hearsay on the airspeed, peer review by MSEE, and ATP rated pilot
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.
You paper was not peer reviewed. Robertson, was too, like also. In fact he was the lead structural engineer. In your 30 you do things like take the lead. As lead he said it was a slow moving aircraft, not hearsay the fact.
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.
355KCAS is the speed, you need some peer review, but you are not paying attention.
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.
No, the speed of the plane was what could happen in an accident.
Oh, what kind of BS is this. A 600 mph hit puts the plane in the core, the building can not survive a core hit, people will die in mass. Any engineer, even I, can calculate the kinetic energy and see the core would be hit. Robertson did. The did the most likely accident, a 180 mph, or use 180 KIAS (knots). The plane would do localized damage most the plane and fuel falls to the ground. This is the design speed, too bad.
Explain why a flight control jammed jet would crash into the WTC. You can use engines to turn the plane. Power up, plane goes up. NEXT. As an engineer I can see this dumb idea can come up and I am an engineer, but as a pilot I see you need a pilot peer review, you are wrong, jammed flight controls not likely to hit WTC. Hydralics, same thing as jammed flight controls, and the 707 had manual back up. There are two altimeters. The pilot would not stay near the ground, the planes do not do 607 mph at 1300 feet. There are no reasonable BS ideas you have made up for a plane hitting the WTC. The accident was a lost plane landing, Slow speed. Why this peer review is going poorly.
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.
That is the speed planes do lost in the fog for landing. Sorry, you should get a peer review, and I would be the peer who ripped this junk to bits. As an engineer, I find your inability for reason dismal.
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.
You paper was not peer reviewed.
Why do truther use 607 mph for a 707 impact on the WTC as the design parameter.
Here is what the chief structural engineer said – he wrote this first hand. This is not a news story or hearsay, it is fact.
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
A slow flying plane, lost in the fog, gives a speed of 180 mph. Why would they pick this speed to look at vs the speed listed by Boeing as 607, but I must insist it is really 355 KCAS. Airspeed is funny. If you go up to the cockpit and the pilot shows you the indicated airspeed it may read 250 KIAS, yet the old plane is really going 500 mph. Why? The airspeed indicator is from the air going into a little tube. Airspeed. The plane may be going 500 mph, but the airspeed indicator shows 250 or 300 KIAS. (knots indicated airspeed). There is more, but who wants to learn pilot junk. The 355 KCAS covers the limit of the plane. Close to sea level it is near 355 knots, at 36,000 feet is is near 607 mph; 355 KCAS. We use MACH number too.
Why pick 180, because they did the design for the threat. The threat was a slow moving aircraft lost in the fog. This is the highest probability accident there is for building and airplane. Why not takeoff? The aircraft at takeoff accelerates to 250 KIAS until it reaches 10,000 feet. This is not 607 mph at 1300 feet is real close to 250 knots. (nautical mile is about 6,000 feet, 6067.something feet, or make up some number if you are JDX). Why not use a takeoff accident. Because it is not likely, the jets do not get lost on takeoff, and if they do they climb quickly out of the low altitude structure to stay away from traffic, little airplanes. And even if you want to use a takeoff, you would be at a slower speed. Why not use the max speed like 607 mph? The max speed is not 607 mph at 1300 feet, it is close to 355 knots. Speed above this could damage the plane. 607 is the speed that 355 KCAS is at 36,000 feet, well above the WTC towers.
Why would you use 607? There are only hearsay reports of 607. But the slow speed is first hand information. The slow speed impact would have most the aircraft falling to the ground and the firemen could fight the fire on the ground.
I am not sure why an engineer would use 607 mph, not a normal speed for an accident at 1300 feet. Now what speed do you want to build your building to survive. What about a meteor attack? What KE will our buildings withstand? The impact was big on 9/11, 7 to 11 times greater than the design impact. The buildings stood, but were damaged and fires took them out. The structure was strong, it let people have time to leave, but the impacts were terrible, cutting off people from escape, impacts past the design. The slow moving aircraft would have localized damage, but most the plane would fall to the ground. KE of 1300 pounds of TNT and 2200 pounds of TNT ripped into the WTC. Think about 200 pounds of TNT, one tenth the energy. One tenth of the columns. Most the plane outside, fuel outside. We are talking about the difference of 20 mph crash in your car into a brick wall vs. a 63 mph crash.
This does not mean much, but the truth movement uses this to show BS junk. Why are they not able to use the truth? They pull numbers out of the air just to feel good about BS they make up. Use this info how you please. I use it to debunk the so called engineers, who just grasp the numbers and run without thinking what it means. The look up the top speed or cruising speed at Boeing. They use it. Why? The next debunking of 607 comes because they did find it at Boeing and just inserted it as they want. Then they lie about Robertson and say he is making up his stuff. Why? I have shown why 607 is not a speed you would use for a accident at 1300 feet.
Questions? Realcddeal has written a paper using bogus information. He used a speed he found at Boeing with no regard for engineering reasons. Why would someone even check aircraft impacts? Because a B-25 hit the Empire State building when it was lost in the weather, trying to land. Slow speed. This is why the Empire State building did not suffer major damage, the impact was a minor KE impact. This is why Robertson looked at plane impacts. This is why they picked a slow speed landing, lost in the fog. It was the most likely accident. If the building was 36,000 feet, then 607 mph would be a good speed for impact. Engineering is making assumptions and then working the numbers. If you are working with topics outside your field get some help, I am sure Robertson asked for landing speeds and did the energy analysis and found that the impact would leave most the plane outside and fuel would not be a big problem burning outside.
Realcddeal defending 607 is a red flag for sloppy research, and bad assumptions. He is debunked on this one with first hand design parameter of a slow aircraft, his hearsay use of 607, and the lack of flight knowledge research to verify that makes 607 mph would make sense for 1300 feet.
First hand speed as slow, hearsay use of 607 mph, not using flight information of why 607 is wrong, just looking up at Boeing and taking the top speed. These are the peer review of realcddeal.
