Trigood
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2006
- Messages
- 980
As has already been pointed out, the same document Jessica linked to says in bold print:Robertson is a liar then because the port authority considered 600 mph, which is the sensible thing to do seeing as it is the planes top speed.
"NIST found no documentary evidence of any analysis supporting this conclusion."
The actual analysis was never found. It's the proverbial mathematical proof that someone claims they did, but cannot provide. Therefore, any argument based on the validity of the 600 mph value has, itself, no validity. Just as any subsequent proof based on the merely claimed proof would have no validity.
In addition, the documents that were found showed that "the effect of the subsequent fires was not considered."
Corresponding, in our mathematical proof analogy, not only to a proof that has gone missing, but also to a situation where all remaining documents that reference the supposed proof indicate that certain very basic principles of mathematics were ignored.
Fires were pretty basic to the plane-impact scenario, especially when large amounts of jet fuel were present. The fires were ignored.
Jessica, although the PA may have considered 600 mph, there remain no records of any rigorous argument that such an impact and subsequent fires would have let the tower stand indefinitely.
Thus, all your calculations and comparisons to the actual event are meaningless.
(Sorry for jumping in and responding to a mid-thread post. I have not read the entire thread as it is too voluminous for me to finish right now.)
