No one has disputed the calculations that a 707 at cruising speed actually supplies more kinetic energy than a 767, so I am still waiting on that one. As for Beachnut, I don't know what to tell you. You keep insisting that I have come up with the 600 MPH figure. I am quoting John Skilling, so if you don't like it why don't you mention that you think he is an idiot instead of calling me one. I do not think Skilling felt he was restrained by speed limits when did calculations for a potential disaster. Also you and others continue to insist that flights 175 and 11 were going 600 MPH. Are you just going to ignore that MIT says 429 and 537 MPH?
As for Anti-sophist, I felt I addressed your question with this quote from my second post-"As for the fact that beyond the 1964 white paper there is no record of this work (according to the NIST investigation). In general when I quote a top expert in a field as having made a statement to research he has done, I am not accustomed to being asked to reproduce his results. If his results are missing it is noteworthy, but it does not give you licensee to dismiss his statements on the subject. We do not go discounting top experts with exemplary records just because someone lost their research. How does that work in favor of the official story? In my opinion it casts doubt the other way since so many of the pertinent documents and evidence involved in 9-11 are missing." I know I am not allowed to cast any suspicion on the fact that seemingly key documents about the trade center are missing, but what would you have me do. Is this supposed to imply that he didn't do any research? And while we are on the subject maybe some of you can assist me in understanding exactly what information is available to the public regarding the engineering and construction of the towers. I assume you all believe in making as much as possible available to the public right? There is a photocopy of the 1964 white paper at pilots for 9-11 truth. Also we had this from Gravy in case you missed it A three-page document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ or Port Authority) Indicates that the impact of a Boeing 707 flying at 600 mph was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers in February/March 1964 (Letter with an attachment dated November 13, 2003 from John R. Dragonette(Retired Project Administrator, Physical Facilities Division, World Trade Department) to Saroj Bhol (Design and Engineering Department, PANYNJ).
NB - Note to Roger Harris here who claimed that Skilling performed tests after the design. Your position is contradicted by this information. Skilling was considering the airplane crash during the design phase.
No documents on the aircraft impact analysis are available to review the criteria and method used in the impact analysis of a Boeing 707 aircraft on the WTC tower and to verify the assertion in the three-page document that "...such collision would result in only local damage which could 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." Without the original calculations of the aircraft impact analysis, any comment on the document would be a speculation. In March 1964, a calculation was made by the Port Authority to determine the period of vibration of the tower due to an aircraft impact at the 80th floor. Although no conclusion was stated on the calculation sheet, it clearly indicates that the Port Authority recognized during the design stage the possibility of an aircraft impact on the tower.
Has anyone asked NIST where they looked for the documents, or where they ought to be? There explanation to this point is inadequate, though I doubt this aspect of the story concerns you.
To those of you who claim Skillings efforts were to a varying degree ineffective or ill informed in trying to protect against a jetliner crash, we have several problems.
1- I assume most of you believe the towers came down from the jetliner crashes alone. Thus you are of the belief that Skilling was wrong, so it is easy to infer his calculations were faulty. I of course do not believe that to be the proven case, so we have a little break in our realities on this. It would seem to me in the interest of neutral observation for both sides to consider Skillings claims without conclusions on what happened on Sept 11. I am sure that will get some howls from some quarters, but from my perspective I am trying to meet to you all halfway.
2- It seems a little hypocritical to say that making calculations on what factors will make a building remain standing or collapse is so complex that no one can be sure of such multi factorial assessments, and at the same time claim that a hypothetical analysis on the WTC collapse done by NIST is absolute proof. You start with the premise that the planes and the fires brought down the towers and NIST has to just fill in the blanks.
3- The titanic thing is cute, but what is it that you really say with it. That all technology is fallible and not to be trusted ? If so that's fine, but lets not pick and choose the technologies we see as legitimate and put our trust in without evidence.
