Skyscrapers designed to withstand airplane impacts

I don't know anything about designing tall buildings, but I understand that the world trade centers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707.

Is it routine to design tall buildings to withstand a direct hit from an airplane?

What other buildings around the world have been designed to withstand a jetliner impact?

The WTC towers were desgined to withstand a 707 impact because the area has been known to get fog, and there are four airports within like 10 miles or less in that area. The 707 was the biggest plane at the time.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The WTC towers were desgined to withstand a 707 impact because the area has been known to get fog, and there are four airports within like 10 miles or less in that area. The 707 was the biggest plane at the time.

Anywhere where there is a big building there is lots of aircraft traffic.

They don't build big buildings where there are no people and no airports.

How many cities do you know of that have FOUR major airports in such a small area. Here's a hint, One. New York is the ONLY city that has four very large airports that close together. I didn't say that other cities don't have airports, but the odds of a city with ONE airport (which is usually on the edge somewhere) having a plane fly into a building are quite a bit smaller than in New York, especially since it had already happened in the 1940s.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
How many cities do you know of that have FOUR major airports in such a small area. Here's a hint, One. New York is the ONLY city that has four very large airports that close together. I didn't say that other cities don't have airports, but the odds of a city with ONE airport (which is usually on the edge somewhere) having a plane fly into a building are quite a bit smaller than in New York, especially since it had already happened in the 1940s.

Is your official opinion on the matter that no other tall building has been designed to withstand the direct impact of an airplane because no other city has 4 airports nearby.

Chicago has several tall buildings.

The hancock center and the sears tower being the tallest. There are two major airports nearby - O'hare and Midway.

Why do they put those blinking red lights on top of buildings anyways?

[edit on 30-8-2006 by In nothing we trust]

No, I didn't say that. New York was the only city that had a plane fly into a skyscraper (B-25 into the Empire State Building). New York is the only city that has four major airports in such a small area. I'm not saying that no other building wasn't designed to, and I'm sure that you can find other buildings that WERE. However, since the WTC is the only set of buildings that had planes deliberately flown into them, a big deal was made about the fact that they were.

And the red lights are because of the Empire State Building incident, so again it comes back to New York.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
No, I didn't say that.

I'm just curious as to what other buildings, around the world, have been designed to withstand jet plane impacts.

It's an innocently simple question.

And I'm sure that most of them were. They just don't come out and say "The Sears Tower was designed to withstand the impact of a plane".

WTC I&II were designed to withstand a 707 impact,based on the theory that a 707 could get lost in the fog while trying to land,but this would make the 707 slower than the 757,but with more fuel.

Originally posted by Chickenhound
WTC I&II were designed to withstand a 707 impact,based on the theory that a 707 could get lost in the fog while trying to land,but this would make the 707 slower than the 757,but with more fuel.

Apparently they don't have that problem of airliners getting lost in the fog around anyother tall buildings, anywhere else in the world, except for WTC 1 & 2.

I am familiar with the empire state building impact.

I wonder whose idea it was to design the WTC's to absorb a 707 jet impact?

So, unless they come out and SAY "The Sears Tower is capable of withstanding the impact of a 757." it's not?

Originally posted by Chickenhound
WTC I&II were designed to withstand a 707 impact,based on the theory that a 707 could get lost in the fog while trying to land,but this would make the 707 slower than the 757,but with more fuel.

If it were coming in to land wouldn't it have very little fuel on board?

So, designed for the impact of a slower aircraft carrying less fuel.

Of course, until such a building get hits, one can never be entirely sure what it can withstand. Or not.

Leslie Robertson: One of my jobs was to look at all of the possible events that might take place in a highrise building. And of course there had been in New York two incidences of aircraft impact, the most famous one of course being on the Empire State Building. Now, we were looking at an aircraft not unlike the Mitchell bomber that ran into the Empire State Building. We were looking at aircraft that was lost in the fog, trying to land. It was a low-flying, slow-flying 707, which was the largest aircraft of its time. And so we made calculations, not anywhere near the level of sophistication that we could today. But inside of our ability, we made calculations of what happened when the airplane goes in and it takes out a huge section of the outside wall of the building. And we concluded that it would stand. It would suffer but it would stand. And the outside wall would have a big hole in it, and the building would be in place. What we didn't look at is what happens to all that fuel. And perhaps we could be faulted for that, for not doing so. But for whatever reason we didn't look at that question of what would happen to the fuel.

www.pbs.org...

This isn't a good argument for "9/11 Truth Seekers" to use, the kinetic energy created by those Boeing 767's would of be significantly greater than a Boeing 707 travelling at a slow speed.

However, I think Frank Martini's comment that the building probably could of sustained multiple impacts, is still a valid thing to look at. However that was just his opinion.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded Boeing 707 crash into it .

That was the largest plane at the time.

I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door,
this intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting.

It really does nothing to the screen netting.

WTC Construction and Project Manager, Frank A. DeMartini.

A 707 and a 757 are simular in size, weight and speed...

A 707 and a 757 are simular in size, weight and speed...

767's hit each of the Towers, not 757's.

And yes they are simular in size and weight and fuel capacity.

However, as Howard just stated above, the idea was that the planes were travelling at a slow speed in the fog.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Leslie Robertson: One of my jobs was to look at all of the possible events that might take place in a highrise building.

www.pbs.org...

I wonder who assigned the project to him.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by twitchy

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
-David Rockefeller

It is interesting to note that David Rockefeller was the force behind the design and construction of the world trade center.

Rockefeller Brainchild

The World Trade Center was conceived in the early 1960s ... Chase Manhattan Bank chairman David Rockefeller, founder of the development association, and his brother, New York governor Nelson Rockefeller, pushed hard for the project, insisting it would benefit the entire city.
www.infoplease.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...





[edit on 31-8-2006 by In nothing we trust]

Originally posted by ANOK
WTC Construction and Project Manager, Frank A. DeMartini.

A 707 and a 757 are simular in size, weight and speed...

Yup, and Titanic can stay afloat even if it hit an iceberg...

That someone (and even member of staff) says something such , it's needed to take it with a grain of salt.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
I wonder who assigned the project to him.

Well, since he was the lead engineer who's signature was on the plans, I would think that he assume that responsibiltiy on his own.

That is usually how things work in the real world.

From the Glanz and Lipton series of articles for the New York Times, titled “Height of Ambition” Back in the 60’s before the towers were built, there were some who opposed their construction.

(a link to the whole series can be found here, toward the bottom pf the page)

Part 4

Back in the 60’s before the towers were built, there were some who opposed their construction.

Lawrence Wien, who was continuing his fight against the towers, . . . ran a nearly full-page ad in The Times with an artist's rendition of a commercial airliner about to ram one of the towers. ''Unfortunately, we rarely recognize how serious these problems are until it's too late to do anything,'' the caption said.

Obviously the concern that the building could be hit by a plane was legitimate and not all that prescient, but I find the quasi-Islamic message to be rather eerie.