Would a plane crash be enough to take out a WTC tower?

[Frumious_Bandersnatch]

*Originally posted by Ethilrist *
**

*Originally posted by Markxxx *
**I saw the chief architect of the WTC and you guys are right. He said that the building was design to withstand fires of up to 1200 degrees for 1 to 2 hours.

He said the steel melted and the rest was a domino effect. **

I saw Peter Jennings interview this guy, too. At the end of the interview, Peter asked him if there was anything else that could have been done to keep the buildings from collapsing, the guy was at a loss for words, obviously trying to find a tactful way to say, “Well, if we can keep people from flying airplanes into them, that’d help a lot…” **

I am confident Peter Jennings interiewed someone, But the archetect, Minoru Yamasaki, died in 1986.

cite:
http://detnews.com/history/yamasaki/yamasaki.htm

[Tuckerfan]

Well, a building as large as the ones at the WTC were, would have had to have more than one architect and engineer working on them, in order for them to get completed in a reasonable amount of time. Yamasaki was probably the chief architect and engineer who came up with the overall design of the building and the basic structural elements. The others would have filled in the details and worked with the construction teams during the building process. So the ones being interviewed are probably those guys.

[Saint_Zero]

*Originally posted by adam yax *
**I know that you were talking about the ESB. The odds are much higher that the walls are load bearing in the ESB than in the WTC. The white stone exterior of the WTC was just a facade, not load bearing. The earliest sky scrapers were limited by the fact that the walls had to be load bearing, that is why they were limited in height. THe higher they went, the larger the exterior walls would have to be at the base. Once improvements were made in concrete and in construction methods were truly large buildings able to be constructed. The structural load of the WTC was almost certainly supported by the core of the building. **

If you switch “ESB” for “WTC” in that paragraph, you have it correct.

[rocking_chair]

anthracite, you said the same things that the struct. engineers in my office did. one of them took one look at the burning towers and said:" those buildings are going down." we all looked at him as he left the room. 30 minutes later…

the firm i work with did analysis on a hi-rise in philly that burned, the amount of stress on the steel from the fire was incredible. luckily, the building did not fall, the fire, though it burned for quite some time, did not reach the level what happened in nyc. the amount of fuel that spilled from the planes kept the fire burning very, very, hot. in philly the only thing that kept the fire burning was normal office eqip., furniture, wood, etc. very different compustables.

[Hoopy_Frood]

Every reference I’ve seen pegs it at 4.1810[sup]9[/sup] Joules, whereas you’re quoting 2.98*10[sup]9[/sup] Joules. Furthermore, even if I use your numbers I get 1000 tons of TNT, not 3000. **

I don’t remember the site I got the value off of. I searched on alltheweb.com and was looking for the yield of tnt, but only found one site that had it (must have been using the wrong search parameters). Your number is probably more accurate.

Your right about my numbers should lead to 1000 tons of TNT and not 3000 (sure, I get the physics equation and other calculations right, but cant do simple arithemetic of 3e12 divided by 3e9).

It’s interesting, though, with the speed being most likely at least twice what was originally calculated means the plane hit the building four times as hard.