New York Center of the World 1946-2003 WTC

@talk72000,

I remember hating the WTC for destroying the one area of NYC I was in love with at the time.

Radio Row.............................

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I didn't look for the World Trade Center when I visited Wall Street. I remember the Empire State building. I worked at a restaurant the Rockefeller Center as a summer job.

0 Replies

The thing about David Rockefeller wanting to improve New York. He promoted it by using public money for personal vision. His brother Nelson as Governor pushed the Port Authority in building it. These rich guys have personal pet projects use public funds to finance them.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

Quote:

These rich guys have personal pet projects use public funds to finance them.

SO?

Are you stating or implying that the world trade center was not a money earner over it lifetime?

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
These rich guys have personal pet projects use public funds to finance them.

SO?

Are you stating or implying that the world trade center was not a money earner over it lifetime?

It was a money earner and it generated a large amount of tax revenues for NYC.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

SO?

GWB used public property for his own gain. The stadium for the Texas Rangers with his friends in the Texas legislature turned the publically-owned stadium into the private property of the Rangers. GWB sold his shares and made $15 million profit.

Nelson Rockefeller's penchant to go big resulted in the WTC being quite flimsy. Originally it was designed up to 72 floors but but ended up 110 floors or so. The Empire State building withstood the B-29 bomber.

2 Replies

@talk72000,

Quote:

Nelson Rockefeller's penchant to go big resulted in the WTC being quite flimsy. Originally it was designed up to 72 floors but but ended up 110 floors or so. The Empire State building withstood the B-29 bomber.

There is little question as far as I can find that both towers could had handle being hit by a B-29 either or even a 707 for that matter.

0 Replies

@talk72000,

By the way the bomber who hit the Empire State Building was a B-25 bomber not a B-29 and as such was a fraction of the size even of a B-29.

It also was traveling at a hundred plus mile an hour not 500 mph as the two jets was traveling when they hit the towers.

All and all the two events have very little connection other then they both involved planes hitting buildings

1 Reply

@BillRM,

The WTC was all glass and steel. The height would have made concrete exterior prohibitive. Worst of all the architect had never designed a skyscraper before. They liked his ethereal design portfolio. So what happened to the real estate market with all the 10 million square feet of office space gone? Has the office rent gone sky high?

1 Reply

@talk72000,

Let me see a modern large passenger jet at a guess is at least 10 times more massive then a middle size ww2 bomber and in the case of the world trade center towers they was hit by those jets traveling five times faster then a ww2 bomber.

Applying simple physic that mean that the energy of impact between the B-25 hitting the Empire State Building and one of the passengers jets hitting a tower is a 100 times more repeat a hundred times the energy of impact.

Yet those two towers both stood up to the impact and only the larges fires fuel by hundreds of tons of jet fuel ended up destroying them.

There is zero reason to think that any building including the Empire State Building could have done any better.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

The Empire State Building would have withsood the impact. It had thick exterior concrete walls and the wings could not have penetrated. The fuel would spill all over the exterior and cause a large fire. The problem also is that it would be harder to hit as it is in the center of Manhattan.

2 Replies

@talk72000,

Quote:

It had thick exterior concrete walls and the wings could not have penetrated

First the B-25 did indeed penetrate the Empire State building walls with one percent of the energy of impact of the jets.

Second, I question your statement that a building who support come from an internal framework of steel would have thick concrete walls as the walls are not load bearings on the Empire State Building and thick walls would just be unneeded and undesirable weight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_state_building
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
plane crashMain article: B-25 Empire State Building crash
At 9:40 a.m.on Saturday, July 28, 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber, piloted in thick fog by Lieutenant Colonel William Franklin Smith, Jr.,[42] crashed into the north side of the Empire State Building, between the 79th and 80th floors, where the offices of the National Catholic Welfare Council were located. One engine shot through the side opposite the impact and flew as far as the next block where it landed on the roof of a nearby building, starting a fire that destroyed a penthouse. The other engine and part of the landing gear plummeted down an elevator shaft. The resulting fire was extinguished in 40 minutes. 14 people were killed in the incident.[43][44] Elevator operator Betty Lou Oliver survived a plunge of 75 stories inside an elevator, which still stands as the Guinness World Record for the longest survived elevator fall recorded.[45] Despite the damage and loss of life, the building was open for business on many floors on the following Monday. The crash helped spur the passage of the long-pending Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, as well as the insertion of retroactive provisions into the law, allowing people to sue the government for the accident.[46]

A year later, another aircraft had a close encounter with the skyscraper. It narrowly missed striking the building.[47]

0 Replies

@talk72000,

The curtain wall of the Empire State is limestone and masonry not concrete and even at 8 inches thick it is not going to be bounding off any part of a jet impacting at 500 mph.

For proof of that see the posting concerning the results of the B-25 impact.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

[youtubel]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-KXXsN8vc&feature=related[/youtube]

Quote:

The exterior is limestone and granite and vertical chrome-nickel-steel alloy columns extend from the sixth floor to the top.

Read more: How skyscraper is made - material, history, used, components, composition, structure, steps, History, Raw Materials, Design, The Construction Process, Quality Control, Byproducts/Waste, The Future http://www.madehow.com/Volume-6/Skyscraper.html#ixzz19eITbPbx

The wings did not get in. You have a solid wall of limestone and granite and vertical chrome-nickel-steel alloy columns. In WTC you had glass and slim steel 18" x18 " tubing.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/fig-2-3.gif

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_perimeterwall.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/col_dimensions.gif

The plates forming the outer columns were only 3" thick. The Titanic had 12" thick hull.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

1 Reply

@talk72000,

Sorry you can state whatever nonsense you what to state but the facts are that a plane that did not mass in total as must as the fuel loads of the 747 flying at 1/5 the speed had parts going though one wall and out the other of the Empire State building. Oh and the B-25 fuel did set fires inside the Empire State building.

Limestone is not at all that solid of a material and would be as paper to the impact energy a 100 times greater then the B-25.

I know you just have a bug up your rear end that the twin towers was not design well but that does not made it true.

In fact I question if the Empire State Building would had survive the impact of one of those 747 without needing an hour long fire afterward to destroy it as the towers did.

I had been looking for the fun of it if anyone had run and release a full scale computer simulation of a 747 hitting the Empire State but so far without luck.

I do not think that such a simulation would have good news for the fate of the Empire State under those conditions.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

There is granite as well. I don't think we can have an intelligent conversation.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

I have the impression the granite is in the first few floors only and beside once more a B-25 have parts go in one wall and come out the other side and all this with an impact energy of one percent of the jets hitting the Twin towers.

Those walls unlike the Twin Towers are not load bearing or to be more correct not load bearing from one floor to the others and why you would think for one second they would bear up under such impacts is beyond me.

Side note I am a fan of the Empire State Building and always had consisted it a far move lovely building then the Twin Towers and an engineering marvel second to none however it was not design to stand up to being hit by the energy of a 747 impact .

This is not the fault of the engineers as at the time it was build and design the largest planes were of the size of the Ford tri-motors with the DC3 on the drawing board.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Let me see a modern large passenger jet at a guess is at least 10 times more massive then a middle size ww2 bomber and in the case of the world trade center towers they was hit by those jets traveling five times faster then a ww2 bomber.

Applying simple physic that mean that the energy of impact between the B-25 hitting the Empire State Building and one of the passengers jets hitting a tower is a 100 times more repeat a hundred times the energy of impact.

This comparison is useless banter, Bill. The real comparison is between the plane the twin towers were designed to take a strike from.

Quote:

Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's
Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.

Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.

Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

LINK
Statements by Engineers
Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.

John Skilling
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3
A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. 4

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

Quote:

Yet those two towers both stood up to the impact and only the larges fires fuel by hundreds of tons of jet fuel ended up destroying them.

Another of the popular misconceptions, Bill.

The planes were not carrying a full fuel load. Most of the fuel was gone in the huge explosions.

Quote:

THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report into collapse of the WTC towers, estimates that about 3,500 gallons of jet fuel burnt within each of the towers. Imagine that this entire quantity of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.

...

Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.

Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."

Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."

Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

0 Replies

New York Center of the World 1946-2003 WTC

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know