peer review.

[beachnut]

607 at 36,000 feet, 180 mph at 1300 feet, flaps down in the fog

Robertson did not do the analysis for the aircraft impact, and for the fifth time he wasn't the chief engineer on the tower design.

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.

Robertson is the lead engineer, he is still alive, ask him.
http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1349 says so right here. oops, peer review

What, you are an engineer so you do understand, the impact on 9/11 was an order of magnitude greater than the design impact. This is why the tower failed. They were not design for systems to survive and protect people above the impact and the fire systems in the core. If it was a design for high speed there were be two towers standing. It is not fair to say they should stand when it was on purpose and the terrorist were speeding.

Robertson said it, you are using hearsay. http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

Read and learn, please. Your paper is not ready, and this peer review has shown you are using the wrong data.

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

STATE question again. The terrorist over sped the aircraft for 10 to 20 seconds, damn engines, as they pushed the powerful engines up to max. The planes were well past their limits and because they had those darn powerful engines, 11 was going 470 mph, 175 was going 590 mph, and 77 was going 463KIAS (533mph). Questions. The terrorist were done flying after they pushed up the throttles, any major movements may of placed the aircraft in a high speed stall. So?

 

[beachnut]

you my friend are the guy without facts, that makes you the propaganda guy

,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.

Gravy does not need an engineering degree to show you are a shallow researcher with bogus ideas on 9/11. You do that job yourself. You call people propagandists. Gravy? I bet Gravy is laughing at my attempt to organize facts to show your paper is full of hearsay and false information. You are a propagandist saying CD without proof or evidence and having false data in you paper. And it is sad you are an engineer with such junk. Gravy has more knowledge and is being polite to you.

I doubt you could sell Gravy an official story. He has a little more than some "official" story. You can't even touch the truth, you lack the facts to stand on. Gravy could beat me on this peer review, and you would learn something if you were not so thick.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Gravy does not need an engineering degree to show you are a shallow researcher with bogus ideas on 9/11. You do that job yourself. You call people propagandists. Gravy? I bet Gravy is laughing at my attempt to organize facts to show your paper is full of hearsay and false information. You are a propagandist saying CD without proof or evidence and having false data in you paper. And it is sad you are an engineer with such junk. Gravy has more knowledge and is being polite to you.

I doubt you could sell Gravy an official story. He has a little more than some "official" story. You can't even touch the truth, you lack the facts to stand on. Gravy could beat me on this peer review, and you would learn something if you were not so thick.

You still haven't answered what the impact speeds were for the three aircraft that hit buildings on 911. Why not? It seems they violate your theory don't they?

 

[beachnut]

the realspeeddeal 180, the wrong speed 607 mph (peer review shows bad data)

You still haven't answered what the impact speeds were for the three aircraft that hit buildings on 911. Why not? It seems they violate your theory don't they?

It also make you look real bad! The terrorist over sped the aircraft and did not reach your so called speed of 607 mph. Why? Because of the reasons I have given you so many times it hurts. Please try to learn, you could correct you errors.

The terrorist over sped the aircraft for 10 to 20 seconds, damn engines, as they pushed the powerful engines up to max. The planes were well past their limits and because they had those darn powerful engines, 11 was going 470 mph, 175 was going 590 mph, and 77 was going 463KIAS (533mph). Questions. The terrorist were done flying after they pushed up the throttles, any major movements may of placed the aircraft in a high speed stall. So?

posted above too

The terrorist did it on purpose. Clue time. They over sped the aircraft, this was their last flight. Robertson said slow, speed, you have hearsay, i have the real deal

design impact speed 180 mph, low speed low fuel, need more, why were the terrorist not going 607 mph??????

A 757/767 can fly 607 mph, why were the terrorist going so slow in their boeing? (thick air?)

that 607 mph screws up your paper, bad, are you sure you checked your sources?

Robertson is alive, he said slow speed. No where is there a direct first hand 607 mph anywhere. I have given you sound engineering reasons the speed was not 607 mph. I have produce the first hand design parameters. What have you do for this peer review?

When will he call me on my one error?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Robertson is the lead engineer, he is still alive, ask him.
http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1349 says so right here. oops, peer review

What, you are an engineer so you do understand, the impact on 9/11 was an order of magnitude greater than the design impact. This is why the tower failed. They were not design for systems to survive and protect people above the impact and the fire systems in the core. If it was a design for high speed there were be two towers standing. It is not fair to say they should stand when it was on purpose and the terrorist were speeding.

Robertson said it, you are using hearsay. http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

Read and learn, please. Your paper is not ready, and this peer review has shown you are using the wrong data.

STATE question again. The terrorist over sped the aircraft for 10 to 20 seconds, damn engines, as they pushed the powerful engines up to max. The planes were well past their limits and because they had those darn powerful engines, 11 was going 470 mph, 175 was going 590 mph, and 77 was going 463KIAS (533mph). Questions. The terrorist were done flying after they pushed up the throttles, any major movements may of placed the aircraft in a high speed stall. So?

Engineers would design for worst case scenarios with something like the Twin Towers. If those aircraft could be pushed to the speeds you are discussing above then they would design for that possibility. Obviously, they could move at 600 MPH at 1300 feet. Only Leslie Robertson says it was simply for an airplane lost in the fog. That is only what happened to the Empire State Building. There are also other eventualities like an out of control aircraft. The 707-320B also had more thrust than the 767-200ER. Who says there couldn't have been a problem with the throttle? These things would need to be considered.

 

[jsfisher]

Engineers would design for worst case scenarios with something like the Twin Towers. If those aircraft could be pushed to the speeds you are discussing above then they would design for that possibility. Obviously, they could move at 600 MPH at 1300 feet. Only Leslie Robertson says it was simply for an airplane lost in the fog. That is only what happened to the Empire State Building. There are also other eventualities like an out of control aircraft. The 707-320B also had more thrust than the 767-200ER. Who says there couldn't have been a problem with the throttle? These things would need to be considered.

That's all speculation on your part, and, alas, it isn't at all true.

 

[Gravy]

Most people on here are either propagandists like Gravy...

Then you won't have any trouble proving what I've gotten wrong. Knock yourself out!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Curiously, the John Skilling Seattle Times interview of 1993, (this particular pointer is actually to 911research), does not mention the speed of a 707 at all.

Could you post a pointer to the interview where the top speed figure is mentioned by Skilling?

The discussion of the aircraft speed was actually in the white paper dated February 3, 1964 which discusses the analysis Skilling was referring to and described the findings of the analysis: “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.”

 

[beachnut]

peer review still shows 180, 607 is not correct, no credible source

Engineers would design for worst case scenarios with something like the Twin Towers. If those aircraft could be pushed to the speeds you are discussing above then they would design for that possibility. Obviously, they could move at 600 MPH at 1300 feet. Only Leslie Robertson says it was simply for an airplane lost in the fog. That is only what happened to the Empire State Building. There are also other eventualities like an out of control aircraft. The 707-320B also had more thrust than the 767-200ER. Who says there couldn't have been a problem with the throttle? These things would need to be considered.

No, a plane with stuck throttle can fly up, and the pilot can shut off the engine. Stop making up junk, I am a pilot, you are acting like a kid.

You can not find a real source for 607 as the design because the design was at 180 mph. Plus 607 is not possible at 1300 feet for a slow moving lost in the fog plane as Robertson, the lead engineer stated.

Why are you unable to find any refs to 607, because the only people who post 607 are like you, they saw it on the web. The news also messed it up, and so have some web sites not into 9/11 truth. You have a myth, 607 mph.

As you can see the terrorist were not able to go 607 mph on 9/11. They were taking a risk, maybe like you out of ignorance, going as fast as they did. But they only over sped the planes for 10 or 20 seconds and then the planes were done.

Again, if the design was for 600 mph, the WTC design would have been different. The tower were not design for 600 mph, it was slow speed. The 600 mph impact would have shown Robertson and Skilling that the impact hits the core, this is a simple calculation they could do. But they did the slow speed impacts, and they stated localized damage and the fire could be mostly outside with the falling debris from the plane.

Why did they pick a slow speed low fuel. This was the most likely threat. If we use your fantasy idea, the we should design for the meteor doing 17000 mph etc. They used the only real threat. I have explained planes do not fly at 1300 feet at high speed. You are not listening.

Please, no more BS engine stuck, altimeter broke, but I can field questions.

 

[Gravy]

Happy Birthday, jsfisher!



​

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That's all speculation on your part, and, alas, it isn't at all true.

Oh, and we'll limit it to 180 mph is true in your book. Nobody would design like that for buildings like the towers. See what the white paper said. It does use the 600 MPH figure and Beachnut has had to admit that the aircraft can certainly achieve those speeds at 1300 feet.

 

[jsfisher]

Happy Birthday, jsfisher!



​

Thank you. I am honored.

 

[Hokulele]

Thank you. I am honored.

Happy Birthday! (Although it isn't your birthday yet in my time zone.)

 

[beachnut]

did you make up the 600 mph?

The discussion of the aircraft speed was actually in the white paper dated February 3, 1964 which discusses the analysis Skilling was referring to and described the findings of the analysis: “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.”

No 600 mph out of Skillings mouth, you are not finding a real source.

Read your source. Robertson is the lead, he said slow speed. Questions.
You are using a web site of woo to get 600 mph. It is wrong. The 600 mph was added by a fool who went to the Boeing web site and added the speed of 607. Funny stuff. Only a fool who did not ask a pilot or real engineer about the speed and why, would pick 607 mph. 607 mph is not a speed for a 707 at 1300 feet. Sorry, but I am giving you the real peer review you would get in a real journal, fix it or forget publishing your paper.

 

[Gravy]

Yes the speed of design impact for aircraft was 180 mph, lost jet in the fog. You are debunked by L.Robertson. Darn, it feels good all those flying lessons you paid for paid off.

Please explain why you use 607 mph for impact of 707? Lots of Details please. but you will be wrong, do i get the 1,000,000 if so

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

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

The discussion of the aircraft speed was actually in the white paper dated February 3, 1964

You claim Skilling said it in 1993, you link to a 404 error message, then you say Skilling said it in 1964. I don't mean to be harsh, but perhaps that's not the best possible use of everyone's time.

Figured out Les Robertson's degree yet?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No, a plane with stuck throttle can fly up, and the pilot can shut off the engine. Stop making up junk, I am a pilot, you are acting like a kid.

You can not find a real source for 607 as the design because the design was at 180 mph. Plus 607 is not possible at 1300 feet for a slow moving lost in the fog plane as Robertson, the lead engineer stated.

Why are you unable to find any refs to 607, because the only people who post 607 are like you, they saw it on the web. The news also messed it up, and so have some web sites not into 9/11 truth. You have a myth, 607 mph.

As you can see the terrorist were not able to go 607 mph on 9/11. They were taking a risk, maybe like you out of ignorance, going as fast as they did. But they only over sped the planes for 10 or 20 seconds and then the planes were done.

Again, if the design was for 600 mph, the WTC design would have been different. The tower were not design for 600 mph, it was slow speed. The 600 mph impact would have shown Robertson and Skilling that the impact hits the core, this is a simple calculation they could do. But they did the slow speed impacts, and they stated localized damage and the fire could be mostly outside with the falling debris from the plane.

Why did they pick a slow speed low fuel. This was the most likely threat. If we use your fantasy idea, the we should design for the meteor doing 17000 mph etc. They used the only real threat. I have explained planes do not fly at 1300 feet at high speed. You are not listening.

Please, no more BS engine stuck, altimeter broke, but I can field questions.

There are studies done on designs called Hazards Analyses and Failure Modes and Effects Analyses and these are what the analysis that Skilling was referring to and which the white paper described was done for. The 707 aircraft could easily have achieved that speed at a low altitude and you had to admit it. Case Closed.

 

[jsfisher]

Happy Birthday! (Although it isn't your birthday yet in my time zone.)

Send me a pineapple. We'll call it even.

 

[Revolutionary91]

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.

I thought id seen it all from the official story fantasists but a tour guide arguing with engineers about building collapses really takes the cake.

 

[beachnut]

show me the paper

Oh, and we'll limit it to 180 mph is true in your book. Nobody would design like that for buildings like the towers. See what the white paper said. It does use the 600 MPH figure and Beachnut has had to admit that the aircraft can certainly achieve those speeds at 1300 feet.

Show me the paper. Only hearsay source say 607 mph, they got it from looking it up at Boeing and just putting it without thinking. Standard newspaper errors. Only a pilot/engineer would catch the error.

You are caught with an error and I have given you the lead engineer, Robertson saying and writing it out. Slow speed. I have also given you my experience why the speed is a good design parameter for the likely threat; and I do not doubt if you would listen to me, you could say it better.

There was a design study on a slow speed aircraft impact. The people who heard about it substituted the 607 mph by mistake in the reports and news sources. How did they get the number, they did what you did. They went to Boeing and produce the speed listed, 607 mph. I have told you over and over, that is a good speed at 29000 feet, not at 1300. The design was for the most likely aircraft accident possible. I have listed why it is the most likely scenario.

 

[beachnut]

find that paper yet, or is Robertson the word

There is usually a study called FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) and that is what the analysis that Skilling was referring to and which the white paper described was done for. You don't know. You are just babbling. The 707aircraft could easily have achieved that speed at a low altitude and you had to admit it. Case Closed.

No, the 707 is limited to 355 KCAS at 1300 feet. That is not 607, case closed.
You have no paper, you have a mistake. Big mistake. The localized damage, the plane falling to the ground are indicative of a slow speed accident. Even the planes on 9/11 were not able to reach 607 mph on 9/11. No pilot would fly his plane past 355 knots, and the only possible accident considered was slow speed. This is due to the fact this is the only accident you can have at 1300 feet and in the fog. It is called an accident. They did not plan on someone flying on purpose at high speed into the WTC.

I like how you quibble with no real source for 607. The 607 mph error has not been corrected because no one understands it. If you insist on being unable to learn, that is your problem. Your paper now has an error anyone can understand if you they do the simple research. Pilots see your error right off if they think about 1300 feet.

I now know why you paper is not in a real journal. Ignore Robertson, the lead engineer. I think it also shows your paper is not peer reviewed very well. I am just a simple engineer and a pilot, I became and engineer to be more valuable to the USAF so I would have an edge being a pilot candidate. The scam worked. The air force even sent me for my Masters. I am giving you the best, albeit rough, information to correct your paper. Peer review. Funny thing is, Gravy can beat me and you at this but you quibble about how he can do it. So when so we have this paper in a real journal?

Top speed below 10,000 feet is 250 knots, by regulation. Top speed of airframe at 1300 feet is 355 knots, the plane starts to fall apart above this speed. Speed lost in the fog for landing with flaps down 180 mph. The design is the slow speed because there is no reason the plane would be at 1300 feet except for landing. Case double, triple closed. No 607 is not possible at 1300 feet since they did not design for terrorist.

Thrust for the 707 please? You said it was more than a 767. Would you like to retract that or produce the facts?

too late, did you know I have an ATP. Look it up. And a type rating in a 707. so why do you BS a naive kid like me?

76, 000 pounds of thrust for a 707 (4x19,000)
126,600 pounds of thrust for a 767. (2x63,300) oops

This is why it would be twice as hard for a 707 to speed quickly than a 767 (that is like acceleration). I love the new engines. They are 98 percent cleaner, and more powerful, how did you research this? oh like the rest of your paper. You should use me for your next pre peer review.