low tech, high concept

[Ken Brown]

Reese wrote:
> 
> For those who prattle about massive planning for this attack on those
> Way Too Crumbly buildings:
> 
> <fwd>
> 
> Low tech High concept attack.  You could use Microsoft Flight sim 2 to learn
> how to fly a 767.  I have a plastic knife made by Glock that is very sharp.
> You could use the internet and Travelocity .com to book the appropriately
> flights.  I think that it was executed very well.  My hats off to who ever
> did this, but in my other hand is my 1911.
> 
> </fwd>
> 
> There is one brain behind all this.  Find it and barbecue it on skewers,
> along with whoever and whatever fosters its existence.

Someone in Another Place posted this link: 

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/336291/

Ken Brown



apparently posted on 2000.11.30:

"When the two towers that make up the World Trade Center were built,
they were designed to withstand the impact of the largest airliner of
the day, the Boeing 707 Intercontinental. The Empire State Building
survived a B-25 medium bomber crashing into it on very foggy day. It was
during the weekend when most people weren't there, but still, 14 people
died. Anyone wanna bet that the World Trade Center could survive an
767-300 impact?"

and follow-up thread including stuff like:

"if a 707 or a 757 slammed into the World Trade Center, it might be much
more damaging than the case of the B-25 bomber that crashed into the
Empire State Building. 

For one thing, unlike the Empire State Building, which has more heavy
concrete, the World Trade Center is made more of steel and glass - this
may mean far greater structural damage due to the impact and flying
glass shards and debris raining down on the people below. There could be
a possibility of toppling if the 707 or the 757 came in at a high enough
speed. Both of these planes arelarger and heavier than a B-25 bomber, so
this means a greater force of impact. I'm no expert on building
structure or air crashes, but it would no doubt be far worse than the
Empire State Building disaster. 

It is very doubtful any passengers or crew would have survived such a
grim scenario. Also, there are probably more people per floor in the
World Trade Center compared to the Empire State Building, so casualties
in the building will likely be much higher.  

However, I wouldn't be surprised if the authorities would have a strict
exclusion zone preventing any large airplanes, especially commercial
airliners, from getting too close to Manhattan, so that there would be
no repeat of the Empire State Building crash. 

Other large buildings have been crashed into by large airliners, like
the El Al 747-200F that crashed into an apartment complex in Amsterdam
several years ago. 

There was a small Cessna plane that crashed into a hospital in Edmonton,
the city where I live. This was in the early 1980s, and did prompt fears
about larger planes crashing right in the middle of Edmonton. The
hospital sits right underneath the approach path to the City Centre
Airport. It was quoted in the news by a member of the city council that
"one day a 737 will slam into the hospital, and that will be it". 

Edmonton City Centre Airport (formerly the Municipal Airport) did used
to have quite a few 737s and BAe 146s flying in and out of there until
1995, when it was closed to most scheduled flights. This airport sits
only a few kilometres north of downtown Edmonton, so it is well within
the built up areas.  

There are risks when you have an airport like Kai Tak(now closed) or
Love Field in Dallas, TX served by larger airliners the size of a 737 or
larger and sitting well within an urban area. Believe me, it's amazing
that Kai Tak has never had a disaster like that, considering that Hong
Kong has so many skyscrapers so near the airport - and that Hong Kong is
one of the most densely populated cities in the world. "