Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Pilots For Truth > Research > Question on WTC Aicraft Impacts


Posted by: chek Oct 24 2006, 04:58 PM
I have a question regarding the WTC capacity to take airliner strikes.

As many of you who have been at this for some time may already know, Senior WTC Designer John Skilling said:
"Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
Seattle Times, Business: Saturday, February 27, 1993

However, junior partner and co-designer Les Robertson in what I interpret as a major disinformation statement said in 2002 (after Skillings death):
"With the 707 however, to the best of my knowledge, the fuel load was not considered in the design," he told Horizon.( A BBC science program)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1858491.stm

That sets the scene.

My question is that as Robertson further claimed that the impact was calculated on a Boeing 707, low on fuel, (and weight) lost in the fog colliding at landing speed.

As the original calculations and paperwork now seem to have been 'disappeared' has anyone either any knowledge of a source for what Skilling's calculated speed would have been, or alternatively what speed an airliner would be travelling at (approximately) at that distance from JFK or LGA?

Did Skilling pare down the probabilities as Robertson suggests?

Robertson's statement angers me because people still say to me '...yes, but they didn't allow for the fuel did they?' Classic disinformation that worked only too well.

Posted by: Robyn623 Oct 24 2006, 05:54 PM
I don't have any info to add...just that that statement pisses me off as well. If they actually didn't take into account the jet fuel then how the hell did they expect the plane to get into the air in the first place? I agree with you...classic misinformation.

Posted by: johndoeX Oct 24 2006, 05:59 PM
QUOTE (Robyn623 @ Oct 24 2006, 06:54 PM)
I don't have any info to add...just that that statement pisses me off as well. If they actually didn't take into account the jet fuel then how the hell did they expect the plane to get into the air in the first place? I agree with you...classic misinformation.

it certainly is.

Posted by: bill Oct 25 2006, 06:45 AM
Skilling clearly stated that the fuel would cause a massive fire

how could he not take it into consideration

Beside there has never been a steel building collapse just from fire (untill 911 --yeah right)

Posted by: chek Oct 25 2006, 07:23 AM
QUOTE (bill @ Oct 25 2006, 11:45 AM)
Skilling clearly stated that the fuel would cause a massive fire

how could he not take it into consideration

Beside there has never been a steel building collapse just from fire (untill 911 --yeah right)

The WTC design as we know, did withstand the hi-speed impact, and with what could be termed serious-to-moderate rather than critical damage to the building.

However, one way or another Robertson seems to have been compromised and played down the capacity of the design to withstand aircraft impact (witness his 'to the best of my knowledge' no fuel statement) post 911. I suspect therefore that his 'minimal speed in fog collision' statement is also misleading.

Would knowing at what speed a 'lost' airliner would be likely to be travelling at for say a 1500ft approach altitude (in the absence of the missing building documentation) be a resonable supposition, or did Skilling really mean as he implies, whatever could be thrown at it?

Thanks for the responses so far everybody.

Posted by: behind Oct 25 2006, 09:52 AM
...
A white paper released on February 3, 1964
______________________________________

"The documents indicate that a B707, the largest commercial aircraft at the time, flying at 600 mph was considered and that the analysis indicated 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"
...
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session3/3Fahim1.pdf
(at the bottom of the page)

Posted by: Cary Oct 25 2006, 10:55 AM
Great find Behind.

Posted by: chek Oct 25 2006, 11:09 AM
QUOTE (behind @ Oct 25 2006, 02:52 PM)
...
A white paper released on February 3, 1964
______________________________________

"The documents indicate that a B707, the largest commercial aircraft at the time, flying at 600 mph was considered and that the analysis indicated 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"
...
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session3/3Fahim1.pdf
(at the bottom of the page)

Behind,
Thank you - excellent find! The first definite lead I've had so far.

Amazing what they buried in that 4ft pile of dcouments - as Kevin Ryan says
about his Tnrat theory - overload them 'they'll never read all that'.

Thanks again

Posted by: Patrick Brown Oct 25 2006, 12:13 PM
That is indeed a great find. Have saved a copy although won't be reading it yet as I need a bit of a rest.

Posted by: behind Oct 25 2006, 04:01 PM
I saw it first at Jim Hoffman site (which I respect very much in the WTC case) http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

But I was a little surprised to see it in the NIST document.

Posted by: chek Oct 25 2006, 04:29 PM
QUOTE (behind @ Oct 25 2006, 09:01 PM)
I saw it first at Jim Hoffman site (which I respect very much in the WTC case) http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

But I was a little surprised to see it in the NIST document.

Thanks again Behind.
I had seen that, but whenever possible I try to avoid having to quote evidence from the 911 sites, regardless of how trustworthy I think they are.

I tend to find that with sceptics it gives them an extra reason to be dismissive, hence my search for Skillings original papers.

I do appreciate your assistance - don't get me wrong!

Posted by: behind Oct 25 2006, 04:45 PM
No problem smile.gif

... but this "A white paper released on February 3, 1964"... NIST talks about ... it is not available for public access ?? (if I understand it right)

It is some mystery about it all (my opinion)... they are hiding something.

Posted by: chek Oct 30 2006, 12:14 PM
An interesting development happened recently which may be an indication of how the world is working these days.

I found photostat images of WTC designer John Skilling's 3 page 1964 White Paper on a German website and posted the links over on the UK911 board.

5 days later, having quoted them and posted the links there only 3 days ago
(they specifically refer to the successful calculations showing the buildings could withstand impact by Boeing 707 - DC-8 class aircraft at 600mph - but not the calculations themselves - just a summary) the images on the links mysteriously degraded from about 79kB to less than 7kB in size, thus becoming unreadable.

Lucky I saved them, and I'd urge anybody interested to do so too for posterity if nothing else.

Page 1
user posted image

Page 2
user posted image

Page 3
user posted image

For comparison, here are the links I saved the original images from, less than a week ago:


http://www.werboom.de/vt/assets/images/autogen/a_NIST-Report_Appendix_A_-_Salient_poins_-_Seite1.jpg


http://www.werboom.de/vt/assets/images/autogen/a_NIST-Report_Appendix_A_-_Salient_poins_-_Seite2.jpg

http://www.werboom.de/vt/assets/images/autogen/a_NIST-Report_Appendix_A_-_Salient_poins_-_Seite3.jpg


It's enough to make anybody believe in conspiracy theories. smile.gif

Posted by: johndoeX Oct 30 2006, 12:22 PM
great work chek. I tried to fix your links.. but it seems you may have copied an abbreviated link and pasted it here. You may need to get the links again from the exact page.


Again.. excellent work!

Posted by: chek Oct 30 2006, 12:32 PM
QUOTE (johndoeX @ Oct 30 2006, 05:22 PM)
great work chek. I tried to fix your links.. but it seems you may have copied an abbreviated link and pasted it here. You may need to get the links again from the exact page.


Again.. excellent work!

Cheers and thanks Rob - I think they're fixed now.
Some difference eh?

Lucky I wasn't looking for them next week...or is it since they were 'published' I wonder....

Posted by: johndoeX Oct 30 2006, 12:35 PM
Wow! what a difference in the images. Spread it everywhere.. tell people to download it.. I saved it in several places.


biggrin.gif

Posted by: behind Oct 30 2006, 12:50 PM
It is VERY interesting smile.gif

Posted by: johndoeX Oct 30 2006, 12:56 PM
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/WTC.html

Posted by: chek Oct 30 2006, 01:06 PM
Panic over - they can also be found in NISTNCSTAR1-2Draft.pdf
(pages 418 - 420) which I luckily had, but seem to have been left out of
NISTNCSTAR1-2B_Chaps1-8.pdf and NISTNCSTAR1-2B_Chaps9-11.pdf
(not a fun afternoon's reading)

Thanks for posting on the link Rob - almost makes me look like a real researcher,
though I don't think Chris Bollyn has much to worry about yet. smile.gif

Posted by: NJcpaTOM Nov 8 2006, 11:03 PM
QUOTE (chek @ Oct 25 2006, 04:09 PM)
QUOTE (behind @ Oct 25 2006, 02:52 PM)
...
A white paper released on February 3, 1964
______________________________________

"The documents indicate that a B707, the largest commercial aircraft at the time, flying at 600 mph was considered and that the analysis indicated 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"
...
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session3/3Fahim1.pdf
(at the bottom of the page)

Behind,
Thank you - excellent find! The first definite lead I've had so far.

Amazing what they buried in that 4ft pile of dcouments - as Kevin Ryan says
about his Tnrat theory - overload them 'they'll never read all that'.

Thanks again

There is also an interview in one of the videos with a person who said that the towers might have handled multiplane impacts.

What puzzels me is that both planes went through the buildings siding without any of the flinsy material, wings or tail falling off before they went in.

The siding was aluminum coated steel that were also supporting beams in addition to the 47 core beams in the center.

smile.gif

Posted by: chek Nov 10 2006, 05:17 AM
QUOTE (NJcpaTOM @ Nov 9 2006, 04:03 AM)
QUOTE (chek @ Oct 25 2006, 04:09 PM)
QUOTE (behind @ Oct 25 2006, 02:52 PM)
...
A white paper released on February 3, 1964
______________________________________

"The documents indicate that a B707, the largest commercial aircraft at the time, flying at 600 mph was considered and that the analysis indicated 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"
...
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session3/3Fahim1.pdf
(at the bottom of the page)

Behind,
Thank you - excellent find! The first definite lead I've had so far.

Amazing what they buried in that 4ft pile of dcouments - as Kevin Ryan says
about his Tnrat theory - overload them 'they'll never read all that'.

Thanks again

There is also an interview in one of the videos with a person who said that the towers might have handled multiplane impacts.

What puzzels me is that both planes went through the buildings siding without any of the flinsy material, wings or tail falling off before they went in.

The siding was aluminum coated steel that were also supporting beams in addition to the 47 core beams in the center.

smile.gif

That was Frank DeMartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who died while helping to evacuate the building.

He can be seen in person stating this on:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3281135121622917423&q=Frank+A .+Demartini&hl=en

Posted by: JerryB9105 Nov 13 2006, 02:16 PM
EDITED TO CLARIFY: SORRY ABOUT THIS -- I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT AN EARLIER POST (ABOVE) PRETTY MUCH DUPLICATED WHAT I JUST PROVIDED. I'M LEAVING IT INTACT TO MAKE SURE OTHERS DON'T MISS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE VIDEO // MUCH LIKE I DID EARLIER. SMILE PLEASE. THANKS
**********
I came across this interesting video a few months back. As I understand this aired on the History Channel only once but apparently hasn't been shown since 9/11.

It's a very short clip -- just 38 seconds long.

But first let me give you a little background. The gentleman you will see speaking (Mr. Frank A. DeMartini) was the Manager of Construction and Project Management for the WTC -- I thought you should understand it's not just some guy in a suit and tie speaking about something he truly doesn't understand, but obviously somebody that knows his subject, i.e., WTC construction.

Frank DeMartini died on September 11th a hero.

After accompanying his wife down 88 flights of stairs from his office in the North Tower, he went back up with fellow WTC worker Pablo Ortiz and rescued over 70 people. DeMartini and Ortiz - both 49 years of age - perished in the collapse of the North Tower.

They were both obviously heroes (by many standards) and I would imagine that Mr. De Martini was more than just a little surprised to discover the collapse of the towers around him knowing what he knew of their solid construction:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/172833/history_channel_documentary_on_the_wtc/

Posted by: chek Nov 13 2006, 03:52 PM
I for one don't begrudge a man that showed that kind of heroism getting a dual mention Jerry, and I'm pretty sure nobody else would either smile.gif

Remembering them is the important thing.

Posted by: behind Nov 23 2006, 09:47 AM
Interesting talk about the 600 miles and the impact at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x125395
...
For example:

When Silverstein Properties took over the WTC Complex on July 24th 2001 they had a Property Rick Assessment prepared wherein they identify a scenerio of a plane crashing into the building and the likely damage that would ensue, (probably for insurance reasons).

For some reason we don't have information as to who prepared the report, or the minute details of the report, but here is what the NIST states in regard of that assessment..

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/MediaUpdate%20_FINAL_ProgressR...

PG 16

A property risk assessment report prepared for Silverstein Properties prior to leasing the WTC towers in 2001 identifies the scenario of an aircraft striking a tower as one of the .maximum foreseeable losses....

...The structural designers of the towers have publicly stated that in their opinion that either of the Towers could withstand such an impact from a large modern passenger aircraft. The ensuing fire would damage the .skin. in this scenario, as the spilled fuel would fall to the Plaza level where it would have to be extinguished by the NYC Fire Department..

Posted by: George Hayduke Nov 23 2006, 12:56 PM
The movie "9/11 Mysteries, pt. 1: Controlled Demolition" also features the footage of DiMartini. Sorry if this has already been stated here.

Most here now know my views on the disappearing planes of that day. So I won't bog this thread down with them. I will only point out one simple law of physics.

The soft, hollow, aluminum body of an airliner moving at 500 mph and hitting the aluminum-coated structural steel exoskeleton of the North Tower, which has been described as "an intense grid," is the exact same as the aluminum-coated structural steel exoskeleton of the North Tower, which has been described as "an intense grid," moving at 500 mph and hitting the soft, hollow, aluminum body of an airliner.

Keep this law of physics in mind when you watch footage of planes disappearing entirely into bldgs before slamming on the brakes and exploding inside those bldgs.

Posted by: Critter183 Jan 18 2007, 03:19 AM
You can also find those pages in the NIST Report at:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf

Scroll to page 420 of the PDF document to find Page 306 Apendix A.


Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)