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

[DGM]

DGM- I am not sure if you capable of seeing one piece of the puzzle at a time, but what i am trying to point out is that there was established science when the buildings were built in terms of their structural integrity and expected performance in relation to certain types of stress. Do you agree or disagree with this?

This would be stating the obvious.

It also has nothing to do with if the buildings were designed to take a plane crash. There is no evidence to suggest this was one of the design considerations. If you have evidence of a study before or while the buildings were being designed, present it.

I'm interested in one thing now that you are breaking this question down. Why did you start this thread in the 9/11 CT? Your concern is engineering, correct?

 

[000063]

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

You clearly implied it was by Skilling, and are now backpedalling from your carefully crafted not-exactly-a-claim.

... 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?
...

1. The study does not exist. Perhaps it did at one time, but it doesn't now. We have no means to evaluate the three-page whitepaper, not for accuracy nor for context.


Interesting terminology. apparently you mean to say no copy of the report of the study exists. Instead you choose terminology which suggests it never occurred.

Congratulations! You managed to avoid the point entirely by nitpicking! We don't have the report.

2. Nobody has been able to reproduce this study's findings, either. If it was correct, or even approximately accurate, this should be a straightforward task.

My understanding is that the blueprints are not publicly available.

And?

3. Leslie Robertson, aging or not, retired or not (he is not), was nonetheless the engineer of record for the Towers. If he disputes the accuracy of this study, and gives his reasons, we cannot simply dismiss him.

Agreed, but if his statements are not consistent then he lends himself to a loss of credibility. Further he had ample time in the past to refute Skilling and choose not to. As far as I am aware he has never confronted Skillings statements and the apparent contradictions arising from them

Which is not the same as him agreeing with them. I've never stopped someone from murdering a doctor who performs abortions, but I do not support people doing so. Argument by lack of evidence, poisoning the well.

Regardless, even if we had this study, the only real use it would serve would be to find out why it was wrong. Assuming its conclusion was reflected accurately above, clearly it was totally unrealistic. The study results are also in complete disagreement with the NIST study, the Purdue study, the MIT study, the Exponent Failure Analysis study, and the Weidlinger Associates study.

Obviously it was not unrealistic since the towers survived the initial impact. I have arguments against the studies quoted here, but i am trying to focus on the concept of what the science was when the structures were built or what it was on 9/11 and no retrograde analysis

You keep going on about determining what science was available, yet seem to want to avoid actually assessing its worth once you do so, or comparing it to contemporary reports with thirty years of improved technology.

So, to sum up, we don't have it, and it was wrong to begin with. This document cannot prove a conspiracy. At most, it would be evidence of an error made by designers, but I think a pass is warranted given the incredible complexity of the scenario under study.

The point that it was wrong to begin with is simply begging the question. Arguments are presented within the scope of individual merit and are not judged initially upon any one persons final conclusions about the event in question

"You can't say its wrong!" Got it.

 

[000063]

jaydeehess -Your dismisaal seems to be accomplished under two basic premises. One- No reproducible calculations of the original scientific understandings and studies and Two- That it is all rendered moot because of your faith in NIST's and other studies.

No, he's simply asserting that the other studies are more correct. Faith has nothing to do with it.

As to the latter, if folks come to the same conclusion as you regarding those studies so be it. I do not suggest to people that they ignore the NIST studies because Skilling analyzes showed them to be impossible.

His analysis thirty years with contemporary tech, sure.

I say bring in all the relevant facts, but your position it would seem is indeed begging the question since you styart first with your conclusion and then include only the facts which support it.

That's hypocritical.

As to no written documentation. Sure it would be preferable to have the documentation and the fact it does not exist raises questions. But beyond that the words of an expert do have meaning even if the documentation fails to appear. And again where is Robertsons documentation?

That's pure argument from ignorance.

 

[000063]

Actually deeper I am trying to show their reluctance to even acknowledge the simplest of facts and to accept the reasonable treatment of those facts within the framework of rational investigation. All of you have attributed some broader intention and belief system which i have not professed here. To me such attributions reveal the polarized nature of the belief systems which resides here

Have you ever explicitly denied having some sort of theory, or have you merely not discussed it?

What purpose would having the old studies serve, for you?

 

[000063]

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.

I can predict that someone who dismisses others' arguments based on the first line disagreeing with them is somewhat biased.

Your analogy is inept to say the least. Anyone with a brain

Well-poisoning.

understands that Einsteins relativity only overturned certain aspects of Newtonian physics.

Yes, that was precisely JDS' point. Newton is still relevant even under Einsteinian physics.

John Skilling was not offering a vision of unified field theory,

Straw man.

the question is in regard to a rather specific piece of information. That being the damage a jetliner crash would cause to the WTC.

Actually, that's quite vague, considering how many variants on jetliners there are and the wide range of variables involved in a crash.

Now you can equivocate until the NIST investigators go public,

You mean, like they did five years ago, IIRC?

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 science. Can be. Wrong. Especially when it's without 30 years of advances in the relevant technology.

 

[Non Believer]

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.

Again the question is simple and it is your side that ignores the most basic question and simple hides behind the word proof. The question is who is the author of the white paper and is it a likely logical inference that the paper refers to Skillings study. I have provided proof that Skilling stated that he did an anaylsis for fire and you ignore that as well. So get real with your no proof nonsense. Further the idea that understanding jetfuel fires has changed significantly in twenty years is not supported by any 'proof' that i have seen by your side, though in general I imagine we will here the same retort of you have to be an expert like all of you supposedly are to understand anything. If you are experts then explain your expertise or it is meaningless

 

[Gamolon]

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

As Oystein has asked previously, where is the link to this paper that you saw? Did you actually read it? Was there calculations for the effects of the resultant fire?

 

[carlitos]

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

Well?

 

[Gamolon]

I have provided proof that Skilling stated that he did an anaylsis for fire and you ignore that as well.

No you haven't. You are ASSUMING he did. Everything in his statement is regarding the actual IMPACT, not the resultant fire. I even posted a link to a page in the book, City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center which explains that they did not take into account the effect of fires on the steel.

You could easily post the link to this white paper you supposedly saw, but have not done so yet. Why not?

Get it yet? It was regarding the IMPACT forces, not anything after that.

 

[Non Believer]

I can predict that someone who dismisses others' arguments based on the first line disagreeing with them is somewhat biased.

Well-poisoning.

It is called learned experience

Yes, that was precisely JDS' point. Newton is still relevant even under Einsteinian physics.

Straw man.

Nope False analogy. I said if you actually paid attention that it is obvious that Newton is relevant, or not overturned under einstien in the relevant aspects, and that is why it is a false analogy

Actually, that's quite vague, considering how many variants on jetliners there are and the wide range of variables involved in a crash.

You mean, like they did five years ago, IIRC?

Did they take questions from the public?

And science. Can be. Wrong. Especially when it's without 30 years of advances in the relevant technology.

Again do you agree with Sagan or not?

How many times can you guys dance around the questions at hand?

 

[Gamolon]

Further the idea that understanding jetfuel fires has changed significantly in twenty years is not supported by any 'proof' that i have seen by your side,

Jet fuel was the only thing present in the tower right? There was no office furniture, carpeting, cubicles, paper, ceiling tiles.

Why are you just saying "jet fuel"?

 

[Non Believer]

No. YOUR claims are extraordinary

So to believe an expert at his word is extraordinary? Yes or no?

 

[Gamolon]

Well?

Here, I'll do his work for him.

http://911caper.com/2011/10/17/wtc-...lanes-without-collapse-or-substantial-damage/

Please show me where this paper states that did anything more than calculations for the physical impact only.

Also, read point 7 of this paper. Why would John Skilling write "In a letter to John Skilling", if he actually wrote the paper?

 

[Non Believer]

Quote:
I say bring in all the relevant facts, but your position it would seem is indeed begging the question since you styart first with your conclusion and then include only the facts which support it.

That's hypocritical.


How?

Quote:
As to no written documentation. Sure it would be preferable to have the documentation and the fact it does not exist raises questions. But beyond that the words of an expert do have meaning even if the documentation fails to appear. And again where is Robertsons documentation?

That's pure argument from ignorance.

Know there is hypocrisy. Claim statements are meaningless without documentation and then continue to assert that Robertson's statements are meaningful without documentation. The only interesting thing about you guys is if you actually believe your hallucinations

 

[Oystein]

Again the question is simple and it is your side that ignores the most basic question and simple hides behind the word proof. The question is who is the author of the white paper and is it a likely logical inference that the paper refers to Skillings study.

You stated earlier in this thread that you "saw copy of the white paper".
1. Did you, or did you not, see a copy of the paper?

You stated earlier that "it is at a truther site".
2. Alright, is it, or is it not, at a truther site?

You stated earlier that you "will post a link".
3. Have you posted a link, can you post a link, will you post a link? Or not?

Throughout this thread you have suggested that Skilling was the author of this paper. It sounded like this was something you knew as fact.
4. Do you know as fact that Skilling was the author, or do you not know this as a matter of fact?


I think if we can get clear answers to these questions from you, we shall be informed about the credibility of your claims.

I have provided proof that Skilling stated that he did an anaylsis for fire and you ignore that as well.

What you have shown is that Skilling thought the fires would kill many people. Everything beyond that is conjecture.

So get real with your no proof nonsense. Further the idea that understanding jetfuel fires has changed significantly in twenty years is not supported by any 'proof' that i have seen by your side,

We don't actually need proof of that - it's the sort of thing that goes without saying: Yes, of course, we know and understand more in just about every discipline of science and engineering than we did 40 years ago.

But more importantly, even if out bare understanding had not improved, our tools to use that understanding have vastly improved, namely computer power to calculate the effects of a chaotic event such as a "horrendous fire" on a complex structural assembly, given a wide variety of input parametes (plabe crash specifics, thermal loading of of building contents, ...). This is what you are dodging: To explain if, and if yes, how, it was possible at all in 1964 to compute 1. the damages of a plane crash (multiple scenarios possible) to the structural assembly 2. model the ensuing fires 3. predict the structural response of the already damaged assembly.

We are saying: Huge computer power is needed to calculate such a complex synamic scenario, let alone several varieties of it.
What are you saying? Given the computer power of 1964, how would YOU calculate the effects of a plane crash plus subsequent horrendous fire on the towers? Which tools would you employ? What assumptions would you work with? Be specific, please!

though in general I imagine we will here the same retort of you have to be an expert like all of you supposedly are to understand anything. If you are experts then explain your expertise or it is meaningless

No, you are the one who claims that being an expert is necessary and sufficient, as your reliance on a quote of some expert found in a newspaper article suggests.

 

[Non Believer]

Jet fuel was the only thing present in the tower right? There was no office furniture, carpeting, cubicles, paper, ceiling tiles.

Why are you just saying "jet fuel"?

Sure jet fuel and office supplies

 

[Non Believer]

What you have shown is that Skilling thought the fires would kill many people. Everything beyond that is conjecture.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building

Now if you can sit there and claim he did not do an analysis on fire you are simply looney tunes

 

[Gamolon]

#3 in the linked 3 page paper. This goes AGAINST the the thought that the effects of fire were taken into consideration.

The buildings have been investigated and found in an assumed COLLISION with a large jetliner (Boeing 707 - DC-8) travelling at 600 miles per hour. ANALYSIS indicates that such a COLLISION would result in only local damage which would 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

Furthermore, to back up the fact that no study was done regarding resultant fires, Leslie Robertson makes this statement.

To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.

Non Believer, you are doing nothing more than assuming at this point.

 

[DGM]

How is this a conspiracy related to 9/11? Certainly you are not saying if there was a study means the buildings could not fall as described in the "official" reports.

If this is what you mean, please explain how you came to this conclusion.

 

[Gamolon]

Sure jet fuel and office supplies

"Office supplies"? Like pencils, paper, and pens??? What about cubicle walls, chairs, carpeting, ceiling tiles, computers, desks, paper, phones, etc. No of that stuff is flammable is it?



Jet fuel igniting is what started the fire. The building contents are what maintained the fire. Why do office buildings burn for so long? What temperatures can office fires reach?