Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
B-25 Crash 1949 in Chattanooga, Tennessee
648 views
Skip to first unread message
Walt
May 17, 2010, 1:35:23 PM5/17/10
to
In 1949 a B-25 crashed into Missionary Ridge in Chattanooga,
Tennessee. Flames were coming from both engines. I went to grade
school right near where the plane crashed (that was 1961-62). We were
told that the pilot stayed in the plane in order to miss the school.
His name was Capt. William E. Blair. He didn't survive. One of the
crew members. according to what I have been able to discover,
parachuted, but his chute didn't open, or streamered. I believe
another source said he did survive.
Do any of your guys know where I can get a more detailed crash report
on this? I drove up to the crash site this weekend. It is all
overgrown with kudzu and difficult to access. If I get some more time,
I will go back and try to get down into it.
Here is a good link that has a lot of information on it.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/chattanooga-tn/TF15OHNFU35I94RCD/p2
Thanks,
Walt
John Szalay
May 17, 2010, 3:03:49 PM5/17/10
to
Walt <Walte...@aol.com> wrote in news:b7333d22-bd7d-4177-b84d-
33b14a...@s41g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
33b14a...@s41g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
Using the site and the pilots name/date
...
according to the accident-report website.
1949, 09, 30 BLAIR, WILLIAM E B-25J 44-30138 CHATTANOOGA, TN
http://www.accident-report.com/world/namerica/US/TN.html
http://www.accident-report.com/world/namerica/slist/spokane.html
you should be able to order a copy of the accident report from the
website..
using that information..
OR
http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/src/dbaloc.asp?Loc=ar&offset=16650
shows the aircraft was based at 91ABG Spokane AFB, WA
accident reposts are also available there
Walt
May 17, 2010, 3:43:05 PM5/17/10
to
On May 17, 3:03 pm, John Szalay <john.szalay.at.att.net> wrote:
> Walt <Walterm...@aol.com> wrote in news:b7333d22-bd7d-4177-b84d-
> 33b14aaaf...@s41g2000vba.googlegroups.com:> http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/src/reports.htm#MIL- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
> Walt <Walterm...@aol.com> wrote in news:b7333d22-bd7d-4177-b84d-
> 33b14aaaf...@s41g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wow. Thanks. I will order the report. I had been on that one site you
provided. Just didn't have a link.
Walt
John Szalay
May 17, 2010, 3:53:42 PM5/17/10
to
Walt <Walte...@aol.com> wrote in
news:2cabc8f3-f1fe-4904...@q13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
news:2cabc8f3-f1fe-4904...@q13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
> On May 17, 3:03�pm, John Szalay <john.szalay.at.att.net> wrote:
>> Walt <Walterm...@aol.com> wrote in news:b7333d22-bd7d-4177-b84d-
>> 33b14aaaf...@s41g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In 1949 a B-25 crashed into Missionary Ridge in Chattanooga,
>> > Tennessee. Flames were coming from both engines. I went to grade
>> > school right near where the plane crashed (that was 1961-62). We
>> > were told that the pilot stayed in the plane in order to miss the
>> > school. His name was Capt. William E. Blair. �He didn't survive.
>> > One of the crew members. according to what I have been able to
>> > discover, parachuted, but his chute didn't open, or streamered. I
>> > believe another source said he did survive.
>>
>> > Do any of your guys know where I can get a more detailed crash
>> > report on this? �I drove up to the crash site this weekend. �It is
>> > all overgrown with kudzu and difficult to access. If I get some
>> > more time, I will go back and try to get down into it.
>>
>> > Here is a good link that has a lot of information on it.
>>
>> >http://www.topix.com/forum/city/chattanooga-tn/TF15OHNFU35I94RCD/p2
>>
>> > Thanks,
>>
>> > Walt
>>
>
> Wow. Thanks. I will order the report. I had been on that one site you
> provided. Just didn't have a link.
>
> Walt
>
There were a couple of B-25 crashes in Ga in the list
but that one showed up with the proper name for the pilot and location.
Walt
May 17, 2010, 4:11:54 PM5/17/10
to
On May 17, 3:53 pm, John Szalay <john.szalay.at.att.net> wrote:> but that one showed up with the proper name for the pilot and location.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I remember seeing in a 1944 newspaper that a B-24 crashed not far from
Chattanooga with five fatalities. This B-25 crash was something I
heard about all my life, but I didn't even know the aircraft type
until recently. I googled Capt. Blair's name and found that one link
to the story.
Thanks again,
Walt
John Szalay
May 18, 2010, 4:15:30 AM5/18/10
to
Walt <Walte...@aol.com> wrote in
>> 1949, 09, 30 � BLAIR, WILLIAM E B-25J 44-30138 CHATTANOOGA, TN
>>
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Wow. Thanks. I will order the report. I had been on that one site you
> provided. Just didn't have a link.
>
> Walt
>
>
Now that you have a date of the crash, you should check the Chattanooga
paper or the main library and see if they have microfilm or maybe even
bound copies of the newspaper for that time period.
It MIGHT have some details that the accident report missed
also the AF history section at Maxwell should be able to come up
with a detailed investigation report on it as well..
depends on how much you really want to know..
bigmom...@gmail.com
Mar 22, 2019, 9:39:10 AM3/22/19
to
I first heard about the plane crash from my high school sweet heart. He was six years old in the first grade at Fort Cheatum Elementary school. He discribed people on fire, lugggages and money falling from the sky. Some people were even arrested for gathering the belongings.
Keith Willshaw
Mar 22, 2019, 3:14:29 PM3/22/19
to
On 22/03/2019 13:39, bigmom...@gmail.com wrote:
> I first heard about the plane crash from my high school sweet heart. He was six years old in the first grade at Fort Cheatum Elementary school. He discribed people on fire, lugggages and money falling from the sky. Some people were even arrested for gathering the belongings.
>
There were a lot of B-25's built - almost 10,000 as I recall and they
> I first heard about the plane crash from my high school sweet heart. He was six years old in the first grade at Fort Cheatum Elementary school. He discribed people on fire, lugggages and money falling from the sky. Some people were even arrested for gathering the belongings.
>
served with over a dozen air forces well into the 1970's. With that many
aircraft, rudimentary Air Traffic Control and navigation aids accidents
were expected.
The most famous incident involved a a USAAF B-25D that flew into the
Empire State building on Sat 28 July 1945 starting a fire that killed 11
people working in the building and the 3 crew.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-25_crash
The building opened for business on the following Monday morning with
the burned out floors being refurbished within 3 months.
Jim Wilkins
Mar 22, 2019, 9:34:40 PM3/22/19
to
"Keith Willshaw" <keithw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:q73c6j$thv$1...@dont-email.me...
IIRC the NYC Twin Towers were designed to survive the impact of a 727
that had descended into fog at the end of its flight, when it would be
low on fuel. Presumbly a flight that had just taken off with a full
fuel load would know where it was.
news:q73c6j$thv$1...@dont-email.me...
that had descended into fog at the end of its flight, when it would be
low on fuel. Presumbly a flight that had just taken off with a full
fuel load would know where it was.
Scott Kozel
Mar 22, 2019, 11:18:05 PM3/22/19
to
On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 9:34:40 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Keith Willshaw" <keithw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> "Keith Willshaw" <keithw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > The most famous incident involved a a USAAF B-25D that flew into the
> > Empire State building on Sat 28 July 1945 starting a fire that
> > killed 11 people working in the building and the 3 crew.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-25_crash
> >
> > The building opened for business on the following Monday morning
> > with the burned out floors being refurbished within 3 months.
>
> IIRC the NYC Twin Towers were designed to survive the impact of a 727
> that had descended into fog at the end of its flight, when it would be
> low on fuel. Presumbly a flight that had just taken off with a full
> fuel load would know where it was.
Now just how would the engineering work to run tests to see if the
> > Empire State building on Sat 28 July 1945 starting a fire that
> > killed 11 people working in the building and the 3 crew.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-25_crash
> >
> > The building opened for business on the following Monday morning
> > with the burned out floors being refurbished within 3 months.
>
> IIRC the NYC Twin Towers were designed to survive the impact of a 727
> that had descended into fog at the end of its flight, when it would be
> low on fuel. Presumbly a flight that had just taken off with a full
> fuel load would know where it was.
design would survive the impact of an airliner?
Jim Wilkins
Mar 23, 2019, 10:14:46 AM3/23/19
to
"Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eb9e3269-d5e8-496c...@googlegroups.com...
They do it same way they design a bridge to support the weight of
traffic. They measure the properties of the structural materials and
calculate the stresses and strains imposed by the design loads. I
learned the basics of it in high school physics class. The momentum of
an impacting airliner is simply its mass times its velocity. Most of
the aircraft's structure will crumple and shred.
Engineering has come a long way since, and because of, failures like
these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dee_Bridge_disaster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_Bridge_disaster
To some extent the WTC towers were casualties of the ban on asbestos,
as the fireproofing insulation protecting the beams had to be abruptly
changed during construction from it to less well tested concrete.
https://cei.org/content/asbestos-fireproofing-might-have-prevented-world-trade-center-collapse
Steel loses most of its strength at the temperature of a candle flame,
more than 1000 degrees F below its melting point. I've straightened
out a coil spring from a truck suspension by hand, by heating it in a
blacksmith forge. You can demonstrate that for yourself with a candle
and a straightened paper clip.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman%27s_neckties
"Pile the ties into shape for a bonfire, put the rails across and when
red hot in the middle, let a man at each end twist the bar so that its
surface becomes spiral."
However twisting the rails as ordered required heavy special tools.
They could be bent around trees with only man- or horse-power.
-jsw
news:eb9e3269-d5e8-496c...@googlegroups.com...
traffic. They measure the properties of the structural materials and
calculate the stresses and strains imposed by the design loads. I
learned the basics of it in high school physics class. The momentum of
an impacting airliner is simply its mass times its velocity. Most of
the aircraft's structure will crumple and shred.
Engineering has come a long way since, and because of, failures like
these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dee_Bridge_disaster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_Bridge_disaster
To some extent the WTC towers were casualties of the ban on asbestos,
as the fireproofing insulation protecting the beams had to be abruptly
changed during construction from it to less well tested concrete.
https://cei.org/content/asbestos-fireproofing-might-have-prevented-world-trade-center-collapse
Steel loses most of its strength at the temperature of a candle flame,
more than 1000 degrees F below its melting point. I've straightened
out a coil spring from a truck suspension by hand, by heating it in a
blacksmith forge. You can demonstrate that for yourself with a candle
and a straightened paper clip.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman%27s_neckties
"Pile the ties into shape for a bonfire, put the rails across and when
red hot in the middle, let a man at each end twist the bar so that its
surface becomes spiral."
However twisting the rails as ordered required heavy special tools.
They could be bent around trees with only man- or horse-power.
-jsw
Jim Wilkins
Mar 23, 2019, 11:59:39 AM3/23/19
to
"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:q75f0i$54j$1...@dont-email.me...
down to the Ballistic Pendulum.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/linear-momentum/elastic-and-inelastic-collisions/a/what-are-elastic-and-inelastic-collisions
news:q75f0i$54j$1...@dont-email.me...
> "Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eb9e3269-d5e8-496c...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 9:34:40 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>> "Keith Willshaw" <keithw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
> news:eb9e3269-d5e8-496c...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 9:34:40 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>> "Keith Willshaw" <keithw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
> The momentum of an impacting airliner is simply its mass times its
> velocity. Most of the aircraft's structure will crumple and shred.
>
I found a good example to illustrate the significance of that. Scroll
> velocity. Most of the aircraft's structure will crumple and shred.
>
down to the Ballistic Pendulum.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/linear-momentum/elastic-and-inelastic-collisions/a/what-are-elastic-and-inelastic-collisions
Scott Kozel
Mar 23, 2019, 11:32:53 PM3/23/19
to
On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 10:14:46 AM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> "Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > Now just how would the engineering work to run tests to see if the
> > design would survive the impact of an airliner?
>
> They do it same way they design a bridge to support the weight of
> traffic. They measure the properties of the structural materials and
> calculate the stresses and strains imposed by the design loads. I
> learned the basics of it in high school physics class. The momentum of
> an impacting airliner is simply its mass times its velocity. Most of
> the aircraft's structure will crumple and shred.
Oh please. The engineering of designing a bridge to carry a live load
> > design would survive the impact of an airliner?
>
> They do it same way they design a bridge to support the weight of
> traffic. They measure the properties of the structural materials and
> calculate the stresses and strains imposed by the design loads. I
> learned the basics of it in high school physics class. The momentum of
> an impacting airliner is simply its mass times its velocity. Most of
> the aircraft's structure will crumple and shred.
is entirely different from the matter of what happens in a high-speed
collision. Bridges can be tested to see how well they handle a particular
traffic loading. Thousands of bridges can be observed over many years
to see how well that they perform. Unless you can test building impacts
you really don't know what will happen.
If something is moving fast enough it will sever large steel beams.
Like as with a 150-ton airliner moving at the speed of a 45 ACP bullet,
as on 9-11-2001.
> Engineering has come a long way since, and because of, failures like
> these:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dee_Bridge_disaster
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_Bridge_disaster
Sunshine Skyway Bridge.
Jim Wilkins
Mar 24, 2019, 7:57:45 AM3/24/19
to
"Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4902541b-1796-4dae...@googlegroups.com...
earthquake resistant high-rise right after we've completed the
full-scale validation testing of the Global Warming computer model's
controversial predictions. Will you volunteer as test pilot?
Scott Kozel
Mar 24, 2019, 8:54:12 AM3/24/19
to
On Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 7:57:45 AM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> "Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > Those were collapses, not collisions. Look up what happened to the
> > Sunshine Skyway Bridge.
>
> OK, it's on the List. We'll crash a new airliner into a Tokyo-code
> earthquake resistant high-rise right after we've completed the
> full-scale validation testing of the Global Warming computer model's
> controversial predictions. Will you volunteer as test pilot?
That was my point. It can't feasibly be tested. It has been my point
> > Sunshine Skyway Bridge.
>
> OK, it's on the List. We'll crash a new airliner into a Tokyo-code
> earthquake resistant high-rise right after we've completed the
> full-scale validation testing of the Global Warming computer model's
> controversial predictions. Will you volunteer as test pilot?
all along about these claims that the WTC was "designed to resist
airliner impact".
Jim Wilkins
Mar 24, 2019, 10:30:13 AM3/24/19
to
"Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:df6a916c-83f1-4729...@googlegroups.com...
asbestos beam protection during construction may have negated the fuel
fire resistance because the heavy, brittle concrete was more easily
shaken off.
The result of an impact could be estimated with some fuzzy degree of
uncertainty, like maximum wind loading or the effect of shells
striking a battleship. The inelastic momentum transfer to the building
was easy to determine by assuming the plane had slowed to land, the
fuel load was expected to be down near the reserve (neither of which
applied to the 9-11 planes), and the structure of the plane is known
as small, hard, dense engine cores in a glob of softer aluminum, etc,
with the maximum future wingspan restricted by terminal layout. The
column strength of the WTC was uniformly distributed all around its
perimeter wall, not concentrated in vulnerable corners, and backed by
the massive central core box.
Scott Kozel
Mar 24, 2019, 1:41:31 PM3/24/19
to
square rule for kinetic energy that would make an enormous difference
in the damage. 500 mph is 4.2 times 120 mph, but has 17.4 times the kinetic
energy for a particular object.
Conspiracy people who cite the B-25 that hit the Empire State Building in
1945, ought to run the figures. The B-767 weighed 10 times as much, so it
had about 170 times the kinetic energy of the B-25. The respective velocities
are above.
Jim Wilkins
Mar 24, 2019, 3:35:25 PM3/24/19
to
"Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e1758aeb-b19d-47fa...@googlegroups.com...
to enter the landing pattern for Newark, JFK or LaGuardia. A plane
from the future flying at a speed legal only above 10,000 feet wasn't
considered, nor were departing aircraft. The Khan Academy article I
referenced explained why momentum and not kinetic energy mattered.
Jim Wilkins
Mar 24, 2019, 7:41:46 PM3/24/19
to
"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:q78m5q$qcd$1...@dont-email.me...
that it was originally designed to withstand the impact of a 263,000
lb Boeing 707 at 180 MPH, but the subsequent fuel fire wasn't
accounted for.
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a022793skilling
It's unclear if the 707 at 600MPH, DC-8 and 727 I read about were part
of the original design spec or independent analyses, which is what
"investigated" means.in structural engineering.
https://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft-speed-limits-explained
Scott Kozel
Mar 24, 2019, 8:11:59 PM3/24/19
to
On Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 7:41:46 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> "Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> Conspiracy people who cite the B-25 that hit the Empire State Building in
> >> 1945, ought to run the figures. The B-767 weighed 10 times as much, so it
> >> had about 170 times the kinetic energy of the B-25. The respective
> >> velocities are above.
> >
> > IIRC the aircraft was assumed to be a 727 at 200 kias or less,
> > trying to enter the landing pattern for Newark, JFK or LaGuardia. A
> > plane from the future flying at a speed legal only above 10,000 feet
> > wasn't considered, nor were departing aircraft. The Khan Academy
> > article I referenced explained why momentum and not kinetic energy
> > mattered.
>
> I quoted from my memory of an article I read long ago. This states
> that it was originally designed to withstand the impact of a 263,000
> lb Boeing 707 at 180 MPH, but the subsequent fuel fire wasn't
> accounted for.
> http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a022793skilling
That is a blog post. I maintain that there is no engineering method
> >> 1945, ought to run the figures. The B-767 weighed 10 times as much, so it
> >> had about 170 times the kinetic energy of the B-25. The respective
> >> velocities are above.
> >
> > IIRC the aircraft was assumed to be a 727 at 200 kias or less,
> > trying to enter the landing pattern for Newark, JFK or LaGuardia. A
> > plane from the future flying at a speed legal only above 10,000 feet
> > wasn't considered, nor were departing aircraft. The Khan Academy
> > article I referenced explained why momentum and not kinetic energy
> > mattered.
>
> I quoted from my memory of an article I read long ago. This states
> that it was originally designed to withstand the impact of a 263,000
> lb Boeing 707 at 180 MPH, but the subsequent fuel fire wasn't
> accounted for.
> http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a022793skilling
for designing a skyscraper to withstand an aircraft impact, and it can't
be tested.
Now that for the first time that it has occurred in history (actually
twice on the same day) is that an office building is not designed to
be a warzone. A big enough impact or a big enough explosion will
bring it down.
Even an Iowa class battleship couldn't withstand the effects a fuel-filled
B-767 hitting it at 500 mph. Even hitting the side armor belt would
probably cave the side of the ship in and thousands of gallons of flaming
fuel would wind up inside the ship.
Jim Wilkins
Mar 24, 2019, 8:55:40 PM3/24/19
to
news:524b78ea-ed4c-47e3...@googlegroups.com...
Beirut high rises survived modern combat surprisingly well:
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/01/beirut-holiday-inn-civil-war-history-cities-50-buildings
"Heavy artillery was fired from surrounding rooftops, pounding the
Holiday Inn and creating the damage that is still visible today."
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/AtomicEffects/AtomicEffects-3.html
"In the two bombed cities, thus, reinforced concrete buildings of good
construction were structurally damaged only when within a few hundred
feet of ground zero."
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/01/beirut-holiday-inn-civil-war-history-cities-50-buildings
"Heavy artillery was fired from surrounding rooftops, pounding the
Holiday Inn and creating the damage that is still visible today."
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/AtomicEffects/AtomicEffects-3.html
"In the two bombed cities, thus, reinforced concrete buildings of good
construction were structurally damaged only when within a few hundred
feet of ground zero."
Scott Kozel
Mar 24, 2019, 9:33:54 PM3/24/19
to
On Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 8:55:40 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> "Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > Now that for the first time that it has occurred in history
> > (actually
> > twice on the same day) is that an office building is not designed to
> > be a warzone. A big enough impact or a big enough explosion will
> > bring it down.
> >
> > Even an Iowa class battleship couldn't withstand the effects a fuel-filled
> > B-767 hitting it at 500 mph. Even hitting the side armor belt would
> > probably cave the side of the ship in and thousands of gallons of
> > flaming fuel would wind up inside the ship.
>
> Beirut high rises survived modern combat surprisingly well:
> https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/01/beirut-holiday-inn-civil-war-history-cities-50-buildings
> "Heavy artillery was fired from surrounding rooftops, pounding the
> Holiday Inn and creating the damage that is still visible today."
Looks like light artillery to me, say about 75 mm.
> > (actually
> > twice on the same day) is that an office building is not designed to
> > be a warzone. A big enough impact or a big enough explosion will
> > bring it down.
> >
> > Even an Iowa class battleship couldn't withstand the effects a fuel-filled
> > B-767 hitting it at 500 mph. Even hitting the side armor belt would
> > probably cave the side of the ship in and thousands of gallons of
> > flaming fuel would wind up inside the ship.
>
> Beirut high rises survived modern combat surprisingly well:
> https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/01/beirut-holiday-inn-civil-war-history-cities-50-buildings
> "Heavy artillery was fired from surrounding rooftops, pounding the
> Holiday Inn and creating the damage that is still visible today."
> https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/AtomicEffects/AtomicEffects-3.html
> "In the two bombed cities, thus, reinforced concrete buildings of good
> construction were structurally damaged only when within a few hundred
> feet of ground zero."
unrepairable.
A single unlikely hit can destroy a modern battleship, or render it helpless
in the face of continued combat. See Hood, Bismarck and Prince of Wales.
Jim Wilkins
Mar 25, 2019, 8:31:01 AM3/25/19
to
"Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:08905942-ab52-489e...@googlegroups.com...
> On Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 8:55:40 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> "Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > Now that for the first time that it has occurred in history
>> > (actually
>> > twice on the same day) is that an office building is not designed
>> > to
>> > be a warzone. A big enough impact or a big enough explosion will
>> > bring it down.
>> >
>> > Even an Iowa class battleship couldn't withstand the effects a
>> > fuel-filled
>> > B-767 hitting it at 500 mph. Even hitting the side armor belt
>> > would
>> > probably cave the side of the ship in and thousands of gallons of
>> > flaming fuel would wind up inside the ship.
>>
>> Beirut high rises survived modern combat surprisingly well:
>> https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/01/beirut-holiday-inn-civil-war-history-cities-50-buildings
>> "Heavy artillery was fired from surrounding rooftops, pounding the
>> Holiday Inn and creating the damage that is still visible today."
>
> Looks like light artillery to me, say about 75 mm.
Yes, I've been reading old memoirs of the horse artillery and wondered
>> "Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > Now that for the first time that it has occurred in history
>> > (actually
>> > twice on the same day) is that an office building is not designed
>> > to
>> > be a warzone. A big enough impact or a big enough explosion will
>> > bring it down.
>> >
>> > Even an Iowa class battleship couldn't withstand the effects a
>> > fuel-filled
>> > B-767 hitting it at 500 mph. Even hitting the side armor belt
>> > would
>> > probably cave the side of the ship in and thousands of gallons of
>> > flaming fuel would wind up inside the ship.
>>
>> Beirut high rises survived modern combat surprisingly well:
>> https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/01/beirut-holiday-inn-civil-war-history-cities-50-buildings
>> "Heavy artillery was fired from surrounding rooftops, pounding the
>> Holiday Inn and creating the damage that is still visible today."
>
> Looks like light artillery to me, say about 75 mm.
how much weight and length they could have manhandled up stairs.
>
>> https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/AtomicEffects/AtomicEffects-3.html
>> "In the two bombed cities, thus, reinforced concrete buildings of
>> good
>> construction were structurally damaged only when within a few
>> hundred
>> feet of ground zero."
>
> And yet the insides of the buildings were gutted by blast, shockwave
> and fire. Plus there likely was enough damage to the structure to
> render the building
> unrepairable.
flammable wooden structures, and broken plumbing in damaged buildings
vented the water main pressure and crippled fire fighting.
Here's an eyewitness account of a rescue mission into Hiroshima:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp25.asp
>
> A single unlikely hit can destroy a modern battleship, or render it
> helpless
> in the face of continued combat. See Hood, Bismarck and Prince of
> Wales.
Hood still retained some inadequate WW1 battlecruiser armor, weight
traded away to gain speed. Bismarck's turrets and rangefinders went
quickly to more and bigger guns but the hull was still nearly level,
with the decks awash amidships, when it (he?) was scuttled. PoW
suffered the same sort of abuse that sank superbattleships Musashi and
Yamato.
Keith Willshaw
Mar 26, 2019, 7:40:22 AM3/26/19
to
aboard the aircraft. What it couldn't withstand was the ongoing fire
fuelled by the building contents. In the aftermath one of the initial
design team was interviewed and admitted that they had studies on impact
and studies on a large scale fire. What they did not consider was a
major impact AND a large scale fire. Modern buildings have a huge fuel
load in the form of carpets, desks, paper etc. The lack of a protected
core as used in conventional high rise buildings was a major cause of
the loss of life. People above the impact zone simply could not get out.
Scott Kozel
Mar 26, 2019, 10:13:39 AM3/26/19
to
account more than just the structural damage. Even the light fuel load
on the B-25 caused massive fires on three floors and caused an occupied
elevator to crash.
Designing for "landing speeds and typical landing fuel loading" is IMO a
rather useless design as was seen. Then if you design for a 727, that
is useless if it is hit by an airliner that is 2 to 3 times the mass.
As you pointed out the burning contents of the building is what generated
the heat that caused the structure to weaken and fail. The aircraft fuel
burned up fairly quickly but set on fire the approximately 20,000 pounds
of "ordinary combustibles" on each of about 6 floors.
I never have believed that these claims were based on anything that civil
engineering said. The baloney factor if you will.
Jim Wilkins
Mar 26, 2019, 10:56:51 AM3/26/19
to
"Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:465eee4c-6dbf-4c38...@googlegroups.com...
airliners would be used for kamikaze attacks, so they considered only
landing accidents. There is more justification to require all housing
to include underground tornado and bomb shelters but we'd rather take
our chances.
https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=910105
"An additional load, not required by any building codes, but stated by
PANYNJ to have been considered in the design of the towers, was the
impact
of a commercial airliner. Documents obtained from PANYNJ indicated
that the
impact of a Boeing 707 or DC 8 aircraft flying at a speed of 268 m/s
(600
mph) was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. The life
safety
considerations following such impactwere also addressed. One document
stated
that "...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." No other documentary evidence on the
aircraft
impact analysis was available to review the criteria and methods used
in the
analysis of the aircraft impact into the WTC towers or to provide
details on
the ability of the WTC towers to with stand such impacts."
I'm not a professional structural engineer so I can't say exactly how
they
model impacts such as a car or airplane crash, a ship hitting a
bridge, or a
shell striking a tank, but obviously they do know how, whether or not
you do.
I was involved with ensuring that the prototype digital radios I built
for aircraft wouldn't
break free and fly into the cockpit in a survivable belly landing, and
I do design,
build and proof-test lifting devices such as a gantry hoist to move
half-ton
logs for the sawmill I built, and know that engineered structures are
mathematically
modeled to find their yield and failure points under all expected
conditions
and then designed to tolerate the worst case. The equations came from
laboratory
testing backed by accident reconstruction. Understanding the behavior
of
steel as it fails during impact is fundamental to the design of metal
punching, shearing
and forming machinery, and of shells, torpedos and armor.
This is how they measure how much impact energy a representative
sample of a
batch of structural steel can absorb.
https://www.element.com/nucleus/2016/12/12/21/43/charpy-vs-izod-impact
and this is how they apply the sample measurements to large complex
structures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_method
Jim Wilkins
Mar 26, 2019, 1:45:48 PM3/26/19
to
> On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 7:40:22 AM UTC-4, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
>> On 23/03/2019 03:18, Scott Kozel wrote:
>> > On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 9:34:40 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> >> "Keith Willshaw" <keithw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >>> The most famous incident involved a a USAAF B-25D that flew
>> >>> into the
> ..........
> wrote:
>> On 23/03/2019 03:18, Scott Kozel wrote:
>> > On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 9:34:40 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> >> "Keith Willshaw" <keithw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >>> The most famous incident involved a a USAAF B-25D that flew
>> >>> into the
> These claims about "survive the impact of an airliner" have to take
> into
> account more than just the structural damage. Even the light fuel
> load
> on the B-25 caused massive fires on three floors and caused an
> occupied
> elevator to crash.
>
> Designing for "landing speeds and typical landing fuel loading" is
> IMO a
> rather useless design as was seen. Then if you design for a 727,
> that
> is useless if it is hit by an airliner that is 2 to 3 times the
> mass.
The towers were designed in the 1960's. You have great hindsight, do
> into
> account more than just the structural damage. Even the light fuel
> load
> on the B-25 caused massive fires on three floors and caused an
> occupied
> elevator to crash.
>
> Designing for "landing speeds and typical landing fuel loading" is
> IMO a
> rather useless design as was seen. Then if you design for a 727,
> that
> is useless if it is hit by an airliner that is 2 to 3 times the
> mass.
you also have the foresight to tell us the political climate and the
size, weight and speed of aircraft in 2050?
I predict that our Chinese masters will limit us to riding donkeys as
punishment for starting an ill-considered holy war to impose climate
change carbon restrictions on them.
> As you pointed out the burning contents of the building is what
> generated
> the heat that caused the structure to weaken and fail. The aircraft
> fuel
> burned up fairly quickly but set on fire the approximately 20,000
> pounds
> of "ordinary combustibles" on each of about 6 floors.
>
> I never have believed that these claims were based on anything that
> civil
> engineering said. The baloney factor if you will.
reasons, and the design didn't require changes to tolerate airliner
impacts. When filtered through the uneducated press that could be
taken either way, either they were or weren't designed for a crash.
https://www.newsweek.com/world-trade-center-engineer-leslie-robertson-911-attack-building-collapse-151763
"You could always prepare for more and more extreme events, but there
has to be a risk analysis of what's reasonable."
If we really wanted to minimize risk we'd all buckle up and obey 30
MPH speed limits.
Scott Kozel
Mar 26, 2019, 4:31:16 PM3/26/19
to
On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 1:45:48 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> "Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > Designing for "landing speeds and typical landing fuel loading" is IMO a
> > rather useless design as was seen. Then if you design for a 727, that
> > is useless if it is hit by an airliner that is 2 to 3 times the mass.
>
> The towers were designed in the 1960's. You have great hindsight, do
> you also have the foresight to tell us the political climate and the
> size, weight and speed of aircraft in 2050?
The B-747 design was known when the towers were in design.
> > rather useless design as was seen. Then if you design for a 727, that
> > is useless if it is hit by an airliner that is 2 to 3 times the mass.
>
> The towers were designed in the 1960's. You have great hindsight, do
> you also have the foresight to tell us the political climate and the
> size, weight and speed of aircraft in 2050?
> > I never have believed that these claims were based on anything that civil
> > engineering said. The baloney factor if you will.
>
> The analysis may have shown that they were strong enough for other
> reasons, and the design didn't require changes to tolerate airliner
> impacts. When filtered through the uneducated press that could be
> taken either way, either they were or weren't designed for a crash.
it will perform.
> "You could always prepare for more and more extreme events, but there
> has to be a risk analysis of what's reasonable."
Scott Kozel
Mar 26, 2019, 4:44:48 PM3/26/19
to
On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 10:56:51 AM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> "Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > I never have believed that these claims were based on anything that civil
> > engineering said. The baloney factor if you will.
>
> When the building was designed there was no evidence that civilian
> airliners would be used for kamikaze attacks, so they considered only
> landing accidents.
Then why the alleged design for a 600 mph impact by a B-707?
> > engineering said. The baloney factor if you will.
>
> When the building was designed there was no evidence that civilian
> airliners would be used for kamikaze attacks, so they considered only
> landing accidents.
> There is more justification to require all housing
> to include underground tornado and bomb shelters but we'd rather take
> our chances.
>
> https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=910105
> "An additional load, not required by any building codes, but stated by
> PANYNJ to have been considered in the design of the towers, was the
performed.
> impact of a commercial airliner. Documents obtained from PANYNJ indicated that
> the impact of a Boeing 707 or DC 8 aircraft flying at a speed of 268 m/s (600
> mph) was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. The life safety
> considerations following such impactwere also addressed. One document stated
> that "...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." No other documentary evidence on the aircraft
> impact analysis was available to review the criteria and methods used in the
> analysis of the aircraft impact into the WTC towers or to provide details on
> the ability of the WTC towers to with stand such impacts."
is "no other documentary evidence on the aircraft impact analysis".
IOW, no engineering analysis of the methods or the conclusions, is available
for review.
Jim Wilkins
Mar 26, 2019, 6:47:01 PM3/26/19
to
"Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eed60927-3a79-400e...@googlegroups.com...
> On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 10:56:51 AM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> "Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > I never have believed that these claims were based on anything
>> > that civil
>> > engineering said. The baloney factor if you will.
>>
>> When the building was designed there was no evidence that civilian
>> airliners would be used for kamikaze attacks, so they considered
>> only
>> landing accidents.
>
> Then why the alleged design for a 600 mph impact by a B-707?
The claim is for an analysis, not a design. The unofficial design goal
>> "Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > I never have believed that these claims were based on anything
>> > that civil
>> > engineering said. The baloney factor if you will.
>>
>> When the building was designed there was no evidence that civilian
>> airliners would be used for kamikaze attacks, so they considered
>> only
>> landing accidents.
>
> Then why the alleged design for a 600 mph impact by a B-707?
was 180 MPH. If he didn't have to make any changes to meet it, or 600
MPH, then there was nothing to report.
>
>> There is more justification to require all housing
>> to include underground tornado and bomb shelters but we'd rather
>> take
>> our chances.
>>
>> https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=910105
>> "An additional load, not required by any building codes, but stated
>> by
>> PANYNJ to have been considered in the design of the towers, was the
>
> "Being considered" doesn't mean that any detailed civil engineering
> was
> performed.
It may mean the need for extra engineering was found unnecessary.
>> There is more justification to require all housing
>> to include underground tornado and bomb shelters but we'd rather
>> take
>> our chances.
>>
>> https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=910105
>> "An additional load, not required by any building codes, but stated
>> by
>> PANYNJ to have been considered in the design of the towers, was the
>
> "Being considered" doesn't mean that any detailed civil engineering
> was
> performed.
You've shown no evidence of how much damage the impact of aluminum
against high-strength steel might cause, not even the momentum
transferred or the velocity pressure of the fuel load.
I learned very early in my education not to just "imagine" events that
are outside normal experience, but to analyze them scientifically.
This is especially true of objects in motion, very few people have the
innate talent to succeed as professional ball players. Logically a
straight stick thrown into the air should fall end down, with the
least drag, but actually it falls flat with the most.
preserve speculation that might be misused against him in court, for
instance by attacking him for not considering the burning fuel which
wasn't his job. When I studied analytical chemistry I learned to think
the same way, report exactly what's asked for and nothing more. Do you
disclose more than necessary on your tax return?
Scott Kozel
Mar 26, 2019, 7:49:19 PM3/26/19
to
On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 6:47:01 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> "Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > Then why the alleged design for a 600 mph impact by a B-707?
>
> The claim is for an analysis, not a design. The unofficial design goal
> was 180 MPH. If he didn't have to make any changes to meet it, or 600
> MPH, then there was nothing to report.
Where is the document that contains the detailed analysis?
>
> The claim is for an analysis, not a design. The unofficial design goal
> was 180 MPH. If he didn't have to make any changes to meet it, or 600
> MPH, then there was nothing to report.
> It may mean the need for extra engineering was found unnecessary.
> You've shown no evidence of how much damage the impact of aluminum
> against high-strength steel might cause, not even the momentum
> transferred or the velocity pressure of the fuel load.
wants to see (if any) a detailed engineering document in support of this
claim. Of course it has been 18 years and nobody has been able to
produce one.
> > IOW, no engineering analysis of the methods or the conclusions, is
> > available for review.
>
> It wasn't required by the building codes so he had no reason to
> preserve speculation that might be misused against him in court, for
> instance by attacking him for not considering the burning fuel which
> wasn't his job. When I studied analytical chemistry I learned to think
> the same way, report exactly what's asked for and nothing more. Do you
> disclose more than necessary on your tax return?
saved in a form to where it can be analyzed and discussed today.
Jim Wilkins
Mar 26, 2019, 8:46:48 PM3/26/19
to
"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:q7ea51$4rb$1...@dont-email.me...
> ...
> It wasn't required by the building codes so he had no reason to
> preserve speculation that might be misused against him in court, for
> instance by attacking him for not considering the burning fuel which
> wasn't his job.
The Titanic saga provides a good example of the maxim that no good
> preserve speculation that might be misused against him in court, for
> instance by attacking him for not considering the burning fuel which
> wasn't his job.
deed goes unpunished. The vessel actually carried more lifeboats than
the law required, and the ship's officers hadn't finished launching
the last of them when a surge of water swept them away, some to climb
onto the bottom of an overturned lifeboat that washed off with them.
Titanic ran out of time, not lifeboats. But that's not at all how the
popular story presented the situation. There MUST be a guilty party to
blame.
Jim Wilkins
Mar 26, 2019, 9:35:11 PM3/26/19
to
"Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:85493c33-4ec8-43de...@googlegroups.com...
> On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 6:47:01 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> "Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > Then why the alleged design for a 600 mph impact by a B-707?
>>
>> The claim is for an analysis, not a design. The unofficial design
>> goal
>> was 180 MPH. If he didn't have to make any changes to meet it, or
>> 600
>> MPH, then there was nothing to report.
>
> Where is the document that contains the detailed analysis?
>
>> It may mean the need for extra engineering was found unnecessary.
>> You've shown no evidence of how much damage the impact of aluminum
>> against high-strength steel might cause, not even the momentum
>> transferred or the velocity pressure of the fuel load.
>
> Oh so now *I* am the one who has to provide evidence! I am the one
> who
> wants to see (if any) a detailed engineering document in support of
> this
> claim. Of course it has been 18 years and nobody has been able to
> produce one.
You declared that the experts are wrong; "I maintain that there is no
>> "Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > Then why the alleged design for a 600 mph impact by a B-707?
>>
>> The claim is for an analysis, not a design. The unofficial design
>> goal
>> was 180 MPH. If he didn't have to make any changes to meet it, or
>> 600
>> MPH, then there was nothing to report.
>
> Where is the document that contains the detailed analysis?
>
>> It may mean the need for extra engineering was found unnecessary.
>> You've shown no evidence of how much damage the impact of aluminum
>> against high-strength steel might cause, not even the momentum
>> transferred or the velocity pressure of the fuel load.
>
> Oh so now *I* am the one who has to provide evidence! I am the one
> who
> wants to see (if any) a detailed engineering document in support of
> this
> claim. Of course it has been 18 years and nobody has been able to
> produce one.
engineering method
for designing a skyscraper to withstand an aircraft impact, and it
can't
be tested."
I want you to show how much you understand of engineering methods to
for designing a skyscraper to withstand an aircraft impact, and it
can't
be tested."
validate that claim. That -you- don't know how to do something isn't
proof that no one else does. My career was making the "impossible"
happen, usually by applying bleeding-edge technology or sneaking in a
fix from a different field, like using a method from astronomy to
identify a problem on a new Texas Instruments IC design.
Scott Kozel
Mar 26, 2019, 10:05:10 PM3/26/19
to
On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 9:35:11 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> "Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > Oh so now *I* am the one who has to provide evidence! I am the one who
> > wants to see (if any) a detailed engineering document in support of this
> > claim. Of course it has been 18 years and nobody has been able to
> > produce one.
>
> You declared that the experts are wrong; "I maintain that there is no
> engineering method for designing a skyscraper to withstand an aircraft
> impact, and it can't be tested."
So what "experts" are you referring to? Show me the document that they
> > wants to see (if any) a detailed engineering document in support of this
> > claim. Of course it has been 18 years and nobody has been able to
> > produce one.
>
> You declared that the experts are wrong; "I maintain that there is no
> engineering method for designing a skyscraper to withstand an aircraft
> impact, and it can't be tested."
have produced about a real world example of them doing this. Absent that
the whole claim should be withdrawn.
I implied but should have stated that I was referring to 1960s technology,
as a 21st Century supercomputer could probably do a decent job of modeling
such an impact.
As far as it being tested, I suppose you could build a "test article" and
then crash a plane into it, but in the real world nobody is going to spend
the money to do a test like that.
My first career was in highway engineering, so I do have some background
in civil engineering and in engineering methods.
Jim Wilkins
Mar 26, 2019, 11:32:41 PM3/26/19
to
"Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:73acbf23-0911-465f...@googlegroups.com...
Timoshenko and Den Hartog but I must admit I haven't fully absorbed
Statics yet and am very far from grasping Dynamics. I may have
understood some of it for a week or so in college, long enough to pass
the test.
As for a test article, this shows and describes what the airliner did
to the Pentagon.
https://pentagon.spacelist.org/
Scott Kozel
Mar 26, 2019, 11:53:18 PM3/26/19
to
On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 11:32:41 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> "Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > As far as it being tested, I suppose you could build a "test
> > article" and
> > then crash a plane into it, but in the real world nobody is going to
> > spend
> > the money to do a test like that.
> >
> > My first career was in highway engineering, so I do have some
> > background
> > in civil engineering and in engineering methods.
>
> I have the classic engineering texts of that period by Stephen
> Timoshenko and Den Hartog but I must admit I haven't fully absorbed
> Statics yet and am very far from grasping Dynamics. I may have
> understood some of it for a week or so in college, long enough to pass
> the test.
>
> As for a test article, this shows and describes what the airliner did
> to the Pentagon.
> https://pentagon.spacelist.org/
Completely different design from the WTC 1 and 2. Those were two "test
> > article" and
> > then crash a plane into it, but in the real world nobody is going to
> > spend
> > the money to do a test like that.
> >
> > My first career was in highway engineering, so I do have some
> > background
> > in civil engineering and in engineering methods.
>
> I have the classic engineering texts of that period by Stephen
> Timoshenko and Den Hartog but I must admit I haven't fully absorbed
> Statics yet and am very far from grasping Dynamics. I may have
> understood some of it for a week or so in college, long enough to pass
> the test.
>
> As for a test article, this shows and describes what the airliner did
> to the Pentagon.
> https://pentagon.spacelist.org/
articles" and we see what happened to them. Per the official report,
the south tower was near collapse right after the impact, due to the
damage to one corner of the building, and the amount of structure
above the impact floors. The north tower was hit much higher up and
in the center of the building.
Keith Willshaw
Mar 28, 2019, 12:57:07 PM3/28/19
to
On 26/03/2019 14:56, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> When the building was designed there was no evidence that civilian
> airliners would be used for kamikaze attacks, so they considered only
> landing accidents. There is more justification to require all housing
> to include underground tornado and bomb shelters but we'd rather take
> our chances.
>
Quite so although the number of tornadoes we get in England is pretty low :)
>
> When the building was designed there was no evidence that civilian
> airliners would be used for kamikaze attacks, so they considered only
> landing accidents. There is more justification to require all housing
> to include underground tornado and bomb shelters but we'd rather take
> our chances.
>
The problem is not the intent of the pilots but the simple reality that
a flight could equally have a take off accident as happened to the
aircraft that went into the Hudson after hitting a flock of birds or the
one that went into the Potomac as it had not been de-iced.
The real problem is however that the building design was flawed. The use
of lightweight trusses to support the floors was exacerbated by the fact
that the sprinklers didn't work because they were not fed by a protected
fire main and it had poorly designed escape routes. Firemen have a
saying that is drummed into all recruits 'Never trust a truss' they have
a nasty habit of failing early in a fire. Hardwood floor beams are
actually much better in fire than lightweight steel structures as they
burn at a predictable rate and hardwoods simply char on the surface at
temperatures where a steel beam will fail.
The building was always likely to collapse but what was tragic was that
so many people were killed because they had no escape route.
David Lesher
Mar 28, 2019, 3:33:08 PM3/28/19
to
Scott Kozel <koz...@yahoo.com> writes:
>Conspiracy people who cite the B-25 that hit the Empire State Building in
>1945, ought to run the figures. The B-767 weighed 10 times as much, so it
>had about 170 times the kinetic energy of the B-25. The respective velocities
>are above.
It was not the mass, but the fuel load & the building.
>Conspiracy people who cite the B-25 that hit the Empire State Building in
>1945, ought to run the figures. The B-767 weighed 10 times as much, so it
>had about 170 times the kinetic energy of the B-25. The respective velocities
>are above.
The ESB was stone and concrete, the Towers?
Not only did the aircraft hitting them have large fuel loads, the
building contents were radically different. The Towers were
full of carpeting, foam furniture, and wallpaper; all from the
petrochem genus.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Scott Kozel
Mar 28, 2019, 5:29:55 PM3/28/19
to
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 3:33:08 PM UTC-4, David Lesher wrote:
> Scott Kozel <koz...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >Conspiracy people who cite the B-25 that hit the Empire State Building in
> >1945, ought to run the figures. The B-767 weighed 10 times as much, so it
> >had about 170 times the kinetic energy of the B-25. The respective velocities
> >are above.
>
> It was not the mass, but the fuel load & the building.
> The ESB was stone and concrete, the Towers?
The mass and velocity certainly played a major factor. The ESB did have
> Scott Kozel <koz...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >Conspiracy people who cite the B-25 that hit the Empire State Building in
> >1945, ought to run the figures. The B-767 weighed 10 times as much, so it
> >had about 170 times the kinetic energy of the B-25. The respective velocities
> >are above.
>
> It was not the mass, but the fuel load & the building.
> The ESB was stone and concrete, the Towers?
a much more massive structure, and it "stepped down" in cross-section
as it increased in elevation. The WTC was a much lighter structure so
that it could maintain the full cross-section all the way to the top and
be able to support the dead load of such a structure.
> Not only did the aircraft hitting them have large fuel loads, the
> building contents were radically different. The Towers were
> full of carpeting, foam furniture, and wallpaper; all from the
> petrochem genus.
furniture, Masonite, particle board, linoleum, cardboard, plastics,
and whatever else. About 20,000 pounds per floor, and set on fire
the way that starter fluid is used in a charcoal pit.
Jim Wilkins
Mar 29, 2019, 9:23:48 AM3/29/19
to
"Keith Willshaw" <keithw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:q7iud1$olh$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 26/03/2019 14:56, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> The problem is not the intent of the pilots but the simple reality
> that a flight could equally have a take off accident as happened to
> the aircraft that went into the Hudson after hitting a flock of
> birds or the one that went into the Potomac as it had not been
> de-iced.
>
That's very true, but right after takeoff they are much less likely to
>
> The problem is not the intent of the pilots but the simple reality
> that a flight could equally have a take off accident as happened to
> the aircraft that went into the Hudson after hitting a flock of
> birds or the one that went into the Potomac as it had not been
> de-iced.
>
not know where the tall buildings are.
Scott Kozel
Mar 30, 2019, 12:00:43 AM3/30/19
to
On Friday, March 29, 2019 at 9:23:48 AM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Keith Willshaw" <keithw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> "Keith Willshaw" <keithw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > On 26/03/2019 14:56, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> >
> > The problem is not the intent of the pilots but the simple reality
> > that a flight could equally have a take off accident as happened to
> > the aircraft that went into the Hudson after hitting a flock of
> > birds or the one that went into the Potomac as it had not been
> > de-iced.
>
> That's very true, but right after takeoff they are much less likely to
> not know where the tall buildings are.
In this day and age with onboard radar and modern air traffic control, is there
> >
> > The problem is not the intent of the pilots but the simple reality
> > that a flight could equally have a take off accident as happened to
> > the aircraft that went into the Hudson after hitting a flock of
> > birds or the one that went into the Potomac as it had not been
> > de-iced.
>
> That's very true, but right after takeoff they are much less likely to
> not know where the tall buildings are.
any realistic possibility for a military aircraft or commercial airliner
to accidentally strike a tall building in the U.S.?
Jim Wilkins
Mar 30, 2019, 7:12:07 AM3/30/19
to
"Scott Kozel" <koz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c154f1c9-156a-45f7...@googlegroups.com...
participating aircraft will always know where they are and have the
"God's Eye View" of all traffic, obstacles, NOTAMs and wx around them.
I was a lab tech at the Mitre Corporation when they developed the Free
Flight and Next Gen hardware prototypes.
http://ourairspace.org/FreeFlight.html
papa...@gmail.com
Apr 7, 2019, 7:36:56 PM4/7/19
to
Dr. Obodubu Monday is recognised all over the world of marine kingdom, As one of the top fortunate and most powerful native doctor of charms casts from the beginning of his ancestors ship until now Dr. Obodubu Monday lives strong among all other native doctors, there have never been any form of impossibility beyond the control of Dr. Obodubu Monday it doesn't matter the distance of the person with the problems or situation, all you have to do is believe in the native doctor Dr. Obodubu Monday cast that works, he always warns never to get his charms cast if you do not believe or unable to follow his instruction. it is the assignment of the native doctor Dr. Obodubu Monday to offer services to those in need of spiritual assistance not minding the gravity of your situations or distance as long as water, sea, ocean, lake, river, sand, etc. are near you, then your problems of life would be controlled under your foot. if you need any spiritual help on any of these call Doctor Obodubu on :+2348071470242
Get Your Love Back
Fruit Of The Womb
Fibroid
Business Boom
Financial Breakthrough
Get Rich Without Ritual
Do As I Say
Bad Dream
Promise And Fail
Epilepsy
Land/Court Case
Mental Disorder
Political Appointment
Visa Approval
Cancer
Examination Success
Spend And Get Back
Good Luck
Natural Neath
Hypertension
Stroke
Sickle cell
Impotency
Win Court case
Promotion At Work
Commanding Tone
Protection Ring
Marriage Success
Love Ring
Favour Ring
Recover Lost Glory
Spiritual Power For Men Of God
Travel Success Ring
Job Success
Lotto/Pool Win/betnaija win
And Many
More make haste to call Baba Doctor Obodubu Monday on +2348071470242 Or whatsapp for spiritual problem today and you will surely get solution to all your predicament
Get Your Love Back
Fruit Of The Womb
Fibroid
Business Boom
Financial Breakthrough
Get Rich Without Ritual
Do As I Say
Bad Dream
Promise And Fail
Epilepsy
Land/Court Case
Mental Disorder
Political Appointment
Visa Approval
Cancer
Examination Success
Spend And Get Back
Good Luck
Natural Neath
Hypertension
Stroke
Sickle cell
Impotency
Win Court case
Promotion At Work
Commanding Tone
Protection Ring
Marriage Success
Love Ring
Favour Ring
Recover Lost Glory
Spiritual Power For Men Of God
Travel Success Ring
Job Success
Lotto/Pool Win/betnaija win
And Many
More make haste to call Baba Doctor Obodubu Monday on +2348071470242 Or whatsapp for spiritual problem today and you will surely get solution to all your predicament
babadoctorobodu...@gmail.com
May 25, 2020, 7:08:54 PM5/25/20
to
Dr. Obodubu Monday is recognised all over the world of marine kingdom, As one of the top fortunate and most powerful native doctor of charms casts from the beginning of his ancestors ship until now Dr. Obodubu Monday lives strong among all other native doctors, there have never been any form of impossibility beyond the control of Dr. Obodubu Monday it doesn't matter the distance of the person with the problems or situation, all you have to do is believe in the native doctor Dr. Obodubu Monday cast that works, he always warns never to get his charms cast if you do not believe or unable to follow his instruction. it is the assignment of the native doctor Dr. Obodubu Monday to offer services to those in need of spiritual assistance not minding the gravity of your situations or distance as long as water, sea, ocean, lake, river, sand, etc. are near you, then your problems of life would be controlled under your foot. if you need any spiritual help on any of these call Doctor Obodubu on :+2349058774809
More make haste to call or Or WhatApp Baba Doctor Obodubu Monday on +2349058774809 for spiritual problem today and you will surely get solution to all your predicament
0 new messages