Tim Said
Skilling's statement in 1993 was lacking in detail. The claim was that the buildings were built to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707 and from the burning of the fuel within the building. That's it. Nothing more was offered. But surely an impact at the 106th story level would result in different stress variables than an impact at the level of the 80th floor or lower. What was the velocity of the impacting 707? How much fuel was onboard? How many passengers were on board?
Are you familiar with Leslie Robertson? He was the lead structural engineer for the construction of the twin towers.
Tim I find this response really disappointing especially calling into question Skilling's credentials
Nothing else was offered?
He was doing an interview with a newspaper Did you expect him to bring blueprints with him Sorry if there is some sarcasm here, but it is a real question Yes I know of Robertson and his study which examined a smaller plane, but Skilling did his own calculations and they are spelled out to a so called White Paper from 64. Official story folks will point to fact that the document is not signed by Skilling That begs the question who else would be doing a study on the WTC other than the person who said he did at this time Yes stress variables can be different under various circumstances, but the redundancy of support apparatus is beyond these minor variables by many order of magnitude In general all the floors, beams, and the exterior shell are consistent throughout the structure, so which floor an impact occurs is relatively meaningless
Leslie Roberton Lead engineer
John Skilling CHIEF Engineer
If you read the following links you will see Robertson as saying the WTC would likely survive any type of attack before 2001
Is it really your suggestion and his engineers never made blueprints and the kind of structural calculations you are looking for? The fact that they are not publicly available is a surprise? Hate to say it Tim but it seems like you are just lapping out the rhetoric of the debunkers websites Occasionally I draw a firm line with my opinions, and my suggestion here is that if you cannot except that the designers of the WTC, who are clearly some of the top credentialed engineers on the planet at the time, made clear claims that they were as good as certain it would withstand a fully fueled jetliner , and that was the standing science of the time then I believe this is a pretty clear indicator that your biases have gotten the better of you
It is not the end of the game to admit that Skilling and the WTC designers did build a structure that by all scientific expectations should have easily survived the impacts and fires Maybe they were wrong, but the overriding point is the onus is on NIST to create some extraordinary proof for the extraordinary claim that the existing science of the time was so far off
http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html
