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

[Roger_Harris]

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.

"Design phase" or not, the analysis Skilling was talking about was done on the completed design, not the considerations that went into the initial design. That's why the white paper from 1964 that talks about 600mph says, "The buildings have been investigated ..." All we know about the initial design is that Robertson said, "I designed it for a 707 to smash into it," with no details, but Robertson also did an analysis on the completed design, assuming 180mph.

It's also completely irrelevant, since I only made that point to show you that there is no contradiction between what Robertson said and what Skilling said, since they were talking about two different analyses.

A much more signicant issue is that you ignored the point that both Anti-sophist and I have made to you: There was no way at the time to do ANY analysis of a plane crashing into a building except by making assumptions and "educated guesses" about the damage that would be done.

And then, you completely ignored the point about analyzing the effects of fire also being a matter of assumptions and "educated guesses." As Robertson said, "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." But we don't really need him to tell us that; the proof is the fact that there was NOTHING in the design for fireproofing except the standard office building code at the time.

I have to assume you ignored these points because you don't understand the significance. That means you also don't understand why they shoot a gaping hole in your "designed to withstand the impact and fire" argument. Oh, well...

 

[Loss Leader]

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.

And it seems willfully ignorant to me that you do not recognize that between the two analyses was an intervening period of forty years. Forty years - LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush - almost a fifth of all the US Presidents who have ever served. , that's how long a period we're talking. It was the year Herbert Hoover died, having been born in 1874. The Academy Award went to "My Fair Lady."

Why are you so absolutely certain that we should give full faith and credit to calculations done in the year the Beatles first appeared on Ed Sullivan?

Even if you think Skilling investigated this impossible scenerio that nobody in 1964 would ever dream of, you must admit that his ability to do so was severely limited by a fundamental lack of information.

You see, it was 1964, the year Muhammed Ali defeated Sonny Liston. Of course, you wouldn't have heard anything about that because back then Muhammed Ali was still being called Cassius Clay.

 

[Architect]

As an architect, I admit to some surprise that an engineer who had purportendly designed the structure to accommodate a plane sized hole did not then consider increasing the robustness of the core against the debris from the impact. It seems to me that a very limited, structural damage assessment was made.

In passing, those who doubt that serious mistakes were and are made should appraise themselves of the strage case of the Citicorp building.

 

[Non Believer]

For Anti sophist- I am not saying that I believe Skilling. What I am saying is that his statements regarding the analyses of a 707 crash deserve their place. If I defend him too much perhaps that is because of the unwillingness to give the statements their due. But again, why I think the issue is important is because we need to establish a backdrop of what the expectations of the towers and air defese were on Sept 10, 2001. If it is established that results of Sept 11 defy the established expectations of the day before, then we have an event that demands an investigation
There should have been considerations on bomb attacks and their effects on the towers after 93. To me, that would suggest discussions with the engineers over the structures ability to resist explosion and subsequent fires. And after operation Bojinka was discovered, they had a direct threat of an airliner crashing into the towers. Certainly at this point some discussion of Skillings statements would have been in order.
But instead we have Robertson answering questions about the terrorist threat to the towers in the years before 9-11, saying only that they were designed to withstand a 707. If he actually meant withstand to mean only that they would initially stand and then fall, I think he owed everyone a better explanation.
As for Roger, please supply more specifics on your claim that Skilling did not consider the plane question in the initial design phase. All the quotes I have seen indicate they had the question in mind from the begining.
When you say there is no contradiction between Skilling and Robertson statements, which Robertson? The one who seems to assure reporters on the towers ability to withstand a 707 before 9-11, or the one who tells us we never meant that it would withstand a larger plane and fire. If it is the later then the differnce between the two couldn't be bigger. One is saying the towers will remain after a plane attack, and the other in hindsight says we had no reason to expect it.
As to your claim that I am ignoring the question of the difficulty in calculating for fire damage into the design of a building, I believe I did address this in the last message-

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 a multi factorial assessment, and at the same time claim that a hypothetical analysis on the WTC collapse done by NIST is absolute proof.
Once again if calculations were so difficult back then, was Skilling out of line in his claims? If so then you need to prove it. And why didn't Robertson and others call him on it. Give me some reasons as to why calculating for airplane fires is impossible, or extremely difficult. I know a big part of this is to claim that everything is so complicated the average person can't understand, but try me.
As to your point that the fireproofing is the only tool available in the design of a building to resist fire, I disagree. Obviously a calculation can be done on the steel infrastructures ability to withstand fires. Temperature estimates can be made on amounts of jetfuel, combustibles in offices, oxygen availability, heat transfer within the steel, and yes the fireproofing. So why do you claim Skilling could not have done such an analysis?
And to repeat one more time, this is the same analysis for Skilling as it is for NIST. Trying to determine the heat of the fires, the steels ability to resist, etc. Granted NIST has some advantages with film, physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, etc, but at the heatrt of it it is the same calculation.
Some of you may admitt to this, but will then say their were 40 years in between. It is a legitamate point, but you need to back it up with facts on how the new technology is superior now and how the old was flawed. The claim that microprocessing technology has increased exponetially seems to imply that the technology for engineers has multiplied at the same rate. Obviously this is not true. But certainly there must be some understandable facts to support what you are saying

 

[gumboot]

Give me some reasons as to why calculating for airplane fires is impossible, or extremely difficult. I know a big part of this is to claim that everything is so complicated the average person can't understand, but try me.

It's pretty straight forward. The only way to calculate that sort of thing is through computer simulation. When the WTC was built there were no computers powerful enough to run such a simulation.

NIST actually INVENTED the entire process for simulating this sort of thing because it didn't exist.

-Gumboot

 

[Loss Leader]

Blah blah balh typical tr00ther nonsense blah blah blah

Non Believer, let's end this right now: What is your theory as to how the towers were brought down? Don't tell me you're just asking questions. Don't whine about needing an investigation. There are mountains of evidence for you to review. So, exactly what do you think caused the towers to collapse?

I have a theory, I have evidence and I have an explanation for all of your questions (although you appear to refuse to actually accept such explanation).

You tell us your theory.

Then we'll compare which one bears the weight of evidence.

But, I'll bet four hundred and ninety six dollars than you refuse to even propose an alternate explanation as to how and why the towers were destroyed. Because to you this is all a big day in the sandbox where you just dig and dig around until you accidentally find a little bit of something interesting. Unfortunately, the hundreds of firefighters and police and thousands of civilians who died that day deserve better.

 

[Loss Leader]

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 a multi factorial assessment, and at the same time claim that a hypothetical analysis on the WTC collapse done by NIST is absolute proof.

The hypothetical analysis done by NIST is not absolute proof. The fact that two 767s crashed into the Twin Towers and caused their collapse is absolute proof.

 

[beachnut]

End of this thread!

The buildings did not fall for minutes after the aircraft impact.

What is next, it is true, the buildings stood for a while, that marks the end,

What is the next thread about

 

[Roger_Harris]

As for Roger, please supply more specifics on your claim that Skilling did not consider the plane question in the initial design phase. All the quotes I have seen indicate they had the question in mind from the begining.

Yes, they had "the question in mind from the beginning," and the evidence of that is the basic design itself, specifically the way it was designed to withstand the loss of many of the exterior columns. But we're talking about two specific analyses that were done on the completed design. From the NIST report:

In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “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.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993] The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates 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.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 131-132; Lew, Bukowski, and Carino, 10/2005, pp. 70-71] The other structural engineer who designed the towers, Leslie Robertson, carried out a second study later in 1964, of how the towers would handle the impact of a 707 (see Between September 3, 2001 and September 7, 2001). However, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), following its three-year investigation into the WTC collapses, will in 2005 state that it has been “unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 13

Look at the wording of the white paper quoted in the NIST report, beginning with "The buildings have been investigated ..." The completed design was "investigated" with a set of parameters including the 600mph impact.

When you say there is no contradiction between Skilling and Robertson statements, which Robertson?

I'm simply saying that there is no contradiction between the study the Skilling mentioned, using 600mph, and the separate one Robertson did using 180mph. And anyway, the building did withstand the initial impact, so it's all a red herring: We don't know what either analysis assumed for core damage, and we also don't know what the actual core damage was.

A bigger question is what either analysis included for the effects of fire.

As to your claim that I am ignoring the question of the difficulty in calculating for fire damage into the design of a building, I believe I did address this in the last message-

Well, no, you didn't really address the issue; all you did was reassert that a fire was considered through some presumably magical engineering process, and you're ignoring that no such magical engineering process was available to them. And the fundamental fact is that there was NOTHING included in the design for fireproofing except standard code fireproofing -- no extra fireproofing, and no effort to protect the fireproofing from high-speed plane debris. That indicates that whatever analysis was done, they must have concluded that nothing special was required. You would like to use some unexplained and undetailed fire analysis as a reason to expect the building to withstand the impact and the fire, whereas a reasonable person would see the failure to do so as a reason to suspect that the analysis was inadequate.

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 a multi factorial assessment, and at the same time claim that a hypothetical analysis on the WTC collapse done by NIST is absolute proof.

Who is suggesting that the NIST study is "absolute proof" of anything? But anyway, the NIST study used a computer simulation which, while still being an approximation of reality, was more elaborate than any study that could have realistically been done manually in 1964. That's just a fact, not hypocrisy. And, yes, hindsight is 20/20.

 

[Non Believer]

Since you guys claim I don't answer your questions how about some of mine.
1- If Skillings calculations and claims were clearly out of the range of any certainty why didn't someone say that back then.
2- Why is there no public record of the discussions that should have taken place regarding the towers ability to withstand (in the conventional defenition) bombs , missles, and planes?
3- Robertsons difference in statements before 9-11, and those after.
Roger you did offer some quotes for your claim, but it all remains a little murky. It seems most likely that they designed it to withstand a jetliner originally (since that was publicly stated), and perhaps ran additional tests afterword. Though I agree it dosen't really matter to much, since the real point is Skillings belief based on research(and pubicly stated opinion) that they were built to withstand a 707.
As for your insistence that only magical calculations could be done on a building outside of fireproofing seems ridiculous. As I stated , even back in those ancient non-high powered microprocessing days, we knew what temps would melt steel. We knew what temps would weaken it. We could estimate fire potentials. Where is the magic in that?
As for LL wanting me to discuss the collapse of the towers. I have tried to keep the discussion based on this thread, but will make a couple of quick points and then move to a diffrent thread if need be. NIST's physical models did not collapse, and the computer simulated models are unavailable to be run for others. Give us something that can indepently evaluated please.
So with that I go back to my final point, all of your strongest points rest on the fact the average citizen cannot understand these complexities. Yet when I say there must be some gradient towards understanding, you are silent. No encouragement towards greater understanding, just rebukes at my hopeless naiveity. I hope others see through this strategy

 

[beachnut]

Since you guys claim I don't answer your questions how about some of mine.

So with that I go back to my final point, all of your strongest points rest on the fact the average citizen cannot understand these complexities. Yet when I say there must be some gradient towards understanding, you are silent. No encouragement towards greater understanding, just rebukes at my hopeless naiveity. I hope others see through this strategy

Did the towers withstand a jetliner crash? Yes but then it was not exactly what they planned on. If you remember the CT sites use 600 or 607 mph cruise speed (cruise speed is near 27,000 feet, lower altitude speed at 100 feet is regulated to 250 KIAS and around 355 KCAS for airframe limiting speed, but you can go faster if you are dumb).

Did the towers withstand a jetliner crash?

63 minutes for one tower after impact to fall.

102 minutes for the other tower to fall.

Almost as long as the fireproofing rating.

Yes the WTC towers withstood an airliner impact and stood for 63/102 minutes.

Seems the towers had the design strength to stand after an impact beyond the design impact expected.

Yes the towers stood. Fire was seen as the bad guy, it distorted the buildings and strength, causing the building to fall after being crippled by a big impact. (try not to forget the impacts were like bombs, and delivered the energy of a ton of TNT, like a 2,000 pound bomb)

Answer to the thread question is YES, it appears the towers had the design strength to withstand aircraft impacts, thus saving 20 to 30,000 people! We must thank the FDNY, and others, and the men and women who built very strong buildings, design to stand long enough to save many.

not sure what the rest of your last post was about but it is not about the towers and aircraft impact?

What is your real purpose, why not start your next thread question?

What are you after?

 

[westprog]

So with that I go back to my final point, all of your strongest points rest on the fact the average citizen cannot understand these complexities. Yet when I say there must be some gradient towards understanding, you are silent. No encouragement towards greater understanding, just rebukes at my hopeless naiveity. I hope others see through this strategy

The average citizen will find the arguments difficult to understand, and will rely on experts to explain things. They are then faced with the following possibilities -

All the structural engineers in the world still alive are wrong, cowards, or implicated in a terrorist plot.

The intended design of the WTC wasn't as good as claimed.

The design of the WTC performed as well as could have reasonably been expected.

To believe that the WTC should be planeproof involves having enormous faith in a particular interpretation of a particular statement from one engineer, who is dead and can't be questioned to establish exactly what he meant to say. It also involves believing that all the other engineers in the world who dispute this can be disregarded.

Isn't it a bit more likely that just one engineer got one thing wrong than all the engineers everywhere? Or that the representation of what he said is inaccurate?

 

[Loss Leader]

1- If Skillings calculations and claims were clearly out of the range of any certainty why didn't someone say that back then.

1. Skillings' statements about what was done back in 1964 was eronious; or
2. Skillings' statements about what was done back in 1964 were erroniously reported; or
3. Back in 1964, whatever was done was considered professional and reliable so there was no reason for anyone to say anything back then but IN THE INTERVENING FORTY YEARS, methods have improved so much that his work would now be considered unreliable.

I mean, it's really not that difficult to understand.

2- Why is there no public record of the discussions that should have taken place regarding the towers ability to withstand (in the conventional defenition) bombs , missles, and planes?

In 1964, there was no fear of an attack on a building in New York by a bomb, missile or plane. Not everything can be viewed in hindsight. Really, it's not that difficult to understand.

As for your insistence that only magical calculations could be done on a building outside of fireproofing seems ridiculous.

How things seem to you, a lay person with no understanding of structural or mechanical engineering, is of no interest to anyone. If you think the opinions of experts are ridiculous, go back to school and learn everything they know. Then reevaluate your appeal from ignorance.

As for LL wanting me to discuss the collapse of the towers. I have tried to keep the discussion based on this thread, but will make a couple of quick points and then move to a diffrent thread if need be. NIST's physical models did not collapse, and the computer simulated models are unavailable to be run for others. Give us something that can indepently evaluated please.

I and everyone else note your refusal to answer my simple question: What do you think happened and how was it caused? I predicted you would claim to just be asking questions. I predicted that you would refuse to affirmatively state a theory of the collapse of the towers. Thank you for carrying on in the grand tradition of the intelectually dishonest.

So with that I go back to my final point, all of your strongest points rest on the fact the average citizen cannot understand these complexities. Yet when I say there must be some gradient towards understanding, you are silent. No encouragement towards greater understanding, just rebukes at my hopeless naiveity. I hope others see through this strategy

And I am certain others already have seen through your strategy of asking questions, refusing to believe the answers and then claiming that no answer was given while simultaniously refusing to make any statements about your own theories.

 

[Non Believer]

Whatever

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Whatever

top notch debunking

 

[jsfisher]

The average citizen will find the arguments difficult to understand, and will rely on experts to explain things. They are then faced with the following possibilities...

Welcome to the forums, westprog.

 

[beachnut]

Whatever

Whatever?

Whatever your theory is?

Whatever it may be?

Whatever could it be?

Will it ever be?

To be or not to be, your theory is the question? Whether you will tell us or not, or will we have to survive without it?

Whatever? Whatever! Whatever. More?

r u 28th's brother or related in some way? Whatever back to you!

 

[apathoid]

deleted, the quotes werent working in NBs post above and I attributed someones elses comments to him.

 

[Loss Leader]

Lord in heaven. NB, you asked: "If Skillings calculations and claims were clearly out of the range of any certainty why didn't someone say that back then." In response, I gave you three very good reasons why nobody back in 1964 took issue with what are now claimed to be Skillings' calculations. I said:

1. Skillings' statements about what was done back in 1964 was eronious; or 2. Skillings' statements about what was done back in 1964 were erroniously reported; or 3. Back in 1964, whatever was done was considered professional and reliable so there was no reason for anyone to say anything back then but IN THE INTERVENING FORTY YEARS, methods have improved so much that his work would now be considered unreliable.

You responded by writing:

Your answers and points are as simplistic as they come. I don't have much to say other than you present no evidence of what you say/

Now how in the deepest, dankest fathoms of hell could I amass evidence of why an unidentified and amorphous someone did not do something forty years ago? There is no such evidence.

But if I cannot present evidence of why someone didn't do something forty years ago, you certainly cannot use the fact that the thing didn't get done as proof of anything. You have no more idea why it wasn't done than anyone else. To say that the fact that it wasn't done is evidence of a blessed thing is attempting to trade on the very same obfuscation that you accuse me of.

I personally believe Skillings misspoke or was misquoted and there was never a 600 mph analysis. I believe this because a 600 mph analysis would have been insane and these were all careful, rational, business-minded individuals. My beliefs comport with reality which, to many, makes them somewhat more reliable than your own wild guess.

And then, as though we weren't far enough through the looking glass, you write:

And as I have said (but I.m not sure you get this LL), if the experts are not willing to let the american public in on a discussion of an event of this magnitude then we have lost our democracy.

So, which domcratically elected experts are you referring to? How in the world does a private individual's decision not to spoon-feed you engineering lessons equate to the concept that elected officials are not responding to popular mandate?

Let me say this again: Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean there's a conspiracy out to deceive you. It's just not that difficult

 

[T.A.M.]

maybe everyone in the world should just get together, drink the kool-- I mean learn from each other, and then all of our minds will expand and we WILL know the TRUTH.

TAM