This skin was created by Cortez of the IF Skin Zone modified by JDX
All views expressed in this forum are not necessarily the views of pilotsfor911truth.org
Please click on the banner to read the mission statement of pilotsfor911truth.org

InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.

Learn More · Register for Free
Welcome to Pilots For Truth. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


This Forum Is Now Read Only. New Forum Can Be Found Here. Thank You.


Pages: (2) [1] 2  ( Go to first unread post )

 Question on WTC Aicraft Impacts
chek
Posted: Oct 24 2006, 04:58 PM


Active Poster


Group: Members
Posts: 165
Member No.: 157
Joined: 24-October 06



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.
Top
Robyn623
Posted: Oct 24 2006, 05:54 PM


Active Poster


Group: Valued Member
Posts: 273
Member No.: 101
Joined: 17-October 06



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.
Top
johndoeX
Posted: Oct 24 2006, 05:59 PM


LGA Patriot
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4,430
Member No.: 1
Joined: 13-August 06



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.
Top
bill
Posted: Oct 25 2006, 06:45 AM


Very Active Poster


Group: Valued Member
Posts: 828
Member No.: 147
Joined: 23-October 06



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)
Top
chek
Posted: Oct 25 2006, 07:23 AM


Active Poster


Group: Members
Posts: 165
Member No.: 157
Joined: 24-October 06



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.
Top
behind
Posted: Oct 25 2006, 09:52 AM


Very Active Poster


Group: Valued Member
Posts: 359
Member No.: 13
Joined: 25-August 06



...
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"
...
wtc.nist.gov/WTC_
(at the bottom of the page)
Top
Cary
Posted: Oct 25 2006, 10:55 AM


Ragin Cajun
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,558
Member No.: 5
Joined: 14-August 06



Great find Behind.
Top
chek
Posted: Oct 25 2006, 11:09 AM


Active Poster


Group: Members
Posts: 165
Member No.: 157
Joined: 24-October 06



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"
...
wtc.nist.gov/WTC_
(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

This post has been edited by chek on Oct 25 2006, 11:10 AM
Top
Patrick Brown
Posted: Oct 25 2006, 12:13 PM


Poster


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Member No.: 156
Joined: 24-October 06



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.
Top
behind
Posted: Oct 25 2006, 04:01 PM


Very Active Poster


Group: Valued Member
Posts: 359
Member No.: 13
Joined: 25-August 06



I saw it first at Jim Hoffman site (which I respect very much in the WTC case) 911research

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

This post has been edited by behind on Oct 25 2006, 04:02 PM
Top
chek
Posted: Oct 25 2006, 04:29 PM


Active Poster


Group: Members
Posts: 165
Member No.: 157
Joined: 24-October 06



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) 911research

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!
Top
behind
Posted: Oct 25 2006, 04:45 PM


Very Active Poster


Group: Valued Member
Posts: 359
Member No.: 13
Joined: 25-August 06



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.

This post has been edited by behind on Oct 25 2006, 04:46 PM
Top
chek
Posted: Oct 30 2006, 12:14 PM


Active Poster


Group: Members
Posts: 165
Member No.: 157
Joined: 24-October 06



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/aut...ns_-_Seite1.jpg


http://www.werboom.de/vt/assets/images/aut...ns_-_Seite2.jpg

http://www.werboom.de/vt/assets/images/aut...ns_-_Seite3.jpg


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

This post has been edited by chek on Oct 30 2006, 12:29 PM
Top
johndoeX
Posted: Oct 30 2006, 12:22 PM


LGA Patriot
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4,430
Member No.: 1
Joined: 13-August 06



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!
Top
chek
Posted: Oct 30 2006, 12:32 PM


Active Poster


Group: Members
Posts: 165
Member No.: 157
Joined: 24-October 06



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....
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | Research | Next Newest »
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic OptionsPages: (2) [1] 2 












Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.1873 seconds | Archive