MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8418 posts, RR: 13 Posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 395544 times:
When the two towers that make up the World Trade Center were built, they were designed to withstand the impact of the largest airliner of the day, the Boeing 707 Intercontinental. The Empire State Building survived a B-25 medium bomber crashing into it on very foggy day. It was during the weekend when most people weren't there, but still, 14 people died.
Anyone wanna bet that the World Trade Center could survive an 767-300 impact?
VirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 360229 times:
Redngold this was not a terrorist attempt but the pilot took off in heavy fog and he couldn't see a thing. He had accidentally slammed into the building and the people on the plane as well as the 14 people in the building mostly young women secretaries were killed.
Samurai 777 From Canada, joined Jan 2000, 2451 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 358068 times:
If a 707 or a 757 slammed into the World Trade Center, it might be much more damaging than the case of the B-25 bomber that crashed into the Empire State Building.
For one thing, unlike the Empire State Building, which has more heavy concrete, the World Trade Center is made more of steel and glass - this may mean far greater structural damage due to the impact and flying glass shards and debris raining down on the people below. There could be a possibility of toppling if the 707 or the 757 came in at a high enough speed. Both of these planes are larger and heavier than a B-25 bomber, so this means a greater force of impact. I'm no expert on building structure or air crashes, but it would no doubt be far worse than the Empire State Building disaster.
It is very doubtful any passengers or crew would have survived such a grim scenario. Also, there are probably more people per floor in the World Trade Center compared to the Empire State Building, so casualties in the building will likely be much higher.
However, I wouldn't be surprised if the authorities would have a strict exclusion zone preventing any large airplanes, especially commercial airliners, from getting too close to Manhattan, so that there would be no repeat of the Empire State Building crash.
Other large buildings have been crashed into by large airliners, like the El Al 747-200F that crashed into an apartment complex in Amsterdam several years ago.
There was a small Cessna plane that crashed into a hospital in Edmonton, the city where I live. This was in the early 1980s, and did prompt fears about larger planes crashing right in the middle of Edmonton. The hospital sits right underneath the approach path to the City Centre Airport. It was quoted in the news by a member of the city council that "one day a 737 will slam into the hospital, and that will be it".
Edmonton City Centre Airport (formerly the Municipal Airport) did used to have quite a few 737s and BAe 146s flying in and out of there until 1995, when it was closed to most scheduled flights. This airport sits only a few kilometres north of downtown Edmonton, so it is well within the built up areas.
There are risks when you have an airport like Kai Tak(now closed) or Love Field in Dallas, TX served by larger airliners the size of a 737 or larger and sitting well within an urban area. Believe me, it's amazing that Kai Tak has never had a disaster like that, considering that Hong Kong has so many skyscrapers so near the airport - and that Hong Kong is one of the most densely populated cities in the world.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11952 posts, RR: 37 Reply 6, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 351535 times:
I recall reading a story that an Aerolineas Argie 707 came very close to doing the same thing (i.e. crashing into the Empire State) sometime in the '60s or '70s, but thankfully ATC managed to warn them in time.
I do believe that the result of a large airliner hitting a large modern building would be much closer to the EL AL incident than the B25 incident in '43. The 757/767 etc. would be much faster and heavier than the B25 so I wouldn't be too optimistic that the Empire State would survive either.
KUGN From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 615 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 348821 times:
In one post war winter, Newark airport had 3 aircraft crushes weeks apart, also due to buildings in the area at that time. There was a substantial publiuc preassure to close down the airport, but Port Authority managed to keep it open. There is an article about it in recent issue "Airways" magazine.
Fanofjets From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1895 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 347972 times:
The greatest danger any air crash over Manhattan would pose would be to people not in buildings but on the ground. In the late 1970s, the landing gear of a New York Airways S-61 landing on the Pan Am Building gave way, causing the helicopter to capsize. While thankfully nobody on board was killed, part of the rotor that broke off killed a person on the ground, prompting New York City banning all such flights (all Manhattan heliports are along the edge of the island).
The aeroplane has unveiled for us the true face of the earth. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Airafrique From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 139 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 348410 times:
I am working in downtown New-York at the world trade center and when somebody is in the observation deck of the world trade center you see plane on approach to Laguardia aiport not far away from the building.Sometime you think that the plane is coming to hit the building.
And for your information planes do fly over Manhattan and I always think what if a pilote crashes a plane on us
Jabpilot From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 423 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 348177 times:
I agree with Fanofjets. I would think more people would die on the ground from the result of falling debris, rather than the jet actually slamming into the building. Sure people would be killed and injured in the building but can you imagine an aircraft the size of a 707 "showering" down in pieces onto Manhattan! Jeff
USAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 54 Reply 14, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 348258 times:
The structure itself would survive, as the buildings are surrounded by other buildings, and thus only a hit could take place high up on the structure (meaning not at or reall near ground level) If it could somehow penetrate and hit the base, that would take it out completely, but a hit 500 or 600 feet up most likely wouldn't take out the whole thing.
Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
Redngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 51 Reply 16, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 347910 times:
OK, I was referrring to the World Trade Center bombing when I wrote about a "terrorist attack." And yes, I know the collision was an Air Force B-29 piloted by a self-assured USAF officer flying in dense fog.
The normal flight path is down the Hudson River valley to New York Harbor, then either turn west (for EWR) or east (for LGA and JFK). Trust me, I used to watch the planes in NY all the time. The planes passing the World Trade Center observation deck appear very close, because the World Trade Center ob deck is 1,000 ft. up and very close to the Hudson River, and your perspective is skewed because there's nothing remotely that tall between the ob deck and the Hudson.
Soku39 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1797 posts, RR: 10 Reply 17, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 348115 times:
Your nice and violent aren't you? I hope something like this doesn't happen but if it did, all pax and crew would most likely be killed and bystanders will get hit by a rain of debris from the building and jet killing them. (you know sharp glass jet engines nothing to bad
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8418 posts, RR: 13 Reply 18, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 354154 times:
OK, what's the biggest aircraft you think the towers could sustain an impact without toppling? I think a 737 or MD-80, slowed up for landing with gear and flaps out, shouldn't be going so fast that it'd fall. Then again, maybe it would. Either way, I'm sure no one wants to find out.
Meister808 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 972 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 356414 times:
This scenario is really hellish... I think the flight disaster record (Tenerife, 1977, 582 dead) might get reset by a lot.
You would easily have 1500 or more, since you would have a 200 in the plane, at least 500 in the building, and a real s*itload on the ground. If the building managed to fall, there might be 5 or 6 thousand dead. Oh well. That's why they put a/c lights on buildings...
Twin Cessna 812 Victor, Minneapolis Center, we observe your operation in the immediate vicinity of extreme precipitation