Thread: So, terrorists?

Originally Posted by DuDDy

Why in a pre 9/11 world would anyone think that an airplane could be used as a weapon in the air. You are assuming that they thought like we do now. Big difference is that 9/11 did not happen yet and was just another date in the 60's.

Because they had survived, or read about, the pacific war with the Japanese?

Because they had read any of many novels that depicted such a thing (ex: Tom Clancy's 1994 novel "Debt of Honor". There are many others)?

Because they had read any of a number of articles on terrorism that suggested the possibility (this was how I first heard about it, in the late 80s)?

Not everyone was shocked on 9/12/2001. I had met, more than 10 years previously, people who said that it was only a matter of time.

That said, DuDDy, I agree with you that if you're the design lead on a construction project in the late 60s it's completely unreasonable to limit yourself to only building things which can survive an intentional impact from a 747 (or L1011, or DC-10, or whatever) executed to inflict maximum damage. You can't design that way. In the present day, there's a non-zero probability that some group of determined, well-funded, nutjobs will detonate a nuclear device somewhere. That doesn't mean we should only build things which can survive something like that.

Of course they considered what would happen if a plane hit the WTC. There was already a history of planes hitting buildings in Manhattan. LaGuardia is really close to Manhattan. A freakin' bomber crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945. I have no idea how much they thought about it, but it certainly came up.

If you're going to think about it, I don't know why you'd only think about planes with only a little fuel. Seems to me like pretty much half the planes flying in the airspace around those three major airports would have a lot of fuel on board.

Cheers (no, really),


AetheLove

Originally Posted by AetheLove

Because they had survived, or read about, the pacific war with the Japanese?

Because they had read any of many novels that depicted such a thing (ex: Tom Clancy's 1994 novel "Debt of Honor". There are many others)?

Because they had read any of a number of articles on terrorism that suggested the possibility (this was how I first heard about it, in the late 80s)?

Not everyone was shocked on 9/12/2001. I had met, more than 10 years previously, people who said that it was only a matter of time.

That said, DuDDy, I agree with you that if you're the design lead on a construction project in the late 60s it's completely unreasonable to limit yourself to only building things which can survive an intentional impact from a 747 (or L1011, or DC-10, or whatever) executed to inflict maximum damage. You can't design that way. In the present day, there's a non-zero probability that some group of determined, well-funded, nutjobs will detonate a nuclear device somewhere. That doesn't mean we should only build things which can survive something like that.

Of course they considered what would happen if a plane hit the WTC. There was already a history of planes hitting buildings in Manhattan. LaGuardia is really close to Manhattan. A freakin' bomber crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945. I have no idea how much they thought about it, but it certainly came up.

If you're going to think about it, I don't know why you'd only think about planes with only a little fuel. Seems to me like pretty much half the planes flying in the airspace around those three major airports would have a lot of fuel on board.

Cheers (no, really),


AetheLove

Come on Love your reaching. The pacific war didn't have a single passenger airliner slammed into a building. Sure some naval vessels but not really remotely close match.

You really think we should take novels into consideration when designing buildings? Im curious as to how it should be designed to avoid issues from The Thing by John Carpenter.

Anything you can come with from the 80's you have to take into consideration 2 decades earlier is when the buildings were designed.

I doubt any of those people did not sit in disbelief as it was happenig. I thought it was a good possibility prior to but was in complete disbelief when i watched the second plane hit the second tower.

The reason you would think of impacts by planes with only a little fuel is easy. 9 times out of 10 its always going to be a small plane that hits a building. Which means only a little bit of fuel. The other plane might be a passenger liner but aside from this instance i cant think of one time a plane of this size hit a building loaded with fuel. Its always at the end of the trip it happens. Which once again means a little bit of fuel.

In the 60's there was 0 consideration for a cross country passenger plane being hijacked just after take off and slammed into a building. People did not think that way back then. That is a new concept for most and realistically we cant construct buildings for that kind of impact yet.

On the ground sure but 50 floors up hell no. The construction has changed since the 60's and 70's but not that damn much. Its still going to be high density reenforced concrete for the columns and light weight concrete for the floors. One way or another if you slam a 747 full of fuel into a skyscraper its coming down.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Come on Love your reaching. The pacific war didn't have a single passenger airliner slammed into a building. Sure some naval vessels but not really remotely close match.

You really think we should take novels into consideration when designing buildings? Im curious as to how it should be designed to avoid issues from The Thing by John Carpenter.

I was responding to DuDDy's "in a pre 9/11 world" thoughts. That phrase hits me close to home in more ways than one. He asked why, "in a pre 9/11 world", anyone would think of using an airplane as a weapon. I tried to offer examples of why someone might, and also examples of people who did.

I wasn't trying to say that building designers in the 60s should have been thinking about what IR professors and terrorism researchers were going to be writing about in the 80s (even if they did have time machines); and I wasn't suggesting that every lunatic movie-plot scenario should figure prominently in building design.

I was saying the opposite.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I doubt any of those people did not sit in disbelief as it was happenig.

Then you have no idea how they look at the world.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

The reason you would think of impacts by planes with only a little fuel is easy. 9 times out of 10 its always going to be a small plane that hits a building.

That's a good point. Many planes are small. There are also examples of small planes crashing into buildings in Manhattan.

Cheers,


AetheLove

From what I’ve read, the structural engineers designed the towers to withstand the impact of a dc10 or a boeing 707 which are similar in size to the 767 yet the dc10 is faster and with more fuel capacity. From what I’ve read, the 767’s that flew into the WTC had about 10,000 gallons of fuel, at about half its maximum fuel capacity. Some of this is supported by what Leslie Robertson and John Skilling (structural engineers WTC) have said about the WTC towers.

Mcveigh didn't blow himself up. His life ended with a needle and him strapped to a table.

To your point of people in the 80's thinking about this type of scenario. What is your point? Its 15 years after the buildings were up. Yes people thought of this before but there was no knowledge or model of the likelyhood of it ever occuring. We have plenty of things that people have thought about that could happen. Yet no one takes it serious because the odds of it happening are to say the least remote.

I know your not suggesting taking into account a fully fueled plane hit a building thats in its design phase but that is essentially what the end of your arguement is. Yes planes hit buildings and no one disagrees with that. However very seldom is it a plane of this size and only 3 have been loaded will fuel. Sooner or later the sun will super nova and people have thought about and discussed it but that doesn't mean you can actually plan for it.

Maybe i just dont get what the point of your arguement is but a few people having an idea that a plane might be flown purposefully into a building doesn't mean there is a reason to start considering our construction techniques. You build for what is probable and to a degree what is improbable. You do not build for what is most likely never going to happen.

As an example every decent size floor has what are called saw joint cut into. 99 times out a 100 a floor fuy will not fill these joint with feather finish concrete. The reason for that is they are 1/4 or smaller and most flooring will go over it without an issue. However i can think of 1 time in 15 years of flooring which consist of thousands of jobs just by me much less the other jobs i know of with the hundreds of installers i've known. You cant expect a 300 lbs women in 6 in stilettos punching thru carpet tile directly above that joint.

Personally i fill saw joints but im a rarity and i still cant blame the installer for it. The odds of fining a cut 1/4 in wide with a 1/4 in spike under the weight of a manatee in a building with 50,000 sq ft is atronomical. Granted this is something that could have been easily resolved before something happened but those are the same kind of odds your looking at with this situation.

Even after it happened you do not change your building techniques because of a 1 time deal. That building did its job beyond expectation. There is no taking into account a fully fueled passenger aircraft. The damge from the fire alone will bring any building down. Much less trying to take into account a plane that weighs in at 833,000 lbs.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Mcveigh didn't blow himself up. His life ended with a needle and him strapped to a table.

Yeah, I was thinking about suicide attacks generally and fumbled the McVeigh thing. Brain fart. Thanks for pointing it out. I edited the post.

I'll likely respond to the rest of it later, but internet drama isn't very productive and there are real things to take care of today.

Cheers,


AetheLove

I mean seriously do the math for a minute. In 2000 there were 18 million flights world wide. That means in the year prior there was a .0000016% chance of this happening. Ground breaking for the WTC was in 1966. In that time from 1966 to the early morning of Sep. 11, 2001 this had not happened not 1 single time. That makes the percentage not even fathomable. It simple is not something that would have ever been taken into consideration.