Do we agree the towers were designed to withstand jetliner crash?

Non Believer said:
Please explain how Skilling's statements are important for what happened on 911. (Or if they are not, in which context they are important)

It would seem obvious that when examining truth claims for any event that the preexisting understandings of the event occurring are important, and in particular when it is expert opinion guided bu scientific understandings
Click to expand...

Yes. Now explain the importance of Skillings statements.

Hans
 
Non Believer said:
So it remains unclear how many here believe the Skilling quote was a lie. Was all of it a lie or just the part about 600 MPH? The story also says that there were separate studies. Is this a lie? What facts do you have to confirm the details of the other study?
Click to expand...

Can you actually show the quote? I've never actually seen exactly what he said, only people saying that someone else said that he said something.
 
phunk said:
Can you actually show the quote? I've never actually seen exactly what he said, only people saying that someone else said that he said something.
Click to expand...

The links are at 174 and Hans said he found it verified at Wikepedia
 
Non Believer said:
All science is theory. I assume science has import of our evaluation of truth claims nonetheless
Click to expand...

He wasn't using 'theory' in the scientific sense there. Scientific theories are orders of magnitude more well supported than a 40 year old quote that has never been backed up with evidence.
 
phunk said:
He wasn't using 'theory' in the scientific sense there. Scientific theories are orders of magnitude more well supported than a 40 year old quote that has never been backed up with evidence.
Click to expand...

Well maybe Hans can clarify what he meant. The point is not only what Skilling said, but what degree his statements represented the scientific understandings of the time
 
ehcks said:
I believe... the towers had to be built out of especially strong concrete and steel just to be the size they were. If the same planes had crashed into smaller, and most likely weaker buildings, they wouldn't have collapsed so much as toppled over.

The towers were large and strong enough to absorb the initial impact, and were only taken out later when fires weakened the remaining supports. If they had hit, say, the CN Tower, it probably would have been chopped in half.
Click to expand...

I noticed that there was some disagreement over what ehcks said here. What he said looks reasonable to me. I took what he said to mean that the structure was particularly strong because it was particularly large. This seems like a reasonable assumption to me. Columns that hold up 100 story buildings are probably stronger than columns that hold up 10 story buildings. And if the building had been smaller the airliner would have probably just wiped out all the support structures and the building would have just collapsed on impact. What is controversial about this idea?

Is it fair to say that the effect of a large airliner crashing in to a building will vary greatly depending on many factors but if the building is below a certain size complete collapse precipitated only be the collision would be likely. Is there anything to object to in that claim?
 
Non Believer said:
It is clearly on the second link and Hans seems to have accepted it so ask him. By the way the quote is 20 years old not forty
Click to expand...

Read it again. Skilling didn't say anything in 93 about a 600 mph impact.

The 600 mph comes from a 1964 white paper about an analysis that was never published. All we have of that analysis is the conclusion, so there's no way to know how thorough the analysis was. Have you even seen the white paper?
 
I sent a question to history commons trying to clarify this. But a minimum there was a separate study done by Skilling which included a fire analysis which Robertson has never mentioned
 
Non Believer said:
Hans- What part of acknowledging facts as an important part of discussing reality are you not understanding?
Click to expand...

They did survive the impact. They stood for some time AFTER the impact did they not?

What they did not survive was the resultant fires caused by the impact. Care to show us the study done showing us how the fires from such an impact would have affected the building structurally?
 
beachnut said:
Based no the fact you are gullible, as seen before...
Have you figured out this stupid stuff yet? What are you talking about? Robertson never changed anything.

Robertson designed the WTC to resist an impact at 180 mph. End of story. In addition, it has been shown a 600 mph impact would not push over the WTC towers, simple physics.

How resistive is your house to bombs? The problem with bombs, is people can't take the BOOM, our brains turn to mush.

Robertson's statements have never changed what he said earlier. Steel is not resistive to fire, end of story, never will be.

What is your point? Got a CT to go with this nonsense?
Click to expand...

Non Believer said:
I am just wondering if you can actually acknowledge who Skilling was and the statements that he made? Yes or No?
Click to expand...

Dodge.

Non Believer said:
Because if one side of an argument refuses to acknowledge seemingly given facts it is most likely either an indicator of the degree of their pathological bias, or a polemic strategy. If such standards are accepted then both sides just refuse to acknowledge any truths at all, and simply constantly point to some other point which they 'believe' supersedes the relevance of the given fact
Click to expand...

I'd like to think that some day you'll recognize the irony.
 
Non Believer said:
I sent a question to history commons trying to clarify this. But a minimum there was a separate study done by Skilling which included a fire analysis which Robertson has never mentioned
Click to expand...

Can you show us this study regarding the affects of fire please?
 
DGM said:
Can you explain how the study actually has any bearing on the fact the buildings fell?

After all these years, whats this line of reasoning got you. Let me guess, someone to talk to?
Click to expand...

Non Believer said:
DGM- It means the top expert did not believe they would? It must be a pretty paranoid world for you if you have no trust in experts simply because the titanic sank
Click to expand...

Do you plan to, at any point, answer a direct question? I've never seen the thread before and I'm already getting irritated at the dodging you keep do-

Non Believer said:
Can you explain how the study actually has any bearing on the fact the buildings fell?

At a minimum it would indicate the science being used at the time was faulty to a degree that thousands perished because of it. Seemingly an overhaul of architectural expertise would be in order, but none seems forthcoming
Click to expand...

Oh, there we go. Of course, you're still ignoring the fact that this sort of impact was far outside of the expected parameters, as even Skilling says.

Non Believer said:
beachnut-So Skilling was a liar?
Click to expand...

:hb:

It's really cute how you try this game of ignoring what people are actually saying to ask disingenuous questions. Which is why, I assume, you're not using the quote function.

Non Believer said:
So it remains unclear how many here believe the Skilling quote was a lie. Was all of it a lie or just the part about 600 MPH? The story also says that there were separate studies. Is this a lie? What facts do you have to confirm the details of the other study?
Click to expand...

Why don't you find out and present evidence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom