So, terrorists?

**deathgodusmc** · 09-13-11, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by space.cowboy

I'm sure Ford said the Pinto would be safe in a rear end collision as well.

Say what you want about pintos but shove a sc460 in it and its one bad ride.

**AetheLove** · 09-13-11, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

You mean its a year newer. Your confusing first flight with production dates.

So now it's at the point of a quibble over whether "newer" means the start of the design phase, start of production, official "introduction" (which marketing controls), first flight, first delivery to customer, or whatnot. That's at least a 5-year process, and these two planes overlap for most of that time. The 747 had it's first flight and entered commercial service before the DC-10; the DC-10 may have hit other targets before the 747.

Is there a useful distinction any more? Can we call these two planes contemporaries? In the context of planning for a jetliner impact on a skyscraper (which also is in the planning and design phase for years), is it safe to say that if the planners knew about one of these planes they also knew about the other?

Cheers,

AetheLove

**deathgodusmc** · 09-13-11, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by AetheLove

So now it's at the point of a quibble over whether "newer" means the start of the design phase, start of production, official "introduction" (which marketing controls), first flight, first delivery to customer, or whatnot. That's at least a 5-year process, and these two planes overlap for most of that time. The 747 had it's first flight and entered commercial service before the DC-10; the DC-10 may have hit other targets before the 747.

Is there a useful distinction any more? Can we call these two planes contemporaries? In the context of planning for a jetliner impact on a skyscraper (which also is in the planning and design phase for years), is it safe to say that if the planners knew about one of these planes they also knew about the other?

Cheers,

AetheLove

I cant say if they did or not. I can say there is a sizable difference in planning for a 455,00 lbs plane impact and a 833,000 lbs plane impact. Im not even sure if in this day in age we could construct a building to withstand a hit from a 747. Thats a whole lot of metal and fuel to consider in the design phase. Your talking about a plane thats empty weight damn near equals the max weight of the other.

Then you also have to consider the 747 was started under a military program. I couldn't tell you if its construction at the time was classified or not. The dc-10 however wasn't. It was public knowledge.

**DJ Ms. White** · 09-13-11, 03:05 PM

Just makes me think of a favorite quote of a guy I used to fly with in Eve: I'm like a DC-10, guaranteed to go down.

**deathgodusmc** · 09-13-11, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

Just makes me think of a favorite quote of a guy I used to fly with in Eve: I'm like a DC-10, guaranteed to go down.

Did you know the 747 has a worse record then the dc-10?

**Xavsnipe** · 09-13-11, 03:26 PM

The jets that hit the WTC’s were 767’s not 747’s right? 767’s are much more similar in size, weight, capacity to the dc10’s yea?

**Xavsnipe** · 09-13-11, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by DuDDy

Ok with these models ran in the 60's regarding the impact of jetliners on the building there are a few things you have to remember with them. In each scenario run under the model the assumption was that the jetliners would be impacting the buildings dead center on any face of the building. So they would be impacting 2 floors at most. They also did the fire simulations assuming none of the interior columns on the building would be taken out, or structurally damaged. The last assumption in each model was that they never factored in completely filled offices with furniture, filing cabinets, carpet, etc...all things adding to the intensity of the fires. Now factor in an off center impact on one of the towers (tower 2), a slightly off center impact (tower 1), destruction of interior columns (both towers) and fully equipped offices with a near unlimited supply of fuel for the fire (both towers) and you have the perfect storm for what happened.

So the engineers that constructed the buildings never took into account structural damage in the core interior columns in case of a jetliner crashing into them?

**deathgodusmc** · 09-13-11, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

The jets that hit the WTC’s were 767’s not 747’s right? 767’s are much more similar in size, weight, capacity to the dc10’s yea?

Correct.

**DuDDy** · 09-13-11, 03:42 PM

They did, but not to the degree of what actually happened. The design behind the building was that the external skeleton would carry the majority of the load and the internal columns would not be used as the main support of the building. Because they wanted large office spaces on each floor with 360 views of NYC and as little obstruction as possible. You gotta understand the worst case scenario they could ever imagine was no where near what happened on 9/11.

General rule of thumb in engineering is imagine what the worst case thing that could happen and design 10 times stronger than that. Well what happened on 9/11 was 100 times worse than anyone could ever imagine. No engineer in their right mind back then would ever think along the lines of "Hmmm maybe someday a bigger airplane than what exists today will hit these towers and a raging inferno will ensue which in turn is going to hinder the structural integrity of the building as a whole. I should focus on that one thing and make the buildings strong enough for that."

Oh and the impact of the planes is not what caused the collapse. By any measure they buildings did survive the collision with the plane. After all they were still standing after the collisions so they did survive the collisions. Any other building in NYC would probably have been crippled or had chunks of it falling off the building after the impact. The downfall of each building was the fires in each building that hindered the structural integrity of each building.

**Xavsnipe** · 09-13-11, 03:56 PM

Well they built thinking that a dc10 could hit the tower...and the dc10 is similar to a 767 and, according to the website I posted a few posts back, it could carry more fuel than the 767 carried on that day. If an engineer builds a tower thinking a jet of a certain size could collide with it accidentally, that engineer would also have to assume the jet had fuel in it right? And that fuel would cause a fire and would also interact with office equipment such as chairs, rugs, paper, tables, etc etc. After all, the towers were meant to be office buildings...so wouldn’t it be logical for the engineers to assume they would have office stuff in them? (Again, my tone is completely non asshat, just trying to evacuate doubts I have).