Terrorist Targets: Is the Sears Tower one?
AAr3172534
Pentagon (and don't forge the Western Pennsylvania Cornfield (We don't want to
damage America's precious cornfields, either.)), we were concerned.
Actually, they didn't affect me as much as it would have many others because I
live a long ways from New York or Washington, and have no friends or relatives
living near there. But, it still affected my life to some extent, esp. now that
they're talking about war, and I could still possibly get drafted since I'm not
26 yet. But, I am still devistated to what happened to the World Trade Center.
I've heard the fourth plane that crashed in the PA Cornfield was headed for
Camp David, the Capitol, or the White House.
However, my concern is that what if it could have been Chicago. I live very
close to Chicago, and know that the Sears Tower could also have easily been a
target. The Sears Tower is only about 30 miles from my NW Indiana home, and
could be seen from a distance. (You could see the Sears Tower from the Bishop
Ford at 103rd St. You could also see it from the Inbound Eisenhower and Harlem
Av. W. of Chicago.) So, I really want to know if the Sears Tower is a terrorist
target since it is very close my to home.
SPUI
"AAr3172534" <aar31...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010916024635...@mb-mi.aol.com...
> So, I really want to know if the Sears Tower is a terrorist
> target since it is very close my to home.
I just asked my roommate, who is a close friend of Bin Laden. He said that
yes, it is a target, but wouldn't say any more.
(For those of you who don't get it, that was a joke. How are any of us
supposed to know what the terrorist targets are?)
--
Dan Moraseski - Going into 14th grade at MIT
http://spui.cjb.net - FL NJ MA route logs and exit lists
Editor of http://roadlinks.cjb.net (highway cat of Open Directory Project)
http://ridot.cjb.net - why RIDOT sucks
ChicoMike72
>close to Chicago, and know that the Sears Tower could also have easily been a
>target. The Sears Tower is only about 30 miles from my NW Indiana home, and
>could be seen from a distance. (You could see the Sears Tower from the Bishop
>Ford at 103rd St. You could also see it from the Inbound Eisenhower and
>Harlem
>Av. W. of Chicago.) So, I really want to know if the Sears Tower is a
>terrorist
>target since it is very close my to home.
>
>
>
anything else.
I live in a small northern California town and I like to think we are safe from
any terrorist activity because it isn't a big city and there are no prominent
buildings here, but who knows?
Mike
J i m G e i g e r
Hartsfield may now be the busiest, but O'Hare has a larger proportion of
international air traffic...along with Heathrow, it's the air hub of the world.
_______________________________________________
Jim Geiger, LSD casualty
Larry Gross
SPUI wrote:
> "AAr3172534" <aar31...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010916024635...@mb-mi.aol.com...
> > So, I really want to know if the Sears Tower is a terrorist
> > target since it is very close my to home.
>
> I just asked my roommate, who is a close friend of Bin Laden. He said that
> yes, it is a target, but wouldn't say any more.
>
> (For those of you who don't get it, that was a joke. How are any of us
> supposed to know what the terrorist targets are?)
Come on folks. Think about this. You're a terrorist and you want to
make a maximum "statement" with your limited resources. What do
you do? Try to attack dozens.. hundreds of U.S. targets, many of
which are obscure to the rest of the world or would you want to
pick a few of the most highly visible symbols of America?
Think about WHY they picked the WTC and the Pentagon and
the destroyer Cole? Were they random targets? Of course not.
We need to get a grip. Terrorists are 'hit-run' guerillas... not a
marching army of thousands waiting to pounce on
every conceivable 'target' unless of course.. you want to go
bomb the civilians of half-dozen Arab countries and then
of course, you WILL have a problem because you'll swell
the ranks of those who do want to do us damage. Ask Israel.
Will they 'hit' us again? You BET but it will likely be another
limited precise strike at something symbolic not obscure
'targets' with little meaning to the rest of the world.
We need to think proportionate danger
not one size fits all across the spectrum. No silver bullets
but hard work to assess the different levels of danger and
different levels of layered defenses against specific likely
threats.
If we're going to prevail against them we need to think like them
in terms of developing a strategy to blunt them. If we start
acting like a herd of buffalo... who will stampede everytime
something spooks us.. we're gonna end up like the real
buffalo herds did when the indians 'spooked' them and
headed them right over the cliff.
Somehow, I think and hope that we're smarter than this.
To a certain extent our mistake was akin to believing
that we could fly an airliner into a huricane with impunity.
The danger was there all along and our response was
essentially denial that any of it could ever happen - ever.
Its hard to believe that with all of our endless studies of
'airport security' that the thought never occurred to us
than airliners could be hijacked without guns and then
directed to a specific target. Instead, we spent our time worrying
about truly outlandish missile attacks from third world
countries instead of much more obvious and immient dangers
much more easily committed by small groups of individuals IMHO.
We need to think in terms of 'proportion' and
hierarchy of danger - not treat everything as the same.
Consider for a moment if these guys had also 'planted'
a 'dirty' payload of radioactive or biological stuff on
those airliners. Suppose it had been a Fed Ex airliner
full of not passengers but something much more deadly
than jet fuel. Do we really differentiate the current
risks and dangers?
Can we realistically stop any conceivable threat? No.
So we must establish priorities and not
react like any conceivable act is possible and we
must stop them all no matter what the cost.
IMHO with our 'network' infrastructure of interstates, mass transit,
airports, internet, cell phones, etc unless we're going to turn into
something akin to a military state where many of our individual
liberties are forfeited, we need to understand the difference
between what are real dangers and what is essentially
reactionary panic.
Some threats are much more possible than others and you
can bet the terrorists know the difference. I would
posit that we should also know the difference if we
want to be more prepared than we have been.
IOW we need to 'think' like a terrorist - not like a buffalo herd.
Lets not jump off of that cliff until we at least ponder it a bit.
arga...@my-deja.com
> IOW we need to 'think' like a terrorist - not like a buffalo herd.
> Lets not jump off of that cliff until we at least ponder it a bit.
Well said.
My personal impression is that we got off very lightly with the W.T.C.
bombing. My real concern, and the main reason I feel apprehensive
about visiting New York, is the possibility that a fairly large amount
of weapons-grade fissile material could slip through the net, be
bought up by bin Laden or a fellow traveler, and assembled into a bomb
which is then put on a ship bound for New York. Instead of two
buildings collapsing after being more than half evacuated, all of
Manhattan might be a radioactive ruin. I'm not confident this won't
happen, because Customs inspection procedures at container ports are
far from tight. Just in Britain, Customs can't inspect more than 2%
of the lorries which roll off the Channel ferries.
I find it particularly interesting that this attack took the form it
did, because it was foreseen almost a full decade in advance, and
could have been prevented if we had been willing to spend the $10
billion or so required to upgrade airport security procedures
(according to the initial O.I.G. report and subsequent G.A.O. reports
on airport security). I find this reassuring, since it suggests that
to prevent future terrorist attacks it may be necessary only to avoid
complacency; we were not ignorant of the security risks we were
running. However, I'm cast into disquiet by the fact that we don't
seem to have a realistic estimate of the possibility that New York
could be vaporized by a smuggled nuclear device.
Re. the original poster's question--yes, the Sears Tower is most
assuredly a target. The question is whether it is an ACCESSIBLE one.
Dan Hartung
aar31...@aol.com says...
> However, my concern is that what if it could have been Chicago. I live very
> close to Chicago, and know that the Sears Tower could also have easily been a
> target. The Sears Tower is only about 30 miles from my NW Indiana home, and
> could be seen from a distance. (You could see the Sears Tower from the Bishop
> Ford at 103rd St. You could also see it from the Inbound Eisenhower and Harlem
> Av. W. of Chicago.) So, I really want to know if the Sears Tower is a terrorist
> target since it is very close my to home.
Um ... this sort of thing doesn't actually happen very often. Presumably
if they were trying to do this all the time, one might worry. But then,
the Sears Tower isn't quite the international symbol that WTC was.
If I worked all day in the Tower (and I did, for a while, for E&Y), I
might be a little worried. But 30 miles away, dude, you're really
reaching for things to get worked up over.
Terrorism, no matter how terrible, remains a remote cause of death. Think
twice about crossing the street. Put a slip pad in the shower. And watch
your cholesterol.
--
Dan Hartung * dan [at] dhartung [dot] com
Lake Effect weblog: http://www.lakefx.nu/
CHICAGOSTORIES: post yours @ chicagostories.org
PRDem3
actually built well. The Twin Towers were poorly built, the steel couldn't
withstand extreme heat, while most Chicago skyscrapers can withstand magnitude
8 earthquakes.
PRDem3
Nope, O'Hare re-gained the title sometime after 1997. Believe me, we are
constantly reminded of it.
Pete Jenior
"SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
news:3ba45c8e$0$1916$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
>
> "AAr3172534" <aar31...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010916024635...@mb-mi.aol.com...
> > So, I really want to know if the Sears Tower is a terrorist
> > target since it is very close my to home.
>
> I just asked my roommate, who is a close friend of Bin Laden. He said that
> yes, it is a target, but wouldn't say any more.
I was just about to say the same thing, but you beat me to it...
I do know that the John Hancock building (another high building in dwontown
Chicago) was evacuated on Tuesday.
---
-Pete Jenior - Cincinnati, Ohio
-Freshman Civil Engineering Major
Georgia Tech (Atlanta, Georgia)
~~~~
"You're on the road
But you've got no destination"
-U2, "Beautiful Day"
John Lansford
>Even if the Sears Tower was hit, it wouldn't have collapsed because it was
>actually built well. The Twin Towers were poorly built, the steel couldn't
>withstand extreme heat,
No building steel can withstand extreme heat.
> while most Chicago skyscrapers can withstand magnitude
>8 earthquakes.
The Sears Tower is built similarly to the WTC. It would have collapsed
from a similar airliner hit, just like any other high rise building.
If a building was built with structural steel supporting its height,
it would have collapsed from such a fire.
John Lansford, PE
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/
J i m G e i g e r
No it's not, but thanks for playing, anyway.
The Sears' framework was built from bundled steel tubes... in sections which
were then stacked and anchored on top of each other sort of like toy blocks.
The offsets built into the structure help to deflect not only the wind hitting
the building, but to disperse the wind rushing down off of the building into
the streets, below.
Now, the Amoco building (or whatever it's called now) *is* very similar in
construction to the WTC...was that what you were thinking of?
Ubermonkey
> >The Sears Tower is built similarly to the WTC.
> >John Lansford, PE
>
> No it's not, but thanks for playing, anyway.
>
> The Sears' framework was built from bundled steel tubes... in sections which
> were then stacked and anchored on top of each other sort of like toy blocks.
>
> The offsets built into the structure help to deflect not only the wind hitting
> the building, but to disperse the wind rushing down off of the building into
> the streets, below.
>
> Now, the Amoco building (or whatever it's called now) *is* very similar in
> construction to the WTC...was that what you were thinking of?
I think what John was referring to is the fact that the FIRE caused
the WTC to collapse, not the impact itself. Can the Sears Tower
withstand the extreme heat from a jet-fuel fire? According to
whatever news channel I was watching at the time, that's much hotter
than a paper/office fire, which the WTC could have withstood for long
enough to evacuate everyone.
Bobby Henderson
Ubermonkey <or1l...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:d2a26385.01091...@posting.google.com...
To add to that, John Lansford was CORRECT in saying the construction of the
Sears Tower and World Trade Center were similar. They use the same strong
core and outer exoskeleton frame that nearly all modern skyscrapers feature.
The only differences between the Sears Tower and WTC is in visual asthetics.
They look different, but the structural engineering methods are essentially
the same.
Hairsplitting over how these high rise towers were sectioned up and topped
off is really besides the point, and insulting a real engineer who knows
what he is talking about with a "thanks for playing anyway" comment is
childishly rude and deserving of a killfile plonk.
Bobby Henderson
AAr3172534
>from a similar airliner hit, just like any other high rise building.
>If a building was built with structural steel supporting its height,
>it would have collapsed from such a fire.
That's what I thought. It was the feul spill fire from the crash caused the
collapse more than the impact from the crash.
The World Trade Center is built from seperate towers. The Sears Tower is
several towers built into one.
But, now to another point. We know that terrorist attacks torn down the WTC.
But, certain natural disastors such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes
can also cause simular damage to tall buildings.
In fact, Chicago is right in the Tornado Belt. What would they do in the upper
floors of the Sears Tower (or any other tall building anywhere) during a
Tornado Warning? What would happen to a tall building if a strong tornado runs
through it?
scott
>>Hartsfield may now be the busiest
>
>Nope, O'Hare re-gained the title sometime after 1997. Believe me, we are
>constantly reminded of it.
In case you hadn't heard: Hartsfield gained it back in 2000.
-------
Scott
John Lansford
You are correct. Basically, any high rise structure is vulnerable to
collapse due to a similar airliner fire that destroyed the WTC's. It
has nothing to do with how the steel is spread around the structure;
steel just isn't a good material to retain its strength after having
high temperatures applied to it over a period of time.
arga...@my-deja.com
> floors of the Sears Tower (or any other tall building anywhere) during a
> Tornado Warning? What would happen to a tall building if a strong tornado runs
> through it?
The Sears Tower and the vast majority of tall buildings are not at
risk from tornadoes, mainly because the probability per unit area of
being affected by a tornado is fairly uniform and very low even in
Tornado Alley. It has been computed that a major tornado will affect
the center of a major U.S. city only once every thousand years, and
some experts speculate that city centers create "heat islands" which
tornadoes avoid.
Also, tornadoes are basically vortices sucking air (and, if the
tornado touches ground, debris) into the funnel cloud; the process is
driven by energy released when water vapor in the air condenses and
sometimes freezes in the tornado's parent cloud. In the same way that
the vortex created by water draining out of a bathtub can be
interrupted by the drain plug, tornadoes can be interrupted by
structures which are substantial enough not to get sucked into the
funnel cloud. Tornadoes generally react to the disturbance by
skipping around the interrupting object or disappearing altogether.
Substantial structures can include road bridges, which are skipped by
tornadoes (as in one famous example in Kansas in 1991), and also
well-reinforced tall buildings like the Sears Tower or even the Epic
Center in Wichita (both situated in the middle of tornado country).
However, mobile homes are NOT strong and this is why tornadoes
invariably destroy trailer parks.
For additional details:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/tornado.htm
Note, however, that none of this means tornadoes wouldn't damage the
Sears Tower (the debris alone would cause an immense amount of damage)
or that overpasses are safe shelter in tornadoes--people have been
ripped out from under them by the winds.
John Lansford
>>The Sears Tower is built similarly to the WTC. It would have collapsed
>>from a similar airliner hit, just like any other high rise building.
>>If a building was built with structural steel supporting its height,
>>it would have collapsed from such a fire.
>
>That's what I thought. It was the feul spill fire from the crash caused the
>collapse more than the impact from the crash.
>
>The World Trade Center is built from seperate towers. The Sears Tower is
>several towers built into one.
Well, the WTC was built in a unique (for the time) manner. The outer
structure of steel beams supports the majority of the lateral and
outer loading, while the center steel core supports everything else.
It was actually designed to withstand the impact (and presumably, the
fire) from a Boeing 707; unfortunately, planes have gotten bigger
since then.
>
>But, now to another point. We know that terrorist attacks torn down the WTC.
>But, certain natural disastors such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes
>can also cause simular damage to tall buildings.
>
> In fact, Chicago is right in the Tornado Belt. What would they do in the upper
>floors of the Sears Tower (or any other tall building anywhere) during a
>Tornado Warning? What would happen to a tall building if a strong tornado runs
>through it?
Pull the windows off, probably. Nashville had a tornado run right
through the high-rise section of downtown and that's about all that
happened to them. Some facades and cladding were pulled off and posed
hazards for pedestrians on the ground, though. Very high buildings are
designed to "sway" with the winds, but a tornado is so sudden the
building probably wouldn't react to the violent gusts of wind.
PRDem3
>
Then O'Hare re-gained it in 2001. I know it is the busiest, it had been said
several times. My town is part of the SOC (Suburban O'Hare Comission).
PRDem3
Actually, it isn't. "Tornado Alley" encompases Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, and Missouri. The Chicago Metro RARELY has a
tornado. T'storms usually break up from Lake Michigan. Being a
meteorology-buff, I know a lot about weather.
PRDem3
>Sears Tower and World Trade Center were similar.
Not really, the Sears Tower is nine buildings in one, while the WTC is just
one. AND, most skyscrapers, including Sears, have their steel coated with
fire-retartant, the WTC was not. I know someone who worked for the steel
company that built the WTC.
Scott M. Kozel
Official Sears Tower website --
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Tom Ketchum
> aar31...@aol.com (AAr3172534) wrote:
>
>
> >But, now to another point. We know that terrorist attacks torn down the WTC.
> >But, certain natural disastors such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes
> >can also cause simular damage to tall buildings.
> >
> > In fact, Chicago is right in the Tornado Belt. What would they do in the upper
> >floors of the Sears Tower (or any other tall building anywhere) during a
> >Tornado Warning? What would happen to a tall building if a strong tornado runs
> >through it?
>
> Pull the windows off, probably. Nashville had a tornado run right
> through the high-rise section of downtown and that's about all that
> happened to them. Some facades and cladding were pulled off and posed
> hazards for pedestrians on the ground, though. Very high buildings are
> designed to "sway" with the winds, but a tornado is so sudden the
> building probably wouldn't react to the violent gusts of wind.
>
> John Lansford, PE
>
Again, John is right on this point. In 1980, a tornado tore through
the heart of downtown Kalamazoo, MI. The tallest build in the area,
and directly in the path of the twister lost all but two windows, out
of several hundred windows in the structure. This was the ISB Building
(Industrial State Bank, now a part of Comerica), 14 stories tall,
built in the late 1960's with a glass and steel panel exterior,
probably very similar to the WTC and Sears Tower, just not as tall.
The Hilton Hotel in the Kalamazoo Center (now the Radisson Hotel) only
lost a few windows (this complex was built in the mid 1970's while I
was a student at Western Michigan University). Again, this was a glass
and panel exterior building, which was pitted heavily on the sides
facing the tornado's path. This structure was north of the path by a
couple hundred feet. Much of the 'sandblasted' side had to be
replaced. To this day one can see the original panels that were not
replaced as the pitted finish has many rust spots showing.
The other tall buildings in town, built in the 30's, and 50's,
suffered very little damage, like only a window or two lost. These are
the masonary, concrete, and stone faced buildings. Gilmore's
Department Stores main and original store downtown (in a structure
built in the late 1880's and expanded over the years) lost the rear
wall of the building facing an alley. The tornado, weakened after the
ISB building, still had enough force to draw the air from the alley to
create enough difference in air pressure inside the Gilmore store to
push the wall out. The wall was brick, but not in pristine condition,
with some small cracks in it. The collapse killed one person exiting
the building at the time. IIRC, that was the only fatality the tornado
claimed.
Downtown was closed for two days while the mess was cleaned up, the
hotel reopened most of the undamaged rooms, and the ISB Building had
it's windows replaced within a week. At first, the engineers thought
the building would have to be razed because the steel frame was though
to be twisted and weakened. It turned out to be superficial damage and
the structure was souund. The park downtown lost several large, old
trees.
To put this in a road context, the tornado entered Kalamazoo on M-43,
followed it to where M-43 joined BL 94 and BR US 131, and disapated
where M-43 and BL 94 part on the east side of town.
Rich Carlson, N9JIG
prd...@aol.com (PRDem3) wrote:
Tell that to the folks in Plainfield, 30 or so miles SW of Chicago, and
still well within the Chicago Metro area. While there is some "calming"
by Lake Michigan we still get tornadoes in the area every year, but not
as many as further out.
Tornado Alley is commonly known to include Illinois, including Chicago.
--
Rich Carlson, N9JIG
Illinois Highways and Scanner Page
http://www.n9jig.com
AAr3172534
>Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, and Missouri. The Chicago Metro RARELY has a
>tornado.
From what I'VE always heared and learned in school, Illinois and Indiana *ARE*
in the Tornado Belt and *DO* get occassional tornadoes.
But, tornadoes do, for some reason and thankfully, seem to miss urban areas and
hit rural areas. I guess there is something about urban buildings that stop
tornadoes.
Of course, they say that Lake Michigan prevents tornadoes anywhere close to the
lakefront.
But, I do think that it is possible that Downtown Chicago can be hit by a
tornado.
AAr3172534
>tornadoes (as in one famous example in Kansas in 1991), and also
>well-reinforced tall buildings like the Sears Tower or even the Epic
>Center in Wichita (both situated in the middle of tornado country).
>However, mobile homes are NOT strong and this is why tornadoes
>invariably destroy trailer parks.
>
I *KNOW* from the news that tornadoes totally destroy weak trailer homes. It
does seem like urban centers, maybe for the reason you stated, don't get hit by
tornadoes as much as rural homes. I'm sure barns have been destroyed by
tornadoes before.
>Note, however, that none of this means tornadoes wouldn't damage the
>Sears Tower (the debris alone would cause an immense amount of damage)
>or that overpasses are safe shelter in tornadoes--people have been
>ripped out from under them by the winds.
The debris and wind can cause damage.
The question left unanswered is do tornadoes that hit urban centers cause
fires? If a tornado can cause fires (and, I've read that they can), then they
can cause major damage and possibly total collapse.
I know I shouldn't be comparing tornadoes to terrorists attacks, and tornadoes
is really not on-topic for MTR, but I just wanted to use that comparison to see
if tall buildings are unsafe even without terrorism.
Thanks for your input, anyway!
Greg Pacek - CrazyOne
<prd...@aol.com> wrote:
That is true. They mentioned this because, in fact, most buildings of
or up until that time were having their steel coated with Asbestos. I
find it difficult to think that would have helped much in this case,
but it's hard to say. With the buildings down, the fact that there is
that much less Asbestos is probably a good thing. Would the Asbestos
have helped enough against the hot jet fuel fire to keep the towers
standing?
--
somecr...@home.com | "I say what it occurs to me to say
Greg Pacek | when I think I hear people say
Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Earth | things. More I cannot say."
AAr3172534
>have helped enough against the hot jet fuel fire to keep the towers
>standing?
Here's what I've learned reguarding asbestos.
Asbestos, if overexposed, could cause cancer and other health ailments.
I don't know if asbestos would have kept the towers standing, but if not, the
asbestos could have caused a great health hazard to the rescuers and clean-up
crews.
There must be some concern about asbestos, since they want to make sure there
is no asbestos in school buildings. I recall a few instances where my classes
had to be moved to different rooms due to asbestos removal.
Chris Bessert
>
> >In case you hadn't heard: Hartsfield gained it back in 2000.
>
> Then O'Hare re-gained it in 2001.
Then Hartsfeld re-re-gained it later in 2001.
> I know it is the busiest, it had been said several times.
Do you believe everything everyone says at all times? If so, there are
a couple dozen "busiest airports" around the world. Every news report
I've seen and heard over the past week consistently refer to Hartsfield
as the busiest airport. I'm sure O'Hare still is still very close. Re-
ports from before the tragedy of last Tuesday also consistently re-
ferred to Hartsfield as the busiest.
> My town is part of the SOC (Suburban O'Hare Comission).
Oh.
Later,
Chris
--
Chris Bessert
Bess...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/Hwys/
Jeffrey Coleman Carlyle
April of 1998. It damaged the stadium where the Titans play. (It was still
under construction at the time.)
--
// Jeffrey Coleman Carlyle: Computer Science Graduate Student at the
// University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Creator of StratoSetup,
// Windows Restart, comp.os.msdos.programmer FAQ; Kentucky "roadgeek";
// RULER OF EARTH! <www.rulerofearth.org> <www.KentuckyRoads.com>
----
"AAr3172534" <aar31...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010918000952...@mb-ms.aol.com...
Michael G. Koerner
>
> Tornadoes do occasionally hit urban area. One hit downtown Nashville, TN in
> April of 1998. It damaged the stadium where the Titans play. (It was still
> under construction at the time.)
There were also relatively recent tornado 'hits' in DT Salt Lake City,
UT and Miami, FL.
--
____________________________________________________________________________
Regards,
Michael G. Koerner
Appleton, WI
***NOTICE*** SPAMfilter in use, please remove ALL 'i's from the return
address to reply. ***NOTICE***
____________________________________________________________________________
John Lansford
>In article <20010917192157...@mb-mm.aol.com>, PRDem3
><prd...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >To add to that, John Lansford was CORRECT in saying the construction of the
>> >Sears Tower and World Trade Center were similar.
>>
>> Not really, the Sears Tower is nine buildings in one, while the WTC is just
>> one. AND, most skyscrapers, including Sears, have their steel coated with
>> fire-retartant, the WTC was not. I know someone who worked for the steel
>> company that built the WTC.
>
>That is true. They mentioned this because, in fact, most buildings of
>or up until that time were having their steel coated with Asbestos. I
>find it difficult to think that would have helped much in this case,
>but it's hard to say. With the buildings down, the fact that there is
>that much less Asbestos is probably a good thing. Would the Asbestos
>have helped enough against the hot jet fuel fire to keep the towers
>standing?
Probably not. One of the towers had asbestos coating the steel up to
the roof, and the other to the 30th floor. However, after the 1993
bombing the asbestos was removed due to health concerns. The NY Times
did not say if some other insulation replaced it. According to
structural engineers, however, the plane and exploding jet fuel
probably blew what insulation was on the steel right off of it,
allowing the heat to affect the supports directly.
Larry Gross
John Lansford wrote:
I would suspect that any structure where you dump thousands of
gallons of jet fuel and then light it will have problems.
Froggie
Illinois, yes....Chicago, generally not.
Generally speaking (and based on scientific data), there are actually
three "tornado alleys" in the US. The larger one, which people most
commonly refer to as THE "tornado alley", stretches from northern TX
through OK, KS, eastern NE, northwestern MO, IA, and into southern MN.
A second "tornado alley" runs from eastern IL into IN, southern MO,
and northern/western OH. The third "tornado alley" runs from eastern
AR/northeastern LA through MS, AL, southern TN, northern GA, and into
the Carolinas.
Also, relating to tornadoes in urban areas, yes there have been some
larger tornadoes in urban areas in recent years (since 1998, OK City,
Salt Lake City, Fort Worth, Birmingham, Nashville, Cincinnati, and
Little Rock come to mind). Some studies though, including one by Dr.
Theodore "Mr. Tornado" Fujita (formerly of the University of
Chicago...unfortunately he passed away in 1998), have indicated that
the "urban heat island" effect may have an impact on preventing small
(F0-F1) tornadoes from forming in urban areas (the studies involved
looked at the Chicago, London, and Tokyo areas, the only three areas
(according to tornadoproject.com) that have been carefully studied
over a long time). There are a lot heavier dynamics involved in
larger (F2+) tornadoes, which is possibly why larger tornadoes
continue to impact urban areas.
Froggie | Practicing meteorology in Long Beach, MS |
http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/
scott
>>In case you hadn't heard: Hartsfield gained it back in 2000.
>>
>
>Then O'Hare re-gained it in 2001. I know it is the busiest, it had been said
>several times. My town is part of the SOC (Suburban O'Hare Comission).
>
The numbers for 2001 aren't available yet but Hartsfield is still in the lead
by all accounts. (Sucks, don't it?)
-------
Scott
PRDem3
When that tornado struck, Plainfield was NOT part of the metro. It was one big
soybean field. And even so, thats only ONE tornado. My area (NE O'Hare) has
NEVER had a tornado, EVER. (At least as long as the towns and cities have
existed.)
PRDem3
>*ARE*
>in the Tornado Belt and *DO* get occassional tornadoes.
OCCASSIONAL is the key word. To be part of "Tornado Alley," there would have
to be a significant threat every fall and spring.
>But, I do think that it is possible that Downtown Chicago can be hit by a
>tornado.
>
How? The Lake would most likely be able to break up any tornado. There is
always a strong wind coming off the lake; cool in the summer, warm in the
winter.
o n e @none.none d o u t e n
"PRDem3" <prd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010918102802...@mb-fj.aol.com...
> >From what I'VE always heared and learned in school, Illinois and Indiana
> >*ARE*
> >in the Tornado Belt and *DO* get occassional tornadoes.
>
> OCCASSIONAL is the key word. To be part of "Tornado Alley," there would
have
> to be a significant threat every fall and spring.
>
Somewhere on the internet you will find numbers of the number of tornadoes
by state with perhaps a graphic. Tornadoes are a significant threat in
Illinois and Indiana. Ditto for Ohio and Michigan. People associate
the term Tornado alley with the area that gets the tornadoes with huge
footprints. The tornadoes that we get are almost always smaller and many
times pop up with extremely short warning. The size doesn't matter if you
are in the path of one, small or large they are both dangerous.
> >But, I do think that it is possible that Downtown Chicago can be hit by a
> >tornado.
> >
> How? The Lake would most likely be able to break up any tornado. There
is
> always a strong wind coming off the lake; cool in the summer, warm in the
> winter.
>
Have you heard of waterspouts? A tornado over water. Most of them for
the Great Lakes originated over land and then moved over the lake. But we
do have waterspouts that result from water based influences. If they move
onshore, and it does happen, then it becomes a tornado, albeit a weak one
that usually dissipates very rapidly.
Both I-96 and I-75 within the Detroit City Limits have seen vehicles damaged
by tornadoes within the relatively recent past. Tornadoes do strike
urban areas and more often than you realize.
Dave
AAr3172534
Based on what I've read and heard, Plainfield *IS* a suburb of Chicago, and
therefore part of the Chicago Metro Area.
It depends by definition. Some people are strict in only considering Cook and
DuPage Counties in Illinois as the Chicago Metro.
Most people consider anywhere in Lake, Cook, DuPage, Kane, and Will Counties in
Illinois and Lake County in Indiana as the "Chicago Metro Area".
Still other people consider Lake, McHenry, Cook, DuPage, Kane, Will, Kendall,
and Kankakee Counties in Illinois, Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana, and
Kenosha County in Wisconsin as the Chicago Metro.
But, I do think that most people do consider Plainfield, IL, being in Will
County, IL, as part of the Chicago Metro Area.
Jeff Henjes
Depends on what you consider the busy based upon. For passengers,
Hartsfield
is first. O'Hare is 3rd (behind Los Angeles) for YTD 2001.
ATL 18'753'492
LAX 15'319'974
ORD 15'274'072
If you consider aircraft movement, O'Hare is 1st, YTD 2001.
ATL 222'357
ORD 224'636
The difference in these two numbers is about 1 day's worth
of operations at Hartsfield (approx 2,500 T/O's & Landings daily)
One bad snowy day this winter in 2001 and O'Hare will probably
be handing the title back. Hartsfield has basically held the busiest
airport title since 1996-97.
For Passengers count in all of 2000, it wasn't even close, ATL
clobbered ORD:
ATL 80,171,036
ORD 72,135,887
LAX 68,477,689
For Aircraft movement in 2000, Atlanta had about a 7,000
movement advantage:
ATL 915,657 movements
ORD 908,989 movements
For Cargo? Forget it, neither get close to Memphis (for obvious reasons)
Source: http://www.airports.org
Jeff Henjes
"scott" <dkf...@aol.comm> wrote in message
news:20010917161348...@mb-cr.aol.com...
> >
> >>Hartsfield may now be the busiest
> >
> >Nope, O'Hare re-gained the title sometime after 1997. Believe me, we are
> >constantly reminded of it.
>
> In case you hadn't heard: Hartsfield gained it back in 2000.
>
> Scott
Hartsfield has had it from 96/97 through 2000, aircraft and passenger
movements.
Only this year has Chicago gained back the aircraft movements but still lags
ATL in passengers.
Stanley Cline
wrote:
>a couple dozen "busiest airports" around the world. Every news report
>I've seen and heard over the past week consistently refer to Hartsfield
>as the busiest airport. I'm sure O'Hare still is still very close. Re-
IIRC, one has more daily *flights* and the other has more daily
*passengers*...
-SC
--
Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/
...
"Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might
be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune
Aaron M. Renn
>Although I was disheartened about the news about the World Trade Center and the
>However, my concern is that what if it could have been Chicago. I live very
>close to Chicago, and know that the Sears Tower could also have easily been a
>target. The Sears Tower is only about 30 miles from my NW Indiana home, and
>could be seen from a distance. (You could see the Sears Tower from the Bishop
>Ford at 103rd St. You could also see it from the Inbound Eisenhower and Harlem
>Av. W. of Chicago.) So, I really want to know if the Sears Tower is a terrorist
>target since it is very close my to home.
I'm heaing some interesting rumors about Sears Tower employees. One of
them is that a group of Goldman Sachs employees based in the Sears Tower
decided to go out and buy parachutes. Probably an "urban legend" but
interesting nevertheless.
--
Aaron M. Renn (ar...@urbanophile.com) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/
Adam Froehlig
> them for the Great Lakes originated over land and then moved over
> the lake. But we do have waterspouts that result from water
> based influences. If they move onshore, and it does happen, then
> it becomes a tornado, albeit a weak one that usually dissipates very
> rapidly.
Generally speaking, waterspouts that "result from water based
influences" (as you put it) are not TRUE tornadoes, although they are
part of the tornado family. Different set of dynamics involved. Such
waterspouts that move ashore are sometimes called "landspouts" before
they dissipate.
> Both I-96 and I-75 within the Detroit City Limits have seen
> vehicles damaged by tornadoes within the relatively recent past.
> Tornadoes do strike urban areas and more often than you realize.
As I mentioned in a different post, Birmingham, Nashville, Cincinnati,
Fort Worth, Oklahoma City, Salt Lake City, and Little Rock have all been
hit within the past 3 years. The Oklahoma City-area tornado of May 3rd,
1999 ranks as one of the most powerful F5's in history, set the record
for most damaging (over $1 billion in damage), and killed 36 people,
putting it tied for 66th in the "deaths" department.
John Lansford
>Generally speaking, waterspouts that "result from water based
>influences" (as you put it) are not TRUE tornadoes, although they are
>part of the tornado family. Different set of dynamics involved. Such
>waterspouts that move ashore are sometimes called "landspouts" before
>they dissipate.
Myrtle Beach had a waterspout get on the shore earlier this year and
it caused quite a lot of damage, however.
>> Both I-96 and I-75 within the Detroit City Limits have seen
>> vehicles damaged by tornadoes within the relatively recent past.
>> Tornadoes do strike urban areas and more often than you realize.
>
>As I mentioned in a different post, Birmingham, Nashville, Cincinnati,
>Fort Worth, Oklahoma City, Salt Lake City, and Little Rock have all been
>hit within the past 3 years. The Oklahoma City-area tornado of May 3rd,
>1999 ranks as one of the most powerful F5's in history, set the record
>for most damaging (over $1 billion in damage), and killed 36 people,
>putting it tied for 66th in the "deaths" department.
Several years ago Raleigh had an F3 tornado pass through the western
portion of the city, causing millions of dollars of damage and three
deaths.
Adam Froehlig
> was one big soybean field.
That must've been one heck of a "big soybean field" to have 29 deaths...
> And even so, thats only ONE tornado. My area (NE O'Hare) has NEVER
> had a tornado, EVER. (At least as long as the towns and cities have
> existed.)
I beg to differ. I have access to some historical climatological
records, and dug through them this afternoon. I found records of 43
tornadoes that hit Cook County between 1950 and 1999. Some tracks are a
little vague, but at least 6 of the tornadoes struck that part of Cook
County northeast of O'Hare, including two that struck Park Ridge 5 days
apart (one of these tracked right across O'Hare as well). The most
recent touchdown in your area (NE O'Hare) was on May 5, 1991 (near
Ridgewood Cemetary).
I suggest, in the future, doing a little more research before making
claims that simply aren't true.
Jim Geiger
>lead
>by all accounts. (Sucks, don't it?)
>
>-------
>Scott
O'Hare still handles more international traffic, by a wide margin.
_______________________________________________
Jim Geiger, LSD casualty
Rich Carlson, N9JIG
prd...@aol.com (PRDem3) wrote:
I saw a tornado in Wheeling in the late 1960's that damaged several
homes and killed a resident staying in a camper.
We have had several funnels sighted by trained observers and law
enforcement this year, mostly to the west around the Fox River.
Plainfield was part of the Metro area when 25 or 30 people were killed
by the tornado. Most of the damaged homes were in a subdivision near
US-30.
Steve Anderson
tornado that killed more than 80 people. Debris from the Worcester
tornado was found in Boston Harbor, more than 40 miles away.
-- Steve Anderson
http://www.nycroads.com
http://www.phillyroads.com
http://www.bostonroads.com
Michael G. Koerner
Oddly enough, a couple of days ago, I was actually thinking that
parachutes would be usefull things to have in the closet for tenants in
the upper floors of very tall buildings.
BTW, the John Hancock building in Chicago is mostly rental RESIDENTIAL.
Essentially, a very big apartment building with a hotel, commercial on
the ground floor and a restaurant at the top. MANY of the other
high-rise buildings in the DT Chicago area, especially north of the
Chicago River, are also mostly or all residential (both rentals and condominiums).
John David Galt
> Oddly enough, a couple of days ago, I was actually thinking that
> parachutes would be usefull things to have in the closet for tenants in
> the upper floors of very tall buildings.
I had the impression that there are no openable windows in any tall
building newer than about 1940.
Froggie
> it caused quite a lot of damage, however.
Don't get me wrong....waterspouts can still do damage onshore before
they dissipate. You still have a circulation center of 60-80 MPH
winds (on average).
> Several years ago Raleigh had an F3 tornado pass through the western
> portion of the city, causing millions of dollars of damage and three
> deaths.
The list I gave was a list of cities that I could remember being hit
by tornadoes since 1998. It wasn't intended to be an all-inclusive
list...
Froggie | Searching for tornadoes in Long Beach, MS |
http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/
arga...@my-deja.com
> fires? If a tornado can cause fires (and, I've read that they can), then they
> can cause major damage and possibly total collapse.
Tornadoes can't cause fires which would be hot enough to weaken the
support structure of a tall building, unless (by some unlucky chance)
a tractor-trailer carrying petroleum-based fuel is thrown into a tall
building and then explodes. The chance of this happening is far
smaller than the chance a tornado will be near enough a tall building
in the first place.
> I know I shouldn't be comparing tornadoes to terrorists attacks, and tornadoes
> is really not on-topic for MTR, but I just wanted to use that comparison to see
> if tall buildings are unsafe even without terrorism.
Life is risk! Tall buildings can be unsafe but buildings sprawled all
over the ground are not that safe either--they can be blown away by
tornadoes (as in the case of trailer parks) or wiped out of existence
by a crash-landing jet airliner.
> Thanks for your input, anyway!
You're welcome.
Bobby Henderson
A tornado would not approach from Lake Michigan. Tornadoes typically take a
path running from southwest to northeast. It is indeed possible that
downtown Chicago could get hit by a tornado. So if a twister did touch down
in someplace like Joliet, people in downtown should take cover. The
skyscrapers would not be the buildings I would worry about though, since
such high rise buildings have to be engineered by law to withstand wind
forces rated at 200mph. Smaller buildings would be devasted. And then you
have to think about all kinds of things like parked cars being hurled about
like missiles. But if an F-5 300mph tornado were to directly strike the
Sears Tower or John Hancock Tower they might get twisted apart from the
force. Chances are extremely slim such a thing would happen --F-5 violent
tornadoes are very rare.
Bobby Henderson
Bobby Henderson
AAr3172534 <aar31...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010918000952...@mb-ms.aol.com...
> >Actually, it isn't. "Tornado Alley" encompases Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas,
> >Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, and Missouri. The Chicago Metro RARELY has
a
> >tornado.
>
*ARE*
> in the Tornado Belt and *DO* get occassional tornadoes.
Illinois and Indiana are not in Tornado Alley. They do get tornadoes from
time to time (and any state in America can get tornadoes), but not at nearly
the frequency of the swath running from North Central Texas up through
Oklahoma and on into Kansas and the southeast part of Nebraska. Even if a
person does not live in Tornado Alley, they still need to take tornado
safety very seriously. One of the deadliest tornadoes touched down in
Xenia, Ohio, far away from Tornado Alley.
I live right in Tornado Alley and the conditions are more favorable here
than any other place on the planet for tornadoes to occur. There are so
many different weather dividing/battle lines that often occur. You have
warm humid air coming in from the Gulf of Mexico, then there are bursts of
cool air coming down from the Rocky Mountains. To add to the mix and create
a truly volatile situation, there is the dry arid air coming in from the
southwest. You have what is called the "dry line" form out in West Texas
and New Mexico, and it will often be a north-south spur off a cold front
coming down from the Rockies.
A dry line combined with a strong cold front is the perfect combination for
forming super cell thunderstorms. Those storms don't form right on the dry
line. Instead, they get lifted up in all that moist unstable air out ahead
of it. You'll get circulation in these storms very easily with the
approaching cold front and dry line. Usually when these weather events
occur, tornadoes are pretty much guaranteed to touch down somewhere.
Sometimes only a few small ones will form. And then other times there will
be significant outbreaks. I recall in June of 1996 there being a really
nasty tornado outbreak on the Red River between Vernon, TX and Waurika, OK.
We had what was called "mezzo-scale convective complex storms" occuring.
One would go up and be spiking one tornado down after another. The
downdraft on the back end of that storm would fuel up another supercell
right behind it. I felt really bad for the people in Burkburnett since they
were under the gun all afternoon and all evening.
Bobby Henderson
Bobby Henderson
news:3BA7D16B...@mississippi.net...
The May 3rd Tornado was the most powerful F5 ever recorded. The horrible
Jerrel, TX F5 that hit earlier was a close second. The May 3rd Oklahoma
Tornado went through a bunch of transformations. The storm originated over
Lawton, OK (which kind of supports an ongoing joke that nothing good ever
comes from Lawton --not true, but a joke anyway).
The first tornado sirens sounded on Fort Sill and it touched town in
Medicine Park just north of the Army Post. From there it started following
a path up to Anadarko where it went from F1 to F2 and then F3 in strength
level. By the time it hit Chickasha's small airport, it had turned into a
binary tornado (two tornadoes in one) and then a multiple vortex tornado.
That is when all the weathercasters started worrying really badly.
The multi-vortex funnels joined together into an F4 that followed a diagonal
just west of I-44. By the time it had crossed over I-44 south of Newcastle,
the F4 turned into the strongest F5 ever recorded with speeds of 316mph or
greater. And that's when it slammed into Moore. One of the most staggering
sights was of the tornado crossing I-240 in Oklahoma City and taking out a
car dealership. There's nothing quite like seeing a lot of shiny brand new
cars being sucked up and spun around a mile-wide black dirt tornado.
One of the worst tragedies of the May 3 Tornado was of people getting swept
out from under freeway overpasses. So many people had seen the news video
of the Andover, KS tornado (also an F5 at one point) where the news guys hid
up under an overpass on I-35 to let the tornado pass by. The trouble is
that trick only works if the tornado goes behind the overpass, like it did
on that video. The May 3 Tornado hit overpasses head on, hurling engine
blocks and other debris up into those wedge like spaces where people were
hiding. Others got sucked from what they thought was a safe place and
hurled to their deaths.
Bobby Henderson
Jeffrey Coleman Carlyle
the USGS thinks about tornado risks: http://www.usgs.gov/themes/map6.html
What's with the high danger over NYC, Connecticut, and southwest
Massachusetts?
--
// Jeffrey Coleman Carlyle: Computer Science Graduate Student at the
// University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Creator of StratoSetup,
// Windows Restart, comp.os.msdos.programmer FAQ; Kentucky "roadgeek";
// RULER OF EARTH! <www.rulerofearth.org> <www.KentuckyRoads.com>
----
"Bobby Henderson" <arow...@mail.sirinet.net> wrote in message
news:tqk6qvh...@corp.supernews.com...
Bobby Henderson
news:kqrq7.5444$rT2....@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
> I don't know if this has been posted in this thread before, but this is
what
> the USGS thinks about tornado risks: http://www.usgs.gov/themes/map6.html
>
> What's with the high danger over NYC, Connecticut, and southwest
> Massachusetts?
To a lesser extent, some of the same kinds of weather conditions affecting
Tornado Alley occur over the area you mention. You have mountainous
territory up to the northwest (with cold fronts coming in through there
often) and then you have the moist air from the Atlantic that rushes in.
The only thing lacking is the aspect of a dry line from desert air
converging with that moist ocean air and cool mountain air.
Tornadoes don't often occur in New England with regular thunderstorms or
rogue super cell storms ahead of a squall line, at least they don't occur
nearly as often as down here in Oklahoma. The primary tornado threat the
eastern seaboard faces is from tornadoes found in hurricanes.
Bobby Henderson
Adam Froehlig
> thunderstorms or rogue super cell storms ahead of a squall line, at
> least they don't occur nearly as often as down here in Oklahoma.
> The primary tornado threat the eastern seaboard faces is from
> tornadoes found in hurricanes.
Not quite. Most of the "tornado producers" along the East Coast are
Type B (Frontal) or Type E (Major Cyclone/Occlusion) scenarios.
Particularily in the southeastern states for Type B in late winter/early
spring.
Froggie | Practicing meteorology in Long Beach, MS |
http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/
Brian Purcell
> A tornado would not approach from Lake Michigan. Tornadoes typically take a
> path running from southwest to northeast. It is indeed possible that
> downtown Chicago could get hit by a tornado. So if a twister did touch down
> in someplace like Joliet, people in downtown should take cover. The
> skyscrapers would not be the buildings I would worry about though, since
> such high rise buildings have to be engineered by law to withstand wind
> forces rated at 200mph.
The tornado that hit downtown Ft. Worth a year-and-a-half ago shows
the results of tornado vs. skyscraper.
--Brian Purcell
San Antonio, Texas, USA
mailto:br...@texhwyman.com
http://www.texhwyman.com
Jeff Kitsko
that not just one, but two touched down within the City of Pittsburgh on
June 2, 1998. One on Mount Washington, viewable from the downtown core, and
another in Glenwood right off I-376.
--
Jeff Kitsko
Pennsylvania Highways: http://www.pahighways.com/
Pittsburgh Highways: http://www.pahighways.com/pghhwys/
Philadelphia Highways: http://www.pahighways.com/phlhwys/
"Steve Anderson" <nycr...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3BA80E7E...@erols.com...
Dan Hartung
says...
> >To add to that, John Lansford was CORRECT in saying the construction of the
> >Sears Tower and World Trade Center were similar.
>
> Not really, the Sears Tower is nine buildings in one, while the WTC is just
> one. AND, most skyscrapers, including Sears, have their steel coated with
> fire-retartant, the WTC was not. I know someone who worked for the steel
> company that built the WTC.
This is untrue and highly misleading.
First, there have been many conflicting stories about this. What I
believe from different sources is that asbestos *was* used up to the 64th
floor of the WTC, which is the point they'd reached when asbestos was
banned. After the 64th floor they used another fire retardant material
which was rated by the Underwriters Labs for the same fire survivability
standards as asbestos. The material changed, but the code did not.
Since the code and the rated survivability period did not change, the end
result of the tower collapse was inevitable whether or not asbestos had
been used. The fire rating was for a typical office fire, not a jet fuel
fire. The WTC structure stayed up long enough to allow thousands of
people to escape, which is the intent of the design. The jet fuel fire
burned at 1000 degrees fahrenheit or more for enough time to destroy the
fire retardant, after which the steel was exposed to the direct heat and
softened and buckled.
--
Dan Hartung * dan [at] dhartung [dot] com
Lake Effect weblog: http://www.lakefx.nu/
CHICAGOSTORIES: post yours @ chicagostories.org
Bobby Henderson
news:4249df10.01092...@posting.google.com...
> "Bobby Henderson" <arow...@mail.sirinet.net> wrote:
> > A tornado would not approach from Lake Michigan. Tornadoes typically
take a
> > path running from southwest to northeast. It is indeed possible that
> > downtown Chicago could get hit by a tornado. So if a twister did touch
down
> > in someplace like Joliet, people in downtown should take cover. The
> > skyscrapers would not be the buildings I would worry about though, since
> > such high rise buildings have to be engineered by law to withstand wind
> > forces rated at 200mph.
>
> The tornado that hit downtown Ft. Worth a year-and-a-half ago shows
> the results of tornado vs. skyscraper.
Lots of windows blown out. Some cars tossed around. But no skyscrapers
collapsed. However, it should be said that the tornado that hit downtown
Fort Worth was something like an F2 class tornado (fairly common). Had the
funnel been rated as a strong F4 or F5, then extreme damage (including
possible skyscraper collapses) might have occured. As stated before in an
earlier post, high rise buildings are usually engineered for 200mph loads.
A 300mph blast from an F5 would pose a much more severe level of force.
Bobby Henderson
Bobby Henderson
news:L9Lq7.36668$5A3.12...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> I find it funny that when people talk about urban tornadoes no one
remembers
> that not just one, but two touched down within the City of Pittsburgh on
> June 2, 1998. One on Mount Washington, viewable from the downtown core,
and
> another in Glenwood right off I-376.
Those tornadoes probably didn't kill enough people. The death toll is one
of the main things that makes the Xenia, OH tornado so memorable. It is a
pretty sad truth about news stories, if it bleeds it leads.
Bobby Henderson
scott
A tornado just hit the University of Maryland area tonight. It hit during rush
hour and you can imagine the result on traffic.
-------
Scott
JeffSCol
>of the main things that makes the Xenia, OH tornado so memorable. It is a
>pretty sad truth about news stories, if it bleeds it leads.
>
While the Xenia, Ohio, tornado did kill 34 people, it was also an F5 and part
of the largest single-day tornado outbreak in history. Two more good reasons
that storm got lots of press.
Pat O'Connell
Shortly after the storm occurred, I remember seeing a giant oak tree on
US 42 near Plain City OH, about 60 mi. northeast of Xenia, that had been
twisted off its roots by the tornado(es).
--
Pat O'Connell
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...