the wtc buildings were a curtain wall design struck by massive planes possessing a large amount of kinetic energy and momentum. never happened before or since
Actually, the WTC Towers were not curtain wall buildings. Curtain walls are, by definition, non load bearing and the WTC tower's facade were load bearing. It the WTC towers did have a typical curtain wall system with interior columns, then the outcome might have been much different. Not that koko would know the difference or anything.
well I would 1 World Trade Center (North Tower) was the tallest building in the world from 1971 to 1973, until surpassed by the Sears Tower (now Willis Tower) in Chicago. Many novel design, engineering and construction techniques were employed for 1 World Trade Center (north tower) and 2 World Trade Center (south tower) which are collectively known as the Twin Towers. Innovations included a then state-of-the-art pressure equalized curtainwall system that dispersed wind load pressures upon the building structure rather than the external cladding, and an anchoring system that attached curtainwall units to the under side of the floor slab. Enclos provided design/build facade services for both the north and south towers, which included two million square feet of curtainwall. The Twin Towers were destroyed in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. http://www.enclos.com/project/world_trade_center_twin_towers/
"baloney, show me one situation where the whole plane went in. well except 911, on 911 they could have flown one into norad. " Ok Empire State Building - 1945 Hit by B 25 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD69sP51u-s 40 sec in - Note large hold torn into building Empire State Building has a masonry facade - 11 in thick limestone slabs One of the motors punched completely through building to land on roof of another building a block away "The crash tore a hole about 18 ft (5.5 m) wide by 20 ft (6 m) tall in the 34th Street exterior of the Empire State Building. While the 78th and 79th floors bore the brunt of the damage, one of the B-25's engines fell down an elevator shaft and set off a major fire in the basement. The other engine hurtled across the building and tore through seven walls before emerging from the 33rd Street side of the tower. The debris crashed through the roof of a thirteen-story building across the street where another fire erupted. Other heavy wreckage, including the landing gear, also caused damage to the Empire State and nearby buildings while Stan Lomax reportedly saw part of a wing catapulting towards Madison Avenue. " Any questions .......
They were far lighter that the wings of a 767 or 757 and masonry is far more crash-resistant than bolted steel. There may have been fuel cells in the wings, but probably not out beyond the engines. I'll have to look for a drawing of that somewhere. Doesn't much matter, though, because the plane was on minimum fuel looking to land.
weight matters a lot. what units would you figger that weight in for proper comparison between different devices?
I'm not a math geek. You need to be able to calculate Joules of energy, based on weight and what the buildings were designed to take. You still lose because one of the designers said that the impact of a 707 would be like poking a pencil through a window screen. We are talking here about a vastrly smaller sum of energy, just based on the size of the aircraft. Wake up.
How the hell do you get a 707 lost in the fog looking for a place to land delivering anything near the energy of a 757 on a kamikaze run?
i always think it is funny when people try and compare the b25 hitting the empire state building and a 757 hitting the twin towers. for some reason they cant understand some basic principles such as the fact that the b25 was low on fuel and going much slower because it was looking to land. vs a plane that had a max speed over 3 times that of the b25 and was nearly full of fuel. a higher octane burning fuel than the b25 used. Basicly it is trying to compare shooting a .22 bullet into a steel plate and then shooting a .50 into a steel plate and say that because the .50 went though the plate and the .22 didn't someone must have changed the plates. after all they are both bullets so they both should have gone though the plates.
actually that little conversation was about the wings going through and they didnt, now you take our super planes of 911 and they clipped off those columns before they even hit and righ6t out to the wing tip. load that in your 20mm. LOL in fact you can see the broken columns all the way up as the wing passes by them! wow that pretty wild you can see the holes form before the plane even impacts the building in those areas. holy hole batman! I wonder what software they used to do that, it sure sux huh! Someone oughta spank mr hezerkhani for doing such (*)(*)(*)(*)ty cgi work
If you try to tell me that they are equivalent, my opinion of your IQ will have to be adjusted sharply downward.
Which incident are you talking about? WTF? Actually, no. We do not see holes forming ahead of impact. We see odd reflections and shadows all over the place and a camera attempting to change focus while the event is in progress.
An empty 707 is thousands of pounds lighter than a 767 and much slower. Thus it is capable of delivering far less terminal energy than a 767. Just about any red neck who reloads his own ammo could figure that out.
Point being made was showing the whack jobs that even a World War 2 aircraft was capable of penetrating a building (or ship) and the level of damage inflicted. The B25 was able to blow a sizeable hole in the masonry facade of the Empire State Building and penetrate deeply into the interior - one of the motors went completely through to land a block away on the roof of another building. The 767 impacting the World Trade Center had over 100 times the energy of the B25 and was capable of inflicting massive damage to the building and it systems
They appear to be using a really loose interpretation of what is and isn't a curtain wall system. By their very definition, a curtain wall does not carry any of the building's dead load, which was not the case in the WTC Towers. For reference: and http://www.wbdg.org/design/env_fenestration_cw.php The facade system for the WTC towers doesn't really hold up to a strict definition of a curtain wall, but I will admit it was a bit of a hybrid system that was very unique, so it's a bit harder to categorize. So I suppose it could be placed under the blanket term of curtain wall due to it's uniqueness. I realize I'm just being nit picky about the term because I, personally, never really considered the WTC to have a true curtain wall system.
