Question for Ryan Mackey

[Swing Dangler]

Now if you would just answer the question as to why the folks designing the WTC towers in the 1960s would envision a scenario involving a Boeing 707 flying at 600 miles per hour at an altitude of 1,000 feet. What on earth prompted them to design for such a fantastically unlikely scenario? You do realize that passengers jets don't routinely fly at 600 mph at such altitudes, don't you?

1. Pilot Error.
2. Mechanical Malfunction
3. Bomb on the plane disabling it. (Cold War and all of that.)
4. Mid-air collision.
5. Suicide pilot.
6. Armed hijacking gone wrong.
7. Icing.
8. Violation of FAA standards
9.Federal air traffic controllers’ negligence.
10.Flight service station employee negligence or error.
11. Maintenance or repair of the aircraft or component negligence.
12. Fueling the aircraft negligence.
13.Structural or design problems with an aircraft.

 

[Corsair 115]

1. Pilot Error.
2. Mechanical Malfunction
3. Bomb on the plane disabling it. (Cold War and all of that.)
4. Mid-air collision.
5. Suicide pilot.
6. Armed hijacking gone wrong.
7. Icing.
8. Violation of FAA standards
9.Federal air traffic controllers’ negligence.
10.Flight service station employee negligence or error.
11. Maintenance or repair of the aircraft or component negligence.
12. Fueling the aircraft negligence.
13.Structural or design problems with an aircraft.

Now all you need to do to validate that is to provide an example or examples of a passenger jet in the late 1960s or earlier flying at 600 mph at an altitude of 1,000 feet or so and crashing into a building for any of those reasons you listed. That would then provide a reason for the designers to consider designing for such an improbable scenario. Please let me know when you find such example or examples.

If you don't, then your theory doesn't hold up.

 

[R.Mackey]

This is irrelevant. You cannot reasonably harden an office building against a 600 MPH aircraft impact.

That's why it wasn't in the specs. Has nothing to do with likelihood. Some risks you simply accept, whether or not they are minute (as they are in this case).

 

[beachnut]

NIST made an error...NIST is not really wrong...which is it Beachnut? Heck the way you write, I think your suffering from altitude sickness.

Swing, you have not point? What is you point with the NIST 600 mph history and the report they can't find?

The building could not survive a 600 mph 707 impact. To survive, they needed to be 14 times stronger. Impact, fire, collapse. You can not support the lies of 9/11 truth with NIST.

NIST is not wrong, you are wrong to use the 600 mph for saying the WTC was designed for a 600 mph impact. Simple stuff, but since you can not comprehend NIST, I can see how you have problem with my poor writing. But gee, you do not understand 9/11 either. too bad

 

[1337m4n]

1. Pilot Error.

"Oops, I accidently dropped the plane to building elevtion while at the same time increasing the throttle to maximum."

That's some pretty serious pilot error.

2. Mechanical Malfunction

If anything, those tend to make the plane slow down, not speed up.

3. Bomb on the plane disabling it. (Cold War and all of that.)

Huh?

4. Mid-air collision.

What?

5. Suicide pilot.

6. Armed hijacking gone wrong.

Um, how often do those things happen? Until 9/11 nobody expected anyone to deliberately crash a plane into a skyscraper. Hence all the new safety codes that came about after and as a direct result of 9/11.

7. Icing.

Are you talking about ice forming on the rims of the plane or the creamy topping placed on cupcakes? Because I don't see how either could cause the plane to uncontrollably descend to building elevation then speed up to 600 mph.

8. Violation of FAA standards

Also known as pilot stupidity, which admittetly might cause him to fly faster and lower than he's supposed to. But unless there's a MAJOR visibility problem, he should still be able to see a pair of huge buildings. If there is such a visibility problem, he'd have to be either suicidal or retarded to fly that fast and low through an area populated by skyscrapers.

9.Federal air traffic controllers’ negligence.

This would do what?

10.Flight service station employee negligence or error.

Huh?

11. Maintenance or repair of the aircraft or component negligence.

Still not much that would cause the pilot to fly really low and really fast through an area full of skyscrapers.

12. Fueling the aircraft negligence.

Pilots that are low on fuel generally don't fly really low and fast through areas full of skyscrapers.

13.Structural or design problems with an aircraft.

That cause the plane to suddenly and uncontrollably drop to building elevation then speed up to 600 mph?

 

[beachnut]

1. Pilot Error.
2. Mechanical Malfunction
3. Bomb on the plane disabling it. (Cold War and all of that.)
4. Mid-air collision.
5. Suicide pilot.
6. Armed hijacking gone wrong.
7. Icing.
8. Violation of FAA standards
9.Federal air traffic controllers’ negligence.
10.Flight service station employee negligence or error.
11. Maintenance or repair of the aircraft or component negligence.
12. Fueling the aircraft negligence.
13.Structural or design problems with an aircraft.

What a bunch of crap.

No, the real design was for a lost plane. Lost in the fog. The only pilots lost in the fog trying to land are SHORT on fuel (and judgment) and think they have to land or run out of fuel. They are configured to land, they are slow. OOPs, this is the design the WTC meets. Period.

There is no mechanical failure you can give me in a 707 that will make me hit the WTC at 600 mph. Zip.

I like the FAA controller error. Yes flight dumb14 please descend to 700 feet and fly 600 mph. DUMB as dirt. A pilot does not have to do stupid stuff when a controller goes nuts. Sorry, strike 13!

 

[mortimer]

I just want to duck back in (pending Miragememories' apology) and remark that realcddeal is correct. The concrete floor decks were reinforced with welded wire fabric. They also gained some composite action reinforcement by virtue of being poured around the upper knuckles of the floor trusses.

The NIST report is actually where I learned the real name for "welded wire fabric." See, something for everyone!

[MMmode]I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Because you work for NASA. You know.[/Mmode]

 

[Calcas]

This is irrelevant. You cannot reasonably harden an office building against a 600 MPH aircraft impact.

That's why it wasn't in the specs. Has nothing to do with likelihood. Some risks you simply accept, whether or not they are minute (as they are in this case).

It's points like this that some of them will never understand.

Hey, why isn't my house built to those specs anyway? That damn builder and insurance company will sure have some 'splainin to do if a jetliner ever crashes into it!

 

[mortimer]

What truly astounds me about the Troofer movement is how the lack of credentials and experience somehow gives you credibility over those who do have credentials and experience. It's truly dumbfounding.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Swing, you have not point? What is you point with the NIST 600 mph history and the report they can't find?

The building could not survive a 600 mph 707 impact. To survive, they needed to be 14 times stronger. Impact, fire, collapse. You can not support the lies of 9/11 truth with NIST.

NIST is not wrong, you are wrong to use the 600 mph for saying the WTC was designed for a 600 mph impact. Simple stuff, but since you can not comprehend NIST, I can see how you have problem with my poor writing. But gee, you do not understand 9/11 either. too bad

The actual aircraft impacts on 911 occurred at 443 +/- 30MPH and 542 +/- 30MPH and the buildings withstood them. NIST says that if it wasn't for the impacts knocking off the fireproofing the buildings would still be standing. So I guess I don't understand where you get the need to design the buildings 14 times stronger there Beachnut.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Now all you need to do to validate that is to provide an example or examples of a passenger jet in the late 1960s or earlier flying at 600 mph at an altitude of 1,000 feet or so and crashing into a building for any of those reasons you listed. That would then provide a reason for the designers to consider designing for such an improbable scenario. Please let me know when you find such example or examples.

If you don't, then your theory doesn't hold up.

So you think those are improbable scenarios? Why? Are you stating that in the 1960's none of those scenarios are possible? Or are you stating structural engineers design buildings based upon past events only?
Or do structural engineers just lack imagination when they consider safety issues?

Rmackey-This is irrelevant. You cannot reasonably harden an office building against a 600 MPH aircraft impact.
That's why it wasn't in the specs. Has nothing to do with likelihood. Some risks you simply accept, whether or not they are minute (as they are in this case).

Your comment is based upon what is reasonable and what is not.

Can you source that from the Journal of Structural Engineering, please?

What reasons do you have to doubt the WTC White Paper? What reasons can you provide to not accept it as factual?

Did the structural engineers who produced that design criteria lie? If so, can you provide evidence?

If they did, why did NIST include it in their report?

The burden of proof is on you to prove the structural engineers who produced the WTC White Paper wrong. Your opinion on what is reasonable or not is rejected especially in light of the fact the engineers were ultra conservative in the design of their building.

I suspect the biggest reason for promoting the slow moving plane comment is to avoid responsibility for structural design failures and thus avoid litigation measures that could be taken.

I won't entertain discussions on the possibility that NIST used the slow moving plane design parameter to cover up the potential use of explosive devices in the destruction of the buildings.

Which would lead to the question, if the building's design was to meet the 607 mph 707 criteria as the white paper states, then we have either a structural design failure (lawsuit) or explosive devices (terrorists in the towers). So NIST promoted the slow moving plane to cover both bases, in my opinion.

 

[beachnut]

The actual aircraft impacts on 911 occurred at 443 +/- 30MPH and 542 +/- 30MPH and the buildings withstood them. NIST says that if it wasn't for the impacts knocking off the fireproofing the buildings would still be standing. So I guess I don't understand where you get the need to design the buildings 14 times stronger there Beachnut.

That is due to your bias and inability to apply real engineering criteria to anything. Your work on 9/11 issues is indicative of this failure.

I did not expect you to understand facts or reality. Your post is par for you.

 

[R.Mackey]

So you think those are improbable scenarios? Why? Are you stating that in the 1960's none of those scenarios are possible? Or are you stating structural engineers design buildings based upon past events only?
Or do structural engineers just lack imagination when they consider safety issues?

Not a bit.

That's why the structural engineers briefly considered a high-impact scenario anyway -- as a worst case analysis. Doesn't mean it was in the specs.

Here's an example. I own an automobile that will easily go 140 MPH. If I crash that automobile into a concrete barrier at 140 MPH, I will almost certainly be killed.

Seems pretty likely, doesn't it? All I have to do is mash my foot to the floor, or break a throttle cable, whatever, and my car becomes a deathtrap. Why didn't the engineers plan for that?!?

Now, the auto's manufacturer has crashed a few of these at extreme velocity. Not because they're required to, no. Just to study its behavior at those speeds. Pretty typical.

No lack of imagination anywhere.

Your comment is based upon what is reasonable and what is not.

Can you source that from the Journal of Structural Engineering, please?

What reasons do you have to doubt the WTC White Paper? What reasons can you provide to not accept it as factual?

I don't know what you're talking about. What whitepaper? Show it to me.

Did the structural engineers who produced that design criteria lie? If so, can you provide evidence?

Show me the requirement that the WTC Towers must withstand a 600 MPH jetliner impact.

Hint: There wasn't one. Leslie Robertson's comments confirm this.

If they did, why did NIST include it in their report?

Because the previous worst-case analysis was potentially a useful point of comparison. NIST was thorough. Duh.

The burden of proof is on you to prove the structural engineers who produced the WTC White Paper wrong. Your opinion on what is reasonable or not is rejected especially in light of the fact the engineers were ultra conservative in the design of their building.

I happen to have two full-scale tests that demonstrably prove the whitepaper was wrong. These tests were conducted on 11 September 2001. I believe you'll find I've met my burden of proof.

Game, set, match. Feel free to run away again.

 

[Swing Dangler]

The actual aircraft impacts on 911 occurred at 443 +/- 30MPH and 542 +/- 30MPH and the buildings withstood them. NIST says that if it wasn't for the impacts knocking off the fireproofing the buildings would still be standing. So I guess I don't understand where you get the need to design the buildings 14 times stronger there Beachnut.

Excellent point. This of course lead to the multi-million dollar multi-year report whose recommendation was....drum roll please....better fireproofing and exit path markings!

Out of the 18 recommendations submitted to the International Code Council in relation to the WTC Attacks, only 7 were accepted and none of them had to do with the actual design of the building!
Source here.

 

[uruk]

So you think those are improbable scenarios? Why? Are you stating that in the 1960's none of those scenarios are possible? Or are you stating structural engineers design buildings based upon past events only?
Or do structural engineers just lack imagination when they consider safety issues?

The engineers had to consider costs. You can design a building to withstand all concievable probabilities but it will be rediculously expensive to build. All designs are compromises to costs. Ask any design engineer working on another's dime.

It's also difficult to predict all possible parameters of something as chaotic as a crash.

I put forth the engineers possibly felt the design could have survived the crash based on what was known at the time. Did they factor in degredation of the building materials due to age?, Did they predict the size and mass of (then) future designs of aircraft?
How could they have predicted what could not be known at the time.

Also everything was on paper. How could they have tested thier numbers practicaly?
Crash a plane into a test structure? Cost?

 

[Swing Dangler]

Not a bit.

That's why the structural engineers briefly considered a high-impact scenario anyway -- as a worst case analysis. Doesn't mean it was in the specs.

Here's an example. I own an automobile that will easily go 140 MPH. If I crash that automobile into a concrete barrier at 140 MPH, I will almost certainly be killed. Seems pretty likely, doesn't it? All I have to do is mash my foot to the floor, or break a throttle cable, whatever, and my car becomes a deathtrap. Why didn't the engineers plan for that?!? Now, the auto's manufacturer has crashed a few of these at extreme velocity. Not because they're required to, no. Just to study its behavior at those speeds. Pretty typical.No lack of imagination anywhere.

False analogy. Irrelevant and useless.

I don't know what you're talking about. What whitepaper? Show it to me.

You will have to contact NIST, as they referenced it.

Show me the requirement that the WTC Towers must withstand a 600 MPH jetliner impact.

Design parameter versus a requirement. Two different things. Rejected.

Hint: There wasn't one. Leslie Robertson's comments confirm this

.
NIST's criticism of the 607 mph design parameter can be applied to Robertson's statements as well.

Because the previous worst-case analysis was potentially a useful point of comparison. NIST was thorough. Duh.

Thank you for not addressing the questions regarding the white paper. I would have too if I were in your position.

I happen to have two full-scale tests that demonstrably prove the whitepaper was wrong. These tests were conducted on 11 September 2001. I believe you'll find I've met my burden of proof.

Only if you reject the explosive devices and use false analogies to support your case.
The buildings survived the initial impact and the initial explosion, and indeed would have survived according to NIST, but the application of the fire proofing did not. Apparently it was a failure of the application of the fireproofing. So actually your burden of proof is wrong. According to NIST, the buildings would have stood but it was that dam fire proofing. Which of course led to the suggested to changes in the ICC code regarding fireproofing of buildings that the ICC accepted.
Lets see if the facts of the day match the White Paper:
1.

Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage...

.
Check.

which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building...

Check.

and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”

Check.

Skilling adds in 1993-“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....”

Check.

...“The building structure would still be there.”

And it was for some time and was credited with saving 100's of lives...
NIST seems to support all of this.
But strangely, NIST decides that they are“unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.” despite Skiings public comments in 1993.
And NIST also rejects what Skililng thought would bring down the towers, explosive devices, despite there being bomb squads located at the landfill which you can read about here as well as the FBI's working theory.
Makes you wonder why NIST would ignore the potential use of explosive devices and Skilling's comments.

Game, set, match. Feel free to run away again.

Game over? Run away again? LOL. No, in that other thread I accepted that I could not defeat a computer model whose parameters could be tweaked until the desired outcome was reached after repeatedly pointing out your errors, distortions, and dare I say lies. Don't forget those pilots comments you changed.

Have a wonderful weekend, and thanks for not wasting my hard earned tax dollars while posting on JREF while at work at JPL.

 

[R.Mackey]

Game over? Run away again? LOL. No, in that other thread I accepted that I could not defeat a computer model whose parameters could be tweaked until the desired outcome was reached after repeatedly pointing out your errors, distortions, and dare I say lies. Don't forget those pilots comments you changed.

Have a wonderful weekend, and thanks for not wasting my hard earned tax dollars while posting on JREF while at work at JPL.

What a bunch of nonsense.

1. You don't have the whitepaper??

How am I supposed to criticize it if neither you nor I have it?​

2. You don't have a requirement that the structures should have survived a 600 MPH aircraft impact?

If there was no requirement, then there's no reason to believe the structures were designed with that in mind.​

Looks to me like you've got absolutely nothing to talk about.

P.S.: You're welcome! By the way, don't try that "I Pay Your Salary"argument on a state patrol officer, if you ever get pulled over.

 

[T.A.M.]

Why is it that the truthers feel the only way people can post here is if they are neglecting their other duties?

TAM

 

[R.Mackey]

That's what the oh-so-smart folks at AboveTopSecret thought.

Apparently my blistering 4.6 post-per-day average here is so high, there's no way I could do that on my own time...

I wonder what those folks think about Pdoh, and his > 200 PPD average. He's got a direct neural implant? He has 200 arms, and an equal number of personalities? He's a time traveler? What, I ask you, what??

 

[Crungy]

The engineers had to consider costs. You can design a building to withstand all concievable probabilities but it will be rediculously expensive to build. All designs are compromises to costs. Ask any design engineer working on another's dime.

We have a winner! If anyone has a weekend to spare and fully stocked liqour cabinet, then I'll share with you stories from the wonderful, wonderful world of the "value engineering" phase of a project.

Ever try to get a $500 million dollar construction loan? It ain't easy...

SD continues to amaze with his complete lack of understanding of the design and construction industry....