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

[LSSBB]

The point is that those who wish to overturn scientific understanding have the extra burden of proof upon them. 9/11 is of course full of such new understandings of reality

No one is talking of overturning scientific understanding. Do not conflate science with the tools to apply science to a problem.

The study under discussion had only 1960's technology available, plus not all of the facts of the airplane collisions as they became known were known and applied in the modeling.

 

[twinstead]

One would think that not having his calculations in front of you would be a very good reason to doubt such extraordinary claims, especially since the world's engineering and scientific communities appear to not agree.

 

[Non Believer]

One would think that not having his calculations in front of you would be a very good reason to doubt such extraordinary claims, especially since the world's engineering and scientific communities appear to not agree.

So somehow Skillings claims are extraordinary? Is this in retrospect or is it your claim they were extraordinary at the time. I would like to further understand how well respected experts should be doubted before being trusted, and that I am somehow expressing a faith based belief at trusting them as opposed to doubting them. are you guys suddenly anti expert?

 

[Non Believer]

No one is talking of overturning scientific understanding. Do not conflate science with the tools to apply science to a problem.

The study under discussion had only 1960's technology available, plus not all of the facts of the airplane collisions as they became known were known and applied in the modeling.

Others here of course claim we do not know about what models are used so it seems little more than conjecture to propose we know the difference between the two types of modeling systems. But as usual those here will have it both ways- claiming we don't know what they did- but a the same time being certain the older calculations were faulty. As I said before do not conflate advancing technology with the idea that Skilling was simply mistaken. Either he had good science to understand his structure or her did not. a bunch of isolated government appointed science shills will not provide a worthy refutation for me

 

[Dog Town]

The point is that those who wish to overturn scientific understanding have the extra burden of proof upon them.

Agreed. Now, can you give us some?
Proof, that is...

9/11 is of course full of such new understandings of reality

Only to the Twoofers!

 

[beachnut]

Robertson did the design for 180 mph. Why can't you acknowledge it?

Unlike your gang I can acknowledge obvious truths. Yes Robertson claims to have done so. Though if I use your standard of evidence there is no proof or paper trail of the claim as far as I know

Paul Thompson at History Commons does not believe that 9/11 was a false flag operation. At least that is my understanding. Do you know something different?

Robertson's design was verified by a study. Any engineer could verify it they take the time.
Why can't you or history commons find the verifying study?

Paul Thompson is full of woo. He and his crew add stupid statements, tacked on to the nonsense. This is why you think Skilling was associated with the 600 mph statement. Because they used failed logic and zero reality based research. They quote-mine and call it history. lol, and they fooled you.

Beachnut- I do give you credit for at least almost talking about the relevant issues, but apparently you will not address who you believe wrote the white paper or whether it is a logical inference to believe this in fact paper based on Skillings study. Instead you fell you have had an epiphany regarding the word likely

Inference, it is blind stupid adding statements that are not supported by facts. Inference, is not is. They made up the inference; they have no clue how they have mislead you and others.

The white paper was made up as advertising;
Source please

Don't you have the white paper?

Beachnut- You also make a good point about your lie that you will not address, that being Skilling has clearly stated they considered the impact of fire. You on the one hand want dismiss the notion of preparing for a high speed impact and on the other concede that it is obvious such an impact would not destroy the buildings. So apparently fire is the only meaningful variable and that is the one you continue to lie about

The fire from a 180 mph would kill some people, and the building would still be standing. He did not study the fire, he said it would kill people. A low speed impact would leave the fire insulation working - would leave the water system working, the building would be standing.

Since planes don't do 600 mph below 10,000 feet, where do you think the 600 mph nonsense came from? Did they suspect the impact would be a terrorists attack?
Speed limit for jets below 10,000 feet 250 knots - max speed for long life, 350 knots. Where did 600 mph come from for an accident? What does your engineering skills say? Your pilot skills? Got something?

Also I should add that at 306 and at 314 I made it clear that attributing Skillings statement to the 600 MPH is done by the inferential logic associated to the white paper, but Beachnut continues to ramble on claiming I am attributing the quote directly to Skilling. I saw copy of the white paper but it is at a truther site, so I assume it is part of our giant conspiracy of made up documents but I will post a link in the hopes there is a rare open mind here

... they used a white paper Skilling did not do. Skilling did not say 600 mph. You were fooled by the silly extra credit speculation made by the woo-sayers at history commons, they add silly comments which fool people.

It is pretty simple. What scientific principles had to say on a subject before a particular event happens has bearing on the later evaluation of that event. If you wish to claim those principles have been proven to be inaccurate then science allows for such avenues to be pursued. But to claim they have no bearing is absurd


Please show us where "Skilling clearly stated they considered the impact of fire."

"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.


http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

A low speed impact would pour some fuel into a building, but no major damage. The speed to enter the WTC is over 200 mph - below 200 mph the aircraft impact will be resisted. This is simple physics.

How would the fires get to the steel in the core, the insulation, 3 inches of wallboard will be there, no fire will destroy the structure.

At 600 mph there is enough energy for the aircraft to reach and damage the core, and some parts can break the other side of the shell; simple physics.

low speed verified first hand again
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6993721&postcount=24
Robertson is first hand too - means 180 mph was the design, because the chief structural engineer said so. First hand is not hearsay; right? Do you understand you have to call Robertson a liar - BTW, Skilling never said 600 mph, and nothing Skilling said would be wrong for a low speed impact.

 

[jaydeehess]

No one has claimed that science is irrelevant.

They are claiming pre-existing science is irrelevant. If you are believer in the Sagan quote then this is a logical inconsistency

Pre-existing science need not be irrelevant.
Is Newton irrelevant simply because Einstein's relativity illustrates that mass and length is affected at near relativistic velocities? No!

Would you claim that a model 386 personal computer is irrelevant simply because a Mac Pro is so much more powerful and faster? Nope, but if one wanted to run a program to determine how to engineer a building using each then one will get much better precision from programs the Mac is capable of operating than those the 386 ever was by virtue of the size and complexity of the programs possible with a MAC Pro.

The precision and/or accuracy of a study done in the 1960s, by hand calculations, is lesser than that which can be achieved today, or a decade ago. Today's science is simply a honing of and subsequent better application of, the same science that existed in 1964.

 

[Non Believer]

Agreed. Now, can you give us some?
Proof, that is...


Apparently you are having trouble reading. If the scientific opinion was that they would withstand a jetliner crash it is up to you to provide some proof to the contrary



Only to the Twoofers!

Are we still in middle school?

 

[tsig]

Others here of course claim we do not know about what models are used so it seems little more than conjecture to propose we know the difference between the two types of modeling systems. But as usual those here will have it both ways- claiming we don't know what they did- but a the same time being certain the older calculations were faulty. As I said before do not conflate advancing technology with the idea that Skilling was simply mistaken. Either he had good science to understand his structure or her did not. a bunch of isolated government appointed science shills will not provide a worthy refutation for me

 

[Non Believer]

Robertson's design was verified by a study. Any engineer could verify it they take the time.

Where is the study


Why can't you or history commons find the verifying study?

Show me yours ill show you mine

Paul Thompson is full of woo. He and his crew add stupid statements, tacked on to the nonsense. This is why you think Skilling was associated with the 600 mph statement. Because they used failed logic and zero reality based research. They quote-mine and call it history. lol, and they fooled you.

I notice you did not deny that he does not believe 9/11 was a false flag operation


Inference, it is blind stupid adding statements that are not supported by facts. Inference, is not is. They made up the inference; they have no clue how they have mislead you and others.

Who wrote the paper and were there two studies or not? All you can do is dance in little circles

Don't you have the white paper?

Personally I do not have and any other source would of course be inferential in one way or another

The fire from a 180 mph would kill some people, and the building would still be standing. He did not study the fire, he said it would kill people. A low speed impact would leave the fire insulation working - would leave the water system working, the building would be standing.


Here you simply defy what he said. Do I need to pull up the quote for you again. He said they did an analysis for a fire. He never said a low speed impact so why don't you stop putting your words in his mouth

Since planes don't do 600 mph below 10,000 feet, where do you think the 600 mph nonsense came from? Did they suspect the impact would be a terrorists attack?

Ever hear of preparing for worst case scenario. One of your own bozo teams said flight 175 was doing 590 MPH

Speed limit for jets below 10,000 feet 250 knots - max speed for long life, 350 knots. Where did 600 mph come from for an accident? What does your engineering skills say? Your pilot skills? Got something?

Why do I need to justify what the experts said? Buildings are built for earthquakes the size we have never seen, or to withstand wind speeds never seen. This is about the stupidest argument i have seen, even from you


... they used a white paper Skilling did not do.

Prove that!

Skilling did not say 600 mph. You were fooled by the silly extra credit speculation made by the woo-sayers at history commons, they add silly comments which fool people.

How many times you gonna repeat yourself? It is a logical inference that you offer no response other than name calling


A low speed impact would pour some fuel into a building, but no major damage. The speed to enter the WTC is over 200 mph - below 200 mph the aircraft impact will be resisted. This is simple physics.

How would the fires get to the steel in the core, the insulation, 3 inches of wallboard will be there, no fire will destroy the structure.

At 600 mph there is enough energy for the aircraft to reach and damage the core, and some parts can break the other side of the shell; simple physics.

low speed verified first hand again
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6993721&postcount=24
Robertson is first hand too - means 180 mph was the design, because the chief structural engineer said so. First hand is not hearsay; right? Do you understand you have to call Robertson a liar - BTW, Skilling never said 600 mph, and nothing Skilling said would be wrong for a low speed impact.

Where is your study and why no mention of it in 93? Robertson has contradicted himself, so I would ask which Robertson are you suggesting I call a liar?

 

[Non Believer]

No! You are still wrong.
Pre-existing science need not be irrelevant.
Is Newton irrelevant simply because Einstein's relativity illustrates that mass and length is affected at near relativistic velocities? No!

Would you claim that a model 386 personal computer is irrelevant simply because a Mac Pro is so much more powerful and faster? Nope, but if one wanted to run a program to determine how to engineer a building using each then one will get much better precision from programs the Mac is capable of operating than those the 386 ever was by virtue of the size and complexity of the programs possible with a MAC Pro.

The precision and/or accuracy of a study done in the 1960s, by hand calculations, is lesser than that which can be achieved today, or a decade ago. Today's science is simply a honing of and subsequent better application of, the same science that existed in 1964.

I can predict that anyone that starts with "No- You are still wrong" likely has nothing relevant to say and I will be damned if I was right on the mark. Your analogy is inept to say the least. Anyone with a brain understands that Einsteins relativity only overturned certain aspects of Newtonian physics. John Skilling was not offering a vision of unified field theory, the question is in regard to a rather specific piece of information. That being the damage a jetliner crash would cause to the WTC. Now you can equivocate until the NIST investigators go public, oh i mean until the cows come home, and you can think up lame analogies all you like, but the fact of the matter is that either the science predicted the buildings would stand or it did not

 

[jaydeehess]

Are we still in middle school?

It has been conceeded that the towers DID withstand the impact of large, fast aircraft.
The disagreement comes in the form of whether or not this was specifically and purposefully part of the design goals.
That you have utterly failed to provide proof of. Nor have you done the same for all aspects of the fires that could be expected to result from a spilling and ignition of thousands of gallons of liquid fuel into several levels simultaneously.

 

[jaydeehess]

I can predict that anyone that starts with "No- You are still wrong" likely has nothing relevant to say

Ok, look above, edited

and I will be damned if I was right on the mark.

Now you are wrong and I will illustrate it

Your analogy is inept to say the least. Anyone with a brain understands that Einsteins relativity only overturned certain aspects of Newtonian physics.

It did not. It applied precison to a a spectrum of special cases of motion of objects.

John Skilling was not offering a vision of unified field theory, the question is in regard to a rather specific piece of information. That being the damage a jetliner crash would cause to the WTC.

You would have that backwards. While Skilling, using the tools he had available could only possibly calculate the effects to a more general level of precision, NIST, uisng the tools developed in the 40 years since Skilling did his work, could develop a more precise level of prediction.

Now you can equivocate until the NIST investigators go public, oh i mean until the cows come home, and you can think up lame analogies all you like, but the fact of the matter is that either the science predicted the buildings would stand or it did not

,,,, and in fact lo and behold, both Skilling and NIST correctly established that the buildings would not be brought down by impact, and they in fact did not succumb.

Fire damage effects is even more complicated than impact and Skilling had much less to work with than did NIST, both in terms of available tools and in terms of research into steel behaviour in fire situations. I personally suspect the paper assumed little damage to insulation and an intact active suppression system which would make calculations much easier. At any rate the level of accuracy or precision in modelling fire spread, heat ouput and effect on steel is orders of magnitude greater with today's, or that of a decade ago, tech than was possible 5 years ago. That you would try to convince anyone of the contrary is quite astounding, especially since the details of the paper in question are not available.

 

[beachnut]

Where is your study and why no mention of it in 93? Robertson has contradicted himself, so I would ask which Robertson are you suggesting I call a liar?

Robertson never contradicted himself; you got that BS from 911 truth nuts. Don't be gullible.

The study confirming Robertson's design, was done after 911. Why can't you find it? You make up your own nonsense saying Skilling said 600 mph, but that was lie, false, not correct.

The White Paper has no first person confirmation of a 600 mph study.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113421&page=3
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6993609&postcount=23 except...

The guys who did the design, did not do the white paper. It was a counter attack against an attack by those who claimed the WTC would be too weak.

Here is another confirmation of Robertson's design.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6993721&postcount=24


Found the post 911 study yet?


And the towers did survive the impact; they failed to survive the fire.

If the impacts were at 200 mph, there would be two towers still standing. What is your claim? This engineering stuff might be beyond your comprehension; you can't figure out who said 600 mph.

 

[beachnut]

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2005)131:10(1066)

 

[Oystein]

Also I should add that at 306 and at 314 I made it clear that attributing Skillings statement to the 600 MPH is done by the inferential logic associated to the white paper, but Beachnut continues to ramble on claiming I am attributing the quote directly to Skilling. I saw copy of the white paper but it is at a truther site, so I assume it is part of our giant conspiracy of made up documents but I will post a link in the hopes there is a rare open mind here

Non Believer, can you please clarify:

1. Have you really seen the 1964 3-page white-paper that reportedly concludes the towers would have withstood a 600 mph collision with a 707? Or have you NOT seen that white paper?

2. Do you have a link to that white paper, or do you NOT have a link to that whitepaper?

3. Will you post a link to that white paper, or will you NOT post a link to that white paper?

4. Was Skilling the author of that white paper, was he not, or do you not know if he was?


Ideally, your reply should contain four short numbered answers, each containing either the word "yes" or the word "no" (or, plausibly, "I don't know").


Next: You keep quoting a 1993 newspaper article, where Skilling is quoted thusly:

"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."​

Now I understand how one could read that as "despite the effect of fire on structural steel, the building would still be there". But he doesn't make that explicit, or does he?
Can YOU understand how one could as well read this as "I consider the secondary effect of fire on people - it will kill them, but the towers would not collapse due to the plane impact as such.", in other words, that fire was not considered as a factor that weakens the structure, only as something that kills people directly. So can you see how this could also be the meaning of his words?
Do you understand that a newspaper writer shortens and clips quotes and occasionally puts two sentences next to each other that weren't next to each other when actually spoken, and thus create the appearance that two things belong together that don't actually belong together? How can you be sure that the "fire" sentence was really next to the "building still there" sentence in the actual interview? (And even if it was, the quote still doesn't explicitly say that Skilling considered any fire effect other than burning people to death.)

 

[000063]

As I have mentioned before I am not interested in being drawn out of a specific discussion and trade that focus in on some other aspect you are interested in discussing. As to the relevance, any evaluation of a truth claim should consider what the scientific expectations of such an event occurring were before the event occurred. how many times do I need to say that?

The "scientific expectation" was as near to zero as makes no odds. Your reluctance to talk about the conspiracy theory you're trying to backdoor is noted.

A troll? I started the thread

And?

Not surprising that you want the conversation to simply go away.

We are 300+ posts in, and the thesis question has been answered several times.

The question remains, who did the white paper? The question also remains regarding the likelihood that it was done by Skilling.

No, it doesn't.

I could also ask what is the source of your certainty that it was not done by Skilling?

Reversing burden of proof. You're the one asserting that it was or was possibly done by Skilling. Provide evidence of such.

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?

Argument from mockery noted.

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?

Are you that desperate for brownie points?

 

[twinstead]

I can predict that anyone that starts with "No- You are still wrong" likely has nothing relevant to say and I will be damned if I was right on the mark. Your analogy is inept to say the least. Anyone with a brain understands that Einsteins relativity only overturned certain aspects of Newtonian physics. John Skilling was not offering a vision of unified field theory, the question is in regard to a rather specific piece of information. That being the damage a jetliner crash would cause to the WTC. Now you can equivocate until the NIST investigators go public, oh i mean until the cows come home, and you can think up lame analogies all you like, but the fact of the matter is that either the science predicted the buildings would stand or it did not

I can predict that anybody who posts "bunch of isolated government appointed science shills will not provide a worthy refutation for me" likely is an irrational ideologue that can safely be ignored.

 

[twinstead]

So somehow Skillings claims are extraordinary? Is this in retrospect or is it your claim they were extraordinary at the time. I would like to further understand how well respected experts should be doubted before being trusted, and that I am somehow expressing a faith based belief at trusting them as opposed to doubting them. are you guys suddenly anti expert?

No. YOUR claims are extraordinary

 

[000063]

...

I will however address your point on the titanic a bit. If the point is that science can be wrong, then the answer is obviously yes. However that does not escape the question of first establishing what the actual science was, nor does it establish the nature of the evidence that is necessary in overturning established scientific claims. ...

I've pointed out that the 767 did not exist until after the towers were built, therefore it would be impossible for the buildings to be designed to take a hit from one. Heck, it wasn't even put on the drawing board for several years after the WTC opened. Trying to move the goalposts allll the way back to "jetliner crash" is rather transparent.

Robertson did the design for 180 mph. Why can't you acknowledge it?
...

It has been. And, as several people pointed out, that was for a smaller plane, and the impacts on 9/11 would have several dozen times more force.