If A 707 Hit The World Trade Center?...

Greetings All,

I was feeding my 911 addiction and was searching for night-time photos of the WTC before 911 to try to make sense of the patterns of the lights on the towers, when I stumbled on this discussion from Airliners.net from November 2000. The title speaks for itself...unfortunately it's not a long discussion, but it's a strange subject to be brought up just 10 months before the event.

www.airliners.net...

Here's the OP:

When the two towers that make up the World Trade Center were built, they were designed to withstand the impact of the largest airliner of the day, the Boeing 707 Intercontinental. The Empire State Building survived a B-25 medium bomber crashing into it on very foggy day. It was during the weekend when most people weren't there, but still, 14 people died. Anyone wanna bet that the World Trade Center could survive an 767-300 impact?

Here's a sample of the replies:

I recall reading a story that an Aerolineas Argie 707 came very close to doing the same thing (i.e. crashing into the Empire State) sometime in the '60s or '70s, but thankfully ATC managed to warn them in time. I do believe that the result of a large airliner hitting a large modern building would be much closer to the EL AL incident than the B25 incident in '43. The 757/767 etc. would be much faster and heavier than the B25 so I wouldn't be too optimistic that the Empire State would survive either. Hopefully, we'll never have to find out.

The greatest danger any air crash over Manhattan would pose would be to people not in buildings but on the ground. In the late 1970s, the landing gear of a New York Airways S-61 landing on the Pan Am Building gave way, causing the helicopter to capsize. While thankfully nobody on board was killed, part of the rotor that broke off killed a person on the ground, prompting New York City banning all such flights (all Manhattan heliports are along the edge of the island).

This scenario is really hellish... I think the flight disaster record (Tenerife, 1977, 582 dead) might get reset by a lot. You would easily have 1500 or more, since you would have a 200 in the plane, at least 500 in the building, and a real s*itload on the ground. If the building managed to fall, there might be 5 or 6 thousand dead. Oh well. That's why they put a/c lights on buildings... -Meister

hopefully most people that arent suckers know that large planes did hit the towers but they werent the only things that brought them down...no way...the sad truth is that people that should be seeking the truth and speaking out arent and that the truth may never come to be realized by the people that were suckered in and continue to be sucked..it will only continue to only be discussed on sites like this and will eventually be buried by something else

reply to post by gdaub23


Most folks believe the impossible shown on the TeeVee before they'll believe what's possible in the real world.

There's a sucker born every minute.

In truth a 707 would have most likely had the same result. Just because something is supposedly engineered to do something does not mean that it actually will. Engineering for an event that had never happened before, based on hypothetical models, leaves a large factor for failure. Additionally, even though a 707 may be a similar size in certain dimensions to a 767, a 767 is a widebody aircraft with a MUCH larger fuselage diameter.

BTW, a B25 bomber is a very small aircraft, its almost claustrophobic to be inside one. Even the B17 and B29, which were much larger by the standards of the day, are very small compared to modern jet aircraft.

Makes me think of the Frank Demartini interview on Jan 2001.

If you asked engineers and people who knew the WTCs construction before 9/11 if they thought a single plane each could bring down the towers, it seems it would have been a resounding no.

But yes, the B52 incident is still a poor comparison.

They would even withstand a 8.9 earthquake

reply to post by BombDefined


It was a WWII B25, not a modern B52.
Big difference in the size of those aircraft.

B25 Mitchell:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/509bacd28ea7.jpg[/atsimg]
B52 Stratofortress:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5d2740c27e92.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by defcon5


It's an interesting question and interesting timing to ask a question specifically about a 767. Was it a trial balloon for believability to float above professionals?

Still, some folks seemed to think more casualties would be on the streets than in the building or the jet.

Interesting thread to say the least.
Check out this post:

Airafrique From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 139 posts, RR: 0Reply 12, posted Fri Dec 1 2000 01:37:57 your local time (10 years 4 months 4 days ago) and read 260684 times:

I am working in downtown New-York at the world trade center and when somebody is in the observation deck of the world trade center you see plane on approach to Laguardia aiport not far away from the building.Sometime you think that the plane is coming to hit the building.And for your information planes do fly over Manhattan and I always think what if a pilote crashes a plane on us

I guess he got to experience it first hand. His last log in was 2005, so I guess he made it out ok.

For all we know the OP of that thread might have been doing intel research for the folks who pulled it off. This post is also from the OP:

OK, what's the biggest aircraft you think the towers could sustain an impact without toppling? I think a 737 or MD-80, slowed up for landing with gear and flaps out, shouldn't be going so fast that it'd fall. Then again, maybe it would. Either way, I'm sure no one wants to find out.

I’ll bet at the very least he got a knock on his door over that thread.

You should also note that almost everyone in that thread speculates that the towers could not handle such an impact.

Good find though, should be an interesting discussion.

Originally posted by defcon5I’ll bet at the very least he got a knock on his door over that thread.

Oh, he did.

I've been a member of airliners.net since 2000, and that thread has a somewhat notorious status on the site. The OP was reported to the FBI either on 9/11 or one of the days afterwards, once people had dug out the thread he started. He later posted that the FBI had called him in the middle of his band practice (he was in high school at the time), and his band had been totally freaked out about him having to answer questions from 'the feds'

ETA: The follow-up thread the OP posted a week later: www.airliners.net...

reply to post by roboe



Found the other related threads on what happened:
www.airliners.net...
www.airliners.net...
www.airliners.net...
www.airliners.net...
Interesting story.

That original thread only mentions the word STEEL one time.

How can they effect be guessed at without knowing the distribution of steel in a skyscraper.

And they talked about the plane possibly knocking the building over. The south tower only moved 15 inches due to the impact. It is like they don't get what the building's capabilities must be to handle the wind.

psik

The engineering firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson carried out a structural analysis on the design of the World Trade Center towers which covered over 1200 pages and over 100 detailed drawings. The towers were over-designed to withstand weight distribution in the event of structural damage.

According to the calculations:

all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.

In 1993 after the WTC bombing, John Skilling, the lead engineer and WTC designer, was asked about the safety of the towers:

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side. A previous analysis carried out early in 1964 calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.”

And that analysis he is referring is the one of the Port Authority's in February of 1964 that concluded:

“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 a 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.”

NIST makes mention of the Port Authority analysis in Appendix Q of their report.


John Skilling also noted something else about his firm's (Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson) 1200-page analysis:

“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.”

The 707 may be slightly smaller and lighter than a 767, but it's faster speed increases the impact energy exponentially.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/af0ce5ab65dd.gif[/atsimg]


On 9/11, there was only local damage. The towers stood tall and strong. The fires in the south tower were diminishing. Firefighters had reached the impact area of the south tower and were in the process of putting the fires out. But the official story couldn't have held up if fires were starting to be extinguished.

That's why they dropped the south tower first. Even though the south tower had less damage due to the angle of the plane missing most of the core, unlike the north tower where the plane hit in the middle:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e6c140b194cb.gif[/atsimg]


The cores of those towers were almost an impenetrable fortress of steel columns connected vertically, horizontally, and diagonally:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/069ef95dc220.jpg[/atsimg]


The aluminum body of airliners are not strong enough to do any damage to that massive core structure. The only parts of an airliner that could do any damage to some of the columns would be the engines and landing gear. Those are the strongest parts of a plane.

Had those buildings not been brought down with explosives, they would likely still be standing today. Or maybe they would've been brought down because who would stay in a building that someone could ram planes into again?

The collapses of those buildings exhibited every aspect of controlled demolition from the flashes with popping or exploding sounds, isolated ejections of dust/material, and timed/synchronous booms; to smoke emanating from the ends of steel columns:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/813a9e14d6ee.jpg[/atsimg]


Just like smoke emanates from steel beams in known controlled demolitions:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/23cd53192a42.jpg[/atsimg]


The WTC towers were designed to withstand the impacts of jetliners, earthquakes, 100-MPH winds. Steel-structured highrises are also natural heat-sinks and cannot completely collapse from fire. History has proven as much with other steel-structured highrises burning for far longer and with hotter fires and not even coming close to collapsing.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


When looking at the construction images, the mind boggles when trying to assign blame for the collapse to an airplane and subsequent fires.

The amount of explosives required to bring that structure down in a few seconds and toss around multio-ton steel columns like tooth picks must have been incredible.

Here are some close ups of the destruction...

Military Photos

reply to post by _BoneZ_

On 9/11, there was only local damage. The towers stood tall and strong. The fires in the south tower were diminishing. Firefighters had reached the impact area of the south tower and were in the process of putting the fires out. But the official story couldn't have held up if fires were starting to be extinguished.

I see still peddling your crap...

So where did the FDNY do any firefighting in WTC towers?

In South Tower Battalion Chief OrioPalmer and Fire Marshall Ron Bucca had reached the impact zone at 78 th
floor only few minutes before collapse. Neither carried any hoses......

Crew from Ladder 15 was still coming up stairs. Ladder companies dont carry hoses, their job is search and
rescue/ventilation

Palmer was recorded as saying streched a "house line" - referring to hose from cabinet. Said didn't have any water on fire yet

House lines are usually small 1" or 1 1/2" diameter made from the cheapest quality materials. Often only single
jacket and frequetly unlined (no rubber liner inside hose). Often the rubber is rotten from storage and the
hose wont hold water. Like trying to push it through a dish rag . If fire small enough might nbe able to get it out

FDNY uses 2 1/2 " lines which can push from 250- 300 gallons a minute, only engine companies carry these
type of hoses. No engine companies had yet made the climb up the stairs.

Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha for Battalion Seven."
Battalion Seven Chief: "South tower, Steve, south tower, tell them...Tower one. Battalion
Seven to Ladder 15. "Fifteen."
Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam stairway to knock down two fires. We have a house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, kay."
Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're coming up the stairs. We're on 77 now in the B stair, I'll be right to you."
Ladder 15 Roof: "Fifteen Roof to 15. We're on 71. We're coming right up."

78th floor was lowest point of impact, was also sky lobby where people changed elevators to upper floors

Not lot to burn here - bulk of fires were several floors above them

End result - no water on fires.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
That original thread only mentions the word STEEL one time.

How can they effect be guessed at without knowing the distribution of steel in a skyscraper.

And they talked about the plane possibly knocking the building over. The south tower only moved 15 inches due to the impact. It is like they don't get what the building's capabilities must be to handle the wind.

That's because 99% of the users on Airliners.net are plane entuthiasts, not engineers

We like to discuss new colours schemes, but we don't know the chemical composition of it because that is not relevant.

We like to discuss new airplane types, but we don't know the aeronautical engineering behind it because that is not relevant.

We like to discuss airline financials and new routes, but most of the time it's guessworks and talking out the backside, since we don't have access to the details (for quite obvious reasons).

reply to post by thedman


And no water means no firefighting.

29a. Damian Van Cleaf (30:18) : "I felt the mood that we were going to put the fire out. Everyone seemed to be confident — I know I was." Apparently nobody told him it had already been decided by the most senior officers running the operation that there would be no firefighting whatever. Chief Hayden, in video testimony to the National (Kean) Commission, 18 May 2004, repeating again what he had said all along : "So we determined, very early on, that this was going to be strictly a rescue mission. We were going to vacate the building, get everybody out, and then we were going to get out." None of his superiors envisaged any attempt to fight the fire in the North Tower, so who told Van Cleaf otherwise ? Why is he giving us this nonsense ? Again, from "FDNY Fire Operations Response on September 11," the McKinsey Report, August 2002 : "The chiefs dispatched units from the lobby of WTC1 to higher floors in two situations : ¶ In response to specific distress calls ... ; ¶ To ensure that floors below the fire had been totally evacuated." Nothing about firefighting.

29b. Dennis Tardio (30:38) : "You basically looked at it and said "OK, we got 10, 20 storeys of fire." You know, we'll deal with it — we'll get up there. You know, we'll get to it." Another one with the same delusion, or telling the same lie : where did Tardio get the idea he was going to be fighting a fire spread over ten floors, at the top of the joint tallest building in New York ? Who gave him that instruction ? Not Hayden, and presumably not Pfeifer. Would a Battalion Captain be allowed to make a decision like that on his own initiative ? I think not. The ones running the operation and making the decisions were all at the Operations Post, or the Incident Command Post in West Street, and they all ranked higher than Captain.

29c. Jules Naudet (32:01) : "They'll put it out. That's what they do." Because they're firemen - and firemen put out fires. Except when they don't, or can't : when they've decided it's a total waste of time even attempting to fight a fire, because it's far too big and far too dangerous and it's just not feasible — too high, no elevators, etc etc — they don't put it out — that's what they don't. Because they're not suicidal idiots, or peddling simplistic, sentimental myths, or just lies, like Naudet. Why did nobody tell him firefighting was never on the agenda, that months later he's still saying it was ? Naudet filmed Pfeifer and all the other chiefs who made the decision conferring with each other : how could he not know they had no intention of taking on the fire ?

29d. "When you get out, it's the real world. Don't be no hot-dog, show-off jerk. Pay attention to the senior men, and do what you're told" (06:01) This is what Benetatos and the other trainees are told by their Fire Academy instructor, but it applies to all firefighters — and other jobs where lives could be put at risk by people not following orders. From the book "102 Minutes," by Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn : "Even though fighting the fire was out of the question, the reflex to bring the gear held : many companies lugged the bulky hose roll-ups into the stairs, already packed with people trying to flee." Picture 15c above shows Kevin Pfeifer's crew still carrying their 50 feet of hose, perhaps because it was actually more convenient to leave them on, but every engine company that arrived at the tower and checked in at the Operations Post should have been told quite clearly, before going up, that there was going to be no firefighting. Van Cleaf, Tardio and Naudet above do not sound as if they are talking about a "reflex." Dwyer and Flynn again : "they might be able to battle a fire that stretched across a single trade center floor of 40,000 square feet, but not five floors, and certainly not, as it turned out, without water ... they would just let the fire burn itself out." There is a difference between taking hoses upstairs because you arrived with them and don't have the time to remove them and doing it because you think — or you expect us to think — you can actually tackle five acres of burning jet fuel, office furniture and human bodies; just as there is a difference between bravery and lunacy — or just insane lies.

www.frankresearch.info...

Originally posted by thedman
I see still peddling your crap...

So where did the FDNY do any firefighting in WTC towers?

Where did I say that any firefighting was in progress? I said they were in the process. They were attempting to start putting out fires. You even posted them having a "house line" stretched to try to knock out some fires.

You might want to actually read and understand what you're reading before accusing others of "peddling crap". And if that little mistake I made (because I forgot to put in one word) is all you've got to say about my entire post, then I'm doing pretty good, thanks.

Originally posted by defcon5
In truth a 707 would have most likely had the same result. Just because something is supposedly engineered to do something does not mean that it actually will. Engineering for an event that had never happened before, based on hypothetical models, leaves a large factor for failure. Additionally, even though a 707 may be a similar size in certain dimensions to a 767, a 767 is a widebody aircraft with a MUCH larger fuselage diameter.

Actually the engineering for that was well known, just because it never happened before it doesn't mean engineers wouldn't know how a certain engineering design would react to certain conditions.

All we need to know is material strength, the construction design, nature, and a little physics to figure it out.

We know the mesh outer columns would not fail from having part of them removed simply by its design, we know central columns could not have been compromised to the point of failure simply by their design.

Structures made from steel columns crossed braced were used long before they were used for buildings. Their properties are well know, and used for many different applications requiring lightweight and strength.

Engineers, designers, usually don't just make things up, it's kinda bad for your career.