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

[Miragememories]

"...Obviously, there could be no experimentation in connection to the WTC tower's resistance to plane impacts.

Whatever the tools, whatever the premises, such a calculation would be theoretical.

As often, practice did not conform to theory. Live with it.

Hans"

bolding is mine

And all the fresh aircraft-impact empirical knowledge gained from World War II, was not applicable to the engineering analysis that concluded WTC1 and WTC2 would well endure?

Any engineering risk that could lead to structural failure would be anathema for the engineers.

These skyscrapers were going to be tallest steel buildings in the world.

Yes, the high speed computers were not there.

But I would argue that those tools were not required by the engineers.

They had accurate data about all the primary engineering factors.

They had all the data for the projectile, a Boeing 707.

They had all the data on the targets, WTC1 and WTC2.

MM

 

[Oystein]

...
Yes, the high speed computers were not there.

But I would argue that those tools were not required by the engineers.

They had accurate data about all the primary engineering factors.

They had all the data for the projectile, a Boeing 707.

They had all the data on the targets, WTC1 and WTC2.

MM

Which tools are required, and sufficient for the task, that were available in 1964?

How, specifically, would YOU calculate the effect of plane crash + ensuing horrendous fires and the structural response of the buildings? What tools to do this task were available in 1964? Was it at all possible to do such a calculation back then? What were the limits? Please be specific.


ETA: And what evidence - not conjecture - do you have that such tools were in fact put to the task of calculating the effects of high-speed plane crash + ensuing horrendous fire?

If you have no such evidence, would it be fair to say that your "I would argue" rests solely on your imagination and constitutes your personal belief/credulity?
What did you say earlier about incredulity? What would you now say about your own credulity?

 

[TjW]

bolding is mine

And all the fresh aircraft-impact empirical knowledge gained from World War II, was not applicable to the engineering analysis that concluded WTC1 and WTC2 would well endure?

Any engineering risk that could lead to structural failure would be anathema for the engineers.

These skyscrapers were going to be tallest steel buildings in the world.

Yes, the high speed computers were not there.

But I would argue that those tools were not required by the engineers.

They had accurate data about all the primary engineering factors.

They had all the data for the projectile, a Boeing 707.

They had all the data on the targets, WTC1 and WTC2.

MM

Just how many airplanes were flown into buildings during WW2?
Was there a research group that measured the results?

 

[Gamolon]

bolding is mine

And all the fresh aircraft-impact empirical knowledge gained from World War II, was not applicable to the engineering analysis that concluded WTC1 and WTC2 would well endure?

Any engineering risk that could lead to structural failure would be anathema for the engineers.

These skyscrapers were going to be tallest steel buildings in the world.

Yes, the high speed computers were not there.

But I would argue that those tools were not required by the engineers.

They had accurate data about all the primary engineering factors.

They had all the data for the projectile, a Boeing 707.

They had all the data on the targets, WTC1 and WTC2.

MM

You are missing one major point.

No engineering firm or person on the face of this earth would be able to accurately analyze the structural performance of a building for BOTH an impact from a jetliner AND the resultant fires.

How in the world would you do that? What assumptions/elements would be applied to the analysis?

Which floors would be assumed to be impacted? How many floors? How much damage? Which perimeter columns would be impacted? How many? Which side of the core would be impacted, the long axis or short axis? How intense would the fires be? Where would the fires be?

Is there a worst case scenario that the engineers would have used? What is it? 50% severed core columns, 30% severed perimeter columns on one face, 5 contiguous floors 20% damaged, fires on those floors at 600 degrees?

There is no possible way to analyze both an impact AND fires and come up with a statement that the towers would remain standing.

 

[JayUtah]

And all the fresh aircraft-impact empirical knowledge gained from World War II, was not applicable to the engineering analysis that concluded WTC1 and WTC2 would well endure?

Applicable in what way, precisely? You're handwaving.

Any engineering risk that could lead to structural failure would be anathema for the engineers.

Where did you obtain your engineering degree? Where do you practice engineering? These are serious questions; please answer them.

These skyscrapers were going to be tallest steel buildings in the world.

True but irrelevant. More handwaving.

Yes, the high speed computers were not there.

But I would argue that those tools were not required by the engineers.

High-performance computers are required to do the type of analysis you say must have been done. You've been asked what tools and techniques were available at the time and commonly applied to problems such as this. You refuse to answer, probably because you don't know. And because you probably don't know, you don't know whether the 9/11 type scenario could have been adequately studied by the original engineers, as you claim, and thus designed against.

Your need and ability to accurately describe in detail the engineering practice of the 1960s is at the core of the credibility of your theory. You may not shirk it.

They had accurate data about all the primary engineering factors.

"Primary engineering factors" is handwaving. You're being asked about specific tools and techniques.

They had all the data for the projectile, a Boeing 707.

They had all the data on the targets, WTC1 and WTC2.

"All the data" is just more misleading handwaving. Engineers in the 1960s used data that were applicable to their methods, which they obtained as best they could from appropriate sources. "All the data" to them means the sufficiency of that specialized data to obtain from their models a defensible conclusion that the structures would withstand some certain set of foreseen challenges. Today "all the data" means something else, as it would be the sum total of data that apply to our tools and techniques -- which are different. We also study more questions these days than they did, because we can.

Can you, for example, explain what data would be needed in a model based largely on empiricism as opposed to a model based largely on constitutive relationships?

 

[000063]

bolding is mine

I like how you carefully cut out the part where you were proven wrong.

And all the fresh aircraft-impact empirical knowledge gained from World War II, was not applicable to the engineering analysis that concluded WTC1 and WTC2 would well endure?

Can you phrase this in the form of a statement and support it with evidence? How is the impact of, say, a kamikaze fighter loaded with explosives comparable to an accidental impact from a contemporary plane, much less a deliberate impact from a plane that did not exist yet?

Any engineering risk that could lead to structural failure would be anathema for the engineers.

Engineers do not eliminate all risk. They try to eliminate all reasonable and forseen risk. And even at that, they sometimes fail.

These skyscrapers were going to be tallest steel buildings in the world.

Yes, the high speed computers were not there.

But I would argue that those tools were not required by the engineers.

So you're actively arguing that thirty years of fire analysis and engineering development are useless, and have provided no benefit to such an analysis?

They had accurate data about all the primary engineering factors.

They had all the data for the projectile, a Boeing 707.

They had all the data on the targets, WTC1 and WTC2.

MM

And as pointed out repeatedly, what actually happened was quite different from what was hypothesized. The 767 is bigger, had more fuel, and was moving faster. It imparted literally dozens of times more force.

Moreover, the towers were not built to take a jetliner hit, much less the one they actually took. In fact, I defy you to find a single building that was built with deliberate aircraft impact in mind before 9/11, outside of testing facilities.

I find it interesting how Truthers are willing to ignore modern science when they think old, inferior science supports them. And, of course, you have not provided any real evidence that the theory was correct and that foul play must've happened, which is really what this thread is about.

Only the looniest Truthers deny that planes hit the building, and that they stood for some time. It is unfortunately far more common to try and say planes or fire couldn't have collapsed the buildings, and almost never both. I believe you have explicitly done the former on multiple occasions, possibly within the same post.

 

[000063]

Just how many airplanes were flown into buildings during WW2?
Was there a research group that measured the results?

Well, they were flown into warships. That's kind of the same thing, right?

 

[Gamolon]

Any engineering risk that could lead to structural failure would be anathema for the engineers.

Really?

So I'm an engineer designing a building in a downtown city. This building is going to be next to a curved highway bridge.

Are you telling me that I have to do calculations to make sure it can survive a fully loaded tanker truck carrying gasoline, the driver losing control, smashing through the concrete barrier of the bridge, smashing into the building, and causing fires? Do I have to take into account that the fire suppression system is possibly knocked out?

What if that tanker was carrying some other flammable liquid? What if it was very cold out and a water main supplying the fire system ruptured rendering it useless? What if two trucks of the same description, following each other, both lost control and smashed through the concrete barrier and into the building, but at slightly different locations?

Is it possible a plane could lose control and smash into the building because the city is near an airport? Do I calculate for that also?

You have no clue whatsoever.

 

[beachnut]

... Any engineering risk that could lead to structural failure would be anathema for the engineers.

These skyscrapers were going to be tallest steel buildings in the world.

Yes, the high speed computers were not there.

They had all the data for the projectile, a Boeing 707.

They had all the data on the targets, WTC1 and WTC2.

MM

The building was designed for aircraft impact, 180 mph; pay attention.
Since you are not an engineer, how would you know? How many classes have you had on engineering, reality?

Any engineering risk that could lead to structural failure would be anathema for the engineers.

This is why your car will not structurally fail in an accident; you can drop your car off the cliff on the side of road, a risk, and it never gets a dent. You can collide at 120 mph with the car coming at 120 mpg, and your car will not dent.

Oh, all risks?

The WTC towers were stronger than the ESB, and could repel aircraft impacts slower than 200 mph. That is the design point.

The highest risk for aircraft impact by airliner, was landing, lost in the fog; at 180 mph. Add flying to your list of things you don't know, but use to support the insane claim of CD.

 

[jaydeehess]

Well, they were flown into warships. That's kind of the same thing, right?

I was about to ask MM just how many aircraft were flown into buildings during WW2.
In fact how many were flown into buildings (or warships) and had no high explosives on board.
Certainly NONE were the size and speed of a jet powered airliner.

MM has harped on this a couple of times now yet has failed to explain it at all.

Fact remains that never in the history of office building design had any project had as one of its design stipulations, the ability to absorb a high speed large aircraft impact.
It happens that many structures do have this ability but it is just that, happenstance, that allows for this.

 

[jaydeehess]

You really should sign up. The badge they give you is awesome!

A head's up though:
be sure to read paragraph 27A(ii) very carefully and note that if you strike it out and initial it you will not have to relocate to Thule, Greenland for 18 months.

 

[jaydeehess]

No, the 1200 page design documents has not been found, according NIST NCSTAR 1-2, Chapter 1.3.

I stand corrected, thanks.

It seems that indeed this 1200 page engineering report by Skilling's firm is what the PANYNJ, who authered the three-page white paper (@ Non Believer: Do you understand by now that Skilling is NOT the author of the three-page white paper? Truther sites lie about this!), based point 3 of the white paper (the 600 mph collision claim), but it is not certain - different points in that white paper pertain to different sources. Point 1 mentions the 1200 page calculations by Skilling's firm, and points 2, 4 and 5 contain numbers that describe properties of the structural design, so it appears like these points are based on said calculations. This would be consistent with what Skilling said in 1993, when he imlied that he (his firm) considered a 600 mph impact.


Again, it needs to be pointed out:

• None of this implies that a 600 mph collision was a design objective prior to actually finishing the design; it was merely found in retrospect that the design would also be able to absorb such a hit
• None of this implies that a fire started by 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, in addition to crash damage, was at all considered in the calculations

Bolded needs reiterating since this is the crux of the OP's query.
The structure's design was already finalized when the impact consideration was addressed, the three page paper makes that clear to me. There is no mention of this design objective in articles written before the design was finalized and no mention of it being added to the design objectives during the design phase of the project. This scenario was discussed in the media and because of that it was addressed AFTER design was completed. The three page paper is quite obviously an article produced to allay fears. There is no evidence, either documentary or testimonial, that any design changes were made after this was considered. Therefore its obvious that, as you say, the ability of the design to absorb an impact was deduced in retrospect.

 

[JayUtah]

Engineers do not eliminate all risk. They try to eliminate all reasonable and forseen risk. And even at that, they sometimes fail.

We frequently fail. Every engineering design is analogous to a scientific hypothesis. The realization of that design and its operation in the real world is the empirical test of that hypothesis. Just because a design exists does not mean it is known to work flawlessly, or even that it is intended to work flawlessly.

We engineers do not purport to be able to foresee all risk. Hence the assurances in an engineering design are always in a specific form, showing the limits of what has been considered and addressed. The customers of engineering must understand that beyond that limit there be dragons. Most often unforeseen risk arises in the form of systemic complexity: two or (typically) more factors acting in a combined fashion that isn't implied by their individual behavior.

And amoral as it may seem, there is the notion of reasonable risk. Any risk we can foresee we will also attempt to quantify. How likely is that to happen? What are the consequences if it does? Then finally, what will it take to mitigate or eliminate this risk? Sometimes it's simply too costly to mitigate the risk, and that's usually okay because the human race inherently maintains the notion of an acceptable risk. Building the tallest building in the world doesn't mean it will also be the safest, especially in terms of being hit by flying things. But that risk is offset by the desire to be superlative. That desire is quantifiable. The risk required to attain it is also quantifiable. One of the risks of a very tall building is being stuck a thousand feet in the air with a fire underneath you.

So you're actively arguing that thirty years of fire analysis and engineering development are useless, and have provided no benefit to such an analysis?

We've expanded by leaps and bounds just in the past 10 years. Integrated methods for fire propagation, thermal loading, and structural performance are just now being deployed as useful tools. NIST did not have those tools in its numerical arsenal; they had to manually transfer the results of one model to the other.

In the 1960s no such models existed at all. Fluid dynamics models existed that roughly mimicked fire propagation, but only as first-order approximations. Fire studies were only then starting to use sophisticated stoichiometric models. Structural behavior was still analyzed using indeterminate statics -- a largely pen-and-paper method that presumed no significant thermal loading. There were no models for fluid dispersal. There were no models for combustibles loads. All those were considered unknowns and, frankly, unreasonable risk assessments.

 

[jaydeehess]

We frequently fail. Every engineering design is analogous to a scientific hypothesis. The realization of that design and its operation in the real world is the empirical test of that hypothesis. Just because a design exists does not mean it is known to work flawlessly, or even that it is intended to work flawlessly.
.

Testify!

I have personal experience that the hype about the stability of Mac computers is just that, hype. I cannot begin to count the number of times our Mac Pros have hung up or I have had to shut down programs and relaunch them.


[shakes fist in the air] Steve!!![/shakes fist in the air]

Don't get me started on Panasonic's questionable decisions in the design of one of our camera models. (like two 3/8 inch long, 1/8inch diameter, bolts into a plastic frame will hold a 20 oz battery in place!)

 

[LSSBB]

You really should sign up. The badge they give you is awesome!

Do I have to go to the Pentagon security office or the 'special' one at the Denver airport? Is it TS-SCI clearance and do I have to be 'read in'?

 

[Justin39640]

Testify!

I have personal experience that the hype about the stability of Mac computers is just that, hype. I cannot begin to count the number of times our Mac Pros have hung up or I have had to shut down programs and relaunch them.


[shakes fist in the air] Steve!!![/shakes fist in the air]

Don't get me started on Panasonic's questionable decisions in the design of one of our camera models. (like two 3/8 inch long, 1/8inch diameter, bolts into a plastic frame will hold a 20 oz battery in place!)

Made by man... doomed to fail.

 

[jaydeehess]

Made by man... doomed to fail.

God ain't so great either ---- supernovae

 

[jaydeehess]

Do I have to go to the Pentagon security office or the 'special' one at the Denver airport? Is it TS-SCI clearance and do I have to be 'read in'?

Any location with an HR-2 office or higher will do.
yes a TS-SCI clearance will get you into up to level 3 stations (good enough for paid internet shill positions). The outer offices at the Pentagon and Denver are level 1 BTW. Stay back from the blue line on the floor though and do not approach any doors except the exit unless specifically cleared. You have to 'read in' for level 4 after which access will be granted to higher levels on a merit and qualifications basis.

 

[Justin39640]

God ain't so great either ---- supernovae

Disagree. That's just God's way of distributing the goods that took billions of years to make.

 

[jaydeehess]

Disagree. That's just God's way of distributing the goods that took billions of years to make.

ok, I suppose if you have billions of years to toss around a more efficient distribution system isn't required.