Is there any structure on earth which could survive the conditions in WTC 1 & 2?

[Troy wins]

Like what that there title said

Would any structure on earth (especially any built in the past 7 years) be able to survive an impact from a fully laden Boeing 767? And/or would the fire have the same effect it had in the twin towers?

As a follow-up, would there be any structure which could survive (and arrest) 16 storeys falling on it? (I'll be conservative and say 16. WTC2 had something like 32 storeys falling on it, IIRC) I would assume any kind of structure capable of this would have to be shaped like the Great Pyramid, given the increased loading the structure would be required to arrest as collapse progresses.

Discuss

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Easy. A Jesuit priest would have survived this or any other assault.

 

[240-185]

Would any structure on earth (especially any built in the past 7 years) be able to survive an impact from a fully laden Boeing 767?

Yes.

It is built by evaporation of sea water

 

[Troy wins]

Jesuit priest?

I don't follow

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Jesuit priest?

I don't follow

It's been speculated by some purveyors of woo that Jesuit priests are superhuman, even able to withstand a nuclear blast.

I know this is a bit of a non-sequitir but let's face it. Most replies in this subforum are.

 

[nicepants]

Would any structure on earth (especially any built in the past 7 years) be able to survive an impact from a fully laden Boeing 767? And/or would the fire have the same effect it had in the twin towers?

The containment structures built at nuclear power plants in the US are designed to, among other things, protect the reactor from the impact of an airplane or missile. I don't know how big of a plane it would stop.

 

[Bell]

Are tall buildings still constructed the way the WTC was?
Or are all the (post 9/11) modern skyscrapers build with concrete?

 

[geni]

Egyptian pyramids probably would. Building something to withstand those conditions isn't that hard. Just tends to reduce your useful internal volume and cost rather a lot. On the other hand is has been suggested that a more conventional skyscraper design would probably have survived the impact.

 

[Heiwa]

Like what that there title said

Would any structure on earth (especially any built in the past 7 years) be able to survive an impact from a fully laden Boeing 767? And/or would the fire have the same effect it had in the twin towers?

As a follow-up, would there be any structure which could survive (and arrest) 16 storeys falling on it? (I'll be conservative and say 16. WTC2 had something like 32 storeys falling on it, IIRC) I would assume any kind of structure capable of this would have to be shaped like the Great Pyramid, given the increased loading the structure would be required to arrest as collapse progresses.

Discuss

YES - a rigid , i.e. r i g i d, structure would resist a plane crash (the plane would bounce against it) and would also resist fire, i.e. a rigid structure is also fire proof. Nothing can destroy a rigid structure.

Take WTC1! Only the upper part above the plane impact area was rigid. And when the lower part melted away locally, the upper, r i g i d part destroyed it and everything below - except the ground. The WTC1 upper part was just temporarily rigid. When the rigid top of WTC1 contacted ground, it became non-rigid. Same with WTC2.

WTC7 was slightly different. It was just very weak!! By just removing one little piece of a column between two floor (no. 79 between floors 11/13) the whole thing collapsed at free fall speed. Haven't you read the Nist report?

I have written a popular paper for chilldren age <13 years about it. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . If it is too long, try http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm .

 

[dtugg]

YES - a rigid , i.e. r i g i d, structure would resist a plane crash (the plane would bounce against it)

Does this mean that you are a no planer now?

and would also resist fire, i.e. a rigid structure is also fire proof. Nothing can destroy a rigid structure.

So if I say, exploded a nuclear weapon, on a rigid structure, it would not be destroyed?

Are trying to get nominated for the Stundies?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

there was a skyscraper built in philidelphia (or was it pittsburg?) that was built with a steel-reinforced concrete core, specifically designed to withstand precisely what happened to the WTC

 

[Troy wins]

YES - a rigid , i.e. r i g i d, structure would resist a plane crash (the plane would bounce against it) and would also resist fire, i.e. a rigid structure is also fire proof. Nothing can destroy a rigid structure.

Take WTC1! Only the upper part above the plane impact area was rigid. And when the lower part melted away locally, the upper, r i g i d part destroyed it and everything below - except the ground. The WTC1 upper part was just temporarily rigid. When the rigid top of WTC1 contacted ground, it became non-rigid. Same with WTC2.

Maybe if the upper storeys were a solid block of concrete. Of course, this would defeat the purpose of attacking it. Or for that matter, designing or building it.

Isn't life complicated?

 

[Bell]

YES - a rigid , i.e. r i g i d, structure would resist a plane crash (the plane would bounce against it)

I assume you tested this with a paper fold plane thrown against a stack of pizza boxes?

 

[gmanontario]

The containment structures built at nuclear power plants in the US are designed to, among other things, protect the reactor from the impact of an airplane or missile. I don't know how big of a plane it would stop.

The CANDU reactor domes built here in Ontario are made of 6 foot thick triple reinforced seamless concrete.

Any plane in existence now that crashed into one would simply cause a big black smear on the dome that could be washed off with a little Mr Clean and a mop.

The only weapon in existence (aside from nuclear) that could possibly punch through the dome is a bunker buster.

So I have to say yes, there is at least one set of structures that could easily withstand a 767 impact.

Heiwa is a funny guy. I like him and his engineering expertise. The engineering eggheads here at work have posted some of his posts on the bulletin board for people to laugh at.

 

[Mancman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_World_Financial_Center

^ Possibly this. It was designed by Leslie Robertson's company. There's a documentary on the construction, in which he explains the effect 9/11 had on the design of this building.

 

[Troy wins]

What follows on from this is, could you design a highrise (much less a supertall) to withstand a 767 impact?

Keeping in mind you're going to make an incredibly depressing workplace if you encase the thing in a containment dome

edit: Haha...there you go. I clicked 'reply' before mancman posted, honest

 

[Mancman]

Here is said video:

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What follows on from this is, could you design a highrise (much less a supertall) to withstand a 767 impact?

Keeping in mind you're going to make an incredibly depressing workplace if you encase the thing in a containment dome

edit: Haha...there you go. I clicked 'reply' before mancman posted, honest

Well it's entirely possible to design a tall structure to withstand an impact similar to what happened to the twin towers, but such a design would have to consider not only the impact itself, but also post-impact conditions. The towers demonstrated one thing; that a sufficient design could remain with enough integrity to continue standing from an impact providing secondary effects can be sufficiently reduced before they become a problem for the remaining integrity.

 

[Heiwa]

So if I say, exploded a nuclear weapon, on a rigid structure, it would not be destroyed?

Well, if you have a nuke in your wardrobe and want to destroy a rigid structure with it, have a try. The rigid structure is indestructible (by definition) and thus remains intact. That's why NIST, Bazant, Seffen & Co assume WTC1/2 upper parts are rigid in their various (NWO) theories of the collapses of the structure below.

 

[dtugg]

Well, if you have a nuke in your wardrobe and want to destroy a rigid structure with it, have a try. The rigid structure is indestructible (by definition) and thus remains intact. That's why NIST, Bazant, Seffen & Co assume WTC1/2 upper parts are rigid in their various (NWO) theories of the collapses of the structure below.

So if a rigid structure is indestructible, meaning it cannot be destroyed using any means whatsoever, how was the WTC destroyed?

Seriously, are you actually crazy or are you pulling our legs?