Not surprising that you want the conversation to simply go away. The question remains, who did the white paper? The question also remains regarding the likelihood that it was done by Skilling. I could also ask what is the source of your certainty that it was not done by Skilling? We do know that Skilling did a separate study, and that this white paper fits the exact parameters that we would have expected from the study he references. Who do we think did it? The janitors?
Also Beachnut I know you prefer your version of hit and run logical arguments but somewhere here you mention that it is a fact that no one considered fire in the studies. This is clearly contradicted by Skillings statement to the Seattle Times reporter. So perhaps you could explain your so called facts?
Better try reading your source again. lol, hit and run? You have lied, Skilling never said 600 mph.
The white paper was made up as advertising; good luck finding the source of the 600 mph stuff (the study). However, a plane at 600 mph will not knock down the WTC towers, and you can verify that by looking at the wind data, and use some physics. Without fire the WTC would stand - oops, that is what Skilling said. Did engineering school pay off or what? not;, any layperson could see the 600 mph is not a quote of Skilling.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698
"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."
No mention of 600 mph in the seattletimes.
Did you know at 600 mph at 1000 feet parts of the aircraft could fall off, the limit for safe operation, long life of the airframe, is ~350 knots. BINGO
Did you know the impacts on 911 were below 600 mph at impact?
Did you know Flt 11 was at Vd, a known possible speed for the airframe at impact? Did you study aircraft limits and speeds?
Did the terrorist know they were at risk flying over Vmo?
Where did you get fooled by 600 mph?
You got it from the nut who makes up nonsesne about 911 while storing all the info you need to debunk 911 truth and the nut who makes up nonnese about 911, at history commons, where the news is reported with added woo.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=john_skilling_1
Nope, Skilling is talking about Robertsons low speed lost in the fog study, verified, at least the numbers were, that an aircraft at 180 mph would not do much damage to the WTC towers; verified at 200 mph by another study 911 truth will not find.
The Robertson study stands, and verified. The 600 mph, no source for that study. Only hearsay.
Possible reasons for 600 mph.
The white paper authors knew the WTC designers studied and impact, got out the encyclopedia and found 600 mph as the top speed of a 707. (Remember the top speed below 10,000 feet was 250 knots, not 600mph, and the top speed for long life is 350 knots for 707 and 767/757; landing speeds in the pattern, 180 mph. BINGO)
Next, it is simple to calculate the impact and see a 707 at 600 mph will not topple the WTC - verified on 911. A study could have been done by the white paper authors, who had no clue the speed limit was 250 knots, and they found a 707 would not topple the WTC. But did not study if the plane would damage the core - a simple study.
Robertson designed the WTC for a slow speed impact, which would cover Skillings statement. You are mixing up articles. Show us the Skilling quote of 600 mph. Good luck.
