Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7791 posts, RR: 22 Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 865 times:
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.
747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2759 posts, RR: 16 Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 860 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'
747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2759 posts, RR: 16 Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 852 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'
Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7791 posts, RR: 22 Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 835 times:
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.
747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2759 posts, RR: 16 Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 807 times:
Don't worry, you're not gullible (Well, you might be, but not in this case ).
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'
B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 25 Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 793 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.
VC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3677 posts, RR: 36 Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 769 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 ?
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.
Sammyk From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1686 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 767 times:
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.
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 762 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.
FlyVirgin744 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 1313 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 752 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
Sometimes I go about in pity for myself and all the while a great wind carries me across the sky.
VC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3677 posts, RR: 36 Reply 12, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 749 times:
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
PROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5440 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 752 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"
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2759 posts, 
).
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
