Aircraft impact Design for Twin Towers

Picard

Banned
Banned
I was reading on Wikipedia about the design for the Towers. It said the following " In designing the World Trade Center, Leslie Robertson considered the scenario of the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707, which might be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark airports ".

Does anyone have documentation to indicate this ? I'm inclined to believe it, as no building can withstand an impact from a plane traveling at high speed and full of fuel. Just look @ the pentagon for example.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
NIST says ( I added bold emphasis)
page 55 https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/NCSTAR/ncstar1.pdf
 

Picard

Banned
Banned
I heard about that, and I find it hard to believe they could design the building to take that sort of impact. Not even the pentagon, which is reinforced was able to hold up to an impact.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I'm inclined to believe it, as no building can withstand an impact from a plane traveling at high speed and full of fuel.
The WTC withstood the impact for hours an hour as is. Mechanically, the engineering was sound. What brought it down were the fires.

If an analysis was done, it might not have considered the consequences that this kind of fire might have. A "seeking to land" airliner would not be "full of fuel", as it would be near the end of their journey.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Not even the pentagon, which is reinforced was able to hold up to an impact.
the Pentagon didn't collapse. there was just a big hole, like the Twin towers.

 
Last edited:

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
The structural engineer designed the tower for an impact of a 707 lost in the fog trying to land, it would be at 180 to 200 mph.

LESLIE E. ROBERTSON -
The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires. https://www.nae.edu/7480/ReflectionsontheWorldTradeCenter
LESLIE E. ROBERTSON -
It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed. https://www.nae.edu/Publications/Br...ecurity/ReflectionsontheWorldTradeCenter.aspx
To add to the speculation there was a "white paper" (a marketing device) by the Port Authority to brag about the WTC towers, and it had a 707 at 600 mph... I think Robertson wanted to stop the 707 at the shell. With the planes on 9/11 going 470 and 590 mph, they broke the shell. The buildings did not collapse due to the impacts. This was an issue since a plane had hit the Empire State Building. There was no study of an impact at 600 mph - it appears to be Port Authority marketing, not an engineering study.

At 180 mph the shell of the WTC would stop the aircraft at the shell. There was a study after 9/11 of what it would take to break the shell, and what thickness of steel could stop the 590 mph impact... Have to look it up -

The most likely accident with an aircraft and building would be lost in the fog low on fuel trying to land. If the pilot had full fuel he would (if he had any judgement) climb to VFR (clear sky) and find suitable landing field.

Found the paper... I have a copy on a computer at home.
A numerical simulation of the aircraft impact into the exterior columns of the World Trade Center (WTC) was done using LS-DYNA. For simplification, the fuselage was modeled as a thin-walled cylinder, the wings were modeled as box beams with a fuel pocket, and the engines were represented as rigid cylinders. The exterior columns of the WTC were represented as box beams. Actual masses, material properties and dimensions of the Boeing 767 aircraft and the exterior columns of the WTC were used in this analysis. It was found that about 46% of the initial kinetic energy of the aircraft was used to damage columns. The minimum impact velocity of the aircraft to just penetrate the exterior columns would be 130m∕s. It was also found that a Boeing 767 traveling at top speed would not penetrate exterior columns of the WTC if the columns were thicker than 20mm. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2005)131:10(1066)
 
Last edited:

Dingo

Member
I don't see that claim anywhere on the current Wikipedia page for the World Trade Center.

And saying "... no building can withstand an impact from a plane traveling at high speed and full of fuel ..." is vague and probably overly broad. Absolutes rarely exist without exceptions. For instance, in 1945 a B-25 bomber crashed into the Empire State Building and it survived.
This one has been analysed to death. The key difference being that the B-25 was comparitively small and slow. The maximum speed of a B-25 is 272mph, for instance, which makes a huge difference in the kinetic energy.

Absolutely agree that the statement is uselessly vague, haha.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
The best accounting of the Port Authority's study of a 707 impact at 600 mph can be found in James Glanz's book "City in the Sky". I found it first in this 2011 post at the JREF forum by user "tfk":
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6993609#post6993609

Earlier this year, I read the book myself, I have a copy, and checked that the quotes and page numbers given by tfk are correct. Here are the technical excepts from Glanz's book as far as tfk has them:
In the book, the story is layed out on pages 131 thru about 139.
I think it is best if you read tfk's full post for context and explanation.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
More from the forum post that Oystein cites:
Article:
The second calculation imagined that a number of the beams on one side of the building, equivalent to the wingspan of the plane, were "surgically removed". As if you just took a Sawzall & cut them out. Absolutely no other damage to any part of the building. No fires, no damaged core columns, no damaged floors, etc.

The question asked: Would the building fall over under this condition.

They found out that it would not.

Clearly, neither one of these very unrealistic & very crude calculations comes anywhere CLOSE to a rigorous analysis upon which one could make the assertion that the building "was designed to withstand a jet impact".

So, yes, a crude (?) impact analysis, but no postcrash considerations, it seems.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Agent K Air Force E-11A Communications Aircraft Crashes And Burns In Afghanistan Current Events 7
Laser Curved Aircraft Window Distortion Flat Earth 11
inkwell American Airlines Flight 77 Aircraft Accident Package lists no. of Passengers/Fatalies as "Unknown" Conspiracy Theories 3
FlightMuj Explained: NASA documents stating a flat Earth??? Linear Aircraft Models Flat Earth 7
Trailspotter UFO with navigation lights, Drone or aircraft? [Low Flying FedEx 777] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
cmnit Ulrike Lohmann on aircraft exhausts chemicals Contrails and Chemtrails 3
C Strange Flickering in Contrail Video Posted in Earlier Thread [Focussing artifacts] Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Whitebeard EgyptAir flight MS804 Current Events 52
Spectrar Ghost Tip Vorticies - frequency by aircraft? Contrails and Chemtrails 5
MikeC New Zealand CAA puts up "Aircraft Trails" page Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Mick West N8701Q Boeing 737-MAX 8 "Spirit of Renton" Testbed Aircraft Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Veronica! Odd Aircraft Explained: Powered Parachute Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
Mick West 1952 - Condensation Trails From Aircraft - With a 1937 Persistent Contrail Photo - Oldest Ever? Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Steve Funk Claim, C130 aircraft are spraying mysterious filaments. Contrails and Chemtrails 5
MikeC Aircraft weight and balance in the real world Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Balance Met Office - Case Study Contrail-induced Cirrus Contrails and Chemtrails 0
TWCobra AA77-Pentagon explosion plume compared to known aircraft fires 9/11 0
Mick West Debunked: MH370: Daily Mail claims new sonar images indicate aircraft debris Flight MH370 3
c.eileen Help to ID a plane? [N90 - FAA Flight Inspection Aircraft] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 30
TEEJ Belfast Observer Skywatch claiming that airliners do not appear on Flight Radar 24 - 10th March 2015 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
TEEJ Gary Cameron Clydebank, Scotland Video, 1st May 2015- Claim of aircraft not being on Flight Radar 24 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
ssfor27 Aircraft Caught "Spraying" over Key West Contrails and Chemtrails 8
Trailspotter A new way to stop the gridlock in the skies General Discussion 0
Efftup Disappearing Falcons near Bournemouth, UK [Limited MLAT Coverage] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 37
MikeC Convair 580 aerosol measurement probe array Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Asylumkid Deadly emissions? [1% contribution of aviation emissions to harmful air pollution] General Discussion 10
Rico Debunked: Dane Wigington's Undeniable Footage of Jet Aircraft Spraying [Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 42
Efftup How far away can I see an aircraft? Contrails and Chemtrails 26
Charlesinsandiego Another triangular aircraft, this time in Kansas [B2 Bomber] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 25
TEEJ Mystery Aircraft over Texas 10th March 2014 - Steve Douglass Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 114
T Debunk: Chemtrails leave no space between aircraft and the beginning of the trail. Contrails and Chemtrails 7
TWCobra Max Bliss debunked-Aircraft engine oil systems used to dispense Chemtrail chemicals Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Alchemist DEBUNKED - 9/11 aircraft black boxes weren't recovered 9/11 241
TWCobra Wigington/Max Bliss Debunked. Automated Chemtrail dispersal Commercial aircraft Contrails and Chemtrails 7
anonname Is this a chemtrail aircraft? Contrails and Chemtrails 15
CbIncus Calculations of Aircraft Contrail Formation Critical Temperatures (Mark L. Schrader) Contrails and Chemtrails 10
HappyMonday Anonymous Email from an aircraft mechanic (via twitter) Contrails and Chemtrails 37
TWCobra Effect of mid-range Mohs (hardness scale) Volcanic Ash on aircraft v Aluminium oxide Contrails and Chemtrails 14
Jay Reynolds Flight Tracking "Chemtrails" Aircraft Contrails and Chemtrails 39
D Calculations of impact General Discussion 0
SamBST article: I Was A Professional 9/11 Truther (And I Gave It Up) 9/11 0
M Difference between the impact of Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosols and Contrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Chew Video examining Fukushima west coast impact Science and Pseudoscience 6
WeeBee MH17: Pinpointing the precise location of the missile impact point Flight MH17 53
Mick West Photos of Street After Impact, Before Collapse, Possible Passport 9/11 15
Pete Tar Debunked: 9/11 impact footage was faked, shows 'layering' error. 9/11 38
Related Articles














































Related Articles

Top