9/11 WTC7
27.01.2009 um 07:36"There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. "
http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/The%20Height%20of%20Ambition%20Part%20Four.pdf (Archiv-Version vom 07.07.2007)
Haha. Wer lässt Fakten weg, die nicht für ihn sprechen?
:D
The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. 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.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 131-132; Lew, Bukowski, and Carino, 10/2005, pp. 70-71]
The other structural engineer who designed the towers, Leslie Robertson, carried out a second study later in 1964, of how the towers would handle the impact of a 707 (see Between September 3, 2001 and September 7, 2001). However, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), following its three-year investigation into the WTC collapses, will in 2005 state that it has been “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.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 13 pdf file]
Robertson conducted a study in late 1964, to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers. He concluded that the tower would remain standing. However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly. [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 138-139, 366] A previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing (see February 27, 1993).
Wie auch im NIST NCSTAR 1zu lesen, ist Robertson erst später zum Team dazugekommen (LERA). Der andere Robertson bei Skilling, Helle, Christiansen & Robertson war Leslie Robertsons Vater.
Die wichtigste Passage noch mal wiederholt:
besides this paper, no documents are known
However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly.
Ich wollte auch prüfen, ob das mit dn 21.000 Seiten, was mal auf dem englischen Wikipedia verlinkt wurde, wirklich stimmt. Aber leider finde ich das NIST NCSTAR 1-2 Appendix A nicht. Wer hilft mir?
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-2index.htm
Alle pdf-Links sind tot. Letzlich ist es eine Detailfrage. Es gab anscheinend 2 Studien zum Thema, eine von dem auf Regierungsversion liegenden Robertson, die Kerosin unberücksichtigt hatte, nur von 300 km/h ausging und nur ein paar Seiten lang war. Und eine vorige, vermutlich von Skilling ausgefertigte erste Studie, in der man von 1000 km/h und etlichen tausend Liter Kerosin-Brand ausging. So wie ich es die ganze Zeit schon sage, und so, wie es von den "Debunkern" geleugnet wird, weil es einfach nicht ins Konzept passt, weil es unglaublich stark konstruierte WTC's impliziert.
Was uns mehr verwundern sollte ist, warum es überhaupt keine Statik-Unterlagen für uns gibt- dieser inklusive. Und das Argument, die wären im WTC gelagert gewesen, mag zwar für eine Ausfertigung stimmen, kann aber grundsätzlich keine Erklärung sein, weil man nie nur eine Ausfertigtung hat.
Anzeige
http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/The%20Height%20of%20Ambition%20Part%20Four.pdf (Archiv-Version vom 07.07.2007)
Haha. Wer lässt Fakten weg, die nicht für ihn sprechen?
:D
The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. 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.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 131-132; Lew, Bukowski, and Carino, 10/2005, pp. 70-71]
The other structural engineer who designed the towers, Leslie Robertson, carried out a second study later in 1964, of how the towers would handle the impact of a 707 (see Between September 3, 2001 and September 7, 2001). However, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), following its three-year investigation into the WTC collapses, will in 2005 state that it has been “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.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 13 pdf file]
Robertson conducted a study in late 1964, to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers. He concluded that the tower would remain standing. However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly. [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 138-139, 366] A previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing (see February 27, 1993).
Wie auch im NIST NCSTAR 1zu lesen, ist Robertson erst später zum Team dazugekommen (LERA). Der andere Robertson bei Skilling, Helle, Christiansen & Robertson war Leslie Robertsons Vater.
Die wichtigste Passage noch mal wiederholt:
besides this paper, no documents are known
However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly.
Ich wollte auch prüfen, ob das mit dn 21.000 Seiten, was mal auf dem englischen Wikipedia verlinkt wurde, wirklich stimmt. Aber leider finde ich das NIST NCSTAR 1-2 Appendix A nicht. Wer hilft mir?
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-2index.htm
Alle pdf-Links sind tot. Letzlich ist es eine Detailfrage. Es gab anscheinend 2 Studien zum Thema, eine von dem auf Regierungsversion liegenden Robertson, die Kerosin unberücksichtigt hatte, nur von 300 km/h ausging und nur ein paar Seiten lang war. Und eine vorige, vermutlich von Skilling ausgefertigte erste Studie, in der man von 1000 km/h und etlichen tausend Liter Kerosin-Brand ausging. So wie ich es die ganze Zeit schon sage, und so, wie es von den "Debunkern" geleugnet wird, weil es einfach nicht ins Konzept passt, weil es unglaublich stark konstruierte WTC's impliziert.
Was uns mehr verwundern sollte ist, warum es überhaupt keine Statik-Unterlagen für uns gibt- dieser inklusive. Und das Argument, die wären im WTC gelagert gewesen, mag zwar für eine Ausfertigung stimmen, kann aber grundsätzlich keine Erklärung sein, weil man nie nur eine Ausfertigtung hat.
