peer review.

[beachnut]

John Skilling was quoted about it in 1993 after the first Trade Center Bombing. Here is the article.

www.cooperativeresearch.org/.../11_world=investigations

Here are the specifications for a Boeing 707-320B which was the largest plane at the time the towers were built and what they were designed to handle an impact from. By the way, 607 MPH was its cruise speed.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html

You should ask Leslie Robertson how they would decide 180 MPH was a good number. Engineers don't make arbitrary decisions and a decision like that wouldn't be made without strong data. I have never heard any justification for using a low speed of impact.

Additionally, it seems Skilling was more accurate in that the buildings did survive the impact. He was also the chief engineer.

No, Leslie Robertson was the Chief Structural engineer, and the design was a slow moving lost in the fog aircraft. Sorry but my engineer beats your engineer.

No, as an engineer they make sound decision. And a lost plane in the fog is going 180 mph. BTW, the max speed is still 355KCAS. My speed is more correct. Debunked again. twice

Leslie E. Robertson, , said: on being hit by a commercial jet -
" It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

Your 607 speed is wrong for many reasons. Tell me why you would use 607, try some engineering details now based on reality. All the parameters please.

Notice, I did not use a biased woo site like you did. I used the source! The boeing site, yes, the speed is 355KCAS, you need help, even boeing confirms my speed, go ask them. They put in the 607 mph for fools like you who do not understand flying.

Do you need to me to tell you how you pick a speed for aircraft impact? I can do it, I be engineer too, like you, but no woo.

 

[CHF]

John Skilling - died in 1998

Leslie Robertson - still alive

Naturally truthers take the claims of someone who wasn't alive for 9/11 over a comrade of his who can actually speak about the event itself.

 

[Furcifer]

I missed this thread, I've been away from the computer for a bit, taking a break from the conspiracy. I'm not sure what the question is, but as a student of physics I was taught to look at energy. What energy did the plane have before the impact and where did it go? Energy is energy, the ability to do work and cause destruction in this case. Whatever form it takes is irrelevant, the structure had to absorb it. The energy went into causing damage which ultimately caused the collapse. Trying to dissect the particlulars of the collapse is futile. It happened, just accept it and deal with it. I swear to God, from what I know and what I've learned over the last few months this is true. This isn't the most scientific explanation of what happened, but it is what I have seen and observed over the last few months. I've got a pretty good idea of what happened, and a pretty good understanding of what buildings are capable of withstanding, and they couldn't. They couldn't withstand the impact and the fires. NIST was right. Yeah, I said it, NIST was right. I've seen what Ryan has said and I agree. Totally. And from what I have gathered over the last few months, most of the people educated in this area concur. There are a few that question the official story and for good reason. The US goverment has failed in what it intended since 9/11. Bush sucks, he can't make his own decisions, and all those that have tried to help him do so have been a miserable failure. Prove me wrong in this and I will retract all I have said, but in the mean time it is an utter truth. Why? Because Bush is a moron. Plain and simple. I'm not sure why, my olny question is how you can be advised by so many people and still fail in the way Bush has. What it boils down to for me is that there is a slight chance that if Bush weren't such a moron the WTC may not have fallen. This totally defies logic, and I can't explain it. I'm totally serious, if Bush were like 20 IQ points higher this wouldn't have happened. But then again, if Bush were 20 points higher in his IQ everything would be different. Right? Maybe not. Who knows really. Whatever, I guess I'm rambling so I'll end it here. All I'm saying is as a person well versed in physics and building construction there is nothing to see here. NIST did a very good job. They explained everything that needed to be explained, and did so very well. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to see it do we need a 10 000 page explaination to explain it?

 

[Gravy]

It wasn't accepted "as is" and there were some changes. I don't need to tell you what they were.

Oh, my god (and as I'm an atheist, it takes a lot for me to say that). Since your paper is chock-full of obvious errors, rampant nonsensical speculation, uninformed political rants, and abuse of the English language, how bad was it before?

 

[T.A.M.]

Produce for me, one, just ONE 9/11 "inside job" related scientific article that has been published in a reputable, NON 9/11 RELATED journal, a scientific journal...

JUST ONE!!!

You can try to defend that toilet paper substitute all you want, at the end of the day it is not a journal worth anything...it is still just butt wipe.

Sorry to sound course and nasty, but the issue of that journal's merits has been beaten to death here, and nothing has changed...it is still garbage.

TAM

 

[Gravy]

Can I suggest taking the "707" argument elsewhere? realcddeal can easily search the forum for threads in which this issue is discussed, and add his comments there.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Oh, my god (and as I'm an atheist, it takes a lot for me to say that). Since your paper is chock-full of obvious errors, rampant nonsensical speculation, uninformed political rants, and abuse of the English language, how bad was it before?

Write your paper and attempt to show me the errors you allege. Blathering without backup isn't debating. I have to put you on ignore until you write your critiquing paper. You have my e-mail address so let me know when you have written and published your paper. Dr. Jones is waiting fo it. Goodbye for now.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

John Skilling - died in 1998

Leslie Robertson - still alive

Naturally truthers take the claims of someone who wasn't alive for 9/11 over a comrade of his who can actually speak about the event itself.

We still have Skilling's quotes with us. He said it was a fully loaded 707 or DC-8 moving at approximately 600 MPH and he was the Chief Engineer on the design.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No, Leslie Robertson was the Chief Structural engineer, and the design was a slow moving lost in the fog aircraft. Sorry but my engineer beats your engineer.

No, as an engineer they make sound decision. And a lost plane in the fog is going 180 mph. BTW, the max speed is still 355KCAS. My speed is more correct. Debunked again. twice



Your 607 speed is wrong for many reasons. Tell me why you would use 607, try some engineering details now based on reality. All the parameters please.

Notice, I did not use a biased woo site like you did. I used the source! The boeing site, yes, the speed is 355KCAS, you need help, even boeing confirms my speed, go ask them. They put in the 607 mph for fools like you who do not understand flying.

Do you need to me to tell you how you pick a speed for aircraft impact? I can do it, I be engineer too, like you, but no woo.

Leslie Robertson was NOT the Chief Engineer on the tower design. Where did you get that idea? John Skilling was the Chief Engineer on the tower design. Leslie Robertson was in his early 30's when the towers were designed and did not have the experience to be a Chief Engineer yet. Actually Leslie does not even have an engineering degree, he has a basic hard science degree from the University of California at Berkeley. His primary contribution to the tower design was the dampers on the floor trusses and the idea to bring the floor truss diagonals into the floor concrete to make the floor and trusses act in unison.

How can you possibly say something like "Boeing only says 607 MPH in their specification for fools"? Then you want to tell us they agree with your 355 KCAS but just don't publish that and you add that we should go ask them. Nobody can take you seriously.

As for why the speed of 607 MPH would be used one has to realize that the design would be concerned with a worst case if it was possible to withstand it structurally and cost wise. It obviously was as the buildings took 500 MPH hits and survived them. John Skilling also said they were designed to take a hit at that speed.

Flight controls can get jammed, hydraulics can malfunction, altimeters can break.

There would be NO basis for limiting the airspeed to 180 MPH. That would be irresponsible unless a higher speed was cost prohibitive which was not the case.

You need to get your facts straight on the simple matter of the cruise speed of a Boeing 707. I have to put you on ignore until you decide to work a little harder at your research before opening your mouth.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Produce for me, one, just ONE 9/11 "inside job" related scientific article that has been published in a reputable, NON 9/11 RELATED journal, a scientific journal...

JUST ONE!!!

You can try to defend that toilet paper substitute all you want, at the end of the day it is not a journal worth anything...it is still just butt wipe.

Sorry to sound course and nasty, but the issue of that journal's merits has been beaten to death here, and nothing has changed...it is still garbage.

TAM

This is a strawman argument there TAM. You are supposed to judge a paper by its merits. Remember Galileo. I really am starting to think some of you guys would have been flat earthers in the middle ages, and claiming that the reason there were no articles published on the earth being round and not the center of the universe in your definition of an accepted journal, is that it couldn't be true.

 

[T.A.M.]

This is a strawman argument there TAM. You are supposed to judge a paper by its merits. Remember Galileo. I really am starting to think some of you guys would have been flat earthers in the middle ages, and claiming that the reason there were no articles published on the earth being round and not the center of the universe in your definition of an accepted journal, is that it couldn't be true.

It is not a strawman arguement. I am not arguing for starters. I am asking you to prove the worth of 9/11 Scientific papers by producing at least a single paper that has been deemed of high enough quality or at least meeting the minimum standards, to appear in at least ONE reputable journal.

Your arguement that it is a strawman is simply a cop out so you do not have to admit that the 9/11 truth academia is so poor that it cannot get published in any journal a REAL scientist would call legit.

If an MD colleague of mine begins bragging that his new, earth shattering paper has been published, and that I must take him seriously, and I find out that the only journal it got published in was "Good Housekeeping", am I going to really take him or his "paper" seriously?

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

This is a strawman argument there TAM. You are supposed to judge a paper by its merits. Remember Galileo. I really am starting to think some of you guys would have been flat earthers in the middle ages, and claiming that the reason there were no articles published on the earth being round and not the center of the universe in your definition of an accepted journal, is that it couldn't be true.

Palleaaaseee

I am really sick of the arrogance in comparing yourself, or any of the truth movement academics to Galileo...

TAM

 

[Slayhamlet]

This is a strawman argument there TAM. You are supposed to judge a paper by its merits. Remember Galileo. I really am starting to think some of you guys would have been flat earthers in the middle ages, and claiming that the reason there were no articles published on the earth being round and not the center of the universe in your definition of an accepted journal, is that it couldn't be true.

The conception of a flat earth was not prominent in the Middle Ages.

 

[MarkyX]

You are supposed to judge a paper by its merits. Remember Galileo.

Wait, so Galileo never had to test his theories to and was not looked at by other scientists?

What a dumb argument.

 

[Gravy]

Leslie Robertson was NOT the Chief Engineer on the tower design. Where did you get that idea? John Skilling was the Chief Engineer on the tower design. Leslie Robertson was in his early 30's when the towers were designed and did not have the experience to be a Chief Engineer yet. Actually Leslie does not even have an engineering degree, he has a basic hard science degree from Cal-Poly Tech.

His actual school disagrees with you. Give us a holler when you're inspired to get anything right, will you? Anything at all. It'll be big news around these parts.

A 1952 Berkeley civil engineering graduate, Robertson and his then-partner John Skilling were the original structural engineers for the Twin Towers.
http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/forefront/fall02/towers.html

LESLIE E. ROBERTSON
P.E., C.E., S.E., D.Sc., D.Eng., NAE, Hon. M.ASCE, AIJ, JSCA, AGIR, Chartered Structural Engineer

Education
University of California at Berkeley, B.Sc., 1952

Professional Experience
1958 to Date - Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P.
1957 to 1958 - Raymond International
1954 to 1957 - John Blume & Associates
1952 to 1954 - Kaiser Engineers

Mr. Robertson is responsible for the structural design of hundreds of buildings and structures about the world, including the World Trade Center (New York), the United States Steel Headquarters (Pittsburgh), the Bank of China Tower (Hong Kong), Puerta de Europa (Madrid) and the Continental Arena (Meadowlands) as well as exceptional museums in Berlin, Portland (Maine) and Seattle, and the Miho Museum Bridge (Japan).

With his innovations in structural engineering, Mr. Robertson has set new standards in the design and construction of tall buildings. A pioneer in the application of computers to design, he has advanced the art and the science of structural engineering theory. Mr. Robertson's work on skyscrapers, domes, bridges and long-span roofs has transformed engineering theory into practical technological breakthroughs that free architects to build the stuff of dreams.

Professional Licenses
Structural Engineer - California
Professional Engineer - New York. Licensed or eligible in all 50 states. N.C.E.E.
Civil Engineer - California. Licensed or eligible in all 50 states.
First Class Architect and Professional Engineer, Japan

Honors and Awards
Responsible for the structural design and construction of three of the world's tallest buildings, Mr. Robertson received the 1993 Mayor's Award for Excellence in Science and Technology for his structural design of the World Trade Center that withstood the 1993 terrorist bombing. As well, he was awarded the World Trade Center Individual Exceptional Service Medal for his work in the re-construction of the twin towers.

Mr. Robertson received the first Henry C. Turner Prize for Innovation in Construction Technology. The National Building Museum and Turner Construction Company established the prize for notable advances and high achievement in the process of construction. The award recognized Mr. Robertson's 50-year career as a structural designer, which has significantly advanced the engineering and construction of tall buildings around the world. He also recently received the prestigious Outstanding Projects and Leaders (OPAL) award from the American Society of Civil Engineers for his lifetime achievement in the category of design.

Mr. Robertson received the Gengo Matsui Prize, the AIA Institute Honor and honorary membership with the AIA, New York; and was recognized as ENR's Construction ÔMan of the Year'. Mr. Robertson was recently named one of Engineering News Record's "125 Top People of the Past 125 Years". He is one of twenty structural engineers (nine of whom are living) who made ENR's list of 125 Top People. Additional honors include:

Elected to the National Academy of Engineering in recognition of his expertise and contributions to the field of structural engineering.
Doctor of Engineering: Lehigh University
Doctor of Science: The University of Western Ontario
Doctor of Engineering: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Doctor of Engineering: University of Notre Dame
Recipient of the ASCE Outstanding Projects and Leaders (OPAL) Award for lifetime contributions in design, 2003
The Top 25 Newsmakers of ENR, 1993 and 1997
1991 John F. Parmer Award: Structural Engineers Association of Illinois
1989 Institute Honor: American Institute of Architects
State-of-the-Art in Civil Engineering Award: ASCE
Raymond C. Reese Research Prize: ASCE
AISC's J. Lloyd Kimbrough Award, 2001
Honorary Member: American Institute of Architects, New York Chapter
Structural Engineers Association of New York, Honorary Member
Honorary Member and Medal: National Society of Romanian Engineers (AGIR)

Professional Activities and Teaching Experience
Professor: Princeton University, 2002-2005
The Gordon Smith Lecturer, Yale University, 2003
The Felix Candela Lecturer Ð M.I.T., Museum of Modern Art, New York, Princeton University, 2002-03
Board of Directors: The Skyscraper Museum
Member: Architectural Institute of Japan
Commencement Speaker: Penn State University, 2002
The Frank Howard Distinguished Lecturer: George Washington University, 2002
Distinguished Engineering Alumnus, University of California at Berkeley
Fellow: The MacDowell Colony, 1996; Board of Directors, 2004-2005
Honorary Fellowship and Medal: Tokyo Society of Architects & Building Engineers
Architects, Designers, Planners for Social Responsibility (ADPSR), Board
Committee on Bombing Preparedness: Japan Institute of Architects
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems Committee on Federal Construction Design Criteria
Fellow: American Society of Civil Engineers
Past Chairman: Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
Fellow: New York Academy of Sciences; Committee on Human Rights
Board of Directors: The Architectural League of New York
Fellow: Singapore Structural Steel Society
Member: Japan Structural Consultants Association
Past Chairman: Wind Engineering Research Council

Patents
U.S. Patents: Viscoelastic Damper for Buildings (#3,605,953) Elevator Cable Dampers (#5,103,937)
Japanese Patents: Long-Span Structural System (#11800161)
Euro Patents: Cable Stabilization System (#DE 692 19 464.9-06)

Publications
Mr. Robertson has written over 300 papers on structural, earthquake and wind engineering.
http://lera.com/robertson.htm

Reflections on the World Trade Center by Leslie E. Robertson

 

[T.A.M.]

This arguement reminds me of one that occured in medicine in the 1980's over the role of H.Pylori in the genesis/pathology of GI Ulcers. The discoverer won a Nobel Prize, but the medical establishment didn't buy it, and some tried to over turn the award...an article on it here...

http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2005/11_15/2_advances_medicine05_19.html

Unfortunately, praise of the team's work wasn't always so unanimous. Back in the early 80s their findings created a not-entirely positive stir. At the time, it was still widely held that the gut was just too acidic to be a retreat for a bacteria and gastric acid itself was considered a more likely cause of ulcers.

The backlash was in fact so profound that the Nobel citation alludes to the controversy. These trailblazing doctors are now formally credited with "tenacity and a prepared mind [to challenge] prevailing dogmas."

Dr Sekar remembers the contro-versy well. "I remember attending a talk at an American GI meeting when Dr Marshall spoke about H pylori many, many years ago," he says. "There was obvious scepticism. How can an acid-mediated disorder be due to an infection? It didn't take long before we saw the light."

Dr Fingerote also recalls the eventual enthusiasm among his fellow GI specialists. "I was initially quite excited at the idea that ulcers could be cured with a couple of days of antibiotics," he says. "My next thought was how incredibly obvious this observation was? After all, bacteria in the gastric antrum were first identified over a century ago."

And you wanna know why the discoverers prevailed? Because their science was LEGITIMATE!!!!

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Leslie Robertson was NOT the Chief Engineer on the tower design. Where did you get that idea? John Skilling was the Chief Engineer on the tower design. Leslie Robertson was in his early 30's when the towers were designed and did not have the experience to be a Chief Engineer yet. Actually Leslie does not even have an engineering degree, he has a basic hard science degree from Cal-Poly Tech.

I hope others in the 9/11 truth academia are better researchers than you are...

Edit:

Doh, foiled by the dogowl again...lol

TAM

 

[apathoid]

You need to get your facts straight on the simple matter of the cruise speed of a Boeing 707. I have to put you on ignore until you decide to work a little harder at your research before opening your mouth.

Well, did you stop to think that maybe the cruise speed might not be a "hard" number.....that it might change with altitude and be expressed in a number of ways? Beachnut has a 707 type-rating, I'll take his opinion over yours. And cruise speed is typically expressed in mach number, or indicated airspeed - in knots(KIAS). 355 knots indicated airspeed at 35,000 feet may well work out to 600 mph true airspeed - but at 1000 feet, 355 knots indicated won't be much more than 400 mph. That is why he is telling you to check your facts.

Just thought I'd throw that out there......

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I hope others in the 9/11 truth academia are better researchers than you are...

Edit:

Doh, foiled by the dogowl again...lol

TAM

What are you trying to say here? The school was actually the University of California at Berkeley but the degree he received was a B. SC. in 1952. That is not an engineering degree. I am not saying Robertson is not qualified as a structural engineer. I am merely showing that he would not have been a chief engineer in his early 30's. That is what Beachnut was claiming. Robertson had a lot to learn at that point. and it is apparent that Beachnut still does.

http://www.lera.com/robertson.htm

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Well, did you stop to think that maybe the cruise speed might not be a "hard" number.....that it might change with altitude and be expressed in a number of ways? Beachnut has a 707 type-rating, I'll take his opinion over yours. And cruise speed is typically expressed in mach number, or indicated airspeed - in knots(KIAS). 355 knots indicated airspeed at 35,000 feet may well work out to 600 mph true airspeed - but at 1000 feet, 355 knots indicated won't be much more than 400 mph. That is why he is telling you to check your facts.

Just thought I'd throw that out there......

Boeing said 607 mph period, they never discuss 355 KCAS. Look at their specification. You also need to show a calculation to back up what you are saying. Bottom line is John Skilling was referring to 600 MPH relative to the building's speed which was zero. You guys are either confused or are trying to confuse others.