPH and WTC2 = 546 MPH.

http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session3/3Fahim2.pdf

but explain to me, why they would consider a slower speed than impacting speed of the B-25?
You expect answers when you can not even answer any of the many questions I have on your faulty logic? Come on, look at the energy?

What is the speed of a plane (airliner) landing below 1000 feet AGL, in the weather?

What was the energy of the B-25 at impact?

Is ejected parts from a plane going a blocks from the impact, local damage?

What speed did the B-25 impact the ESB? How do you know?

Why would a B-25 be going faster than the cruise speed of 230 mph (200 knots, 370 km/h)?

Was the B-25 a terrorist attack? Was it on purpose? What was the speed of impact?

Lucky for us airliners do not let down in the fog at speeds much above 180 mph; don't you think?

The B-25 was in the fog, so he came down to see where he was; oops, he was in NYC with tall building all around.

Gee, where is my skin on my wing?; I was only going 600 mph.

[BenBurch]

You expect answers when you can not even answer any of the many quesstions I have on your faulty logic? Come on, look at the energy?

He's not capable of calculating it for himself.

People like that won't trust anybody else's numbers, though. Maths are Black Magic to them, especially if they counter what they very much want to believe.

These people cling to that belief harder than children cling to Santa.

[DC]

You expect answers when you can not even answer any of the many questions I have on your faulty logic? Come on, look at the energy?

What is the speed of a plane (airliner) landing below 1000 feet AGL, in the weather?

What was the energy of the B-25 at impact?

Is ejected parts from a plane going a blocks from the impact, local damage?

What speed did the B-25 impact the ESB? How do you know?

Why would a B-25 be going faster than the cruise speed of 230 mph (200 knots, 370 km/h)?

Was the B-25 a terrorist attack? Was it on purpose? What was the speed of impact?

well its Bazant's number. he said 400km/h (what a bad source for informations)


according to http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/News/News8-0112.html it is 200 MPH.

and now tell me why would they take a lower speed than the B-25 impact?

[beachnut]

well its Bazant's number. he said 400km/h (what a bad source for informations)


according to http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/News/News8-0112.html it is 200 MPH.

and now tell me why would they take a lower speed than the B-25 impact?
high lift devices

Airliners can fly at 180 mph when they are ready to land below 1000 feet.

But if you wish, you can use 200 mph, and the energy is 1.2 times greater. Wowzer.

[DC]

and B-25 top speed seems to be around 300 MPH

Speed: In excess of 300 miles per hour

source (http://www.boeing.com/history/bna/b25.htm)

[DC]

high lift devices

Powered or unpowered?

and why would that be a reason to assume an even slower impact than they had already several years before?
especially when you consider that airplanes will get bigger and faster, it would be pretty stupid to consider a such a slow speed.

even the B-25 impact in 1945. and 10-15 years later they consider a slower impact? maes no sence, sorry.

[Stellafane]

and B-25 top speed seems to be around 300 MPH

Speed: In excess of 300 miles per hour

source (http://www.boeing.com/history/bna/b25.htm)


So what?

Really, even if what you're saying is true, how does this affect the events of 9/11? Are you arguing that in some way, shape, or form this helps support the truther theory that WTC was brought down by a CD, an argument that by now only an ignorant or insane person could take even remotely seriously? Is that what you're implying? Because otherwise, what the hell is the point in arguing about any of this?

[DC]

So what?

Really, even if what you're saying is true, how does this affect the events of 9/11? Are you arguing that in some way, shape, or form this helps support the truther theory that WTC was brought down by a CD, an argument that by now only an ignorant or insane person could take even remotely seriously? Is that what you're implying? Because otherwise, what the hell is the point in arguing about any of this?

i only argue about it when beachnut claims the 180MPH are a fact.
thats just nonsence.

and it has nothing to do with WTC7

[beachnut]

i only argue about it when beachnut claims the 180MPH are a fact.
thats just nonsence.

and it has nothing to do with WTC7
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtckcrobertson.jpg
Got facts? I do, you have hearsay; why? cool

[DC]

and afaik the landing speed of a b-25 was around 100 MPH.

[DC]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtckcrobertson.jpg
Got facts? I do, you have hearsay; why? cool

oh yes, Skilling et all did consider a slower impact speed than the example that gave em the idea.

but hey, just blindly belive Robertson.

[beachnut]

oh yes, Skilling et all did consider a slower impact speed than the example that gave em the idea.

but hey, just blindly belive Robertson.
Can you explain how a B-25 goes 300 mph when it's top speed is lower? Can you explain some of this pilot stuff i have been using since 1973?

Robertson is the man, he did the design study. He used a slow-flying plane. That is why Skilling said the building would survive, and since the structure would not sustain major damage to the core in a slow-flying impact, the fire would be the only problem. Sorry, but that is not support for your error of 600 mph, and impact 14 times greater than Robertson's energy results.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/designimpact.jpg
That is significant; do you understand engineering concepts, and why 14 times is significant?

[DC]

Can you explain how a B-25 goes 300 mph when it's top speed is lower? Can you explain some of this pilot stuff i have been using since 1973?

Robertson is the man, he did the design study. He used a slow-flying plane. That is why Skilling said the building would survive, and since the structure would not sustain major damage to the core in a slow-flying impact, the fire would be the only problem. Sorry, but that is not support for your error of 600 mph, and impact 14 times greater than Robertson's energy results.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/designimpact.jpg
That is significant; do you understand engineering concepts, and why 14 times is significant?

oh beachnut pls, i provided links to Boeing, they claimed top speed is 300 MPH, other sources say 275 MPH, but the cruising speed is indeed lower than top speed.

you as a pilot should find better sources for such information.

[DC]

and yes beachnut, i do know a little bit about engineering concepts.
especially in mechanical engineering.

[Alt+F4]

and it has nothing to do with WTC7

And what does WTC7 have to do with John Skilling, the topic of this thread?

[beachnut]

oh beachnut pls, i provided links to Boeing, they claimed top speed is 300 MPH, other sources say 275 MPH, but the cruising speed is indeed lower than top speed.

you as a pilot should find better sources for such information.
Explain the speeds of flying, and why you blindly use 300 mph from Boeing like the white paper did. They asked Boeing, just like you blindly did and announced in excess of 300 mph. Just like the hearsay 600 mph study you parrot constantly without evidence.

I use evidence, and in essence you are saying Robertson continues to lie. He has stated the slow-flying aircraft impact to different people and it is sourced.

So please explain the speeds of flying. Can you explain how a plane with a top speed of 272 mph at 13,000 feet can be over 300 mph by a Boeing web site? Can you? Please enlighten me what you know about speed of planes. Can you do it? Us some of the engineering stuff you fail to use to understand this topic in the first place.

[DC]

LOL

you are the one that blindly belives robertson.

and pls, when now also Boeing is claiming BS about the B-25. provide evidence.

you just keep claiming, thats wrong thats wrong, and you know everything.....

[DC]

and the Army has even a higher top speed

http://www.b25.net/images/b25tcds.pdf

top speed 340 mph
landing gear and flaps max speed is 170 MPH.

[beachnut]

LOL

you are the one that blindly belives robertson.

and pls, when now also Boeing is claiming BS about the B-25. provide evidence.

you just keep claiming, thats wrong thats wrong, and you know everything.....
I asked you to explain how a B-25 can go over 300 mph but it has a top speed at 13,000 feet of 272 mph?

You brought up the 300 mph, please explain why there are different speeds. Can you do that?

I asked in general to explain flying airspeeds to me. If you like as they pertain to 9/11.

For instance, Skilling and Robertson used a slow-flying aircraft in their impact study. Why?

Now it is 340? Is that true airspeed, indicated airspeed, equivalent airspeed, or what? At what altitude? Are the props feathered or are they wind milling?

Is the 20 percent MAC to 30 percent MAC important?

[DC]

I asked you to explain how a B-25 can go over 300 mph but it has a top speed at 13,000 feet of 272 mph?

You brought up the 300 mph, please explain why there are different speeds. Can you do that?

I asked in general to explain flying airspeeds to me. If you like as they pertain to 9/11.

For instance, Skilling and Robertson used a slow-flying aircraft in their impact study. Why?

your a liar.

welcome to ignore

[DC]

beachnut his source is also using a higher speed than 180 MPH

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtckcrobertson.jpg

its 199 MPH

the landing speed of a B-25 is around 150-170 MPH.

so we see, ESB impact was above landing speed.

so it makes no sence that Skillin et all used 180 MPH.

[beachnut]

beachnut his source is also using a higher speed than 180 MPH

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtckcrobertson.jpg

its 199 MPH

the landing speed of a B-25 is around 150-170 MPH.

so we see, ESB impact was above landing speed.

so it makes no sence that Skillin et all used 180 MPH.
Finally you have posted proof Skilling and Robertson used 180 mph.

BTW, the B-15 was in war time, it was doing something STUPID; look it up~! (hint: the B-25 was not landing it was doing pure STUPID)

Tell me why Boeing says a B-25 can go over 300 mph when it's top speed at 13,000 feet is 272 mph?






As we now see, local damage is from a slow-speed impact. As Skilling pointed out, with no major stuctual damage (from the 180 mph impact), the only problem would be fire.

On 9/11, we had major damage to the core of the building, and thus the problem was building failure. The high speed impacts, ejecting large objects for blocks, was not local damage. Thus, the proof 600 mph was not the design used by Skilling, done by Robertson. How many times does someone have to correct 9/11 truth hearsay junk?

[Alferd_Packer]

There is no comparison between the Empire State Building and the WTC Towers, so this argument is moot.

[beachnut]

your a liar.

welcome to ignore
600 mph is the lie. I am telling the truth, this is why you have the dilemma of being a 9/11 truth believer, you call people who tell the truth liars, and those who are liars, 9/11 truth. Just like blindly presenting the, "in excess of 300 mph". What does it mean?

Do you understand flying?

What was the B-25 doing, and why are small plane accidents like that more likely than a 707 doing it?

Was the B-25 following any specific rules when it decided to cruise blow buildings?

What was the impact energy of the B-25 compared to other impacts and design parameters?

[Minadin]

DC, you're using the 199 mph as a conversion from the 320 kph of the Mitchell Bomber that hit the Empire State Building. I'm pretty sure they used that figure as it was the actual speed of the plane at impact. Beachnut's 180 mph figure comes from converting the 290 kph figure that Robertson says they used to figure for the 707, as shown in the same graphic.

On 9/11, a jet with 5% more mass traveling 3.25 times the velocity as the one they had figured for, actually impacted. You can do the math and see exactly how much more kinetic energy it delivered, but, you probably will not. I know Beachnut has already done the calculations, so have I, and so have others.

[DC]

DC, you're using the 199 mph as a conversion from the 320 kph of the Mitchell Bomber that hit the Empire State Building. I'm pretty sure they used that figure as it was the actual speed of the plane at impact. Beachnut's 180 mph figure comes from converting the 290 kph figure that Robertson says they used to figure for the 707, as shown in the same graphic.

On 9/11, a jet with 5% more mass traveling 3.25 times the velocity as the one they had figured for, actually impacted. You can do the math and see exactly how much more kinetic energy it delivered, but, you probably will not. I know Beachnut has already done the calculations, so have I, and so have others.

Why did they consider a slower impact speed in their analysis, than the impact speed from 1945, i thaught the idea came from that accident.
this makes no sence.

[DC]

DC, you're using the 199 mph as a conversion from the 320 kph of the Mitchell Bomber that hit the Empire State Building. I'm pretty sure they used that figure as it was the actual speed of the plane at impact. Beachnut's 180 mph figure comes from converting the 290 kph figure that Robertson says they used to figure for the 707, as shown in the same graphic.

On 9/11, a jet with 5% more mass traveling 3.25 times the velocity as the one they had figured for, actually impacted. You can do the math and see exactly how much more kinetic energy it delivered, but, you probably will not. I know Beachnut has already done the calculations, so have I, and so have others.

and i was talking about the impact speed of the B-25. and the impact speed was clearly above landing speed, so i can see no reason why skilling would have used 180 MPH. but i do belive he used Max speed of the 707, which is indeed 600MPH, the number also mentioned in the White paper.

[Blender Head]

Why did they consider a slower impact speed in their analysis, than the impact speed from 1945, i thaught the idea came from that accident.
this makes no sence.

You're seriously asking this?

Really?

[DC]

You're seriously asking this?

Really?

yes indeed i do ask this.

[Jonnyclueless]

and i was talking about the impact speed of the B-25. and the impact speed was clearly above landing speed, so i can see no reason why skilling would have used 180 MPH. but i do belive he used Max speed of the 707, which is indeed 600MPH, the number also mentioned in the White paper.


Uh, the guy was coming in for a landing, why would landing speed be so hard to believe? How many planes try to land at 600mph??? The speed estimated was 225mph.

[DC]

Uh, the guy was coming in for a landing, why would landing speed be so hard to believe? How many planes try to land at 600mph??? The speed estimated was 225mph.

uuh the guy was above landing speed when he impacted the ESB.
so why would you take only landing speed when you do such an analysis?
the only accident they seem to refer to is the ESB impact. and that was above landing speed. and from 1945 to 1960 the planes came bigger and faster.

so it would be nonsence to use a lower impact speed than they had already 10-15 years before the analysis.

[BenBurch]

You're seriously asking this?

Really?

He's off his nut.

From http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm

On the foggy morning of Saturday, July 28, 1945, Lt. Colonel William Smith was piloting a U.S. Army B-25 bomber through New York City. He was on his way to Newark Airport to pick up his commanding officer, but for some reason he showed up over LaGuardia Airport and asked for a weather report. Because of the poor visibility, the LaGuardia tower wanted to him to land, but Smith requested and received permission from the military to continue on to Newark. The last transmission from the LaGuardia tower to the plane was a foreboding warning: "From where I'm sitting, I can't see the top of the Empire State Building."1

Avoiding Skyscrapers

Confronted with dense fog, Smith dropped the bomber low to regain visibility, where he found himself in the middle of Manhattan, surrounded by skyscrapers. At first, the bomber was headed directly for the New York Central Building but at the last minute, Smith was able to bank west and miss it. Unfortunately, this put him in line for another skyscraper. Smith managed to miss several skyscrapers until he was headed for the Empire State Building. At the last minute, Smith tried to get the bomber to climb and twist away, but it was too late.

The Crash
At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.


So, yeah, right, he would have had the throttles WIDE open, right?

:sarcasm:

My dog, he was fighting for his life there. That bank likely killed a lot of his speed to begin with, and there is no way he wouldn't have dropped his throttle and hit the flaps and done everything he could to make that beast fly as slowly as he could.

How STUPID do people have to be before they invent crap like that and never look a damned thing up?

I mean we've had some real gems in here but...

just WOW.

[Bobert]

Dick,
Do you by any chance work around any heavy machinery or dangerous chemicals?

[DC]

The plane impacted at an estimated speed of 200 miles per hour (320 km/h)

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0311.shtml

The last time a plane crashed into a New York City skyscraper was July 28, 1945. A U.S. bomber flying through thick fog at about 200 mph crashed into the Empire State Building, one of the most recognized structures in the world.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92525&page=1

[BenBurch]

Lets calculate a bit...

Assume the aircraft was going 180 mph when it hit, at ten tons, that is about 29 million joules.

Which if I am doing the mental math right is about 15 pounds of TNT equivalent.

NO comparison with the WTC strikes can even be contemplated based on that.

[beachnut]

and i was talking about the impact speed of the B-25. and the impact speed was clearly above landing speed, so i can see no reason why skilling would have used 180 MPH. but i do belive he used Max speed of the 707, which is indeed 600MPH, the number also mentioned in the White paper.
Oops, 200 mph is very close to landing speed compared to 600 mph. Your errors are mounting up.

Sorry, Skilling had the study done for 180 mph. You are messing up more, stop repeating your hearsay errors.

impact energy of B-25, 18 pounds of TNT

impact energy of 707 WTC study, 187 pounds of TNT, 10 times bigger than the ESB

impact, flight 11, 1300 pounds of TNT

impact energy of 175, 2093 pounds of TNT

Local damage is 187 pounds of TNT, destruction is some where below 1300 pounds of TNT and fires.

The reason Skilling said the fires were the problem in the slow-flying aircraft impact, is because there would only be minor damage, 7 to 11 times less than 9/11.


So far all you have is hearsay, and you have not challenged the numbers. Why is 600 mph wrong? Robertson said so. Who is the guy responsible for the WTC structure? Robertson.

[BenBurch]

Oops, 200 mph is very close to landing speed compared to 600 mph. Your errors are mounting up.

Sorry, Skilling had the study done for 180 mph. You are messing up more, stop repeating your hearsay errors.

He's just sticking his fingers in his ears with respect to what Skilling actually said.

I mean its absurd isn't it? An un-sourced claim in a white paper written by a bureaucrat is contradicted by the man who actually did the calculations, and he chooses to ignore than and believe the nameless bureaucrat???

And this from a guy who rails against believing the government?

What is the Port Authority but the Government?

[beachnut]

He's just sticking his fingers in his ears with respect to what Skilling actually said.

I mean its absurd isn't it? An un-sourced claim in a white paper written by a bureaucrat is contradicted by the man who actually did the calculations, and he chooses to ignore than and believe the nameless bureaucrat???

And this from a guy who rails against believing the government?

What is the Port Authority but the Government?
People have a hard time figuring out how strong the WTC was. The design impact of 180 mph was it. If you were not close to 180 to 230 mph, you run the risk of damaging the core of the building and introducing jet fuel and catastrophic fires towards the core.

The Port Authority took the knowledge of an aircraft impact study but failed to publish the correct speed. When all the players talk, they say "local damage"! There is only one scenario that results in local damage, 180 mph impact. The impacts on 9/11 had large aircraft parts hit blocks away after impact, that is not local damage, truthers need to ask the people who had to flee the falling debris blocks away.

The more I research Robertson, the more support I find for his numbers. The more those who lack knowledge from 9/11 truth support 600 mph with faulty logic, the more support if find from their feeble efforts. They debunk themselves.

Ironic when no fact truthers try to use information or hearsay provided by NIST or the Port Authority. Then they dispute the real source, and call the truth a lie. Backwards movement, 9/11 truth.

[Jonnyclueless]

uuh the guy was above landing speed when he impacted the ESB.
so why would you take only landing speed when you do such an analysis?
the only accident they seem to refer to is the ESB impact. and that was above landing speed. and from 1945 to 1960 the planes came bigger and faster.

so it would be nonsence to use a lower impact speed than they had already 10-15 years before the analysis.

He was just barely above it and he was a bit a ways from the airport (newark) anyways. You make it sound like unless someone is going an exact speed, they can't land. How absurd can we get?

Why would I only take landing speed? Because the guy was trying to make a landing approach to the airport. This is not up for debate. Yet somehow you believe that he is supposed to have been doing 600 mph while coming in for a landing. Or that unless he is going an exact speed, he can't be landing.

And it would not be nonsense. Like other twoofers you seem to think that the building was designed form the ground up with that intent. it wasn't. They simply did calculations after the fact to see what they thought it was capable of. And they determined a plane of that size and that speed. It's really not that hard to understand.

[beachnut]

Why would I only take landing speed? Because the guy was trying to make a landing approach to the airport. This is not up for debate. Yet somehow you believe that he is supposed to have been doing 600 mph while coming in for a landing. Or that unless he is going an exact speed, he can't be landing.

Do not tell him the 707 lands below 180 mph.

The approach speed for a 767 is 158 to 171 mph. Now why are we using 180 mph?

The landing speed is even lower! Why are we using 180 mph?

[DC]

He was just barely above it and he was a bit a ways from the airport (newark) anyways. You make it sound like unless someone is going an exact speed, they can't land. How absurd can we get?

Why would I only take landing speed? Because the guy was trying to make a landing approach to the airport. This is not up for debate. Yet somehow you believe that he is supposed to have been doing 600 mph while coming in for a landing. Or that unless he is going an exact speed, he can't be landing.

And it would not be nonsense. Like other twoofers you seem to think that the building was designed form the ground up with that intent. it wasn't. They simply did calculations after the fact to see what they thought it was capable of. And they determined a plane of that size and that speed. It's really not that hard to understand.


ok they thaught about an accident in theyr new building, like the ESB had.
they took a much much bigger plane. but they took a lower speed?

[DC]

Designed for 187 pounds of TNT, Local damage only fire would be problem.
and withstood 2 impacts of 2093 punds of TNT, local damage and without dislodged fireproof the buildings would have survived.

thx beachnut for showing that they indeed took 600 MPH.

[Blender Head]

ok they thaught about an accident in theyr new building, like the ESB had.
they took a much much bigger plane. but they took a lower speed?

Who knows?

Face it, DC:

Planes hit Towers.
Towers stay up despite impact and initial fires.
Tower one collapses from ensuing fires.
Tower two collapses from ensuing fires.

[DC]

Who knows?

Face it, DC:

Planes hit Towers.
Towers stay up despite impact and initial fires.
Tower one collapses from ensuing fires.
Tower two collapses from ensuing fires.

planes hit the towers, i agree
towers stay up despite impact and initial fires, i agree

and the towers behaved as expected for almost 1 hour after impact.

[beachnut]

Designed for 187 pounds of TNT, Local damage only fire would be problem.
and withstood 2 impacts of 2093 punds of TNT, local damage and without dislodged fireproof the buildings would have survived.

thx beachnut for showing that they indeed took 600 MPH.
The WTC did not survive the impacts on 9/11. You sound like a Titanic zombie, repeating the ship did not sink due to an impact… It is hard to figure out why you fail to use logic in coming up with your quips of 600 mph. Have you failed to understand why 600 mph is hearsay?

The buildings were strong enough to stand so people could leave, but since the damage to the building destroyed the core elements needed for global survival, they fell after the steel was weaken by fire.

I guess you are not a system engineer, and you may of missed the cause and effect day in 3rd grade.

The survival impact was explained by Robertson. The 600 mph is used by people who like to repeat errors for a long time. Robertson explains the parameters, you seem to ignore facts and continue the false information and hearsay 9/11 truth is best at.

Go ahead, repeat the false information of 600 mph and expose your lack of research, knowledge and inability to use facts to form logical and rational conclusions. Cool, good post. Thank you very much. Keep working, you may finally get it right.

No the towers can not take impacts as big as 9/11 from jet aircraft with 10,000 gallons of fuel on board. Try again.

[DC]

No skyscraper has ever before collapsed
due to fire. The fact that the WTC towers did, beckons
deep examination.

Although the structural damage inflicted by aircraft was severe, it
was only local. Without stripping of a significant portion of the
steel insulation during impact, the subsequent fire would likely
not have led to overall collapse

i guess you would like to correct Bazant on a few things.

[beachnut]

planes hit the towers, i agree
towers stay up despite impact and initial fires, i agree

and the towers behaved as expected for almost 1 hour after impact.
NOT local damage. Sorry, your 600 mph figure is still wrong.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046a66b7c96bf7.jpg

Your 600 mph impact statement by the Port Authority was an error. They took the local damage study statement, lifted from Robertson's work and did like you, looked up a 707 and found 600 mph speed, and they made an error. You like errors, you seem to ignore facts, and you close your mind and repeat 600 mph error. Wow.

Local damage would not have pushed fuel down the elevator shafts. Local damage would not cut through several floors, that is not local damage.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/imact1.jpg
The only study that local damage would come from is the one done by Robertson, it had a plane with an impact energy of 187 pounds of TNT. This make put some holes in the shell but only local damage with no major core damage. No core columns would be destroyed.

On 9/11 core damage was so bad, the water was cut off, and eacape routes were cut off. That is global! Not being able to get down the stairs is global damage. The people we lost above the impacts were due to global damage, not a local damage event! This was due to kinetic energy because the terrorist over speed the aircraft! You have decided the false information of 9/11 truth and your own cherry picking efforts (I say cherry pick, because the 180 mph is seen in NIST, and all over the real world) to spread lies of 600 mph study clearly seen as an error in a paper to fight the opposition to the WTC in NYC. An error you have chosen to present as a fact, and clearly ignore the evidence for it being an error.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046b25850d7b3a.jpg
Not local damage. Looks like local damage would only come from a slow-flying aircraft? Robertson told us, and anyone can see why.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904781587adf5fe.jpg
One of the black boxes could be between floors, trapped. Were you looking for them?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtcengine4.jpg
An engine when through the WTC, the engine core was over 700 degree C, it can auto ignite jet fuel! Not a local damage, this is blocks away! Unless you consider blocks away from the impact zone local, your local damage 600 mph impact is toast. "local damage" NOT. the 600 mph impact dies with logic, got logic?

[DC]

Although the structural damage inflicted by aircraft was severe, it
was only local.

Bazant

i agree with Bazant on this one

[DC]

btw the core damage was not major.

[Blender Head]

and the towers behaved as expected for almost 1 hour after impact.

Then the hushabooms/therm*te/space beams knocked them down?

[beachnut]

Although the structural damage inflicted by aircraft was severe, it
was only local.

Bazant

i agree with Bazant on this one
Bazant never said the impacts were local damage. Sorry. You forgot to post the entire section where he said 300 KIAS. But then, you are not telling the whole story.

Bazant talked about a 767 impact at 300 KIAS; that was not as big as the impacts on 9/11. I showed you this before and you missed it. You failed to read, and I posted it twice!

Do you put your fingers in your ears when you post this tripe?

Go back and read the posts. How can you repeat the same error over and over 24 hours a day. Are you a tag team of truthers? Guess you are not reading posts, I asked about the 300 mph, and you never explained flying airspeeds. Why?

I am on ignore, you do a good job of reading what you can't see.

Did you forget? Oh, you said Bazant's work was junk, sorry, you can't use it. (Bazant was bad, now he is good; cool)


Pseudoscience , so your use of 600 mph is also, Pseudoscience ?
Bazant is using a 300 KIAS impact; sorry, not equal to 9/11! And you are using a paper you called Pseudoscience ... How bizarre, Bazant did the paper before the speeds and impact energies were known better.

Bazant is not using the correct weight. Darn, this is due to what? He wrote the paper right after 9/11. Before he had all the facts. These are assumptions. He made engineering assumptions. When you look at his assumptions you must remember when he did the paper. But since you called his paper Pseudoscience... How bizarre
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf (http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf) --- (http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf)
Appendix I. Elastic Dynamic Response to Aircraft Impact
A simple estimate based on the preservation of the combined momentum of the impacting Boeing 767-200 (˜ 179,000 kg ‚ 550 km/h) and the momentum of the equivalent mass…

.... So it is not surprising that the aircraft impact per se damaged the tower only locally.

This is part of the Appendix about Elastic Dynamic Response. He refers to local damage in relation to the Elastic Dynamic Response; like the building did not fall over at impact! This is the limited nature of your failed attempt to use "local damage", never mentioned as you would like to use the term! oops

Since you called his paper, Pseudoscience , does this mean your use of 600 mph is Pseudoscience !?? Funny stuff kid, maybe next time.

[beachnut]

btw the core damage was not major.
I tell you what, if I was above the impact zone, and could not get down the stairs in the core! The core damage was major. Dead serious major damage. You want to try again?

Explain why the core damage was not major, and I am stuck to die above the impact zone! Come on, explain why your 600 mph model is local damage, and no major core damage, but I am going to die? Failure again for the 600 mph error. Repeat it again and ignore evidence, that is the 9/11 truth movement way.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtc2impact.jpg
Looks like "local damage" was spread over 19 acres!
Core damage? How could 2000 pounds of TNT kinetic energy do major core damage?
Have you this little knowledge of 9/11? You may be the Pseudoscience king of 9/11. cool

[BenBurch]

Then the hushabooms/therm*te/space beams knocked them down?

He's saying "as expected?" By bloody who? Who expected that? If *he* was expecting it, then we should clap him in irons and have him to Gitmo at once, because he was clearly in on it.

[DC]

The destruction of the World Trade Center
WTC on September
11, 2001 was not only the largest mass murder in U.S. history but
also a big surprise for the structural engineering profession, perhaps
the biggest since the collapse of the Tacoma Bridge in 1940.
No experienced structural engineer watching the attack expected
the WTC towers to collapse. No skyscraper has ever before collapsed
due to fire. The fact that the WTC towers did, beckons
deep examination.

TheWorld Trade Center was designed for an impact of Boeing 707-320 rather than Boeing
767-320. But note that the maximum takeoff weight of that older, less efficient, aircraft is
only 15% less than that of Boeing 767-200. Besides, the maximum fuel tank capacity of that
aircraft is only 4% less. These differences are well within the safety margins of design. So the
observed response of the towers proves the correctness of the original dynamic design. What
was not considered in design was the temperature that can develop in the ensuing fire. Here
the lulling experience from 1945 might have been deceptive; that year, a two-engine bomber
(B-25), flying in low clouds to Newark at about 400 km/h, hit the Empire State Building
(381 m tall, built in 1932) at the 79th floor (278 m above ground)—the steel columns (much
heavier than in modern buildings) suffered no significant damage, and the fire remained
confined essentially to two floors only (Levy and Salvadori 1992).

uups beachnut, is Bazant also lacking knowledge about 9/11?

[Stellafane]

Then the hushabooms/therm*te/space beams knocked them down?

I wonder if you'd care to answer this question, DC. You seem to be taking great pains in pointing out what you believe are cracks in the generally accepted story about the planes causing the towers to fall. One would assume this all leads to somewhere, otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time (including yours) for no reason at all. So if you don't think it was the planes that by themselves caused the towers to fall, what else was it?

[DC]

I wonder if you'd care to answer this question, DC. You seem to be taking great pains in pointing out what you believe are cracks in the generally accepted story about the planes causing the towers to fall. One would assume this all leads to somewhere, otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time (including yours) for no reason at all. So if you don't think it was the planes that by themselves caused the towers to fall, what else was it?

i answered that several times already.

[gumboot]

uups beachnut, is Bazant also lacking knowledge about 9/11?


Well I found a couple of issues in his comments...

Firstly that no experienced structural engineers expected the buildings to collapse. This is untrue, and you can find my analysis of this claim in a thread started by me called "Distortion of Fact".

In addition, he fails to address some pretty crucial points about the B-25 impact into the Empire State Building. Firstly I'm highly sceptical of an impact speed of 400km/h. The B-25C Mitchell had a maximum speed at altitude of 457km/h which essentially means that this B-25 flying at low altitude, lost in fog, was running pretty much at maximum power, a prospect which I find quite utterly ridiculous. It's far more likely the aircraft was very close to its minimum controlled airspeed of around 200km/h.

Secondly, he doesn't seem to take into account fuel load. The maximum fuel load of a B-25C is 974 gallons, less than 10% of the total fuel load carried by the 9/11 aircraft at the time of impact.

Lastly, all of the fires caused by the B-25 impact were extinguished within 40 minutes of impact. In the case of 9/11, 40 minutes after impact firefighters had not even reached the affected floors, and there's no evidence that any of the fires were fought at any time.

[BenBurch]

I expected them to collapse from the moment I saw the damage on the television.

It was obvious those fires were not fightable, and it was just a matter of time before the wrong bit of steel slumped.

What surprised me was that it happened so quickly.

I hadn't considered that the fireproofing would have failed.

[Stellafane]

i answered that several times already.

Perhaps you did, but (incredible though this may seem) I don't read everything you post. If repeating yourself is too much bother (and I understand you're obviously under no obligation just because I request it) could you at least provide a link?

[lapman]

and the Army has even a higher top speed

http://www.b25.net/images/b25tcds.pdf

top speed 340 mph
landing gear and flaps max speed is 170 MPH.
You really should learn to read. The 340 mph limit states:
Glide or dive - 340 mph true ind.
Yeah, an airplane can go really fast in a dive. It goes on to state:
Level flight or climb - 272 mph true ind.
Why do I have the impression that you knew this and posted the lie anyway? :rolleyes:

[DC]

You really should learn to read. The 340 mph limit states:

Yeah, an airplane can go really fast in a dive. It goes on to state:

Why do I have the impression that you knew this and posted the lie anyway? :rolleyes:

well what exactly is Glide? (Gleitflug?)

maybe i got it wtong, but i didnt know, i was maybe misled by the Glide.

and btw, the closer the max speed is to the impact speed in the ESB, the more likely it is that Skilling used max speed of the 707.

im totaly convinced that they did not use 180 MPH, cause that would make no sence, the 1945 impact speed was already higher, and planes was much slower in 1945.

[Jonnyclueless]

im totaly convinced that they did not use 180 MPH, cause that would make no sence, the 1945 impact speed was already higher, and planes was much slower in 1945.

:dl:

[lapman]

well what exactly is Glide? (Gleitflug?)
Gleiten
im totaly convinced that they did not use 180 MPH, cause that would make no sence, the 1945 impact speed was already higher, and planes was much slower in 1945.Did you bother to actually read the story? Once the pilot broke through the clouds and saw all the buildings, he added power so he could climb. That sped him up. You have yet to give any possible legitimate reason for anyone to be going 600mph at that altitude in the 1960's for them to consider it. It is not common for people to take large airliners out for low altitude, hight speed joy rides around major cities. The FAA kinda frowns on that.

[DC]

Gleiten
Did you bother to actually read the story? Once the pilot broke through the clouds and saw all the buildings, he added power so he could climb. That sped him up. You have yet to give any possible legitimate reason for anyone to be going 600mph at that altitude in the 1960's for them to consider it. It is not common for people to take large airliners out for low altitude, hight speed joy rides around major cities. The FAA kinda frowns on that.

yes i did read the story.

to me it makes no sence at all that skilling would have used a lower impact speed than the ESB.
i think he set up a worst case scenario. fully loaded 707 at max speed.


give me a good reason why they would consider a lower impact speed than the impact speed of the accident that gave em the idea to do such an analysis.

[Loss Leader]

to me it makes no sence at all that skilling would have used a lower impact speed than the ESB.
i think he set up a worst case scenario. fully loaded 707 at max speed.

give me a good reason why they would consider a lower impact speed than the impact speed of the accident that gave em the idea to do such an analysis.


I can do that easily: The reason is common sense.

Back in the 1960s, any engineer thinking about the problem of a plane hitting a building would only come up with one scenario: the plane was lost. The towers (and the Empire State Building before them) were huge landmarks - plainly visible for long, long distances. In order to hit one of them, a pilot would have to be flying in low visibility such as dense fog. He's also have to be pretty confused about where he was (as there is no airport on the island of Manhattan).

In that circumstance, a pilot would slow down and methodically look for a hole in the cloud cover. There is just no reason to believe that any pilot would plow through the air at 1,000 feet at max speed. The pilot would have to be ... suicidal.

What you forget, DC, is that the idea of using loaded passenger planes as guided missiles did not exist before September 11, 2001. Nobody thought it was possible. Nobody thought about it at all, really. It just wasn't something that anyone could imagine.

Asking Skilling to plan for 9/11 over thirty years earlier is just not realistic. We couldn't plan for 9/11 thirty days earlier.

[Loss Leader]

Double post because I thought it was just that important.

[DC]

I can do that easily: The reason is common sense.

Back in the 1960s, any engineer thinking about the problem of a plane hitting a building would only come up with one scenario: the plane was lost. The towers (and the Empire State Building before them) were huge landmarks - plainly visible for long, long distances. In order to hit one of them, a pilot would have to be flying in low visibility such as dense fog. He's also have to be pretty confused about where he was (as there is no airport on the island of Manhattan).

In that circumstance, a pilot would slow down and methodically look for a hole in the cloud cover. There is just no reason to believe that any pilot would plow through the air at 1,000 feet at max speed. The pilot would have to be ... suicidal.

What you forget, DC, is that the idea of using loaded passenger planes as guided missiles did not exist before September 11, 2001. Nobody thought it was possible. Nobody thought about it at all, really. It just wasn't something that anyone could imagine.

Asking Skilling to plan for 9/11 over thirty years earlier is just not realistic. We couldn't plan for 9/11 thirty days earlier.

still cant see no reason, why they would consider 180 MPH when the b25 in 1945 crashed in the ESB with over 200 MPH.

[beachnut]

Skilling never said 600 mph, the Port Authority said 600 mph; and 9/11 truth says he did because 9/11 truth are liars about Skilling saying 600 mph. Even though the top speed of a 707 is 350 KCAS at 1000 feet (due to structural damage) you insist on using a speed not used. Even though the top speed by law is 250 KIAS, and even though the speed an airliner would be doing is below 220 mph at 1000 feet! Why? Even your failure to explain airspeeds and why Boeing can say a B-25 does 300 mph, you can't explain why Boeing knows the top speed of a B-25 at 13,000 feet is 272 mph. But then why learn, when you know it all? You should ask a pilot! Oops, I am a pilot. I have only flown high performance jets, large 4 engine 300,000 pound aircraft, and small planes. You need some help on understanding speeds of planes.

What speed and conditions should an impact with a building be? How much explosives should a building be able to take?

The maximum speed of a jet letting down in the fog trying to land is 180 mph to 220 mph; these speed would result in local damage and the tower fires could be fought.

The accident that happen in 1945 with the B-25 is not typical of flying today or in the 60s. Smaller planes could impact the buildings in NYC.

In fact you can't put a real name to the 600 mph statement; why would they use a speed the plane only does during normal operations above 27,000 feet? Were the towers 27,000 feet?

I suspect they forgot meteors traveling over 4,000 mph in the impact study? Why?
What about scud missiles, they are past 1700 mph? What about the SR-71 at MACH 3, over 2200 mph? Over 100,000 pounds! OOPS! An impact of 5 tons of TNT, not 2000 pounds but over 10,000 pounds of TNT, in the form of kinetic energy! They should have designed for a SR-71 out of control going 2200 mph! It was hard to keep up and refuel him but I was the one.

What about a B-52 full of bombs!?

So did they upgrade for the SR-71?


Skilling never said 600 mph. 9/11 truth said he did; 9/11 truth is wrong.

Local damage?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046a66b7c96bf7.jpg

Robertson may have thought differently. But feel free to make up your own story with quotes and cherry pick your way to 9/11 truth false information specialist.

Fact: impact and fire destroyed the WTC towers, no explosives, no thermite. 9/11 truth has failed, I still think of the 9/11 truth movement summarize like this
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904670cd1dc0fcb.jpg

If DC needs some help on flying speed, I only have 35 years experience flying, from MACH 1.2 to 0 KIAS at 24,000 feet, -1 G to 7.33 Gs, from small plane with props, to heavy jets, I have limited experience, but could help explain airspeed, not as well as some who post, but I can mess it up enough that someone can fix it.

What does the 600 mph impact mean to 9/11 truth? ZERO! Does not mean there was CD, thermite, or MIB setting charges in fire proof radio controlled packets with silencers? No. See above failure photo! 9/11 truth was still born, you missed the funeral. If you believe 9/11 truth you are a zombie! Maturity and knowledge will set in if you work at it! It is like a wall, keep pushing, it will fall

Is 9/11 truth like revisiting the dark ages?

[BenBurch]

still cant see no reason, why they would consider 180 MPH when the b25 in 1945 crashed in the ESB with over 200 MPH.

Sorry, but you know that is a lie (yes I took you off ignore.)

200 was an ESTIMATE for a CLIMBING B-25 that had just been doing evasive aerobatics.

No way you can even colorably claim OVER 200 mph. You may however claim AT MOST 200 mph. And I believe 180 was a much more justifiable number just based upon the sort of flying that pilot had been doing in the minute prior to the strike and the fact that only a real idiot wouldn't have throttled back in his dire situation.

[Loss Leader]

still cant see no reason, why they would consider 180 MPH when the b25 in 1945 crashed in the ESB with over 200 MPH.


Your personal incredulity aside, do you have any objections based on actual evidence?

[lapman]

to me it makes no sence at all that skilling would have used a lower impact speed than the ESB.
i think he set up a worst case scenario. fully loaded 707 at max speed.


give me a good reason why they would consider a lower impact speed than the impact speed of the accident that gave em the idea to do such an analysis.Well, there are these things called airports in the area. in the 1960's, the nav systems were not as advanced as they are today. So, the most likely scenario is that an airplane is trying to find the airport to land while in fog. Now, I don't know about you, but when I'm trying to find my destination in the fog, I slow down. So it makes very good sense to use the lower speed and then add a safety factor into it when designing a building that could be in that path of the lost aircraft.

So, it's your turn. Give us one good LEGITIMATE reason why, in the 1960's, that they would have considered the max possible speed. Keep in mind that any modifications to the base design cost money in time and material and adds weight to the structure.

[BenBurch]

... and then add a safety factor into it when designing a building that could be in that path of the lost aircraft.

[ nitpick ]

But we already know that the calculation was done AFTER the design was complete. No consideration was made during design of that event. It just happened that the structure was able, upon crude analysis, to absorb that much damage.

I say crude because the fastest computer available at that time was not even as fast as the computer that runs your automobile...

[ /nitpick ]

[Myriad]

I only have 35 years experience flying, from MACH 1.2 to 0 KIAS at 24,000 feet...


Zero KIAS at 24,000 feet? I hope you were wearing your brown pants...

ETA: Or a parachute.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[lapman]

Zero KIAS at 24,000 feet? I hope you were wearing your brown pants...

ETA: Or a parachute.

Respectfully,
Myriad
If he was performing a loop, then you can do zero KIAS and still be flying at the top of the loop.

[rwguinn]

Zero KIAS at 24,000 feet? I hope you were wearing your brown pants...

ETA: Or a parachute.

Respectfully,
Myriad

A parachute is required whilst doing aerobatics...:D

[fezzic]

still cant see no reason, why they would consider 180 MPH when the b25 in 1945 crashed in the ESB with over 200 MPH.


B-25 max speed about 275, cruising speed about 230, landing speed about 105 (reasonably but not completely sure) or around that. Since it was not engaged in landing and (I think) was actually in transit to another destination, that might have something to do with the B-25 flying at >200 mph when it ended up hitting the ESB after finding itself flying among the tall buildings on Manhattan.

OTOH, a 707 lands at about 145 knots (about 167 mph) so, with an assumption of a landing aircraft, 180 mph is within the ballpark.

[BenBurch]

If he was performing a loop, then you can do zero KIAS and still be flying at the top of the loop.

Hammerhead Stall! My father taught me to fly those!

My stomach still remembers 35 years later.

[technoextreme]

maybe Skilling forgot to include the direction of gravity in his "Analysis"

and he should have informed mister Robertson that they did consider the fires.
Your sarcasm masks the fact that this has happened before and doesn't preclude the fact that engineers make mistakes. You're making a baseless assumption that we are infallible. The sad fact is that if we actually were to discover that they did screw up the math it would n't be the first,second,third,forth,fifth,sixth,seventh,eight h, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, or even hundredth time that this has happened.

[BenBurch]

Your sarcasm masks the fact that this has happened before and doesn't preclude the fact that engineers make mistakes. You're making a baseless assumption that we are infallible. The sad fact is that if we actually were to discover that they did screw up the math it would n't be the first,second,third,forth,fifth,sixth,seventh,eight h, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, or even hundredth time that this has happened.

Mars Polar Lander, anybody?

Chernobyl?

Galloping Gerty?

j-zczJXSxnw

[aggle-rithm]

Your sarcasm masks the fact that this has happened before and doesn't preclude the fact that engineers make mistakes. You're making a baseless assumption that we are infallible. The sad fact is that if we actually were to discover that they did screw up the math it would n't be the first,second,third,forth,fifth,sixth,seventh,eight h, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, or even hundredth time that this has happened.

And if they're very, very lucky, no one will die as a result, and they won't have to live with that fact for the rest of their lives.

http://www.me.utexas.edu/~me179/topics/lessons/case2.html

[BenBurch]

And if they're very, very lucky, no one will die as a result, and they won't have to live with that fact for the rest of their lives.

http://www.me.utexas.edu/~me179/topics/lessons/case2.html

Point made, but most of the links from that page are dead.

[DC]

B-25 max speed about 275, cruising speed about 230, landing speed about 105 (reasonably but not completely sure) or around that. Since it was not engaged in landing and (I think) was actually in transit to another destination, that might have something to do with the B-25 flying at >200 mph when it ended up hitting the ESB after finding itself flying among the tall buildings on Manhattan.

OTOH, a 707 lands at about 145 knots (about 167 mph) so, with an assumption of a landing aircraft, 180 mph is within the ballpark.

but as an engineer it would be strange to take 180 MPH.
ESB impact was above that and above the landing speed of the b-25.
so we see it can happen that a pilot is flieng faster than landing speed in the fog, above the city and he knew he was in the city he almost hit another building already.

so i think, to be on the save side they just took the 707's max speed. no mather if it can fly so fast that low (i know it cant).
but they knew the building will be there for several decades atleast. so they knew in the time of the building, the planes get bigger and faster.

and when you listen to NIST and Bazant. exactly what skilling said, turned out to be the problem, not the impact damage, the building was able to take it. the Fires was then the problem.

sure Skilling said the structure would survive the fires. that didnt happen. but he was correct with the rest.

[DC]

oh and i know out of my own experiance that also the best engineer (i know) can be wrong. Everybody can be wrong.

[gumboot]

and B-25 top speed seems to be around 300 MPH

Speed: In excess of 300 miles per hour

source (http://www.boeing.com/history/bna/b25.htm)


This is the first time I've ever seen a maximum speed for the B-25 this high, and it's in conflict with the performance of numerous other aircraft of the period. Boeing's webpage appears to be wrong.

[gumboot]

but hey, they designer the building for an 180 MOH impact and it withstood an impact of nearly 600 MPH.
Thats overengineering.
i was really impressed how the building withstood the impacts.
and thats the reasson i really think they designed it for 600 MPH.


You need to be corrected on an error here. The buildings were not designed to withstand either of these impacts. The impact survivability studies were conducted after the structure had been designed, and played no part in the design of the building.

[BenBurch]

This is the first time I've ever seen a maximum speed for the B-25 this high, and it's in conflict with the performance of numerous other aircraft of the period. Boeing's webpage appears to be wrong.

I recall one of the big problems the Russians had with theirs was that at low altitudes it was very slow and a good target.

275 mph is what I find quoted most often for top speed at altitude, others quote 265, there were many variants of this aircraft that differed in detail.

However, there was a specialist low-level attack version built as a single prototype late in the war, the B-25H "NA-98X Super Strafer" variant, which could indeed reach 350 mph (and which shook like a leaf when it did.) It was to have been used for strafing and had only forward-firing ordinance. In testing, on a low-level pass at that speed, the wings fell off! And the project was abandoned. That aircraft deleted all of the external blisters, and had two 2000 hp Wasp radials.

The aircraft that struck the ESB was obviously not one of these!

Now the REQUIREMENT the B-25 was built to specified a 300 mph bomber, but once the project was developed, and the defensive armament additions created weight and drag, that was no longer achievable.

[BenBurch]

BTW, as I understand it, "top" speed was used only for evasion of pursuit aircraft, I have seen the CRUISING quoted at 233 mph at optimum altitude (which was MUCH higher than he was flying.) If you operated a B-25 at top speed your range was reduced markedly.

However, this whole ridiculous argument shows how Conspiracy Theorists latch onto anomalies like demented terriers. It's really obvious what the right numbers are for an aircraft in level flight at that altitude, but they seek out the highest estimate, like the "do not exceed" speed in a dive. Almost EVERY aircraft can exceed its maximum speed when you put it into a dive, and there are guys alive today who are grateful for that, but the aircraft in question was flying a twisting evasive course and was reported to be CLIMBING and banking at the moment it hit the ESB. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to know that such an aircraft was unlikely to have exceeded 200 mph, and lower was more likely.

-Ben

[DC]

You need to be corrected on an error here. The buildings were not designed to withstand either of these impacts. The impact survivability studies were conducted after the structure had been designed, and played no part in the design of the building.

didnt Skilling say, the building was designed to withstand.
also DeMartini said it. thats why i use it.

im not so sure if it did not play a part in the design or construction.

but its possible you are right.

but even if they was designed to withstand, i do know that it does not mean they must have withstood it. :)

[DC]

This is the first time I've ever seen a maximum speed for the B-25 this high, and it's in conflict with the performance of numerous other aircraft of the period. Boeing's webpage appears to be wrong.

i also linked to a paper from the US Army about the B-25 and it confirmed the speed.

but im not sure, i dont know.

[Dave Rogers]

This is the first time I've ever seen a maximum speed for the B-25 this high, and it's in conflict with the performance of numerous other aircraft of the period. Boeing's webpage appears to be wrong.

Sounds fine for the prototype, actually. As usual for early WW2 aircraft, the performance dropped significantly when it got loaded down with stuff like self-sealing tanks, armour plate for crew protection, higher bombloads, more guns and anything else needed to survive in combat.

Dave

[DC]

according to this document :
http://www.b25.net/images/b25tcds.pdf

Glide or Dive speed limits = 340 MPH
level flight or Climb speed limit = 272 MPH

[lapman]

according to this document :
http://www.b25.net/images/b25tcds.pdf

Glide or Dive speed limits = 340 MPH
level flight or Climb speed limit = 272 MPH
DC, those are max speeds and when flying over friendly territory, a pilot generally will not even come close to those speeds.