peer review.

[Tony Szamboti]

I missed this thread, I've been away from the computer for a bit, taking a break from the conspiracy. I'm not sure what the question is, but as a student of physics I was taught to look at energy. What energy did the plane have before the impact and where did it go? Energy is energy, the ability to do work and cause destruction in this case. Whatever form it takes is irrelevant, the structure had to absorb it. The energy went into causing damage which ultimately caused the collapse. Trying to dissect the particlulars of the collapse is futile. It happened, just accept it and deal with it. I swear to God, from what I know and what I've learned over the last few months this is true. This isn't the most scientific explanation of what happened, but it is what I have seen and observed over the last few months. I've got a pretty good idea of what happened, and a pretty good understanding of what buildings are capable of withstanding, and they couldn't. They couldn't withstand the impact and the fires. NIST was right. Yeah, I said it, NIST was right. I've seen what Ryan has said and I agree. Totally. And from what I have gathered over the last few months, most of the people educated in this area concur. There are a few that question the official story and for good reason. The US goverment has failed in what it intended since 9/11. Bush sucks, he can't make his own decisions, and all those that have tried to help him do so have been a miserable failure. Prove me wrong in this and I will retract all I have said, but in the mean time it is an utter truth. Why? Because Bush is a moron. Plain and simple. I'm not sure why, my olny question is how you can be advised by so many people and still fail in the way Bush has. What it boils down to for me is that there is a slight chance that if Bush weren't such a moron the WTC may not have fallen. This totally defies logic, and I can't explain it. I'm totally serious, if Bush were like 20 IQ points higher this wouldn't have happened. But then again, if Bush were 20 points higher in his IQ everything would be different. Right? Maybe not. Who knows really. Whatever, I guess I'm rambling so I'll end it here. All I'm saying is as a person well versed in physics and building construction there is nothing to see here. NIST did a very good job. They explained everything that needed to be explained, and did so very well. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to see it do we need a 10 000 page explaination to explain it?


You are right about energy being the issue and John Skilling meant a fully loaded 707 or DC-8 moving at 600 MPH relative to the buildings as it concerns the kinetic energy the buildings would have to absorb.

[Tony Szamboti]

This arguement reminds me of one that occured in medicine in the 1980's over the role of H.Pylori in the genesis/pathology of GI Ulcers. The discoverer won a Nobel Prize, but the medical establishment didn't buy it, and some tried to over turn the award...an article on it here...

http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2005/11_15/2_advances_medicine05_19.html



And you wanna know why the discoverers prevailed? Because their science was LEGITIMATE!!!!

TAM:)

It wasn't accepted as LEGITIMATE by the eventual losers in the battle.

[Gravy]

What are you trying to say here? The school was actually the University of California at Berkeley but the degree he received was a B. SC. in 1952. That is not an engineering degree.


His actual school disagrees with you.
A 1952 Berkeley civil engineering graduate, Robertson and his then-partner John Skilling were the original structural engineers for the Twin Towers.
http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/forefron...02/towers.html (http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/forefront/fall02/towers.html)I have a bachelor of arts degree. My major was English Lit. I had to meet certain requirements to receive my diploma. Are you denying that I have a degree in English Lit.?

[T.A.M.]

It wasn't accepted as LEGITIMATE by the eventual losers in the battle.

What are you talking about? H.Pylori as a cause of GI Ulcers is now accepted 100% with no dispute from legitimate scientists.

TAM:)

[apathoid]

Boeing said 607 mph period, they never discuss 355 KCAS. Look at their specification. You also need to show a calculation to back up what you are saying. Bottom line is John Skilling was referring to 600 MPH relative to the building's speed which was zero. You guys are either confused or are trying to confuse others.


Like I said, 607 mph may well be the cruising speed at altitude, but it doesn't apply at low altitudes. I don't have a 707 cockpit here in front of me, but I'd bet that the airspeed gauge doesn't exceed 500, which is indicated airspeed, expressed in knots. 607 mph would work out to 540 kts IAS at sea level, well above VMO and VNE.

From the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/1ba4297b003b30a88525672400607e05/$FILE/4a26.PDF) on the 707-300:

Vmo (Maximum Operating) MPH KTS

at Sea Level 390 339
at 5,000 ft. 396 344
at 10,000 ft. 404 351
at 15,000 ft. 413 359
at 20,000 ft. 425 369
at 24,900 ft. 435 378

and the -300B

Vmo (Maximum Operating) MPH KTS

at sea level 432 375
at 10,000 ft. 439 381
at 15,000 ft. 443 385
at 20,000 ft. 449 390
at 23,000 ft. 454 394

[Tony Szamboti]

What are you talking about? H.Pylori as a cause of GI Ulcers is now accepted 100% with no dispute from legitimate scientists.

TAM:)

I was talking about Galileo Galilei.

[Tony Szamboti]

Like I said, 607 mph may well be the cruising speed at altitude, but it doesn't apply at low altitudes. I don't have a 707 cockpit here in front of me, but I'd bet that the airspeed gauge doesn't exceed 500, which is indicated airspeed, expressed in knots. 607 mph would work out to 540 kts IAS at sea level, well above VMO and VNE.

From the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/1ba4297b003b30a88525672400607e05/$FILE/4a26.PDF) on the 707-300:

Vmo (Maximum Operating) MPH KTS

at Sea Level 390 339
at 5,000 ft. 396 344
at 10,000 ft. 404 351
at 15,000 ft. 413 359
at 20,000 ft. 425 369
at 24,900 ft. 435 378

and the -300B

Vmo (Maximum Operating) MPH KTS

at sea level 432 375
at 10,000 ft. 439 381
at 15,000 ft. 443 385
at 20,000 ft. 449 390
at 23,000 ft. 454 394

The maximum operating speeds you show are the safe operating speeds from the manufacturer, due to air density and stress on the airframe. It doesn't mean they can't be exceeded by the aircraft. Converting from MPH to knots isn't a big deal as a knot is 1.17 miles and a mile is .85 knots. Trying to get from Beachnut's 355 KCAS to 607 MPH seems to be a problem for you and him. That is because he is dead wrong on that. The kinetic energy calculation for the tower designers would have involved a real 600 MPH hit. Stop beating around the bush with air vs. ground speed and safe airspeeds for a given altitude, it is totally irrelevant to the speed of impact the towers were designed to take.

You should take it up with John Skilling when you get to see him.

[Revolutionary91]

These are the 2 most common ways the jrefers deal with evidence they cant explain:

1) It isnt in a journal so it cant be true

2) The world media havent reported it so it cant be true.

[Tony Szamboti]

Wait, so Galileo never had to test his theories to and was not looked at by other scientists?

What a dumb argument.

You aren't making sense?

[AMTMAN]

The maximum operating speeds you show are the safe operating speeds from the manufacturer, due to air density and stress on the airframe. It doesn't mean they can't be exceeded by the aircraft. Converting from MPH to knots isn't a big deal as a knot is 1.17 miles and a mile is .85 knots. Trying to get from Beachnut's 355 KCAS to 607 MPH seems to be a problem for you and him. That is because he is dead wrong on that. The kinetic energy calculation for the tower designers would have involved a real 600 MPH hit. Stop beating around the bush with air vs. ground speed and safe airspeeds for a given altitude, it is totally irrelevant to the speed of impact the towers were designed to take.

You should take it up with John Skilling when you get to see him.

So when are you going to start lecturing beechnut about airspeed.

[apathoid]

Trying to get from Beachnut's 355 KCAS to 607 MPH seems to be a problem for you and him. That is because he is dead wrong on that. The kinetic energy calculation for the tower designers would have involved a real 600 MPH hit. Stop beating around the bush with air vs. ground speed and safe airspeeds for a given altitude, it is totally irrelevant to the speed of impact the towers were designed to take.



Uhhhh, no. He is not wrong. Here (http://www.hochwarth.com/misc/AviationCalculator.html) is a CAS/TAS calculator. Punch in 355 CAS and 1000' altitude and get a True Airspeed(or ground speed assuming zero wind if you'd like) of 359. Now change the altitude to 35,000' and you get a TAS of 583 with 355 CAS. Why does it change with altitude ? Air density - that's because there is less pitot pressure in lower density air. Less pitot pressure means the airspeed needle drops. So an airplane doing 600 mph over the ground at sea level will have a much higher IAS/CAS than one doing 600 mph at 35,000' because of the high density air. When Boeing states that 607 mph (516 kts)is cruise speed, that is at altitude and that jibes very well with beachnut's figure of 355 KCAS. At approach altitudes(below 10,000'), the FAA restricts airspeed to 250 KIAS.

When Robertson says "a 707 lost in fog"...it's pretty obvious to me that he doesn't expect it to be doing 600 mph.

[Tony Szamboti]

Like I said, 607 mph may well be the cruising speed at altitude, but it doesn't apply at low altitudes. I don't have a 707 cockpit here in front of me, but I'd bet that the airspeed gauge doesn't exceed 500, which is indicated airspeed, expressed in knots. 607 mph would work out to 540 kts IAS at sea level, well above VMO and VNE.

From the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/1ba4297b003b30a88525672400607e05/$FILE/4a26.PDF) on the 707-300:

Vmo (Maximum Operating) MPH KTS

at Sea Level 390 339
at 5,000 ft. 396 344
at 10,000 ft. 404 351
at 15,000 ft. 413 359
at 20,000 ft. 425 369
at 24,900 ft. 435 378

and the -300B

Vmo (Maximum Operating) MPH KTS

at sea level 432 375
at 10,000 ft. 439 381
at 15,000 ft. 443 385
at 20,000 ft. 449 390
at 23,000 ft. 454 394

What was the purported speed of Flight 77 when it flew into the Pentagon at an altitude of 10 feet or lower?

What was the purported speed of American Airlines Flight 11 when it hit the North Tower at approximately 1100 feet of altitude?

What was the purported speed of United Airlines Flight 175 when it hit the South Tower at approximately 900 feet of altitude?

What was the purported speed of United Airlines Flight 93 when it hit the ground in Pennsylvania?

[Tony Szamboti]

Uhhhh, no. He is not wrong. Here (http://www.hochwarth.com/misc/AviationCalculator.html) is a CAS/TAS calculator. Punch in 355 CAS and 1000' altitude and get a True Airspeed(or ground speed assuming zero wind if you'd like) of 359. Now change the altitude to 35,000' and you get a TAS of 583 with 355 CAS. Why does it change with altitude ? Air density - that's because there is less pitot pressure in lower density air. Less pitot pressure means the airspeed needle drops. So an airplane doing 600 mph over the ground at sea level will have a much higher IAS/CAS than one doing 600 mph at 35,000' because of the high density air. When Boeing states that 607 mph (516 kts)is cruise speed, that is at altitude and that jibes very well with beachnut's figure of 355 KCAS. At approach altitudes(below 10,000'), the FAA restricts airspeed to 250 KIAS.

When Robertson says "a 707 lost in fog"...it's pretty obvious to me that he doesn't expect it to be doing 600 mph.

Pitot tube pressure is compensated for by knowing the altitude and air temperature. Are you trying to say that air density changes the air or ground speed? The speed, is the speed, is the speed. The only thing that changes in air vs. ground speed is whether you have a tail or head wind. 355 knots is equal to 415 MPH and that is not 607 MPH now matter how you slice it. You are not understanding the fact that the towers were designed to take a real 607 MPH hit. They used that number along with a fully loaded 707 weight of 336,000 lbs to calculate the energies and stresses involved.

Mach number changes with altitude not ground speed or actual velocity whether it is wind aided or not. It was ground speed that would be operative in an impact with a stationary object. I never heard such drivel.

[beachnut]

Leslie Robertson was NOT the Chief Engineer on the tower design. Where did you get that idea? John Skilling was the Chief Engineer on the tower design. Leslie Robertson was in his early 30's when the towers were designed and did not have the experience to be a Chief Engineer yet. Actually Leslie does not even have an engineering degree, he has a basic hard science degree from the University of California at Berkeley. His primary contribution to the tower design was the dampers on the floor trusses and the idea to bring the floor truss diagonals into the floor concrete to make the floor and trusses act in unison.
You paper was not peer reviewed. Robertson, was too, like also. In fact he was the lead structural engineer. In your 30 you do things like take the lead. As lead he said it was a slow moving aircraft, not hearsay the fact.
How can you possibly say something like "Boeing only says 607 MPH in their specification for fools"? Then you want to tell us they agree with your 355 KCAS but just don't publish that and you add that we should go ask them. Nobody can take you seriously.355KCAS is the speed, you need some peer review, but you are not paying attention.
As for why the speed of 607 MPH would be used one has to realize that the design would be concerned with a worst case if it was possible to withstand it structurally and cost wise. It obviously was as the buildings took 500 MPH hits and survived them. John Skilling also said they were designed to take a hit at that speed.

No, the speed of the plane was what could happen in an accident. Oh, what kind of BS is this. A 600 mph hit puts the plane in the core, the building can not survive a core hit, people will die in mass. Any engineer, even I, can calculate the kinetic energy and see the core would be hit. Robertson did. The did the most likely accident, a 180 mph, or use 180 KIAS (knots). The plane would do localized damage most the plane and fuel falls to the ground. This is the design speed, too bad.
Explain why a flight control jammed jet would crash into the WTC. You can use engines to turn the plane. Power up, plane goes up. NEXT. As an engineer I can see this dumb idea can come up and I am an engineer, but as a pilot I see you need a pilot peer review, you are wrong, jammed flight controls not likely to hit WTC. Hydralics, same thing as jammed flight controls, and the 707 had manual back up. There are two altimeters. The pilot would not stay near the ground, the planes do not do 607 mph at 1300 feet. There are no reasonable BS ideas you have made up for a plane hitting the WTC. The accident was a lost plane landing, Slow speed. Why this peer review is going poorly.
There would be NO basis for limiting the airspeed to 180 MPH. That would be irresponsible unless a higher speed was cost prohibitive which was not the case.
That is the speed planes do lost in the fog for landing. Sorry, you should get a peer review, and I would be the peer who ripped this junk to bits. As an engineer, I find your inability for reason dismal.
You need to get your facts straight on the simple matter of the cruise speed of a Boeing 707. I have to put you on ignore until you decide to work a little harder at your research before opening your mouth.You paper was not peer reviewed.
Why do truther use 607 mph for a 707 impact on the WTC as the design parameter.

Here is what the chief structural engineer said – he wrote this first hand. This is not a news story or hearsay, it is fact. Leslie E. Robertson, , said: on being hit by a commercial jet - " It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. 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). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)
A slow flying plane, lost in the fog, gives a speed of 180 mph. Why would they pick this speed to look at vs the speed listed by Boeing as 607, but I must insist it is really 355 KCAS. Airspeed is funny. If you go up to the cockpit and the pilot shows you the indicated airspeed it may read 250 KIAS, yet the old plane is really going 500 mph. Why? The airspeed indicator is from the air going into a little tube. Airspeed. The plane may be going 500 mph, but the airspeed indicator shows 250 or 300 KIAS. (knots indicated airspeed). There is more, but who wants to learn pilot junk. The 355 KCAS covers the limit of the plane. Close to sea level it is near 355 knots, at 36,000 feet is is near 607 mph; 355 KCAS. We use MACH number too.

Why pick 180, because they did the design for the threat. The threat was a slow moving aircraft lost in the fog. This is the highest probability accident there is for building and airplane. Why not takeoff? The aircraft at takeoff accelerates to 250 KIAS until it reaches 10,000 feet. This is not 607 mph at 1300 feet is real close to 250 knots. (nautical mile is about 6,000 feet, 6067.something feet, or make up some number if you are JDX). Why not use a takeoff accident. Because it is not likely, the jets do not get lost on takeoff, and if they do they climb quickly out of the low altitude structure to stay away from traffic, little airplanes. And even if you want to use a takeoff, you would be at a slower speed. Why not use the max speed like 607 mph? The max speed is not 607 mph at 1300 feet, it is close to 355 knots. Speed above this could damage the plane. 607 is the speed that 355 KCAS is at 36,000 feet, well above the WTC towers.

Why would you use 607? There are only hearsay reports of 607. But the slow speed is first hand information. The slow speed impact would have most the aircraft falling to the ground and the firemen could fight the fire on the ground.

I am not sure why an engineer would use 607 mph, not a normal speed for an accident at 1300 feet. Now what speed do you want to build your building to survive. What about a meteor attack? What KE will our buildings withstand? The impact was big on 9/11, 7 to 11 times greater than the design impact. The buildings stood, but were damaged and fires took them out. The structure was strong, it let people have time to leave, but the impacts were terrible, cutting off people from escape, impacts past the design. The slow moving aircraft would have localized damage, but most the plane would fall to the ground. KE of 1300 pounds of TNT and 2200 pounds of TNT ripped into the WTC. Think about 200 pounds of TNT, one tenth the energy. One tenth of the columns. Most the plane outside, fuel outside. We are talking about the difference of 20 mph crash in your car into a brick wall vs. a 63 mph crash.

This does not mean much, but the truth movement uses this to show BS junk. Why are they not able to use the truth? They pull numbers out of the air just to feel good about BS they make up. Use this info how you please. I use it to debunk the so called engineers, who just grasp the numbers and run without thinking what it means. The look up the top speed or cruising speed at Boeing. They use it. Why? The next debunking of 607 comes because they did find it at Boeing and just inserted it as they want. Then they lie about Robertson and say he is making up his stuff. Why? I have shown why 607 is not a speed you would use for a accident at 1300 feet.

Questions? Realcddeal has written a paper using bogus information. He used a speed he found at Boeing with no regard for engineering reasons. Why would someone even check aircraft impacts? Because a B-25 hit the Empire State building when it was lost in the weather, trying to land. Slow speed. This is why the Empire State building did not suffer major damage, the impact was a minor KE impact. This is why Robertson looked at plane impacts. This is why they picked a slow speed landing, lost in the fog. It was the most likely accident. If the building was 36,000 feet, then 607 mph would be a good speed for impact. Engineering is making assumptions and then working the numbers. If you are working with topics outside your field get some help, I am sure Robertson asked for landing speeds and did the energy analysis and found that the impact would leave most the plane outside and fuel would not be a big problem burning outside.

Realcddeal defending 607 is a red flag for sloppy research, and bad assumptions. He is debunked on this one with first hand design parameter of a slow aircraft, his hearsay use of 607, and the lack of flight knowledge research to verify that makes 607 mph would make sense for 1300 feet.

First hand speed as slow, hearsay use of 607 mph, not using flight information of why 607 is wrong, just looking up at Boeing and taking the top speed. These are the peer review of realcddeal.

[jsfisher]

The speed is the speed, is the speed.

You missed that whole KIAS / KCAS / KTAS distinction, didn't you?

[beachnut]

What was the purported speed of Flight 77 when it flew into the Pentagon at an altitude of 10 feet or lower?

What was the purported speed of American Airlines Flight 11 when it hit the North Tower at approximately 1100 feet of altitude?

What was the purported speed of United Airlines Flight 175 when it hit the South Tower at approximately 900 feet of altitude?

What was the purported speed of United Airlines Flight 93 when it hit the ground in Pennsylvania?
Wake up. 9/11 was not an accident. Hello. The design of the WTC aircraft impact was for a landing accident the most likely accident. Faster speeds are not done on purpose at 1300 feet.

On 9/11 the terrorist push the throttles to the firewall, top engine speed, and for the last 10 to 20 seconds the terrorist flew the planes PAST their top speed and reached 470 mph, and 590 mph, and 463 mph. Flight 93 was in a 40 degree dive, if it had 10,000 more feet the engines would have come off as the plane passed MACH1 and greater.

Accident was planned for in the WTC, that accident was a slow speed aircraft. No one planned on idiots trying to hit buildings at 600 mph. Your top speed look up is wrong, airliners do not go 600 mph at 1300 feet,

[Tony Szamboti]

You missed that whole KIAS / KCAS / KTAS distinction, didn't you?

No, I am saying that a real 600 MPH is what the towers were designed to take. That would be a 600 MPH ground speed. You guys are confusing the issue and trying to say it wasn't 600 MPH they were designed to take. They were.

[apathoid]

You missed that whole KIAS / KCAS / KTAS distinction, didn't you?


He also missed the link to the CAS/TAS calculator that I posted.....

[beachnut]

Pitot tube pressure is compensated for. Are you trying to say that air density changes the air or ground speed? The speed is the speed, is the speed. The only thing that changes in air vs. ground speed is whether you have a tail or head wind. 355 knots is equal to 415 MPH and that is not 607 MPH now matter how you slice it. You are not understanding the fact that the towers were designed to take a real 607 MPH hit. They used that number along with a fully loaded 707 weight of 336,000 lbs to calculate the energies and stresses involved.
No, the airspeed I see at 36,000 feet is 275 KIAS, the plane does not care about mph, or true airspeed to fly, it cares about the KIAS, it flies for the air over the wings, and the airspeed indicator is the air in a tube. We use KIAS for flying, and MACH number too. mph or 550 KTAS would take conversion to fly as a pilot. We use true airspeed and ground speed to figure out where we will be, navigation. WE use KIAS to fly the plane safe.

355 KCAS is marked on the airspeed indicator, which reads in KIAS, as a top speed, as we get higher, the true airspeed goes up, at 36,000 the true speed is 600 mph or so. But at 1300 feet 355 KCAS is 350 knots, or very close. The design was for a slow speed aircraft, that speed the plane would do localized damage and fall to the outside with the major fuel fires outside.

Why would you use a speed from 36,000 feet for a 1300 foot building. Peer review on your paper was not complete, it is now. Rewrite. Your paper is hearsay, it will not be published in a real journal, just woo. Engineers should know better, and next time you need a pilot or an expert flight systems guy, as you are getting, to help peer review your paper too, to keep out the woo.

Using the 607 mph is a red flag for your paper, it means you did not research this very well, not all the information is in your paper, but you did use hearsay from articles.

[DGM]

I'm not even sure why you are making such a big deal about the plane impact alone. The towers survived the impact.

Welcome out into the open Tony! I don't have to keep it a secret any more.:)

[apathoid]

No, I am saying that a real 600 MPH is what the towers were designed to take. That would be a 600 MPH ground speed. You guys are confusing the issue and trying to say it wasn't 600 MPH they were designed to take. They were.


No one here is saying that 600 mph ground speed is slower or faster at different altitudes - that would be Stundie worthy. What we are saying, in a roundabout way, is that your figure is irrelevant as a 707 won't be doing 600 mph at 1000'. If there are KE calculations from Skilling that you believe supports a 607 mph hit, I'd like to see them.

[beachnut]

No, I am saying that a real 600 MPH is what the towers were designed to take. That would be a 600 MPH ground speed. You guys are confusing the issue and trying to say it wasn't 600 MPH they were designed to take. They were.
No, a 707 does not do 607 mph at 1300 feet, and the design was a slow speed impact.

Here is what the chief structural engineer said – he wrote this first hand. This is not a news story or hearsay, it is fact. Leslie E. Robertson, , said: on being hit by a commercial jet - "... The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. 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). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)
This is fact not hearsay. This would have made a real peer review of your paper which now you protest. I am an engineer for 33 years and a pilot for 34 years, I can peer review your paper but you are being stubborn.

Slow speed was the design, and the top speed at 1300 feet clean would be 361 KIAS (knots), and that is 100 knots over the speed limit of 250 KIAS. The speed limit for all pilots below 10,000 feet is 250 knots. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2857058&postcount=511 apathoid http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2856938#post2856938) posted the calculator for this, thanks.

[Gravy]

I thought I'd seen it all from 9/11 deniers, but realcddeal arguing about Boeing 707 airspeed with a 707 pilot and a Boeing avionics technician takes the cake, the cake knife, and the platter.

[beachnut]

No, I am saying that a real 600 MPH is what the towers were designed to take. That would be a 600 MPH ground speed. You guys are confusing the issue and trying to say it wasn't 600 MPH they were designed to take. They were.
No, if they were designed for 600 mph they would be standing. They did a slow speed aircraft impact. There would be localized damage, and the plane would drop to the ground. Fuel fires would be mainly outside and on the ground, easy to fight. Sort of.

Any engineer, even in 1970 can see a 600 mph aircraft's KE would enter the core of the WTC. It is a simple energy calculation, you take the energy of 2200 pounds of TNT and see it cuts to the core. Then they would see the impact would damage the WTC too much and they would have to change the design. They did not change the design because the planned on a low speed impact, not terrorist who were speeding for the last 20 seconds of flight. BTW, if the terrorist has pushed up early with throttle, there may have been big terrorist accidents instead of hitting the WTC and Pentagon; planes do bad things when they go too fast.

There were never plans for a 600 mph impact. It is not an accident that is likely. But low fuel lost aircraft is, landing in the fog, lost can hit the WTC. But a lots of fuel lost plane, would fly out of the fog and go to Philadelphia for clear weather and a hoggie. I am a pilot, and that is what I would do when the nix Rio.

[beachnut]

I thought I'd seen it all from 9/11 deniers, but realcddeal arguing about Boeing 707 airspeed with a 707 pilot and a Boeing avionics technician takes the cake, the cake knife, and the platter.
I was going to peer review his paper, but he left before the Ovaltine was served.

The KC-135 is like a stipped 707, my type rating is in a 707. The flight controls were fly by wire, piano wire. Pass 350 KCAS in speed, and skin starts to come off the plane. I have never had an altimeter go bad, it may not work in the corrected mode, but it never went out. With GPS, you can have an altitude for safety until you land. With clear weather, you do not need any instuments to fly.

Has he weaseled out of the "debate"?

[apathoid]

I thought I'd seen it all from 9/11 deniers, but realcddeal arguing about Boeing 707 airspeed with a 707 pilot and a Boeing avionics technician takes the cake, the cake knife, and the platter.


realcd ain't (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2852730&postcount=3960) got (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2856518&postcount=4005) nuthin' (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2856715&postcount=4012) on Kirkman!

[Gravy]

realcd ain't (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2852730&postcount=3960) got (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2856518&postcount=4005) nuthin' (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2856715&postcount=4012) on Kirkman!Yes, I see the gravity of the situation, and I apologize for not limiting my statement to arguments taking place on planet Earth.

[beachnut]

realcd ain't (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2852730&postcount=3960) got (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2856518&postcount=4005) nuthin' (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2856715&postcount=4012) on Kirkman!
I forgot to tell him passing 28,000 feet or so you need to use .9 MACH as the limit for speed, but most airspeed indicators were marked with a speed bug that moves down as you climb, so you do not exceed the KIAS limit for the MACH.

[apathoid]

Yes, I see the gravity of the situation, and I apologize for not limiting my statement to arguments taking place on planet Earth.


Yup, Kirkman's arguments are definitely taking place in a vacuum.

[TjW]

Pitot tube pressure is compensated for by knowing the altitude and air temperature. Are you trying to say that air density changes the air or ground speed? The speed, is the speed, is the speed. The only thing that changes in air vs. ground speed is whether you have a tail or head wind. 355 knots is equal to 415 MPH and that is not 607 MPH now matter how you slice it. You are not understanding the fact that the towers were designed to take a real 607 MPH hit. They used that number along with a fully loaded 707 weight of 336,000 lbs to calculate the energies and stresses involved.

Mach number changes with altitude not ground speed or actual velocity whether it is wind aided or not. It was ground speed that would be operative in an impact with a stationary object. I never heard such drivel.

Yes. Air density changes the relation between indicated and true airspeed.
The lower the air density, the higher the true airspeed for a given indicated airspeed.
Indicated airspeeds are used for aircraft limitations because they are a good analog to the dynamic pressure being applied to the aircraft.

Mach number is the relation between the aircraft airspeed and the local speed of sound. The speed of sound in air is largely a function of temperature, not altitude or density.

[CHF]

You are supposed to judge a paper by its merits.

Right.

But here's the problem: if your paper has merit then it should be presented in a journal that has merit in the scientific community. Otherwise, what is your paper achieving?

You may think Jo911S has merit and Greening may have no problem with writing to it, but outside of the truth movement and a handful of other people, no one knows it even exists.

If publication in a journal like Jo911S proves your paper's worth then surely it'll get published elsewhere. Right?

It only makes sense that you at least submit your research to a more well-known journal. Why wouldn't you?

Remember Galileo.

You, sir, are no Galileo.

[BigAl]

Translation: "ya got me!"

Know what I'd like to see, realcddeal?

I'd like to see one of those engineers you talked to (if in fact you did) write a paper on the collapses and the "obvious" demolitions. Any chance of that?


Get one of them to put their case for controlled demolition up on a free web server. I like t35.com. Short of a court order or the attention of the NSA, it's anonymous.

[beachnut]

I'm not even sure why you are making such a big deal about the plane impact alone. The towers survived the impact.

Welcome out into the open Tony! I don't have to keep it a secret any more.:)
I do not consider destroying the fire systems and trapping people, survival. Even Robertson knew a building survival is about people, not the building. This is why the WTC towers were so strong. An accidental plane accident in the 200 mph range would have localized damage and most the plane and fire would be outside. This is a fact. A high speed impact would reach the core and do bad things. Had the design been for a high speed 600 mph impact, the building design would have been altered.

No, the towers did not survive the impact, and a 600 mph impact was not designed for. An engineer can see a 600 mph impact would reach the core and do major damage. If Robertson had planned for a 600 mph impact, they would have to change the design. They did not plan for a 600 mph impact because planes lost in the FOG do not go 600 mph while looking to land. The planes go 180 mph. The towers would survive multiple lost planes in the fog. That is the most likely accident for an airliner with buildings.

As an engineer and a pilot I understand why 607 is not a likely number, if you want to use a maximum number you would use the terminal velocity of the plane out of control going past MACH 1. Why not use 817 mph, the plane would rip right through the WTC smashing twice as many column. If in a downward angle, the plane would destroy 5 to 10 floors and damage as many or more column as on 9/11. This is just close to MACH1, Boeing would have to do the terminal velocity calculation. Why stop at 607, the plane can go faster.

His paper would not pass my peer review because it makes false assumptions. Yes, why argue speed when we see what happen on 9/11? I am not the one making up the lies about 9/11 in a paper which says there was a CD at the WTC. When you have a conclusion that is false, why worry about sticking in hearsay and BS about aircraft speed, it just does not matter. Or does it.

Here is what the lead structural engineer said – he wrote this first hand. Not a news story, not hearsay, it is fact. Leslie E. Robertson, , said: on being hit by a commercial jet - " 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). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)

[Tony Szamboti]

No one here is saying that 600 mph ground speed is slower or faster at different altitudes - that would be Stundie worthy. What we are saying, in a roundabout way, is that your figure is irrelevant as a 707 won't be doing 600 mph at 1000'. If there are KE calculations from Skilling that you believe supports a 607 mph hit, I'd like to see them.

I would like to see them also but NIST says they couldn't locate the analysis of which John Skilling was quoted speaking of. He did say 600 MPH and I am inclined to believe someone of his stature. He said it in 1993 after the truck bombing in the basement of the North Tower.

[Tony Szamboti]

I'm not even sure why you are making such a big deal about the plane impact alone. The towers survived the impact.

Welcome out into the open Tony! I don't have to keep it a secret any more.:)

DGM, you took the words out of my mouth. Right, the towers survived the impacts so Skilling was apparently right about it. That is why NIST's theory is that collapse was due to fire weakening which they say happened due to fireproofing being dislodged. NIST even goes on to say that they don't believe the towers would have collapsed without the dislodged fireproofing.

[beachnut]

I would like to see them also but NIST says they couldn't locate the analysis of which John Skilling was quoted speaking of. He did say 600 MPH and I am inclined to believe someone of his stature. He said it in 1993 after the truck bombing in the basement of the North Tower.
No the towers did not survive, and the speed was not 600. You can not produce the paper, or his own words and Robertson is the Lead engineer. Too bad 600 mph is not a speed at 1300 feet. Just use 800, or something. Make it up. Why research when you can just say it.

The design had localized damage, fuel and aircraft falling to the ground. That speed is 180 mph. At 600 mph the aircraft damages the core, and the building is compromised.

Here is what the lead structural engineer said – he wrote this. Leslie E. Robertson, , said: on being hit by a commercial jet - " … 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)….." http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)

Your 600 mph is hearsay, and a 707 does not do 600 mph at 1300 feet. Your peer review is back on.

http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1349
what is wrong with Robertson? Why are you unable to stand up to peer review by a pilot/engineer (ATP/MSEE) Plus an accident investigator trained by USC.

[Tony Szamboti]

So when are you going to start lecturing beechnut about airspeed.

All I said was that John Skilling is on record as saying the towers were designed to take a hit from a Boeing 707 moving at 600 mph. Beachnut apparently doesn't want to believe that and wants to go through all sorts of gyrations about KIAS, KCAS, and KTAS. The truth is that it would be ground speed that is relavent anyway as the towers were stationary.

[beachnut]

All I said was that John Skilling is on record as saying the towers were designed to take a hit from a Boeing 707 moving at 600 mph. Beachnut apparently doesn't want to believe that and wants to go through all sorts of gyrations about KIAS, KCAS, and KTAS. The truth is that it would be ground speed that is relavent anyway as the towers were stationary.
The plane does not go 600 mph at 1300 feet. John Skilling never said it was 600, you have no direct source. I have the lead engineer. He said slow moving, 180 mph, 263,000 pounds. Lost in the fog.

You have no source.
It is also worth mentioning the fact that the twin towers were designed to take an impact by a fully loaded Boeing 707 weighing 334,000 lbs. and moving at it’s cruise speed of 607 mph. (source?)

False, the design was a low speed lost in the fog plane going to land, that is 180 mph and 263,000 pounds. Low fuel. You see a plane with lots of fuel will not be lost in the fog, it would be flying to a place with out fog because they have fuel. A plane low on fuel can not go anywhere and has to land, if lost, they could crash.
My source is the lead structural engineer Leslie E. Robertson, , "... our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). " http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)
Not hearsay like your stuff. A truther looks up the top speed. No, the 707 at 1300 feet does not go 600 mph.

You have the wrong number for many reasons; why do you ignore facts? Why do you use hearsay?

[Tony Szamboti]

You paper was not peer reviewed. Robertson, was too, like also. In fact he was the lead structural engineer. In your 30 you do things like take the lead. As lead he said it was a slow moving aircraft, not hearsay the fact.
355KCAS is the speed, you need some peer review, but you are not paying attention.


No, the speed of the plane was what could happen in an accident. Oh, what kind of BS is this. A 600 mph hit puts the plane in the core, the building can not survive a core hit, people will die in mass. Any engineer, even I, can calculate the kinetic energy and see the core would be hit. Robertson did. The did the most likely accident, a 180 mph, or use 180 KIAS (knots). The plane would do localized damage most the plane and fuel falls to the ground. This is the design speed, too bad.
Explain why a flight control jammed jet would crash into the WTC. You can use engines to turn the plane. Power up, plane goes up. NEXT. As an engineer I can see this dumb idea can come up and I am an engineer, but as a pilot I see you need a pilot peer review, you are wrong, jammed flight controls not likely to hit WTC. Hydralics, same thing as jammed flight controls, and the 707 had manual back up. There are two altimeters. The pilot would not stay near the ground, the planes do not do 607 mph at 1300 feet. There are no reasonable BS ideas you have made up for a plane hitting the WTC. The accident was a lost plane landing, Slow speed. Why this peer review is going poorly.

That is the speed planes do lost in the fog for landing. Sorry, you should get a peer review, and I would be the peer who ripped this junk to bits. As an engineer, I find your inability for reason dismal.
You paper was not peer reviewed.
Why do truther use 607 mph for a 707 impact on the WTC as the design parameter.

Here is what the chief structural engineer said – he wrote this first hand. This is not a news story or hearsay, it is fact. [/FONT]
A slow flying plane, lost in the fog, gives a speed of 180 mph. Why would they pick this speed to look at vs the speed listed by Boeing as 607, but I must insist it is really 355 KCAS. Airspeed is funny. If you go up to the cockpit and the pilot shows you the indicated airspeed it may read 250 KIAS, yet the old plane is really going 500 mph. Why? The airspeed indicator is from the air going into a little tube. Airspeed. The plane may be going 500 mph, but the airspeed indicator shows 250 or 300 KIAS. (knots indicated airspeed). There is more, but who wants to learn pilot junk. The 355 KCAS covers the limit of the plane. Close to sea level it is near 355 knots, at 36,000 feet is is near 607 mph; 355 KCAS. We use MACH number too.

Why pick 180, because they did the design for the threat. The threat was a slow moving aircraft lost in the fog. This is the highest probability accident there is for building and airplane. Why not takeoff? The aircraft at takeoff accelerates to 250 KIAS until it reaches 10,000 feet. This is not 607 mph at 1300 feet is real close to 250 knots. (nautical mile is about 6,000 feet, 6067.something feet, or make up some number if you are JDX). Why not use a takeoff accident. Because it is not likely, the jets do not get lost on takeoff, and if they do they climb quickly out of the low altitude structure to stay away from traffic, little airplanes. And even if you want to use a takeoff, you would be at a slower speed. Why not use the max speed like 607 mph? The max speed is not 607 mph at 1300 feet, it is close to 355 knots. Speed above this could damage the plane. 607 is the speed that 355 KCAS is at 36,000 feet, well above the WTC towers.

Why would you use 607? There are only hearsay reports of 607. But the slow speed is first hand information. The slow speed impact would have most the aircraft falling to the ground and the firemen could fight the fire on the ground.

I am not sure why an engineer would use 607 mph, not a normal speed for an accident at 1300 feet. Now what speed do you want to build your building to survive. What about a meteor attack? What KE will our buildings withstand? The impact was big on 9/11, 7 to 11 times greater than the design impact. The buildings stood, but were damaged and fires took them out. The structure was strong, it let people have time to leave, but the impacts were terrible, cutting off people from escape, impacts past the design. The slow moving aircraft would have localized damage, but most the plane would fall to the ground. KE of 1300 pounds of TNT and 2200 pounds of TNT ripped into the WTC. Think about 200 pounds of TNT, one tenth the energy. One tenth of the columns. Most the plane outside, fuel outside. We are talking about the difference of 20 mph crash in your car into a brick wall vs. a 63 mph crash.

This does not mean much, but the truth movement uses this to show BS junk. Why are they not able to use the truth? They pull numbers out of the air just to feel good about BS they make up. Use this info how you please. I use it to debunk the so called engineers, who just grasp the numbers and run without thinking what it means. The look up the top speed or cruising speed at Boeing. They use it. Why? The next debunking of 607 comes because they did find it at Boeing and just inserted it as they want. Then they lie about Robertson and say he is making up his stuff. Why? I have shown why 607 is not a speed you would use for a accident at 1300 feet.

Questions? Realcddeal has written a paper using bogus information. He used a speed he found at Boeing with no regard for engineering reasons. Why would someone even check aircraft impacts? Because a B-25 hit the Empire State building when it was lost in the weather, trying to land. Slow speed. This is why the Empire State building did not suffer major damage, the impact was a minor KE impact. This is why Robertson looked at plane impacts. This is why they picked a slow speed landing, lost in the fog. It was the most likely accident. If the building was 36,000 feet, then 607 mph would be a good speed for impact. Engineering is making assumptions and then working the numbers. If you are working with topics outside your field get some help, I am sure Robertson asked for landing speeds and did the energy analysis and found that the impact would leave most the plane outside and fuel would not be a big problem burning outside.

Realcddeal defending 607 is a red flag for sloppy research, and bad assumptions. He is debunked on this one with first hand design parameter of a slow aircraft, his hearsay use of 607, and the lack of flight knowledge research to verify that makes 607 mph would make sense for 1300 feet.

First hand speed as slow, hearsay use of 607 mph, not using flight information of why 607 is wrong, just looking up at Boeing and taking the top speed. These are the peer review of realcddeal.


Robertson didn't do the analysis that Skilling was speaking of and for the fifth time Robertson wasn't the chief engineer on the tower design. Why do you keep saying that?

There was still quite a margin of safety in the steel frames of those buildings after the aircraft impacts. Volumetric probablities alone would limit the amount of damage the aircraft could do.

I am also wondering why nobody here answered my question concerning the estimated speeds on impact of Flights 11, 77, and 175.

Most people on here are either propagandists like Gravy or have bought the official story because it is easy to do so they just want to think the airplanes hit the towers and started a fire and an hour later the towers completely collapse and are pulverized in mid-air with streamers flying up and out of them.

The buildings survived the impacts and should have also survived the fires, with or without fireproofing, and the physical evidence says that the core columns did not experience any high temperatures. Bldg. 7's fireproofing wasn't even damaged so what is the excuse going to be there?

[TjW]

Curiously, the John Skilling Seattle Times interview of 1993 (http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/seattletimes_withstandjet.html), (this particular pointer is actually to 911research), does not mention the speed of a 707 at all.

Could you post a pointer to the interview where the top speed figure is mentioned by Skilling?

[beachnut]

Robertson did not do the analysis for the aircraft impact, and for the fifth time he wasn't the chief engineer on the tower design.

There was still quite a margin of safety in the steel frames of those buildings after the aircraft impacts. Volumetric probablities alone would limit the amount of damage the aircraft could do.

I am also wondering why nobody here answered my question concerning the estimated speeds on impact of Flights 11, 77, and 175.
Robertson is the lead engineer, he is still alive, ask him.
http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1349 (http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1349) says so right here. oops, peer review

What, you are an engineer so you do understand, the impact on 9/11 was an order of magnitude greater than the design impact. This is why the tower failed. They were not design for systems to survive and protect people above the impact and the fire systems in the core. If it was a design for high speed there were be two towers standing. It is not fair to say they should stand when it was on purpose and the terrorist were speeding.

Robertson said it, you are using hearsay. http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)

Read and learn, please. Your paper is not ready, and this peer review has shown you are using the wrong data.

I am also wondering why nobody here answered my question concerning the estimated speeds on impact of Flights 11, 77, and 175STATE question again. The terrorist over sped the aircraft for 10 to 20 seconds, damn engines, as they pushed the powerful engines up to max. The planes were well past their limits and because they had those darn powerful engines, 11 was going 470 mph, 175 was going 590 mph, and 77 was going 463KIAS (533mph). Questions. The terrorist were done flying after they pushed up the throttles, any major movements may of placed the aircraft in a high speed stall. So?

[beachnut]

,Most people on here are either propagandists like Gravy or have bought the official story because it is easy to do so they just want to think the airplanes hit the towers and started a fire and an hour later the towers completely collapse and are pulverized in mid-air with streamers flying up and out of them.
Gravy does not need an engineering degree to show you are a shallow researcher with bogus ideas on 9/11. You do that job yourself. You call people propagandists. Gravy? I bet Gravy is laughing at my attempt to organize facts to show your paper is full of hearsay and false information. You are a propagandist saying CD without proof or evidence and having false data in you paper. And it is sad you are an engineer with such junk. Gravy has more knowledge and is being polite to you.

I doubt you could sell Gravy an official story. He has a little more than some "official" story. You can't even touch the truth, you lack the facts to stand on. Gravy could beat me on this peer review, and you would learn something if you were not so thick.

[Tony Szamboti]

Gravy does not need an engineering degree to show you are a shallow researcher with bogus ideas on 9/11. You do that job yourself. You call people propagandists. Gravy? I bet Gravy is laughing at my attempt to organize facts to show your paper is full of hearsay and false information. You are a propagandist saying CD without proof or evidence and having false data in you paper. And it is sad you are an engineer with such junk. Gravy has more knowledge and is being polite to you.

I doubt you could sell Gravy an official story. He has a little more than some "official" story. You can't even touch the truth, you lack the facts to stand on. Gravy could beat me on this peer review, and you would learn something if you were not so thick.

You still haven't answered what the impact speeds were for the three aircraft that hit buildings on 911. Why not? It seems they violate your theory don't they?

[beachnut]

You still haven't answered what the impact speeds were for the three aircraft that hit buildings on 911. Why not? It seems they violate your theory don't they?It also make you look real bad! The terrorist over sped the aircraft and did not reach your so called speed of 607 mph. Why? Because of the reasons I have given you so many times it hurts. Please try to learn, you could correct you errors.

The terrorist over sped the aircraft for 10 to 20 seconds, damn engines, as they pushed the powerful engines up to max. The planes were well past their limits and because they had those darn powerful engines, 11 was going 470 mph, 175 was going 590 mph, and 77 was going 463KIAS (533mph). Questions. The terrorist were done flying after they pushed up the throttles, any major movements may of placed the aircraft in a high speed stall. So?

posted above too

The terrorist did it on purpose. Clue time. They over sped the aircraft, this was their last flight. Robertson said slow, speed, you have hearsay, i have the real deal

design impact speed 180 mph, low speed low fuel, need more, why were the terrorist not going 607 mph??????

A 757/767 can fly 607 mph, why were the terrorist going so slow in their boeing? (thick air?)

that 607 mph screws up your paper, bad, are you sure you checked your sources?

Robertson is alive, he said slow speed. No where is there a direct first hand 607 mph anywhere. I have given you sound engineering reasons the speed was not 607 mph. I have produce the first hand design parameters. What have you do for this peer review?

When will he call me on my one error?

[Tony Szamboti]

Robertson is the lead engineer, he is still alive, ask him.
http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1349 (http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1349) says so right here. oops, peer review

What, you are an engineer so you do understand, the impact on 9/11 was an order of magnitude greater than the design impact. This is why the tower failed. They were not design for systems to survive and protect people above the impact and the fire systems in the core. If it was a design for high speed there were be two towers standing. It is not fair to say they should stand when it was on purpose and the terrorist were speeding.

Robertson said it, you are using hearsay. http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)

Read and learn, please. Your paper is not ready, and this peer review has shown you are using the wrong data.

STATE question again. The terrorist over sped the aircraft for 10 to 20 seconds, damn engines, as they pushed the powerful engines up to max. The planes were well past their limits and because they had those darn powerful engines, 11 was going 470 mph, 175 was going 590 mph, and 77 was going 463KIAS (533mph). Questions. The terrorist were done flying after they pushed up the throttles, any major movements may of placed the aircraft in a high speed stall. So?


Engineers would design for worst case scenarios with something like the Twin Towers. If those aircraft could be pushed to the speeds you are discussing above then they would design for that possibility. Obviously, they could move at 600 MPH at 1300 feet. Only Leslie Robertson says it was simply for an airplane lost in the fog. That is only what happened to the Empire State Building. There are also other eventualities like an out of control aircraft. The 707-320B also had more thrust than the 767-200ER. Who says there couldn't have been a problem with the throttle? These things would need to be considered.

[jsfisher]

Engineers would design for worst case scenarios with something like the Twin Towers. If those aircraft could be pushed to the speeds you are discussing above then they would design for that possibility. Obviously, they could move at 600 MPH at 1300 feet. Only Leslie Robertson says it was simply for an airplane lost in the fog. That is only what happened to the Empire State Building. There are also other eventualities like an out of control aircraft. The 707-320B also had more thrust than the 767-200ER. Who says there couldn't have been a problem with the throttle? These things would need to be considered.


That's all speculation on your part, and, alas, it isn't at all true.

[Gravy]

Most people on here are either propagandists like Gravy...Then you won't have any trouble proving what I've gotten wrong. Knock yourself out! :)

[Tony Szamboti]

Curiously, the John Skilling Seattle Times interview of 1993 (http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/seattletimes_withstandjet.html), (this particular pointer is actually to 911research), does not mention the speed of a 707 at all.

Could you post a pointer to the interview where the top speed figure is mentioned by Skilling?

The discussion of the aircraft speed was actually in the white paper dated February 3, 1964 which discusses the analysis Skilling was referring to and described the findings of the analysis: “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.”

[beachnut]

Engineers would design for worst case scenarios with something like the Twin Towers. If those aircraft could be pushed to the speeds you are discussing above then they would design for that possibility. Obviously, they could move at 600 MPH at 1300 feet. Only Leslie Robertson says it was simply for an airplane lost in the fog. That is only what happened to the Empire State Building. There are also other eventualities like an out of control aircraft. The 707-320B also had more thrust than the 767-200ER. Who says there couldn't have been a problem with the throttle? These things would need to be considered.
No, a plane with stuck throttle can fly up, and the pilot can shut off the engine. Stop making up junk, I am a pilot, you are acting like a kid.

You can not find a real source for 607 as the design because the design was at 180 mph. Plus 607 is not possible at 1300 feet for a slow moving lost in the fog plane as Robertson, the lead engineer stated.

Why are you unable to find any refs to 607, because the only people who post 607 are like you, they saw it on the web. The news also messed it up, and so have some web sites not into 9/11 truth. You have a myth, 607 mph.

As you can see the terrorist were not able to go 607 mph on 9/11. They were taking a risk, maybe like you out of ignorance, going as fast as they did. But they only over sped the planes for 10 or 20 seconds and then the planes were done.

Again, if the design was for 600 mph, the WTC design would have been different. The tower were not design for 600 mph, it was slow speed. The 600 mph impact would have shown Robertson and Skilling that the impact hits the core, this is a simple calculation they could do. But they did the slow speed impacts, and they stated localized damage and the fire could be mostly outside with the falling debris from the plane.

Why did they pick a slow speed low fuel. This was the most likely threat. If we use your fantasy idea, the we should design for the meteor doing 17000 mph etc. They used the only real threat. I have explained planes do not fly at 1300 feet at high speed. You are not listening.

Please, no more BS engine stuck, altimeter broke, but I can field questions.

[Gravy]

:dc_biggrin:Happy Birthday, jsfisher! :not_ripe:

:bcake:
:wave1

[Tony Szamboti]

That's all speculation on your part, and, alas, it isn't at all true.

Oh, and we'll limit it to 180 mph is true in your book. Nobody would design like that for buildings like the towers. See what the white paper said. It does use the 600 MPH figure and Beachnut has had to admit that the aircraft can certainly achieve those speeds at 1300 feet.

[jsfisher]

:dc_biggrin:Happy Birthday, jsfisher! :not_ripe:

:bcake:
:wave1



Thank you. I am honored.

[Hokulele]

Thank you. I am honored.


Happy Birthday! (Although it isn't your birthday yet in my time zone.)

[beachnut]

The discussion of the aircraft speed was actually in the white paper dated February 3, 1964 which discusses the analysis Skilling was referring to and described the findings of the analysis: “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.”
No 600 mph out of Skillings mouth, you are not finding a real source.

Read your source. Robertson is the lead, he said slow speed. Questions.
You are using a web site of woo to get 600 mph. It is wrong. The 600 mph was added by a fool who went to the Boeing web site and added the speed of 607. Funny stuff. Only a fool who did not ask a pilot or real engineer about the speed and why, would pick 607 mph. 607 mph is not a speed for a 707 at 1300 feet. Sorry, but I am giving you the real peer review you would get in a real journal, fix it or forget publishing your paper.

[Gravy]

Yes the speed of design impact for aircraft was 180 mph, lost jet in the fog. You are debunked by L.Robertson. Darn, it feels good all those flying lessons you paid for paid off.

Please explain why you use 607 mph for impact of 707? Lots of Details please. but you will be wrong, do i get the 1,000,000 if so

John Skilling was quoted about it in 1993 after the first Trade Center Bombing. Here is the article.

www.cooperativeresearch.org/.../11_world=investigations (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/.../11_world=investigations)

The discussion of the aircraft speed was actually in the white paper dated February 3, 1964

You claim Skilling said it in 1993, you link to a 404 error message, then you say Skilling said it in 1964. I don't mean to be harsh, but perhaps that's not the best possible use of everyone's time.

Figured out Les Robertson's degree yet?

[Tony Szamboti]

No, a plane with stuck throttle can fly up, and the pilot can shut off the engine. Stop making up junk, I am a pilot, you are acting like a kid.

You can not find a real source for 607 as the design because the design was at 180 mph. Plus 607 is not possible at 1300 feet for a slow moving lost in the fog plane as Robertson, the lead engineer stated.

Why are you unable to find any refs to 607, because the only people who post 607 are like you, they saw it on the web. The news also messed it up, and so have some web sites not into 9/11 truth. You have a myth, 607 mph.

As you can see the terrorist were not able to go 607 mph on 9/11. They were taking a risk, maybe like you out of ignorance, going as fast as they did. But they only over sped the planes for 10 or 20 seconds and then the planes were done.

Again, if the design was for 600 mph, the WTC design would have been different. The tower were not design for 600 mph, it was slow speed. The 600 mph impact would have shown Robertson and Skilling that the impact hits the core, this is a simple calculation they could do. But they did the slow speed impacts, and they stated localized damage and the fire could be mostly outside with the falling debris from the plane.

Why did they pick a slow speed low fuel. This was the most likely threat. If we use your fantasy idea, the we should design for the meteor doing 17000 mph etc. They used the only real threat. I have explained planes do not fly at 1300 feet at high speed. You are not listening.

Please, no more BS engine stuck, altimeter broke, but I can field questions.

There are studies done on designs called Hazards Analyses and Failure Modes and Effects Analyses and these are what the analysis that Skilling was referring to and which the white paper described was done for. The 707 aircraft could easily have achieved that speed at a low altitude and you had to admit it. Case Closed.

[jsfisher]

Happy Birthday! (Although it isn't your birthday yet in my time zone.)

Send me a pineapple. We'll call it even.

[Revolutionary91]

I thought I'd seen it all from 9/11 deniers, but realcddeal arguing about Boeing 707 airspeed with a 707 pilot and a Boeing avionics technician takes the cake, the cake knife, and the platter.

I thought id seen it all from the official story fantasists but a tour guide arguing with engineers about building collapses really takes the cake.

[beachnut]

Oh, and we'll limit it to 180 mph is true in your book. Nobody would design like that for buildings like the towers. See what the white paper said. It does use the 600 MPH figure and Beachnut has had to admit that the aircraft can certainly achieve those speeds at 1300 feet.
Show me the paper. Only hearsay source say 607 mph, they got it from looking it up at Boeing and just putting it without thinking. Standard newspaper errors. Only a pilot/engineer would catch the error.

You are caught with an error and I have given you the lead engineer, Robertson saying and writing it out. Slow speed. I have also given you my experience why the speed is a good design parameter for the likely threat; and I do not doubt if you would listen to me, you could say it better.

There was a design study on a slow speed aircraft impact. The people who heard about it substituted the 607 mph by mistake in the reports and news sources. How did they get the number, they did what you did. They went to Boeing and produce the speed listed, 607 mph. I have told you over and over, that is a good speed at 29000 feet, not at 1300. The design was for the most likely aircraft accident possible. I have listed why it is the most likely scenario.

[beachnut]

There is usually a study called FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) and that is what the analysis that Skilling was referring to and which the white paper described was done for. You don't know. You are just babbling. The 707aircraft could easily have achieved that speed at a low altitude and you had to admit it. Case Closed.
No, the 707 is limited to 355 KCAS at 1300 feet. That is not 607, case closed.
You have no paper, you have a mistake. Big mistake. The localized damage, the plane falling to the ground are indicative of a slow speed accident. Even the planes on 9/11 were not able to reach 607 mph on 9/11. No pilot would fly his plane past 355 knots, and the only possible accident considered was slow speed. This is due to the fact this is the only accident you can have at 1300 feet and in the fog. It is called an accident. They did not plan on someone flying on purpose at high speed into the WTC.

I like how you quibble with no real source for 607. The 607 mph error has not been corrected because no one understands it. If you insist on being unable to learn, that is your problem. Your paper now has an error anyone can understand if you they do the simple research. Pilots see your error right off if they think about 1300 feet.

I now know why you paper is not in a real journal. Ignore Robertson, the lead engineer. I think it also shows your paper is not peer reviewed very well. I am just a simple engineer and a pilot, I became and engineer to be more valuable to the USAF so I would have an edge being a pilot candidate. The scam worked. The air force even sent me for my Masters. I am giving you the best, albeit rough, information to correct your paper. Peer review. Funny thing is, Gravy can beat me and you at this but you quibble about how he can do it. So when so we have this paper in a real journal?

Top speed below 10,000 feet is 250 knots, by regulation. Top speed of airframe at 1300 feet is 355 knots, the plane starts to fall apart above this speed. Speed lost in the fog for landing with flaps down 180 mph. The design is the slow speed because there is no reason the plane would be at 1300 feet except for landing. Case double, triple closed. No 607 is not possible at 1300 feet since they did not design for terrorist.

Thrust for the 707 please? You said it was more than a 767. Would you like to retract that or produce the facts?

too late, did you know I have an ATP. Look it up. And a type rating in a 707. so why do you BS a naive kid like me?

76, 000 pounds of thrust for a 707 (4x19,000)
126,600 pounds of thrust for a 767. (2x63,300) oops

This is why it would be twice as hard for a 707 to speed quickly than a 767 (that is like acceleration). I love the new engines. They are 98 percent cleaner, and more powerful, how did you research this? oh like the rest of your paper. You should use me for your next pre peer review.

[Tony Szamboti]

Show me the paper. Only hearsay source say 607 mph, they got it from looking it up at Boeing and just putting it without thinking. Standard newspaper errors. Only a pilot/engineer would catch the error.

That sounds more like the hearsay to me. The Februrary 3, 1964 white paper says 600 MPH sorry.


You are caught with an error and I have given you the lead engineer, Robertson saying and writing it out. Slow speed. I have also given you my experience why the speed is a good design parameter for the likely threat; and I do not doubt if you would listen to me, you could say it better.


No error and Robertson was not the lead engineer. The white paper clearly states 600 MPH and we already know you have admitted it could happen. You really have no argument. I would like to listen to you but can't go along with what Robertson said as I don't think that is true. He also had a significantly larger 767-300ER aircraft rather than the actual 767-200ER shown next to a 707-320B on his paper for the Remembering the WTC site he was asked to contribute to. However, if you are honestly interested in helping me say it better in my paper I am willing to listen.

There was a design study on a slow speed aircraft impact. The people who heard about it substituted the 607 mph by mistake in the reports and news sources. How did they get the number, they did what you did. They went to Boeing and produce the speed listed, 607 mph. I have told you over and over, that is a good speed at 29000 feet, not at 1300. The design was for the most likely aircraft accident possible. I have listed why it is the most likely scenario.

I have read that there were two design studies on this issue. One in early 1964 and one at the end of the year. I seriously doubt that a journalist would hear about the white paper and then go and look at the Boeing site and substitute the cruise speed numbers. That is a stretch. I didn't just go to the Boeing site. I had read about the white paper and Skilling's comments.

You know what Beachnut, you sound like a nice guy and I really don't want to be arguing in a nasty way with you. I don't know exactly where you are but I am on the East Coast and it is 1:44 AM and I am going to bed so I'll talk to you later.

[Tony Szamboti]

No, the 707 is limited to 355 KCAS at 1300 feet. That is not 607, case closed.
You have no paper, you have a mistake. Big mistake. The localized damage, the plane falling to the ground are indicative of a slow speed accident. Even the planes on 9/11 were not able to reach 607 mph on 9/11. No pilot would fly his plane past 355 knots, and the only possible accident considered was slow speed. This is due to the fact this is the only accident you can have at 1300 feet and in the fog. It is called an accident. They did not plan on someone flying on purpose at high speed into the WTC.

I like how you quibble with no real source for 607. The 607 mph error has not been corrected because no one understands it. If you insist on being unable to learn, that is your problem. Your paper now has an error anyone can understand if you they do the simple research. Pilots see your error right off if they think about 1300 feet.

I now know why you paper is not in a real journal. Ignore Robertson, the lead engineer. I think it also shows your paper is not peer reviewed very well. I am just a simple engineer and a pilot, I became and engineer to be more valuable to the USAF so I would have an edge being a pilot candidate. The scam worked. The air force even sent me for my Masters. I am giving you the best, albeit rough, information to correct your paper. Peer review. Funny thing is, Gravy can beat me and you at this but you quibble about how he can do it. So when so we have this paper in a real journal?

[QUOTE][COLOR=black]Top speed below 10,000 feet is 250 knots, by regulation. Top speed of airframe at 1300 feet is 355 knots, the plane starts to fall apart above this speed.

Not in level flight it won't. They really won't fall apart as they are overdesigned for eventualities like this. However, you will overstress them and significantly shorten their fatigue life. Any aircraft that was overstressed like this would then require significant inspection and may even be taken out of service as you probably know.

Speed lost in the fog for landing with flaps down 180 mph. The design is the slow speed because there is no reason the plane would be at 1300 feet except for landing. Case double, triple closed. No 607 is not possible at 1300 feet since they did not design for terrorist.

How about the plane that crashed in Queens in November 2001 when it lost its tail. That was 10 to 15 miles after takeoff.

Thrust for the 707 please? You said it was more than a 757. Would you like to retract that or produce the facts?Four 18,000 lb. thrust engines on a 707-320B for a total of 72,000 lbs. The 767-200ER had either 60,000 or 62,000 lbs. total depending on whether GE or Pratt and Whitney engines were used.

[beachnut]

I have read that there were two design studies on this issue. One in early 1964 and one at the end of the year. I seriously doubt that a journalist would hear about the white paper and then go and look at the Boeing site and substitute the cruise speed numbers. That is a stretch. I didn't just go to the Boeing site. I had read about the white paper and Skilling's comments.

You know what Beachnut, you sound like a nice guy and I really don't want to be arguing in a nasty way with you. I don't know exactly where you are but I am on the East Coast and it is 1:44 AM and I am going to bed so I'll talk to you later.
You do not have a paper to show 607, due to the fact 607 is not possible for the 707 at 1300 feet. Why would someone do a study for a speed not used at 1300 feet? Why would someone use a bad number for a study?

Show us the white paper with a speed the 707 can not do at 1300 feet. I like this engineering stuff. I am good at it.

The thrust for a 767 is 126k pounds. The 707 is only 76k. oops. Like the 607 mph, you made a mistake on the thrust.

Robertson is the lead engineer, or am I reading this wrong? http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument please read it again for content. and this too for info. http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1349

Are you even reading the stuff I am trying to help you on?

You know what Beachnut, you sound like a nice guy and I really don't want to be arguing in a nasty way with you.Then fix your paper.

[TjW]

The discussion of the aircraft speed was actually in the white paper dated February 3, 1964 which discusses the analysis Skilling was referring to and described the findings of the analysis: “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.”

The assumption that the white paper of 1964 is what Skilling was talking about in 1993 was an assumption made by NIST. It is not anything he actually says in the 1993 interview.
So, two questions:

Do you have a pointer to the 1964 white paper?
Are you now on record as agreeing with NIST's assumptions?

[Gravy]

Robertson is the lead engineer, or am I reading this wrong?Don't doubt yourself when realcddeal is around. The odds of him being right and you wrong are always vastly in your favor. Robertson was the Engineer of Record for the Twin Towers. There is absolutely nothing secret about that.

[ref]

Skilling and Robertson worked closely on WTC project, and for the same firm, called Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson.

"Yamasaki and engineers John Skilling and Les Robertson worked closely, and the relationship between the towers' design and structure was clear. Faced with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extended across to a central core."
http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm

I think Skilling was a bit more known at the time.

[AZCat]

Robertson was the Engineer of Record for the Twin Towers.

And that is the most important thing, IMO. Nobody would put their stamp on construction documents for a project like the WTC towers without being intimately familiar with the design because the liability falls on the registrant's shoulders, not those of the other members of the project team.

[Tony Szamboti]

[QUOTE=beachnut;2858961]No, the 707 is limited to 355 KCAS at 1300 feet. That is not 607, case closed.
You have no paper, you have a mistake. Big mistake. The localized damage, the plane falling to the ground are indicative of a slow speed accident. Even the planes on 9/11 were not able to reach 607 mph on 9/11. No pilot would fly his plane past 355 knots, and the only possible accident considered was slow speed. This is due to the fact this is the only accident you can have at 1300 feet and in the fog. It is called an accident. They did not plan on someone flying on purpose at high speed into the WTC.

I like how you quibble with no real source for 607. The 607 mph error has not been corrected because no one understands it. If you insist on being unable to learn, that is your problem. Your paper now has an error anyone can understand if you they do the simple research. Pilots see your error right off if they think about 1300 feet.

I now know why you paper is not in a real journal. Ignore Robertson, the lead engineer. I think it also shows your paper is not peer reviewed very well. I am just a simple engineer and a pilot, I became and engineer to be more valuable to the USAF so I would have an edge being a pilot candidate. The scam worked. The air force even sent me for my Masters. I am giving you the best, albeit rough, information to correct your paper. Peer review. Funny thing is, Gravy can beat me and you at this but you quibble about how he can do it. So when so we have this paper in a real journal?



Not in level flight it won't. They really won't fall apart as they are overdesigned for eventualities like this. However, you will overstress them and significantly shorten their fatigue life. Any aircraft that was overstressed like this would then require significant inspection and may even be taken out of service as you probably know.



How about the plane that crashed in Queens in November 2001 when it lost its tail. That was 10 to 15 miles after takeoff.

Four 18,000 lb. thrust engines on a 707-320B for a total of 72,000 lbs. The 767-200ER had either 60,000 or 62,000 lbs. total depending on whether GE or Pratt and Whitney engines were used.

You are right on this one as far as the thrust. Each of the two engines of the 767-200ER was 60,000 or 62,000 for a total of 120,000 to 124,000. That still does not change the impact design speed or that it only would have been considered for landing aircraft. There are many scenarios which would have been considered and a worst case analysis is what would be used in a hazard analysis if it was not cost prohibitive or unachievable. Neither of those were the case as the towers obviously survived the hits they took on Sept. 11, 2001 and NIST even says their theory is due to fire causing the collapse and that if it weren't for loss of fireproffing the towers would still be standing.

The February 3, 1964 white paper exists and it states the towers were designed to survive the impact of a fully loaded 707 moving at 600 MPH. I find it interesting that a second analysis was supposedly done by Leslie Robertson for which he has no proof where he says it was for a plane lost in the fog and doing 180 MPH.

The only reason I put the aircraft kinetic energy part in my paper is to show that the buildings could take the hits and survive, which they did. This entire argument is thus moot.

[Tony Szamboti]

The assumption that the white paper of 1964 is what Skilling was talking about in 1993 was an assumption made by NIST. It is not anything he actually says in the 1993 interview.
So, two questions:

Do you have a pointer to the 1964 white paper?
Are you now on record as agreeing with NIST's assumptions?

Most of the sections of the NIST report were put together by honorable scientists and engineers who had no reason to and would not lie. I believe the conclusions of the report are what is flawed, which were put together by political appointees of the Bush administration.

[TjW]

Most of the sections of the NIST report were put together by honorable scientists and engineers who had no reason to and would not lie. I believe the conclusions of the report are what is flawed, which were put together by political appointees of the Bush administration.

Is this a polite way of telling me that you don't have a pointer to the white paper?

[ZENSMACK89]

Gravy does not need an engineering degree to show you are a shallow researcher with bogus ideas on 9/11. You do that job yourself. You call people propagandists. Gravy? I bet Gravy is laughing at my attempt to organize facts to show your paper is full of hearsay and false information. You are a propagandist saying CD without proof or evidence and having false data in you paper. And it is sad you are an engineer with such junk. Gravy has more knowledge and is being polite to you.

I doubt you could sell Gravy an official story. He has a little more than some "official" story. You can't even touch the truth, you lack the facts to stand on. Gravy could beat me on this peer review, and you would learn something if you were not so thick.
Do you mean you never asked Gravy for his own personal calculations like you ask truthers? How come?

Speaking of Peer review AND your friend Greening, can you tell me if your hero really stated the following?

"I have a personal e-mail FROM A VERY RESPECTED PROFFESOR OF ENGINEERING at an AMERICAN UNIVERSITY in which he notes that his attempts to publish his research into the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 in US and British journals has been blocked. This means work disputing NIST's findings is nowhere to be found because it is simply being censored by over-cautious editors!" -Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 91

I mean since you take his word as Gospell. And here’s some more.

"NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST's collapse theory falls apart. The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory" -Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 92

"The truth about 9/11 is too important to declare the matter closed just because NIST have written a book or two on it. NIST themselves call their version of the truth an HYPOTHESIS. Does that preclude the consideration of other hypotheses? Is it the NIST apologists' plan to keep up the nay-saying until they silence any dissenting voices and declare: "CASE CLOSED!" Well, sorry to tell you, it won't work!" -Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg.102

[Tony Szamboti]

Is this a polite way of telling me that you don't have a pointer to the white paper?

Are you saying you don't believe that the February 3, 1964 white paper exists?

[TjW]

Are you saying you don't believe that the February 3, 1964 white paper exists?

No. I am politely asking -- this is the third time -- for a pointer to it. If you don't have such a pointer, simply say so.

[Tony Szamboti]

No. I am politely asking -- this is the third time -- for a pointer to it. If you don't have such a pointer, simply say so.

Read Paul Tompson's 911 Timeline.

[beachnut]

[quote=realcddeal;2859013]

You are right on this one as far as the thrust. Each of the two engines of the 767-200ER was 60,000 or 62,000 for a total of 120,000 to 124,000. That still does not change the impact design speed or that it only would have been considered for landing aircraft. There are many scenarios which would have been considered and a worst case analysis is what would be used in a hazard analysis if it was not cost prohibitive or unachievable. Neither of those were the case as the towers obviously survived the hits they took on Sept. 11, 2001 and NIST even says their theory is due to fire causing the collapse and that if it weren't for loss of fireproffing the towers would still be standing.

The February 3, 1964 white paper exists and it states the towers were designed to survive the impact of a fully loaded 707 moving at 600 MPH. I find it interesting that a second analysis was supposedly done by Leslie Robertson for which he has no proof where he says it was for a plane lost in the fog and doing 180 MPH.

The only reason I put the aircraft kinetic energy part in my paper is to show that the buildings could take the hits and survive, which they did. This entire argument is thus moot.
If there ever was a white paper it has the slow speed 707. For the nth time, 707 do not go 607 mph at 1300 feet. No the towers did not survive the impacts as per design. The design of survival was slow speed. 9/11 impacts were high speeds.

I have shown if planned for, even I as an engineer could have see the high speed aircraft going to the core and dooming the buildings. You are taking BS and making more BS.

I have shown to rational people, the top speed of a 707 is 355 knots at 1300 feet, but by law the speed at 1300 feet is 250 to 200 knots.

I can add it is illegal for planes to fly over the city within 1000 feet or 2000 feet of any object. This is why an accident would only happen in the fog at landing for a large airliner. Sorry, but why are you not able to correct your paper, you finally got close on the thrust. Why did you say the 707 had more thrust than the 767? What is the point, oh, the speed thing, you think thrust and speed have something to do with this. As you see on 9/11 not one plane made 607 mph, because they fly like crap at 607 mph at 1300 feet and will be damaged. But you see the 767 is almost twice as capable at acceleration , so if the 707 had been used on 9/11 they would have been slower at impact due to pilot technique. Plus the 707 airframe has some nasty dutch roll properties and the pilots could loose control and crash. You try to cling to anything to support your conclusions.

I have show the lead engineer used a slow speed impact to show the towers would survive an accidental plane hit. OVER and OVER.

You have hearsay, a white paper no one can produce about a plane impact which everyone latches on to the top speed of a 707 of 600 mph, when it is a speed a 707 does not achieve at 1300 feet. You use the hearsay 607 mph, you looked it up at Boeing. I told you what it means, and you just go along your merry way like the thrust, just made up. I think it marks your paper as junk when you make such gross errors.

The white paper you talk about is the slow speed impact. Only idiots in the press or others have added the speed just like you did with me by going to Boeing and seeing 607 mph. You told me you went to Boeing and the speed was confirmed. You twit, just like news people getting an error in ever thing they do, (sometimes), you have fallen for the errors of ignorance and poor research. You actually take hearsay and use it. HEARSAY does not make if fact, no matter how many idiots repeat it. I understand the 600 mph is an honest mistake for some, but for you it is blatant disregard and dishonest now that you have more information.

Information is as stated many times. Lead engineer says slow speed. 600 mph is not a realistic speed for a 707, and unlike you Robertson used an actual realistic accident for the design. Not some engine stuck stupid idiots made up dribble that has me laughing on the floor and thinking you must be the idiot with the stuck throttle in his car and you do not turn off the engine. You lack the motivation to turn off the engine of you imaginary screwed up CD conclusion and you think even the impacts of the jets on 9/11 were not as they should have been due to some white paper and misstatements of the press and other to replicate the number you know is wrong.

Funny, it is funny how you confirmed to me how others have added 600 mph through the years. They heard of a white paper for impact of 707. They do not have the paper so they go to the Boeing site and use 600 mph and the weight there. Go to wiki and get another speed then. Why use 600? I was wondering so I asked Robertson. I have make it available to you with real sources.

http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1349 (http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1349) lead engineer. Read it.

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument#Author (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument#Author) this is first hand. FIRST HAND. THIS IS WHAT THE LEAD ENGINEER TELLS US, in his OWN WORDS. This is the basis for the white paper you can not find. The white paper who people added 600 mph by mistake. You know the news people always make errors, and we have to use our heads and correct them.

Oh, your cooperative research pages, they are also making up the 600 mph on their own. John or Les never said anything about it.

You had the thrust wrong, like you have the speed wrong. Nice job. Hey if you want to use 607 mph for a slow speed accident in the fog after I have shown the lead engineer said you are wrong. Have at it. Your paper has major flaws, this is a small correctable error, the rest of your flaws are so bad your paper is doomed forever to the woo web site of the journal of woo. After working with some of the top PhDs in the world, you are like a kid in grade school saying you are right. 607 mph is just one red flag of woo for your paper of woo.

Your comprehension is abysmal, you research (like the thrust) is horrible. Your research is to support your conclusion. You only use items to support your flawed conclusion. Your paper sucks. I have shown your inability to be rational and use what the lead engineer tells you.

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html Dr. Griffin’s full article ‘The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True” This has to go too. You can not have a bunch of tripe and hearsay crap in a real paper. Your paper would be lucky to make the political tripe section of a standard library. Please tell me you did not place a reference to Griffin's work in your paper? OMG, this is not really a mechanical engineering paper at all. It is a hearsay compilation of tripe published at the journal of 9/11 false information, which was started when Jones was fired for going nuts over thermite and because he wanted a "journal" to publish his tripe and tripe like yours.

I guess you are not a nice guy, but just a hearsay, poor research mechanical engineer who for some reason can not make changes to his error ridden paper. You will never have this paper in a real journal?


Want to be fighter pilot beachy on speeding in a 707 variant. I was going .9 MACH for 3 hours to make the next mission. My wingman, was a few miles behind. .9 was the top speed, I could feel the slight buzz and some tuck down on the nose when the aircraft moved a little, I was careful and read to slow down, a tuck under would make us exceed the speed and loose control (at least I thought, and was worried, my crew would be pissed) the wingman was behind us, no way he can catch us. In the descent we picked up 355 KIAS as the KIAS came up to match the .9 mach, the indicated airspeed was like 275 at 36,000 feet or 39,000 feet. As we saw the base and descended we had to slow the MACH and pick up the 355KIAS as the top speed, when were reached 1000 feet we were lined up with the runway and going 355 KIAS. Our ground crew was watching and have never seen 355 knots at 1000 feet or lower, and we pitched out like a fighter over the center of the runway going max speed for a 707 variant, 355 knots. The ground crew loved it. The pilot behind us had caught us, but that meant he over-sped his aircraft catching us. Oops, he had delaminate his skin under one wing, the ground crew was livid. He had only exceed the top speed by a fraction of 355 top speed and suffered damage. We were not able to go 607 mph at 1300 feet in a 707. Why?

Citing Griffin's work in your "journal" paper makes it perfect for http://www.journalof911studies.com/ (http://www.journalof911studies.com/) , the journal for lies about 9/11. Not to mention your fairy tale 607 mph. I would love to see you try it in a 707, 607 mph at 1300 feet as the elevator delaminates. What is that large buzz you are feeling? Oops the nose is tucking, oops I see the ground coming up. 607 mph in your old 707 as your aircraft skin rips off and pieces leave. Bye bye

[Tony Szamboti]

[quote=realcddeal;2859869]
If there ever was a white paper it has the slow speed 707. For the nth time, 707 do not go 607 mph at 1300 feet. No the towers did not survive the impacts as per design. The design of survival was slow speed. 9/11 impacts were high speeds.

I have shown if planned for, even I as an engineer could have see the high speed aircraft going to the core and dooming the buildings. You are taking BS and making more BS.

I have shown to rational people, the top speed of a 707 is 355 knots at 1300 feet, but by law the speed at 1300 feet is 250 to 200 knots.

I can add it is illegal for planes to fly over the city within 1000 feet or 2000 feet of any object. This is why an accident would only happen in the fog at landing for a large airliner. Sorry, but why are you not able to correct your paper, you finally got close on the thrust. Why did you say the 707 had more thrust than the 767? What is the point, oh, the speed thing, you think thrust and speed have something to do with this. As you see on 9/11 not one plane made 607 mph, because they fly like crap at 607 mph at 1300 feet and will be damaged. But you see the 767 is almost twice as capable at acceleration , so if the 707 had been used on 9/11 they would have been slower at impact due to pilot technique. Plus the 707 airframe has some nasty dutch roll properties and the pilots could loose control and crash. You try to cling to anything to support your conclusions.

I have show the lead engineer used a slow speed impact to show the towers would survive an accidental plane hit. OVER and OVER.

You have hearsay, a white paper no one can produce about a plane impact which everyone latches on to the top speed of a 707 of 600 mph, when it is a speed a 707 does not achieve at 1300 feet. You use the hearsay 607 mph, you looked it up at Boeing. I told you what it means, and you just go along your merry way like the thrust, just made up. I think it marks your paper as junk when you make such gross errors.

The white paper you talk about is the slow speed impact. Only idiots in the press or others have added the speed just like you did with me by going to Boeing and seeing 607 mph. You told me you went to Boeing and the speed was confirmed. You twit, just like news people getting an error in ever thing they do, (sometimes), you have fallen for the errors of ignorance and poor research. You actually take hearsay and use it. HEARSAY does not make if fact, no matter how many idiots repeat it. I understand the 600 mph is an honest mistake for some, but for you it is blatant disregard and dishonest now that you have more information.

Information is as stated many times. Lead engineer says slow speed. 600 mph is not a realistic speed for a 707, and unlike you Robertson used an actual realistic accident for the design. Not some engine stuck stupid idiots made up dribble that has me laughing on the floor and thinking you must be the idiot with the stuck throttle in his car and you do not turn off the engine. You lack the motivation to turn off the engine of you imaginary screwed up CD conclusion and you think even the impacts of the jets on 9/11 were not as they should have been due to some white paper and misstatements of the press and other to replicate the number you know is wrong.

Funny, it is funny how you confirmed to me how others have added 600 mph through the years. They heard of a white paper for impact of 707. They do not have the paper so they go to the Boeing site and use 600 mph and the weight there. Go to wiki and get another speed then. Why use 600? I was wondering so I asked Robertson. I have make it available to you with real sources.

http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1349 (http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1349) lead engineer. Read it.

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument#Author (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument#Author) this is first hand. FIRST HAND. THIS IS WHAT THE LEAD ENGINEER TELLS US, in his OWN WORDS. This is the basis for the white paper you can not find. The white paper who people added 600 mph by mistake. You know the news people always make errors, and we have to use our heads and correct them.

Oh, your cooperative research pages, they are also making up the 600 mph on their own. John or Les never said anything about it.

You had the thrust wrong, like you have the speed wrong. Nice job. Hey if you want to use 607 mph for a slow speed accident in the fog after I have shown the lead engineer said you are wrong. Have at it. Your paper has major flaws, this is a small correctable error, the rest of your flaws are so bad your paper is doomed forever to the woo web site of the journal of woo. After working with some of the top PhDs in the world, you are like a kid in grade school saying you are right. 607 mph is just one red flag of woo for your paper of woo.

Your comprehension is abysmal, you research (like the thrust) is horrible. Your research is to support your conclusion. You only use items to support your flawed conclusion. Your paper sucks. I have shown your inability to be rational and use what the lead engineer tells you.

This has to go too. You can not have a bunch of tripe and hearsay crap in a real paper. Your paper would be lucky to make the political tripe section of a standard library. Please tell me you did not place a reference to Griffin's work in your paper? OMG, this is not really a mechanical engineering paper at all. It is a hearsay compilation of tripe published at the journal of 9/11 false information, which was started when Jones was fired for going nuts over thermite and because he wanted a "journal" to publish his tripe and tripe like yours.

I guess you are not a nice guy, but just a hearsay, poor research mechanical engineer who for some reason can not make changes to his error ridden paper. You will never have this paper in a real journal?


Citing Griffin's work in your "journal" paper makes it perfect for http://www.journalof911studies.com/ (http://www.journalof911studies.com/) , the journal for lies about 9/11. Not to mention your fairy tale 607 mph. I would love to see you try it in a 707, 607 mph at 1300 feet as the elevator delaminates. What is that large buzz you are feeling? Oops the nose is tucking, oops I see the ground coming up. 607 mph in your old 707 as your aircraft skin rips off and pieces leave. Bye bye

I was an aircraft mechanic in the U.S. Navy in the late 1970's and we had accidents where pilots were killed due to throttle linkage having a problem. So laugh on the floor all you want while you deny reality. While these problems are rare they do happen and those of us who actually design things for a living have to take them into account.

There is nothing to fix in my paper, that you have shown, as the 600 MPH hit design is real and your attempt to refute it by saying people misrepresented it is itself repudiated by the February 3, 1964 white paper, which contains the words that the towers were designed to take a hit from a fully loaded 707 moving at 600 MPH.

You have shown your true intent, which was simply to try to find any possible error to smear my paper. The problem for you is that even with all of your obfuscation you weren't quite able to do it. I may have made a minor mistake in discussion here, but it had nothing to do with my paper. You have also been mistaken in your insistence that the WTC towers would have been designed for an impact from planes that were only intending to land and moving only at 180 MPH. It is very interesting that Leslie Robertson has nothing to back up his statement of the landing plane moving at 180 MPH impact design. It is also very interesting that due to the existence of the February 3, 1964 white paper which says fully loaded 707 moving at 600 MPH, he needs to say he did another analysis later in 1964, which he has no proof of. Why would he need to do another analysis when a slower hit would have been enveloped by the first? If there had been a design change due to the 600 MPH hit being too costly to build for NIST would have said that there was a design change. Even you admit the buildings survived over 50 MPH hits so there couldn't have been a design change. Your thinking process is not rational if you don't question things like this and the NIST director's theory is fire induced collapse due to dislodged fireproofing. They even say the buildings would still be standing if it wasn't for the fireproofing being missing. Bye, Bye, to you also Beachnut. It is off to Ignore you go.

[beachnut]

[quote=beachnut;2860231]

I was an aircraft mechanic in the U.S. Navy in the late 1970's and we had accidents where pilots were killed due to throttle linkage having a problem. So laugh on the floor all you want while you deny reality. While these problems are rare they do happen and those of us who actually design things for a living have to take them into account.

There is nothing to fix in my paper, that you have shown, as the 600 MPH hit design is real and your attempt to refute it by saying people misrepresented it is itself repudiated by the February 3, 1964 white paper, which contains the words that the towers were designed to take a hit from a fully loaded 707moving at 600 MPH.

You have shown your true intent, which was simply to try to find any possible error to smear my paper. The problem for you is that even with all of your obfuscation you weren't quite able to do it. I may have made a minor mistake in discussion here, but it had nothing to do with my paper. You have also been mistaken in your insistence that the WTC towers would have been designed for an impact from planes that were only intending to land and moving only at 180 MPH. It is very interesting that Leslie Robertson has nothing to back up his statement of the landing plane moving at 180 MPH impact design. It is also very interesting that due to the existence of the February 3, 1964 white paper which says fully loaded 707 moving at 600 MPH, he needs to say he did another analysis later in 1964, which he has no proof of. Why would he need to do another analysis? Your thinking process is not rational if you don't question things like this. Bye, Bye, to you also Beachnut. It is off to Ignore you go.
You were the mechanic. Now I understand throttle linkage problems (if your work in the Navy was as bad as your paper, I can see why you have seen major problem with planes). But since the pilot can shut down the engine, unless you messed up the fuel shut off system too, your fantasy ideas are just BS. Make up some more BS ideas on plane malfunctions that have hit buildings. Come on, name the most likely reason planes hit building in NYC, besides terrorist. Weather. Lost in the fog. Damn, Robertson said it for you and you are now calling me and Robertson a liar. You are the a big quibbler. You make up the most ridiculous accident scenarios I have seen. I would expect an engineer to be grounded some in reality. The building you want is in Egypt, it is almost solid stone, not a lot of office space to rent out.

When I first hear on the radio the WTC was hit by a plane, I turned on the TV to see the accident in the fog or bad weather. It was the best flying day, clear, it was not an accident. The most likely accident is what Robertson design would stand up to, and multiple times. But as seen on 9/11, impacts at high speed are fatal for many reasons. You can quibble all you want and say the impact did not bring them down, and the fire could not do it. Or any combination of rationalization. But the impact of planes brought the WTC down. Without high speed impacts you have no towers falling. I have millions of engineers who will agree in part with me. You are one of 0.00067 percent of all engineers who are so far gone, you joined the most fictional group of liars I have seen on a topic so easy to show them wrong, millions of engineers just think you guys are nut cases.

A fully loaded 707 can only do 607 mph at 29,000 feet, a far cry from 1300 feet. Wrong again, for the nth time. The only real threat was a aircraft lost in the fog, I have to agree from a pilots point of view. You do not even grasp the pilot issues I have presented for why the most likely accident is during landing.

Show me the white paper. You cite woo time line sites who will not correct their hearsay errors. You cite a person with as much woo as you. The 600 mph is hearsay and in error. I have shown you why, and you have shown me how you can make the same error. You took your great mind over to Boeing and like a little kid you said, "Boeing says 607 mph", you were so proud. Little tony found some baloney from Boeing out of context for 1300 feet. Wow, I am impressed when my own thesis comes to pass. You, like many, have made the 600 mph error, by not using experts to guide you. That is what real PEER REVIEW is about. Correcting errors. But you whole paper is an error. I look forward to people, if they want to waste time, ripping your paper apart as they find it.

Plane landing in the fog is at 180 mph, not 607 mph, the flaps will not handle 607 mph, LOL funny stuff.

I am not finding errors, I was trying to help you make rational corrections to a hearsay paper, to make it real. Your paper sucks.

From the young naive kid who just wanted to fly, your paper sucks. I can not believe you try to pass that BS as a "journal" paper. Anyone else see anything rational in his paper, he is too ashamed to even take credit for it?

You are right, there is nothing to fix in you papers, it is a total redo.

[beachnut]

You have also been mistaken in your insistence that the WTC towers would have been designed for an impact from planes that were only intending to land and moving only at 180 MPH. It is very interesting that Leslie Robertson has nothing to back up his statement of the landing plane moving at 180 MPH impact design.
Here is what the lead structural engineer said – Leslie E. Robertson, , said: ... , 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). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)

Darn, that is my white paper, baby.

Why are you unable to understand "slow-flying". Ask a pilot, 180 mph is not real slow, but it fits the "slow-flying"

No I am helping you not make an error. The 707 does not do 607 mph at 1300 feet, it is just a fact. And take what Robertson, the lead engineer said, and you have the realdeal mr realcddeal. Ironic name, ironic paper, ironic post.

If anyone does not know Robertson here is some info - http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1349

So why am I wrong, again. Oh, realcddeal says so? Some facts please. Oh, a white paper? Please show me the white paper and stop bringing up hearsay. Can you stop the hearsay, I have.

[beachnut]

Speaking of Peer review AND your friend Greening, can you tell me if your hero really stated the following?

"I have a personal e-mail FROM A VERY RESPECTED PROFFESOR OF ENGINEERING at an AMERICAN UNIVERSITY in which he notes that his attempts to publish his research into the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 in US and British journals has been blocked. This means work disputing NIST's findings is nowhere to be found because it is simply being censored by over-cautious editors!" -Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 91

I mean since you take his word as Gospell. And here’s some more.

"NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST's collapse theory falls apart. The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory" -Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 92

"The truth about 9/11 is too important to declare the matter closed just because NIST have written a book or two on it. NIST themselves call their version of the truth an HYPOTHESIS. Does that preclude the consideration of other hypotheses? Is it the NIST apologists' plan to keep up the nay-saying until they silence any dissenting voices and declare: "CASE CLOSED!" Well, sorry to tell you, it won't work!" -Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg.102
I think you have big problems with logical thinking, rational thought and judgment.

I think taking Dr Greenings work as the truth is not a good idea if you lack the ability to understand it, and check to see it is correct. This is were I am lucky to at least have the training in engineering, a masters degree, to check it myself. Plus I use other source to check his assumptions and numbers. When I am satisfied his work is sound I use it. I doubt anyone wants to see my work, my only journal works were with PhDs and young engineers, and behavioral scientists who were much smarter than I, I am one of the Et al you would see on the work. I have not even thought about it until now, that I have been one of the Et al in a published journal. I need to add that to my resume.

But, with my crud calculations and logic, I agree the work of Dr Greening showing Global Collapse possible is sound. You disagree and attack him with this junk. What is your point?

Dr Greening also thinks there should be more study on the fine details of things 9/11. It is his learned opinion. So? I can not comment on his other stuff, I have not studied. But his work with others on the collapse mechanism is OKAY. What is your ridiculous point?

If you could correct the errors in Ross's work, it would show what Dr Greening did is correct. Ross's work proves Global Collapse is possible, when you correct his errors. Why are you unable to see? Why are you not able to do real research to solve real problems. If you spent as much time researching 9/11 facts, as you do trying to attack BS issues, you would understand 9/11.

What is your point? Got those numbers yet? I can see you and Ross now on the 99th floor going, don't worry, I have calculations showing there will be no global colllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll........

[ZENSMACK89]

I think you have big problems with logical thinking, rational thought and judgment.

I think taking Dr Greenings work as the truth is not a good idea if you lack the ability to understand it, and check to see it is correct. This is were I am lucky to at least have the training in engineering, a masters degree, to check it myself. Plus I use other source to check his assumptions and numbers. When I am satisfied his work is sound I use it. I doubt anyone wants to see my work, my only journal works were with PhDs and young engineers, and behavioral scientists who were much smarter than I, I am one of the Et al you would see on the work. I have not even thought about it until now, that I have been one of the Et al in a published journal. I need to add that to my resume.

But, with my crud calculations and logic, I agree the work of Dr Greening showing Global Collapse possible is sound. You disagree and attack him with this junk. What is your point?

Dr Greening also thinks there should be more study on the fine details of things 9/11. It is his learned opinion. So? I can not comment on his other stuff, I have not studied. But his work with others on the collapse mechanism is OKAY. What is your ridiculous point?

If you could correct the errors in Ross's work, it would show what Dr Greening did is correct. Ross's work proves Global Collapse is possible, when you correct his errors. Why are you unable to see? Why are you not able to do real research to solve real problems. If you spent as much time researching 9/11 facts, as you do trying to attack BS issues, you would understand 9/11.

What is your point? Got those numbers yet? I can see you and Ross now on the 99th floor going, don't worry, I have calculations showing there will be no global colllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll........
Why did you cut my first sentence out when you were quoting my post? lol

I gave you Ross's numbers. Having trouble with them? Maybe you should use a clean napkin and start over.

I get it. You throw up Greening when he supports your predetermined conclusions based on nothing, but if he disagrees with your beliefs then he's wrong.

Thanks for clearing it up.

[beachnut]

Why did you cut my first sentence out when you were quoting my post? lolWhy did I not ask Gravy to do the numbers? I think most rational people understand 9/11 without numbers. You think Ross's work is good, you missed his errors, and thus you actually support Global Collapse by gravity. ( I think Gravy can beat me and you without numbers, So?)

I gave you Ross's numbers. Having trouble with them? Maybe you should use a clean napkin and start over. Oops, I did, they are still wrong and I posted a web site from Newton Bits who confirms the errors. Darn two to zero. (Go ahead support the work of Ross against the errors reported in the work I posted, take your time)

I get it. You throw up Greening when he supports your predetermined conclusions based on nothing, but if he disagrees with your beliefs then he's wrong.I never have said anything about Greening's stuff you posted. It does not mean anything to 9/11 facts. I can detect opinions vs actually math and engineering work. You have a problem with that. Go back to school.

Thanks for clearing it up.Thank you.

[Newtons Bit]

Gordon Ross agreed to the disputation that pomeroo set up. Greening and RMackey and Newtons Bit all said no.

Whos running from who again?

This is ONLY about the latest paper by Bazant and Dr. Greening. In engineering, I cannot stand by someone elses work until I own it. I don't have the time to do that with that paper. I would be all for a "disputation" about the actual collapse. I'm not going to try and defend someone elses paper.

In an e-mail I informed Dr. Jones that I had challenged you to write a critiquing letter of my paper. I am sure it would be published, as was Newton's Bit's letter concerning his critique of one of Gordon Ross' papers.

Jones declined to publish my second letter which actually refutes Ross' paper and shows that global collapse, even with Ross's extremely conservative assumptions, cannot be resisted. Explain that. Oh, that's right, they couldn't wave their hand and say "show us calculations" like they did with my first letter. Well, I did show the calculations. And it they can't refute my calculations so they ignored them. Explain that. They're a bunch of frauds.

They regularly they use "factors of safety" and other information they can't back up. So they claim they're experts in the field of structural engineering. They're not. If they were to sharpen their pencils and actually do the real numbers they would reach real conclusions. But they don't. They hide in subterfuge and shadows of fake numbers because they're afraid of real results.

[Tony Szamboti]

This is ONLY about the latest paper by Bazant and Dr. Greening. In engineering, I cannot stand by someone elses work until I own it. I don't have the time to do that with that paper.


Jones declined to publish my second letter which actually refutes Ross' paper and shows that global collapse, even with Ross's extremely conservative assumptions, cannot be resisted. Explain that. Oh, that's right, they couldn't wave their hand and say "show us calculations". Well, I did. And it they can't refute my calculations so they ignored them. Explain that. They're a bunch of frauds.

I didn't know you had a letter declined. How could I?

What reason did he give for declining it?

[Newtons Bit]

I didn't know you had a letter declined. How could I?

What reason did he give for declining it?

I should note (while traveling) that Trevor S has already had a letter published (anonymous, at his request) and a response from Gordon Ross published. Another exchange could be published if the first response is thoroughly addressed, but I should add that Prof. Kenneth Kuttler in a separate letter arrives at conclusions similar to those reached by Gordon Ross-- depending on the safety factor designed and built into the Towers. It seems that at this stage, therefore, Trevor S would need to address both Gordon Ross and Kenneth Kuttler -- in particular, where is Prof. Kuttler's calculation wrong? (If indeed it is wrong.) Note also that in inelastic collisions, considerable energy will be carried away by sound and seismic vibrations and heating of the dust, a point that appears to have been overlooked by Trevor S.


This is the last message I received from the "journal". I sent a response to this email and it was not replied to. I have never heard anything from Ross except the letter that was published on the "journal".

You can read into that as you will. However, the particularly interesting part is where he thinks that sound, vibrations and heating of the dust is significant in a collision. Significant enough that it sinks ten times more energy than the buckling of all the massive columns (core and perimeter).

The only thing I've found that Kuttler did was calculations on collapse time, which isn't really relevant to the claims that Ross is making, namely that the collapse would self arrest. This is a claim that Jones does not want to see destroyed.

As far as you not knowing that, I had a post about this on the forums when I originally sent the letter to the "journal". It was probably before you started posting here.

[Tony Szamboti]

This is the last message I received from the "journal". I sent a response to this email and it was not replied to. I have never heard anything from Ross except the letter that was published on the "journal".

You can read into that as you will. However, the particularly interesting part is where he thinks that sound, vibrations and heating of the dust is significant in a collision. Significant enough that it sinks ten times more energy than the buckling of all the massive columns (core and perimeter).

The only thing I've found that Kuttler did was calculations on collapse time, which isn't really relevant to the claims that Ross is making, namely that the collapse would self arrest. This is a claim that Jones does not want to see destroyed.

As far as you not knowing that, I had a post about this on the forums when I originally sent the letter to the "journal". It was probably before you started posting here.

I would have to read your paper to fully appreciate the disagreement. Have you considered updating it to show what sort of levels of energy would be involved in vibration, sound, and heating during the pulverization of the concrete and wallboard in the towers?

[T.A.M.]

I fail to see why they would move the goal posts on the second letter you had already wrote prior to publishing it. They should have published it, and then allowed a third letter, if desired, with you addressing the new guy, Dr. Kuttler.

I smell a rat...and his name is S. Jones.

TAM:)

[Newtons Bit]

I would have to read your paper to fully appreciate the disagreement. Have you considered updating it to show what sort of levels of energy would be involved in vibration, sound, and heating during the pulverization of the concrete and wallboard in the towers?

The paper is at newtonsbit.blogspot.com Most of it is about the concept of buckling, which my first paper was about. Ross wanted to see calculations on how far off he was: 269% too large.

The point about inelastic buckling is in the third and second to last paragraph. Inelastic collisions are easily defined by conservation of momentum:

m1v1 = m2v2
where
m = mass at two different time periods (1 and 2)
v = velocity as corresponding time periods.

At these time periods, there is a kinetic energy 1/2 m*v^2. Since the mass and velocity are linearly dependent on each other in the conservation of momentum equal, there is a change in kinetic energy between the two time stamps.

To make a complicated subject seem simple: in an inelastic collision two objects basically become one and there is a change in kinetic energy (0.5*mass*velocity^2). This change in kinetic energy is equal to the strain energy exerted on the two objects. This available strain energy goes into the buckling of columns, the "dustification" of concrete, sound, heat, etc. If there is more change in kinetic energy than what the strain energy can exert, you just had a penetration (think bullet) or some other complicated issue.

For example, imagine two cars with equal mass and equal velocity colliding in a head on collision. Your common sense tells you that these cars will be brought to an almost complete and near-sudden stop with massive damage to the cars. The change in kinetic energy is equal to the energy on the cars, minus sound, head, vibrations, etc. Ross is trying to say in his paper that the change in momentum stops the cars but any additional damage should be done by explosives since there is no more available energy in the impact. It's downright ludicrous.

I will never address the "vibration, sound, and heating" because Ross does not. I'm keeping the same assumptions in his paper. He assumes they're insignificant and not worth addressing and so do I. If he thinks "vibration, sound, and heating" are significant, he needs to modify his paper. He won't though, because it's absurd to think that "vibration, sound, and heating" can cause any significant sink in energy. It's almost always completely neglected in engineering calculations because it's so tiny.

It's just a red herring.

[Tony Szamboti]

The paper is at newtonsbit.blogspot.com Most of it is about the concept of buckling, which my first paper was about. Ross wanted to see calculations on how far off he was: 269% too large.

The point about inelastic buckling is in the third and second to last paragraph. Inelastic collisions are easily defined by conservation of momentum:

m1v1 = m2v2
where
m = mass at two different time periods (1 and 2)
v = velocity as corresponding time periods.

At these time periods, there is a kinetic energy 1/2 m*v^2. Since the mass and velocity are linearly dependent on each other in the conservation of momentum equal, there is a change in kinetic energy between the two time stamps.

To make a complicated subject seem simple: in an inelastic collision two objects basically become one and there is a change in kinetic energy (0.5*mass*velocity^2). This change in kinetic energy is equal to the strain energy exerted on the two objects. This available strain energy goes into the buckling of columns, the "dustification" of concrete, sound, heat, etc. If there is more change in kinetic energy than what the strain energy can exert, you just had a penetration (think bullet) or some other complicated issue.

For example, imagine two cars with equal mass and equal velocity colliding in a head on collision. Your common sense tells you that these cars will be brought to an almost complete and near-sudden stop with massive damage to the cars. The change in kinetic energy is equal to the energy on the cars, minus sound, head, vibrations, etc. Ross is trying to say in his paper that the change in momentum stops the cars but any additional damage should be done by explosives since there is no more available energy in the impact. It's downright ludicrous.

I will never address the "vibration, sound, and heating" because Ross does not. I'm keeping the same assumptions in his paper. He assumes they're insignificant and not worth addressing and so do I. If he thinks "vibration, sound, and heating" are significant, he needs to modify his paper. He won't though, because it's absurd to think that "vibration, sound, and heating" can cause any significant sink in energy. It's almost always completely neglected in engineering calculations because it's so tiny.

It's just a red herring.

At first glance I would agree, as I wouldn't think the vibration, heat, and sound sink all that much energy either. However, I do think that if any somewhat simple calculation is possible that it should be done to show it by both yourself and Ross.

[Newtons Bit]

At first glance I would agree, as I wouldn't think the vibration, heat, and sound sink all that much energy either. However, I do think that if any somewhat simple calculation is possible that it should be done to show it by both yourself and Ross.

If it's simple, you should attempt it! It's not by specialty though.

[Furcifer]

Show me the paper. Only hearsay source say 607 mph, they got it from looking it up at Boeing and just putting it without thinking. Standard newspaper errors. Only a pilot/engineer would catch the error.

You are caught with an error and I have given you the lead engineer, Robertson saying and writing it out. Slow speed. I have also given you my experience why the speed is a good design parameter for the likely threat; and I do not doubt if you would listen to me, you could say it better.

There was a design study on a slow speed aircraft impact. The people who heard about it substituted the 607 mph by mistake in the reports and news sources. How did they get the number, they did what you did. They went to Boeing and produce the speed listed, 607 mph. I have told you over and over, that is a good speed at 29000 feet, not at 1300. The design was for the most likely aircraft accident possible. I have listed why it is the most likely scenario.

Well said and thought out. To borrow a phrase "Case Closed"

[CHF]

Even if the towers were built to take a 707 at 600mph, why do truthers act as if this therefor means there must have been a demolition?

The Titanic was built to be unsinkable. So....it didn't sink? There were bombs in the hull?

Newsflash to truthers: sometimes things don't work out the way they were designed to. That's the way life is.

[Furcifer]

However, I do think that if any somewhat simple calculation is possible that it should be done to show it by both yourself and Ross.

If you knew physics like you claim you do, you would have never written this statement. This is very telling of your level of understanding in this area.

[Tony Szamboti]

If you knew physics like you claim you do, you would have never written this statement. This is very telling of your level of understanding in this area.


Really! In making the statement you make, I have to wonder if you do engineering calculations for a living. I do and there are many cases where I have been able to quickly show in a rough order of magnitude way that something is negligible and that it is not necessary to go into any more detail. I was wondering if there was a way here. That is all. It has been my experience that sometimes one doesn't realize it until they look at the problem.

It sounds like you don't believe that has any chance of happening with this area. If that is true, do you care to expound on why not?

[Tony Szamboti]

Well said and thought out. To borrow a phrase "Case Closed"

No, the February 3, 1964 white paper, which describes the analysis done for an impact of a fully loaded 707 moving at 600 mph into the towers, is mentioned in the NIST report. The white paper exists and apparently NIST has seen it as they don't mention that it was hearsay. It seems they would have if they hadn't seen it since they do say they can't find the actual analysis, the findings of which the white paper describes.

[Gravy]

But...but...the towers did withstand the impacts. Your point, realcddeal?

[beachnut]

No, the February 3, 1964 white paper, which describes the analysis done for an impact of a fully loaded 707 moving at 600 mph into the towers, is mentioned in the NIST report. The white paper exists and apparently NIST has seen it as they don't mention that it was hearsay. It seems they would have if they hadn't seen it since they do say they can't find the actual analysis, the findings of which the white paper describes.
You would be a dork if you used a speed the 707 can not do at 1300 feet.

If you did the design at 600 mph you would have a building that did not fall. But since the impacts on 9/11 were ten times bigger than the slow speed impact study for the design, you are still wrong.

I have looked at your paper and it is full of errors. Chuck full of errors. Did you do that on purpose?

Let me remind you and the people you try to mislead!

The lead structural engineer - Leslie E. Robertson, "... our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). ... "
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)
Written by Robertson, oops, he is the source, he built the towers.

Everyone, Robertson said it was slow speed, not 600 mph and he built the WTC Towers! First hand, not hearsay of realcddeal, but the real deal from THE MAN!

YOU been peer reviewed! REDO

Looks like NIST got something wrong. Too bad for you as you try to back in your sorry sources. (you can not produce the white paper, that would be the calculations silly. The design was done for a slow speed landing plane, lost in the fog. Please explain why you messed up this simple thing. OH, I have a masters degree and actually really made decision that lives depended on. This could be why my research is more complete than your ERROR ridden tripe. You may not have a job if someone ever sees your paper full of errors.)

But your paper is still wrong. I have to go with the lead engineer on this one. Plus as I said the 707 can not go 600 mph at 1300 feet. Why are you learning challenged?

[ref]

But your paper is still wrong. I have to go with the lead engineer on this one. Plus as I said the 707 can not go 600 mph at 1300 feet. Why are you learning challenged?

I think their point is, that the towers were overdesigned to withstand an impact even up to 600mph, even if this speed is not physically possible for a 707. I have heard this one before. It is not exactly known what is the origin of this claim, was it exaggeration to calm down the critics, or were there actual calculations to prove it. Calculations have never been found.

Needless to say, the towers did withstand the plane impacts. So there is no point the truthers can make. In the 1993 interview, Skilling did not mention the speed of the aircraft.

As for the lead engineer, I would still say it is hard to say who it was. Skilling had his name even in the company name. He was known. I don't know, if it's known what the division of tasks between these two engineers was. But it makes no difference. We all saw what happened.

[Gravy]

The engineer of record for the towers was Les Robertson.

[ref]

The engineer of record for the towers was Les Robertson.

What does that mean in other words? My language skills are not good enough to understand that term..

[R.Mackey]

The engineer of record for the towers was Les Robertson.

What that means, for people who don't speak engineer, is that he was the "stuckee" on the design. Whether he did 99% of the design work or 1%, he's the one who certified that the structure met all safety and code requirements.

And that includes any requirement, government-imposed or customer-specified, about aircraft impact.

Leslie Robertson was the guy who stuck his neck and his license out, and signed on the dotted line that it met all the specs. That's what it means. It also means that nobody would know, better than him, what those requirements actually were.

Having reviewed the design and the cause of their destruction, it did indeed meet all the specs. The carnage would have been far, far worse if the Towers hadn't stood as long as they did. EOS.

[ref]

Ok, thanks Mackey and happy birthday :)

[beachnut]

I think their point is, that the towers were overdesigned to withstand an impact even up to 600mph, even if this speed is not physically possible for a 707. I have heard this one before. It is not exactly known what is the origin of this claim, was it exaggeration to calm down the critics, or were there actual calculations to prove it. Calculations have never been found. My point is the towers were not design to withstand a high speed impact. This is proven by statements form the lead engineer. They picked the most likely accident at the time. Slow speed lost in the fog, low fuel. I agree this is the most likely accident for the WTC. The high speed impacts were not in the design. No, the towers were not over designed to withstand the impact. They were designed to withstand the slow speed impact. I have to say the WTC fell due to the impact of high speed planes (and the entire system of events associated with a high speed impact of fuel laden jet). I agree this is very complicated, but if they designed for high speed they would be standing, fire systems would survive, stairwells would survive, or their backup systems would be in place. That is what design is about. I understand what you think they are saying, but they are really saying see, they were suppose to survive, but it was CD that did it. You understand what you are saying but you can not say the towers survived the impact, you can only say they stood long enough to save some people.

Needless to say, the towers did withstand the plane impacts. So there is no point the truthers can make. In the 1993 interview, Skilling did not mention the speed of the aircraft.No the towers did not survive the impacts. Survive a bullet wound means you are well and alive days later, years later. The towers fell due to high speed impacts of aircraft. If the speeds had been close to 180 mph to 220 mph the WTC towers would be here.

As for the lead engineer, I would still say it is hard to say who it was. Skilling had his name even in the company name. He was known. I don't know, if it's known what the division of tasks between these two engineers was. But it makes no difference. We all saw what happened.Robertson is the man. He put his signature of the line. He is responsible and understands the WTC towers. He says slow speed, I have to agree, after doing simple energy models of the towers, anyone can see why the towers would survive a slow speed impact and were doomed when the speed goes up.

This not trivial, the impacts on 9/11 were 7 to 11 times greater than design, that is significant. That in the engineer world becomes a big thing. An order of magnitude, a major point in design, and when your design points are exceed by ten times, things are on the edge and fail.

The other major point here is, the truther world is using the 600 mph design point to show there were explosives used to bring down the WTC since they were designed to withstand a 600 mph impact. This is not a point you can say, SO? It is a fact the design was for slow speed impact.

If you say, "so what", and let them push hearsay bs all day, you let them have their CD ideas gain merit. As Robertson tell all, the design was a slow speed impact, then the fuel and aircraft would be falling to the ground, and only localize damage. But Robertson can see with his experience the aircraft impacts destroyed his work. They did not stand but they did hold up until most could leave.

The 9/11 truth will twist this point, it shows me they will use unsupported hearsay to push their agenda, like realcddeal.

[Furcifer]

Greening. That's as simple and succinct as I can get. The next order of magnitude does little to the overall. The only way to seriously change the outcome after initiation is to prove the lower floors were capable of withstanding much more kinetic energy than he has proposed. If someone does they will spark my attention, and a few others I assume.

[ref]

Beach,

I'm not saying I agree with the 600mph design. I just know why they claim that. It is because of that Port Authority paper that can also be seen in the NIST report. I agree with Robertson, and you for that matter.

[rwguinn]

Beach,

I'm not saying I agree with the 600mph design. I just know why they claim that. It is because of that Port Authority paper that can also be seen in the NIST report. I agree with Robertson, and you for that matter.

Link to this "paper" claiming 600mph?
If you can't produce it, you are prevaricating. Stop it.

[AMTMAN]

Flight controls can get jammed, hydraulics can malfunction, altimeters can break.

What exactly is your point? Are you familiar with the flight control, hydraulic and pitot/static systems on the 767?

[AMTMAN]

Engineers would design for worst case scenarios with something like the Twin Towers. If those aircraft could be pushed to the speeds you are discussing above then they would design for that possibility. Obviously, they could move at 600 MPH at 1300 feet. Only Leslie Robertson says it was simply for an airplane lost in the fog. That is only what happened to the Empire State Building. There are also other eventualities like an out of control aircraft. The 707-320B also had more thrust than the 767-200ER. Who says there couldn't have been a problem with the throttle? These things would need to be considered.

Read a 102 Minutes and you will see that they did not design the WTC with the worst case scenario in mind.

[AMTMAN]

[QUOTE=beachnut;2860231]

I was an aircraft mechanic in the U.S. Navy in the late 1970's and we had accidents where pilots were killed due to throttle linkage having a problem. So laugh on the floor all you want while you deny reality. While these problems are rare they do happen and those of us who actually design things for a living have to take them into account.

The fact that you worked on aircraft in the Navy means what? What is your knowledge of the throotle system on the 767?

[ref]

Link to this "paper" claiming 600mph?
If you can't produce it, you are prevaricating. Stop it.

I already said, it is in the NIST report. You can find it, I'm sure. It's no use attacking like that. You should know, that I in no way support these theories, as you can see in my post.

ETA: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf appendixes, pages 420-422.

[R.Mackey]

The existence of a design-time high-speed impact study -- not a requirement -- is a persistent rumour. NIST investigated and could find no evidence of its existence:


A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft flying at 600 mph was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus 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 and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." Since the ability for rigorous simulation of the aircraft impact and of the ensuing fires are recent developments and since the approach to structural modeling was developed for this Investigation, the technical capability available to The Port Authority and its consultans and contractors to perform such an analysis in the 1960s would have been quite limited.


I'll go one further. The study referred to was probably a simple calculation of aircraft momentum versus overturning moment of the building. It is unlikely that the structure was considered at any level of granularity. It is absolutely inconceivable that the fires were considered at all.

Robertson's comments are the standard to beat. As indicated previously, he knew better than anyone what the design requirements were. That's because it was his job. If he says they weren't designed to absorb such a ridiculous amount of punishment, we should believe him, unless we have extraordinary evidence to the contrary. We do not.

[ref]

I agree completely with Mackey. My comment was made for the sole purpose of saying, that this has been mentioned in the NIST report, even if there is no evidence or calculations to prove it. I decline commenting any more on this matter ;)

[rwguinn]

I agree completely with Mackey. My comment was made for the sole purpose of saying, that this has been mentioned in the NIST report, even if there is no evidence or calculations to prove it. I decline commenting any more on this matter ;)

I absolutely agree with all the above.
Sorry for misunderstanding you.:o

[Furcifer]

People always seem to forget the human factor when quoting recolections. A casual inquiry into what thought went into the construction prior to 9/11 can not be held as factual. We all have a tendancy to boast when asked to what ends we went to in accomplishing a task. As an avid fisherman I cannot stress this enough. The story I tell of the 110 lbs sturgeon I caught would not hold up in court.

[ref]

I absolutely agree with all the above.
Sorry for misunderstanding you.:o

It's ok. No hard feelings :)