PDA

View Full Version : Would a Boeing hitting the Eiffel Tower bring it down?



wd40
2010-Oct-13, 01:05 AM
The Eiffel Tower is considerable less of a steel skeleton than that which made the core of the Twin Towers, and is constructed of inferior grade metal. Would a fully fuelled Boeing 767 directly impacting the Eiffel Tower bring it down like the WTC?

http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/1ds-4/eiffel-tower-from-below.jpg

Agemegos
2010-Oct-13, 01:26 AM
Very likely not. The WTC towers were not brought down by the impact of the aircraft, they collapsed under their own weight because the fires that were started by the crashes burned long enough and hot enough to weaken the structure. The Eiffel Tower lacks floors and a skin wall to confine the heat and burning material (also, it contains less fuel, and it carries less of a load). So if someone were to crash an aircraft into the Eiffel tower they would spread wreckage and burning fuel around the Champs de Mars, but not produce a hot sustained fire in the structure of the tower. Fuel and burning material would fall out. There would not be a structural failure at mid-level, and the lower structure would not be crushed by the upper structure and its load falling through.

I guess it be be possible that the impact could sever some important structural members in the upper tower, and that the structure above that level might fall over and damage the lower structure. But I guess not. You would have to ask a well-informed engineer. In any case the proximate cause and the process of the collapse would not be closely analogous to the fire in and collapse of the WTC towers.

wd40
2010-Oct-13, 03:13 AM
Would an identical hit on eg the Wells Fargo Plaza

http://www.houstonarchitecture.com/HAI/Images/Buildings/1/WellsFargoBankPlaza-Jan08-012a.jpg

also be expected to bring it down?

Ara Pacis
2010-Oct-13, 03:43 AM
There are some experts on this at the FBI that you might want to talk to.

wd40
2010-Oct-13, 03:51 AM
Didn't Osama bin Laden gleefully exult that the total bringing down of both towers confirmed that his "Al Qaeda engineers" had got their 'building calculations' correct, right down to which was the optimal floor to impact?

The cunning, ruthlessness, patience, research, intelligence, motivation, attention to detail, intrepidity and murderous evil of those that successfully pulled off 9/11 is remarkable in history.

http://boortz.com/images/911_hijackers.jpg

Agemegos
2010-Oct-13, 04:04 AM
Would an identical hit on eg the Wells Fargo Plaza also be expected to bring it down?

I'm not sure. What's the structure of the Wells Fargo Plaza? Is its overdesign factor greater than the factor by which its structure would lose compressive strength if heated by burning jet fuel &c? How well are its structural members protected from heat? It might be expensive, but I think a building could be built with a large enough margin of structure strength that its frame would survive such a fire.

I think that few if any tall buildings are actually built to withstand having big fire burning for hours in the low to middle levels. They are built to hold up during fires, but not the large, intense and prolonged fires that you get by spreading a plane-load of jet fuel right across the structure at several adjacent floors and setting it all alight. So I guess that if you rammed a well-fuelled big jet into any tall building, high enough up that the fire department couldn't put it out, but still with plenty of building above the fire to overwhelm the diminished and weakened structure, then the building would collapse as the WTC towers did. But you can't take my guess to the bank.

CJSF
2010-Oct-13, 04:51 AM
I thought I read that the collapse of the towers was and unanticipated "bonus" from their point of view... but if info came to light after that, I likely missed or forgot it.

CJSF

wd40
2010-Oct-13, 10:31 AM
At the time, the Canadian engineers who built London's Canary Wharf, said that the same hits on any of their buildings would not have collapsed them

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/730CanaryWharf,Sunset2012_pic1.jpg

Are they constructed better than the WTC was?

Conspiracy theories aside, if NYC had wanted to perform controlled demolitions on both Towers, could they have done a better job? How would the explosives engineers have gone about rigging a controlled demolition on a structure with so many redundant members?

http://www.picassodreams.com/.a/6a00d83455ad0369e201053566d3df970b-800wi

Why is it that not even a fragment of either WTC steel cores survived, unlike the Madrid fire?

http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter/Madrid9.jpg

Strange
2010-Oct-13, 11:01 AM
The cunning, ruthlessness, patience, research, intelligence, motivation, attention to detail, intrepidity and murderous evil of those that successfully pulled off 9/11 is remarkable in history.

That is certainly true relative to the attempts by the clowns more recently: one idiot sets himself on fire at Glasgow airport; another fool sets his underpants on fire on a plane; and so on. Terror? Terribly incompetent more like.

Strange
2010-Oct-13, 11:02 AM
Conspiracy theories aside,

Really?

Swift
2010-Oct-13, 12:53 PM
The cunning, ruthlessness, patience, research, intelligence, motivation, attention to detail, intrepidity and murderous evil of those that successfully pulled off 9/11 is remarkable in history.
wd40,

I'm not quite sure what the intent of this thread is, but given the post I've quoted, I am not very convinced it has anything to do with Science & Technology. It is starting to sound like something much closer to politics. And the topic of the 9/11 Conspiracy is a topic that is not to be discussed on BAUT (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/52887-New-Change-for-Conspiracy-Theory-section-only-space-and-astronomy).

You also post a lot of pictures in your posts. It is much better that you post links to the pictures, because of copyright and bandwidth issues.

I am closing this thread. If you would like to try to convince the moderators to reopen it, report this post.