Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (64966)	6/13/2005 2:48:39 AM
From: energyplay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to 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....

To: maceng2 who wrote (64966)	6/13/2005 6:50:45 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

PB, Re: The twin towers were not designed with consideration to impacts of large airliners flying into them at full speed. You've been disinformed. The WTC towers were engineered by Leslie Robertson Associates in the late 1960s. tinyurl.com His firm calculated the impact of a Boeing 707 which is, in fact, quite comparable to the Boeing 767. Robertson states that he didn't properly account for the JP-4 fuel in his calculations, but the kinetic energy designed for is not a cause for alarm about the design. Here's a summary of the fact case: 911research.wtc7.net *** Re: I understand you have some 25 yrs background with building structures? Correct.