Thanks O, coming from you, I take that as high praise. 
WTC Collapses
- Thread starter scott3x
- Start date
- Status
http://www.historycommons.org/timel...ete_911_timeline&startpos=300#a022793skilling
"A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “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.” "
I have seen a scan of the typed document, and it does states "600 mph"
I'll post it when i find it.
Thanks HS, it'd be nice to see the original document. It's just that 600 mph number makes no sense to me. There are really no scenarios that a normal commercial aircraft would be in that would have it traveling at anywhere near that speed at such low altitudes...and using such an unlikely scenario in their design would mean a 3 fold increase in force...and a corresponding increase in structure.
Planes go slow when they are low. (hey that rhymed!) Unless, of course unless they are piloted by terrorists, insider agents, or remote control devices intent on using them as weapons...which was not really something anyone considered before 9/11. The Japanese used Komakazi's to attack US ships...but I don't think anyone ever thought of using a commercial airliner as a missile before 9/11.
edit:
Here is the full text from that page:
Both the links you and Scott provided reference this white page report, but neither link to it. Why is that? Why is this document so hard to find? The Fema report that my number comes from is readily available.
The author above only assumes that John Skilling was referencing this document. If this document actually exists.
This should read, there are no other documents that contain this number. I guess the author hasn't read the FEMA or NIST reports.
Last edited:
.
I am trying to show that the steel and concrete conspired to keep information about their quantities secret from the NIST and quite a few Truthers.
psik
scans of the original documents are in appendix A, page 302, from this link:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2Draft.pdf
the images are locked, so you'll have to click and be patient loading the document, unless someone wants to sreengrab and upload. whatreallyhappened.com had the scans online, but I can't find them now.
from the NIST report:
Finding 11: Documents from The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey indicated that the safety of the WTC towers and their occupants in an aircraft collision was a consideration in the original design. The documents indicate that a Boeing 707, the largest commercial aircraft at the time, flying at 600 mph was considered, and the analysis indicated 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 documentary evidence of the aircraft impact analysis was available to review the criteria and methods used in the analysis of the aircraft impact into the WTC towers, or to provide details on the ability of the WTC towers to withstand such impacts.
....page cxii
Last edited:
Just to compare the difference between a 707 going 180mph and a 767 going 530mph:
So for the 707 cruising at 180 mph (105000 kg and 80.46 meters per second)
$$$$F = m \times a$$
$$
$$$$F = 1.05 \times {10^5}\times 80.46$$
$$
so
$$F=8.46 \times {10^6} newtons$$
(that's 8.46 million newtons, scott)
Or to calculate for kinetic energy:
$$$${E_k} = {1 \over 2}m{v^2}$$
$$
$$$${E_k} = {{(1.05 \times {{10}^5}) \times {{80.46}^2}} \over 2}$$
$$
so
$$$${E_k} = 3.39 \times {10^8}joules$$
$$
(339 million joules)
For the 767 traveling at 530mph (an average of the speed from FEMA)
$$$$F = 1.24 \times {10^5} \times 237$$
$$
so
$$$$F = 2.93 \times {10^7}newtons$$
$$
(29.3 million newtons)
or
$$$${E_k} = {{(1.24 \times {{10}^5}) \times {{237}^2}} \over 2}$$
$$
so
$$$${E_k} = 6.96 \times {10^9}joules$$
$$
(6.96 billion joules)
That's a pretty hefty difference in force and energy. Sorry, I wanted to practice my Tex.
So for the 707 cruising at 180 mph (105000 kg and 80.46 meters per second)
$$$$F = m \times a$$
$$
$$$$F = 1.05 \times {10^5}\times 80.46$$
$$
so
$$F=8.46 \times {10^6} newtons$$
(that's 8.46 million newtons, scott)
Or to calculate for kinetic energy:
$$$${E_k} = {1 \over 2}m{v^2}$$
$$
$$$${E_k} = {{(1.05 \times {{10}^5}) \times {{80.46}^2}} \over 2}$$
$$
so
$$$${E_k} = 3.39 \times {10^8}joules$$
$$
(339 million joules)
For the 767 traveling at 530mph (an average of the speed from FEMA)
$$$$F = 1.24 \times {10^5} \times 237$$
$$
so
$$$$F = 2.93 \times {10^7}newtons$$
$$
(29.3 million newtons)
or
$$$${E_k} = {{(1.24 \times {{10}^5}) \times {{237}^2}} \over 2}$$
$$
so
$$$${E_k} = 6.96 \times {10^9}joules$$
$$
(6.96 billion joules)
That's a pretty hefty difference in force and energy. Sorry, I wanted to practice my Tex.
Last edited:
Even NIST believes it existed. They say it went 'missing' or something of that sort. Mac, let's imagine for a moment that this really -was- an inside job. Do you honestly think that such people would want such a paper to come to light? Do you think that if they could manage to snuff out the lives of around 3000 people in a single day that they'd have much trouble 'dissapearing' one little paper from a guy who's already dead and can't say what it said from memory? Thank goodness someone scanned it, hopefully MacGyver still has a copy of the scan somewhere. You may have noticed that the paper said the buildings were designed for -600- miles per hour; not the measly 180 miles per hour that you mention. Where did you get that number from anyway?
The designers only considered the kinetic energy of the impact in their design, the did not account for the fuel, and the resulting files...so the document has limited effect. You are really showing your mild paranoid schizophrenia (yes, I'm a Dr. in Psychology.
) When unable to produce a document, you blame it on the boogeyman..those insider guys..they "dissapeared" it. That's not reasonable thought..that's crazy person talk. The 180 number comes from the FEMA report. It also makes sense as that is about the approach speed of a 707. A B-25 got lost in the fog and hit the Empire State Building back in the 40's. The designers of the WTC considered this incident and and upgraded the scenario to planes of their era..the 707. Planes lost the fog traveling at less than 1000 feet altitude don't go 600 mph. Planes in the fog at low elevation go slow...like 180. It's one of those common sense things. The formulas I posted in the above post show how much energy difference that speed differential makes, as the planes generally weight the same. The only time planes fly that fast is when they are 30,000 feet in the air, where the air is nice and thin. I tried to think of a scenario where a commercial airliner would be flying at that speed at that altitude...and the only think I could concept is a plane at altitude, loses all control and plunges uncontrolled to the earth, crashing into the tower. Pretty unlikely. That much difference in energy would mean the designers would have to make the tower that much heavier to cover a scenario that is highly unlikely.
Last edited:
The powers that be wanted to get Afghanistan first. They conveniently had troops in the region before 9/11 so it really didn't take them long to get in there. Wars are enormous undertakings; so they chewed on Afghanistan for 2 years and then they started spinning stuff for Iraq; I clearly remember that they tried to tie 9/11 to Saddam, but it just didn't work because although Al Qaeda apparently did want to work with him, he clearly hadn't wanted to work with Al Qaeda. Then some Iraqi wanting a green card started making tall tales involving Weapons of Mass Delusion in order to get it and Problem Solved (tm). Let's face it, people are easy to fool; have official type people saying that x or y are true and people tend to lap it up. I admit it, I fully thought that Saddam was, in fact, on his way to having Weapons of Mass Destruction. That is, until I started seeing that the U.S. was so dang -impatient- to get in there. So they get rid of Scott Ritter, who clearly seems to have been having doubts that Saddam had much more then irritation at having his palaces spot searched all the time and they ignore some envoy who I forget the name of who was telling the U.S. to hold their horses. Recently, I hear that Bush would had been considering 'stretching' the truth just before this Iraqi guy started making up his tall tales.
And why not? Seriously, if they can kill thousands of their own people and have most people buy the story that it was some guys (which guys in particular blurs, but definitely some arab guys
) with box cutters while the vast U.S. defenses seemed to have been conveniently paralyzed with war games, then why the hell not make up some more tall tales to get your oil buddies that you had secretive chats with before 9/11 into yet another lucrative market? Perhaps the whole thing was planned for in those very chats? Ah, but the government doesn't seem to want to reveal what was said in those chats, guess we won't be able to find out anytime soon.So yeah, like Greenspan said:
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil...”
Now add Afghanistan with its pipeline to that, and replace 'everyone knows' with 'everyone in my circle of friends knows'. Seriously, you may want to pick up Jim Marrs' book "Rule by Secrecy".
Last edited:
.
Negative!
The problems with skyscraper design are gravity and wind. The WTC was designed to sway 3 feet off center at the top in a 150 mph wind. The wind obviously applies its force over the entire surface rather than concentrated in a small area like the plane impact zone. But that is where the gravity of the design comes in. Getting the strength to support the weight means lots of steel so the mass is what stops the plane. All of this business of whether or not the building was designed to handle the impact is irrelevant. In order to figure out how much structural damage the plane did then the amount of kinetic energy that went into the deflection must be computed and subtracted.
So it is back to distribution of mass which is also necessary for the collapse analysis and potential energy. So why aren't the EXPIERTS screaming about this after SEVEN YEARS? One could get the impression that people don't want this solved. So how do we teach baby engineers to design skyscrapers. Oh, you don't need to figure out how much steel to put where. Don't worry about it.
psik
which brings us right back to "why didn't we go immediately when 9/11 was fresh in everyones mind and the people wanted someones ass.
this doesn't mean a thing. we "conveniently have troops" all over the globe.
what do you mean "on his way"? the man DID have them, or have you forgotten about the biological warfare saddam waged against neighboring countries?
and? so?
doesn't it make you sick to the pit of your gut that these oil sheiks force our presidents into photoshoots of them hugging, kissing and holding the hands of these PIGS?
yeah, it's about oil alright.
What are you saying negative to? Nothing in your post relates to what you quoted from me. We were talking about the building's designers considering in the design of the towers, a plane impact from a plane of that day that was lost in the fog. We aren't talking about the building swaying in the wind. So how does any of that relate to planes? Just because it is irrelevant to you, doesn't mean it's irrelevant to everyone participating in this thread...it is the topic of discussion right now. Pretty much anything that isn't discussing the total amount of steel and concrete and individual weight of the 22 different kind of panels is irrelevant to you.
Your the second person today I've heard say that someone "disappeared" their data. Who exactly are these people?
You are starting to remind me of a former roommate's parrot. Someone had trained this bird to say "No shit, Sherlock". While it's hilarious the first few times, it quickly grew annoying, because it's ALL he fucking said.
If your going to quote my posts...at least do me the courtesy of addressing what you quote at least a little, before you go into your standard tirade.
Last edited:
common sense would suggest that the majority of the wind force would be concentrated on the upper half of the building.
the lower half would be protected from the wind by other buildings.
Hey scott,
Who do you think is going to win the superbowl this year?
Who do you think is going to win the superbowl this year?
Now you're just being bad
. Anyway, since I know this subthread will go nowhere, I'll answer here- I have no idea. I've never been all that interested in sports .- Status