The paper you to refer to is "Salient points with regard to the structural design of the WorldTradeCenter towers" and it was written by Malcolm P. Levy, a Port Authority Engineer in 1964.
No where in that report is there a discussion regarding what effect jet fuel would have in a 707 crashing into the WorldTradeCenter.
Leslie Robertson was interviewed for the American Experience documentary, The Center of the World and said, "what we didn't look at is what would happen to all that fuel and perhaps we could be faulted for that." They were much more concerned with the effect of high winds on the towers.
Thanks. I appreciate the title of the study.
At this point in the discussion was the speed of the aircraft not the impact of fuel. Or are you suggesting planes didn't fly with fuel on board?
John Skilling of course contradicts Leslie Robertson. John made the following comments the day after the 1993 attack on the Towers in the Seattle Times when an analysis of the building would have been paramount and critical to the buildings operation.
We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side,"
said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."
Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
"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," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.
"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it." Source:
Seattle Times
How can you reconcile Robertson's comments with that of Skillings comments?
Apparently Robertson's memory is failing him.
Rmackey-Depending on the details of what that paper really said, that claim may have been accurate. It all depends on whether they were referring to the structure standing immediately after impact, or if they meant long after impact. The former would be correct. The latter is wrong. They also might have put in language stating that they could not attempt an analysis of the fire that would ensue, and that also would be correct -- to the extent of their assumptions.
That is all I wanted to know. You could have stated that early so I wouldn't have to make assumptions about your line of logic.
However, if the details then were not accurate as you suggest they might not be, that leads to incompetence, correct? And since we both appear to agree the engineers did not lie, then your suggestion is incompetence as I suggested in the earlier comment to you.
Jeff Skilling's comment appears to confirm the white paper
and the length of the structures stability as it would still be standing!
Perhaps if NIST would have considered explosives, they could have provided a full explanation of the collapse.
On the other hand, Bazant and company can explain it a day or two after the attacks?? LOL.
I will stand by the white paper's documentation as well as Jeff Skilling's comments about the resulting fire from the airplane.
You can rely on speculation about the white paper and Robertson's failing memory.
The whole argument is really pointless considering NIST said that the buildings would remain standing were it not for the dislodged fireproofing. Dam fireproofing! Too bad they didn't consider Skilling's thoughts on what would bring the towers down...explosives!
Why do you think NIST ignored bomb squads at the land fills when determining evidence for explosives? This of course begs the question, why were bomb squads there in the first place?
Don't feel the need to address this last issue, as I seem to be rambling.
Have a wonderful day working on AI.
On a side note, that AI work sounds fascinating. What are the commercial applications that will result from your work, if there are any?
I'm not. Blade Runner might be closer, though.
