Booms, Busts, and Recoveries Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: maceng2 who wrote (64966)	6/13/2005 2:48:39 AM
From: energyplay	Read Replies (1) of 74559

I believe the designers considered a 707 size aircraft flying at landing approach speed (about 140-180 knots) hitting near the top of one of the Towers. I think they concluded it would be pretty bad, but would not lead to building collaspe. The towers location isn't that close to JFK, LaGuardia, or Newark. A strong East wind might mean a landing approach that comes closer to the Towers, however. On climb out with a West wind, aircraft would be well over the height of the towers quickly. If an aircraft leaving JFK had an engine failure, they would be heading south of Manhattan towards Newark airport. I think the technological optimism of the time - FAA was working on a microwave landing system, planes were getting moving map displays, aircraft collision avoidance was being developed, etc. lead the designers to discount the accident sceanario. It was also a time when worse case was a 1 megaton Soviet warhead about 1000 feet over midtown....

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next