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?

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]

still waiting for a paper with a speed impossible for a 707 at 1300 feet lost in fog

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]

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]

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 lead engineer. Read it.

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/ , 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]

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 lead engineer. Read it.

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/ , 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]

lol, your paper cannot be fixed, it is in the garbage, the Journal of 9/11 Studies

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]

why are you wrong and wasting time with me when your paper needs work?

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

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]

even kids who understand gravity, understand 9/11

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.