Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
About The Collapse Of The WTC  
User currently offlineEal401 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (12 years 7 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1180 times:

Might be of interest;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1858000/1858491.stm

Not sure if this will present anything new compared with the Channel 4 documentry shown a couple of months ago.

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (12 years 7 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1116 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It was quite amazing the WTC's stood upright for over 45 minutes. But i still dont expect buildings to be able to withstand the impact of a big commercial airliner, no matter how strong or durable they are.

Arsenal@LHR



In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2794 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (12 years 7 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1111 times:

I too must confess that I was taken aback when people started asking why they fell down. I'm no engineer, but it seemed obvious. Um. A jet plane ran into them. Filled with gas. High octane gas at that.


"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2794 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (12 years 7 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1103 times:

Having read the article, and several others, my opinion remains. More "robust" materials connecting the central cores of the towers to the outter columns would have added weight. The problem with WTC was a 2-fold error. The planes severed the towers like a hot knife through butter and then dumped hot gas into them. Sort of like cutting someone and then putting lemon juice in the wound - it'll hurt a lot more. If more or stronger materials had been used, it seems to me that the damage caused by the initial severring would have simply left greater weight pushing down on less columns, resulting in a faster fall if anything. The idea of bombing a building out of existence, as was tried in 1993, is to simply remove a big enough chunk that the weight left cannot be supported by the columns/other supports left. If a jetliner with a large wingspan were to fly level and at very high speeds into a tower, it would do something no bomb can do - progressivly sever column after column. Not to be grim or conspiratorial, but if a 747 - the largest and fastest jet out there - had been used, and had been flown perfectly level at very high speed into the lower 3rd of either tower, I am relatively certain that it's wingspan - which would have compared nicely with the width of the building - combined with its speed, would have led to it literaly cutting the building off like a strong axe through a weak limb, resulting in the entire tower collapsing even without the aid of fire.
But instead a smaller jet was used, and incredibly hot fire was added. The result was that the intial severring wasn't enough to slice the building in half, but that the slice was large enough to allow the fire to weaken the remaining support columns. Yes, you could design a building to withstand this or just about any other impact, but you'd have to occupy an incredibly large percentage of each floor with supportive columns and fire protection. I think it far wiser to simply put a missle silo at the base of the tower and tell it "if you see anything coming, shoot". Seriously. I have designed many things on an amateur level, and among them are skyscrapers. I see no reason to waste useful space designing buildings to withstand crashes which will certainly destroy the thing crashing into them. Missile silos seem far more efficient. A simple laser system at a calculated radius would determine whether or not an object would be of sufficient size (757 or larger, for example) and speed (Mach whatever) to cause high-risk damage. At that point, a missile would be fired and the building would be sprayed with a firey debris field with little or no penetration.



"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
User currently offlineEal401 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 7 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1101 times:

Just one tiny question! If you have the missiles, they blow an aircraft out of the sky before it hits the building. What does the wreckage then do?

Or have I just been a gulliable fool and fallen for a joke??  Smile


User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (12 years 7 months 1 day ago) and read 1086 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I agree with 747-600X. If it had been a plane bigger than a 762, something like a 747/777, then the plane would have simply sliced the WTC in half, not to mention the increased amounts of highly flammable aviation fuel.

Regards
Arsenal@LHR



In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2794 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (12 years 7 months 18 hours ago) and read 1058 times:

Don't worry, you're not gullible (Well, you might be, but not in this case  Wink/being sarcastic).

Have you ever seen a jet plane crash site? In life or in pictures? You'll notice there isn't much of a plane left. If you're thinking of "wreckage" as massive bundles of heavy metals hurtling through midair, think again. The only parts of an aircraft blown up seconds before impact which would pose a serious threat would be the engines. The rest of the plane would be instantaneously reduced to fireworks. Imagine towing a peice of paper through midair and then cutting the tow-line. It would stop moving forward almost instantly. An exploded airplane would slow at a phenomenal rate, in fact more than 75% of it wouldn't be going forward at all any more. Only the nose area of the fuselage and some smaller parts of the wings would be moving forward, and in shards. They would blast through the outter windows, and perhaps some outter layers of steel. They might rip the floors open a bit if they cought them edge-on, and they would litter some fire here and there. The damage would be comparable to scalding yourself with hot water and watching the red spot swell up and then die down. The engines, in the mean time, would be spinning-razor death traps. They would hurl themselves into the building like house-sized bullets. Bullets, however, are solid and aerodynamic, and beleive it or not, jet engines aren't aerodynamic. Once they stop running, they become lead weights hanging from an airplane's wing, creating enormous drag. In the event described, they would still be spinning, and thus moving themselves forward. As soon as they met the building, however, that spinning would get chopped up and choked, and they would destinigrate in every outward direction, having very little actual penetration of the structure. The rest of the debris would fall down the building, some breaking an occasional window, most of it hitting the ground. Even with the Sept. 11th attacks, the damage caused just by the impact was relatively small, as seen in any of the penetration-area photographs. Not more than three or four floors were damaged by the initial ripping action.



"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 7, posted (12 years 7 months 17 hours ago) and read 1044 times:

A lot of people have said that had the Asbestos not been removed a few years ago, the buildings would have stood even longer and might have even survived.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3701 posts, RR: 34
Reply 8, posted (12 years 7 months 14 hours ago) and read 1020 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

747-600X,

I think you are missing the point. Just suppose this missile system had been in place on Sept 11, sure the WTC would have remained relatively undamaged but what about the areas of NYC where the wreckage would have come down ?

Also don't forget PA103, that a/c exploded and huge chunks of as/c structure came down. The whole wing assembly hit the ground in one piece and the ensuing fuel explosion vapourised several houses and people.


User currently offlineSammyk From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1690 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 7 months 14 hours ago) and read 1018 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

One of my coworkers used to be a steel worker for over 30 years until he had to retire due to injury. Anyways, he said he had done some work on those buildings, and said a lot of the asbestos that was said to have been removied most likely never was.

Sammy


User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 7 months 14 hours ago) and read 1013 times:

Whether they stood or not might have been sadly irrelevant. Most of the deaths from the day came from the North Tower at & above the impact point...over a thousand in those offices alone. Those massive fireballs going up and out of the tower were going right through the upper floors too. Have you seen the helicopter video? At one point the FDNY Huey was hovering barely 50 feet over the northwest corner of the North Tower. No one was on the roof, simply because the floors below were an inferno.

The same was true about the South Tower, whose evacuation was well underway when UA175 impacted.

Though it seems trite and callous to note, Mr. Atta, who I feel confident has secured a permanent membership in Hell, could have killed many more Americans that day has he steered lower in the North Tower.

The tribute light columns start this weekend. Should be a powerful sight.


User currently offlineFlyVirgin744 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 1313 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (12 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 1003 times:

I think scumbag Atta (sorry heavymetal, he doesn't deserve the "Mr." title in my book) struck the upper floors for the purpose of visuals. The pictures wouldn't be as illustrious if not so high up so that everyone could see. Now for the second, they went ahead and struck the building lower because they got they're visual affect from the first hit. Truly disgusting  Sad


Sometimes I go about in pity for myself and all the while a great wind carries me across the sky.
User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3701 posts, RR: 34
Reply 12, posted (12 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 1000 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Personally I think the "pilots" didn't have the skill to aim the a/c at a particular level of the WTC. I am convinced the second a/c only just managed to hit the tower judging by the bank angle at the moment of impact

User currently offlinePROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5644 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (12 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 1003 times:

747-600X,
I think you are missing the point. Just suppose this missile system had been in place on Sept 11, sure the WTC would have remained relatively undamaged but what about the areas of NYC where the wreckage would have come down ?


Like where I work, a mile and half north of the WTC and probably right under AA 11's flight path.
Some guy on the Subtalk bulletin board suggested a similar missle-defense idea a couple of months ago and got unmercifully flamed (and I was one of the flamers). What a moronic idea.




"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
About The Collapse Of The WTC posted Thu Mar 7 2002 11:57:32 by Eal401
Regardless Of How You Feel About The War... posted Fri Nov 3 2006 07:05:50 by BCAInfoSys
Questions About Moving To The Northeast posted Mon May 22 2006 17:42:40 by Texan
Weeelll How About This From The New Justice? posted Thu Feb 2 2006 05:28:52 by Gilligan
Future Predictions:Collapse Of The USA posted Wed Dec 14 2005 00:04:46 by Bushpilot
Questions About Light And The Galaxy posted Thu Dec 1 2005 07:48:27 by Tbar220
Informations About Guesthouses In The Caribbean posted Tue Nov 1 2005 10:33:52 by Pat747
White Sox About To Take The Series? posted Thu Oct 27 2005 05:30:45 by Tom in NO
Thinking About Taking Up The Recorder, Any Advice? posted Sat Aug 27 2005 23:20:39 by Flybyguy
Is The Collapse Of Wal Mart In The Future? posted Tue Apr 26 2005 02:15:13 by Matt D