• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

peer review.

realcddeal said:
No, I am saying that a real 600 MPH is what the towers were designed to take. That would be a 600 MPH ground speed. You guys are confusing the issue and trying to say it wasn't 600 MPH they were designed to take. They were.
Click to expand...


No one here is saying that 600 mph ground speed is slower or faster at different altitudes - that would be Stundie worthy. What we are saying, in a roundabout way, is that your figure is irrelevant as a 707 won't be doing 600 mph at 1000'. If there are KE calculations from Skilling that you believe supports a 607 mph hit, I'd like to see them.
 
slow speed is on record, I can do your peer review, and there are other experts too

realcddeal said:
No, I am saying that a real 600 MPH is what the towers were designed to take. That would be a 600 MPH ground speed. You guys are confusing the issue and trying to say it wasn't 600 MPH they were designed to take. They were.
Click to expand...
No, a 707 does not do 607 mph at 1300 feet, and the design was a slow speed impact.

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 - "... 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
Click to expand...
This is fact not hearsay. This would have made a real peer review of your paper which now you protest. I am an engineer for 33 years and a pilot for 34 years, I can peer review your paper but you are being stubborn.

Slow speed was the design, and the top speed at 1300 feet clean would be 361 KIAS (knots), and that is 100 knots over the speed limit of 250 KIAS. The speed limit for all pilots below 10,000 feet is 250 knots. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2857058&postcount=511 apathoid posted the calculator for this, thanks.
 
Last edited:
I thought I'd seen it all from 9/11 deniers, but realcddeal arguing about Boeing 707 airspeed with a 707 pilot and a Boeing avionics technician takes the cake, the cake knife, and the platter.
 
realcddeal said:
No, I am saying that a real 600 MPH is what the towers were designed to take. That would be a 600 MPH ground speed. You guys are confusing the issue and trying to say it wasn't 600 MPH they were designed to take. They were.
Click to expand...
No, if they were designed for 600 mph they would be standing. They did a slow speed aircraft impact. There would be localized damage, and the plane would drop to the ground. Fuel fires would be mainly outside and on the ground, easy to fight. Sort of.

Any engineer, even in 1970 can see a 600 mph aircraft's KE would enter the core of the WTC. It is a simple energy calculation, you take the energy of 2200 pounds of TNT and see it cuts to the core. Then they would see the impact would damage the WTC too much and they would have to change the design. They did not change the design because the planned on a low speed impact, not terrorist who were speeding for the last 20 seconds of flight. BTW, if the terrorist has pushed up early with throttle, there may have been big terrorist accidents instead of hitting the WTC and Pentagon; planes do bad things when they go too fast.

There were never plans for a 600 mph impact. It is not an accident that is likely. But low fuel lost aircraft is, landing in the fog, lost can hit the WTC. But a lots of fuel lost plane, would fly out of the fog and go to Philadelphia for clear weather and a hoggie. I am a pilot, and that is what I would do when the nix Rio.
 
peer review ends bad

Gravy said:
I thought I'd seen it all from 9/11 deniers, but realcddeal arguing about Boeing 707 airspeed with a 707 pilot and a Boeing avionics technician takes the cake, the cake knife, and the platter.
Click to expand...
I was going to peer review his paper, but he left before the Ovaltine was served.

The KC-135 is like a stipped 707, my type rating is in a 707. The flight controls were fly by wire, piano wire. Pass 350 KCAS in speed, and skin starts to come off the plane. I have never had an altimeter go bad, it may not work in the corrected mode, but it never went out. With GPS, you can have an altitude for safety until you land. With clear weather, you do not need any instuments to fly.

Has he weaseled out of the "debate"?
 
Last edited:
realcddeal said:
Pitot tube pressure is compensated for by knowing the altitude and air temperature. Are you trying to say that air density changes the air or ground speed? The speed, is the speed, is the speed. The only thing that changes in air vs. ground speed is whether you have a tail or head wind. 355 knots is equal to 415 MPH and that is not 607 MPH now matter how you slice it. You are not understanding the fact that the towers were designed to take a real 607 MPH hit. They used that number along with a fully loaded 707 weight of 336,000 lbs to calculate the energies and stresses involved.

Mach number changes with altitude not ground speed or actual velocity whether it is wind aided or not. It was ground speed that would be operative in an impact with a stationary object. I never heard such drivel.
Click to expand...

Yes. Air density changes the relation between indicated and true airspeed.
The lower the air density, the higher the true airspeed for a given indicated airspeed.
Indicated airspeeds are used for aircraft limitations because they are a good analog to the dynamic pressure being applied to the aircraft.

Mach number is the relation between the aircraft airspeed and the local speed of sound. The speed of sound in air is largely a function of temperature, not altitude or density.
 
realcddeal said:
You are supposed to judge a paper by its merits.
Click to expand...

Right.

But here's the problem: if your paper has merit then it should be presented in a journal that has merit in the scientific community. Otherwise, what is your paper achieving?

You may think Jo911S has merit and Greening may have no problem with writing to it, but outside of the truth movement and a handful of other people, no one knows it even exists.

If publication in a journal like Jo911S proves your paper's worth then surely it'll get published elsewhere. Right?

It only makes sense that you at least submit your research to a more well-known journal. Why wouldn't you?

Remember Galileo.
Click to expand...

You, sir, are no Galileo.
 
Last edited:
CHF said:
Translation: "ya got me!"

Know what I'd like to see, realcddeal?

I'd like to see one of those engineers you talked to (if in fact you did) write a paper on the collapses and the "obvious" demolitions. Any chance of that?
Click to expand...


Get one of them to put their case for controlled demolition up on a free web server. I like t35.com. Short of a court order or the attention of the NSA, it's anonymous.
 
it is a big deal, without the impact you have no collaspe

DGM said:
I'm not even sure why you are making such a big deal about the plane impact alone. The towers survived the impact.

Welcome out into the open Tony! I don't have to keep it a secret any more.:)
Click to expand...
I do not consider destroying the fire systems and trapping people, survival. Even Robertson knew a building survival is about people, not the building. This is why the WTC towers were so strong. An accidental plane accident in the 200 mph range would have localized damage and most the plane and fire would be outside. This is a fact. A high speed impact would reach the core and do bad things. Had the design been for a high speed 600 mph impact, the building design would have been altered.

No, the towers did not survive the impact, and a 600 mph impact was not designed for. An engineer can see a 600 mph impact would reach the core and do major damage. If Robertson had planned for a 600 mph impact, they would have to change the design. They did not plan for a 600 mph impact because planes lost in the FOG do not go 600 mph while looking to land. The planes go 180 mph. The towers would survive multiple lost planes in the fog. That is the most likely accident for an airliner with buildings.

As an engineer and a pilot I understand why 607 is not a likely number, if you want to use a maximum number you would use the terminal velocity of the plane out of control going past MACH 1. Why not use 817 mph, the plane would rip right through the WTC smashing twice as many column. If in a downward angle, the plane would destroy 5 to 10 floors and damage as many or more column as on 9/11. This is just close to MACH1, Boeing would have to do the terminal velocity calculation. Why stop at 607, the plane can go faster.

His paper would not pass my peer review because it makes false assumptions. Yes, why argue speed when we see what happen on 9/11? I am not the one making up the lies about 9/11 in a paper which says there was a CD at the WTC. When you have a conclusion that is false, why worry about sticking in hearsay and BS about aircraft speed, it just does not matter. Or does it.

Here is what the lead structural engineer said – he wrote this first hand. Not a news story, not hearsay, it is fact.
Leslie E. Robertson, , said: on being hit by a commercial jet - " 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."
Click to expand...
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
apathoid said:
No one here is saying that 600 mph ground speed is slower or faster at different altitudes - that would be Stundie worthy. What we are saying, in a roundabout way, is that your figure is irrelevant as a 707 won't be doing 600 mph at 1000'. If there are KE calculations from Skilling that you believe supports a 607 mph hit, I'd like to see them.
Click to expand...

I would like to see them also but NIST says they couldn't locate the analysis of which John Skilling was quoted speaking of. He did say 600 MPH and I am inclined to believe someone of his stature. He said it in 1993 after the truck bombing in the basement of the North Tower.
 
DGM said:
I'm not even sure why you are making such a big deal about the plane impact alone. The towers survived the impact.

Welcome out into the open Tony! I don't have to keep it a secret any more.:)
Click to expand...

DGM, you took the words out of my mouth. Right, the towers survived the impacts so Skilling was apparently right about it. That is why NIST's theory is that collapse was due to fire weakening which they say happened due to fireproofing being dislodged. NIST even goes on to say that they don't believe the towers would have collapsed without the dislodged fireproofing.
 
Last edited:
peer review removes hearsay 600 mph

realcddeal said:
I would like to see them also but NIST says they couldn't locate the analysis of which John Skilling was quoted speaking of. He did say 600 MPH and I am inclined to believe someone of his stature. He said it in 1993 after the truck bombing in the basement of the North Tower.
Click to expand...
No the towers did not survive, and the speed was not 600. You can not produce the paper, or his own words and Robertson is the Lead engineer. Too bad 600 mph is not a speed at 1300 feet. Just use 800, or something. Make it up. Why research when you can just say it.

The design had localized damage, fuel and aircraft falling to the ground. That speed is 180 mph. At 600 mph the aircraft damages the core, and the building is compromised.

Here is what the lead structural engineer said – he wrote this.
Leslie E. Robertson, , said: on being hit by a commercial jet - " … 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)….." http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument
Click to expand...

Your 600 mph is hearsay, and a 707 does not do 600 mph at 1300 feet. Your peer review is back on.

http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1349
what is wrong with Robertson? Why are you unable to stand up to peer review by a pilot/engineer (ATP/MSEE) Plus an accident investigator trained by USC.
 
Last edited:
AMTMAN said:
So when are you going to start lecturing beechnut about airspeed.
Click to expand...

All I said was that John Skilling is on record as saying the towers were designed to take a hit from a Boeing 707 moving at 600 mph. Beachnut apparently doesn't want to believe that and wants to go through all sorts of gyrations about KIAS, KCAS, and KTAS. The truth is that it would be ground speed that is relavent anyway as the towers were stationary.
 
Last edited:
why do you use hearsay, try some facts

realcddeal said:
All I said was that John Skilling is on record as saying the towers were designed to take a hit from a Boeing 707 moving at 600 mph. Beachnut apparently doesn't want to believe that and wants to go through all sorts of gyrations about KIAS, KCAS, and KTAS. The truth is that it would be ground speed that is relavent anyway as the towers were stationary.
Click to expand...
The plane does not go 600 mph at 1300 feet. John Skilling never said it was 600, you have no direct source. I have the lead engineer. He said slow moving, 180 mph, 263,000 pounds. Lost in the fog.

You have no source.
It is also worth mentioning the fact that the twin towers were designed to take an impact by a fully loaded Boeing 707 weighing 334,000 lbs. and moving at it’s cruise speed of 607 mph. (source?)
Click to expand...

False, the design was a low speed lost in the fog plane going to land, that is 180 mph and 263,000 pounds. Low fuel. You see a plane with lots of fuel will not be lost in the fog, it would be flying to a place with out fog because they have fuel. A plane low on fuel can not go anywhere and has to land, if lost, they could crash.
My source is the lead structural engineer
Leslie E. Robertson, , "... our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). "
Click to expand...
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument
Click to expand...

Not hearsay like your stuff. A truther looks up the top speed. No, the 707 at 1300 feet does not go 600 mph.

You have the wrong number for many reasons; why do you ignore facts? Why do you use hearsay?
 
beachnut said:
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.
355KCAS is the speed, you need some peer review, but you are not paying attention.


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.

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 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. [/FONT]
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.
Click to expand...


Robertson didn't do the analysis that Skilling was speaking of and for the fifth time Robertson wasn't the chief engineer on the tower design. Why do you keep saying that?

There was still quite a margin of safety in the steel frames of those buildings after the aircraft impacts. Volumetric probablities alone would limit the amount of damage the aircraft could do.

I am also wondering why nobody here answered my question concerning the estimated speeds on impact of Flights 11, 77, and 175.

Most people on here are either propagandists like Gravy or have bought the official story because it is easy to do so they just want to think the airplanes hit the towers and started a fire and an hour later the towers completely collapse and are pulverized in mid-air with streamers flying up and out of them.

The buildings survived the impacts and should have also survived the fires, with or without fireproofing, and the physical evidence says that the core columns did not experience any high temperatures. Bldg. 7's fireproofing wasn't even damaged so what is the excuse going to be there?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom