Military C-130 Hercules plane crashed into tower block in Iran NO COLLAPSE !

digme

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZKf0s4aqkU

Mike...

Iran now have or had a Military C-130 Hercules...thats news to me

digme

Sorry Mike I'm not quite following you.

RoboClam

How do you even know a plane hit it?

digme

The plan was on the ground in the video?It was on national news over there? Are you two lads taking the piss ?

squod

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article749268.ece

No mention of the adjacent office block falling over at free fall speeds either.

gizmo

A couple of simple facts before people get carried away...

The C-130 has an empty weight of 75,800lbs.
The Boeing 767 has an empty weight of between 176,650 and 229,000lbs depending on the specific class.

The C-130 has a cruise speed of 292kn and a max speed of 320kn.
The Boeing 767 has a cruise speed of 470kn and a max speed of 493kn.

The C-130 in this tragic accident was attempting to land and would therefore have been traveling at a far slower rate than the 767s which crashed into the WTC.

Simple physics shows that the two events cannot be compared directly.

squod

Someone needs to remind gizmo of the internal structure of both WTC buildings.

RoboClam

Was there any videos of the plane hitting the building? Perhaps the parts of the plane in the video were planted there.

Seriously though, what is your point? It's a totally different kind of building structurally to the WTC. It's an apartment building and not a massive office block.

gizmo

The building is, of course, the unknown at this point. But the above stats were just to stop the comparisons in the context of the planes themselves.

Yitzhak Rabin

Awful tragedy. I feel so sorry for the victims, horrible way to go.

But as for why the building didn't collapse, I'd say there are dozens of reasons.

One or two off the top of my head;

-C-130 is a prop engine plane. Much slower than a jet engine.

-Pilot would have been trying to avoid a crash, and reducing speed, not smashing into the building at the highest speed possible.

-Looks to be a much different structure. Rather than tall and thin, with huge weight bearing down, it looks to be short and robust?

Perhaps paddyirishman would be able to lend his expertise in assessing it later.

RoboClam

gizmo wrote: »

The building is, of course, the unknown at this point. But the above stats were just to stop the comparisons in the context of the planes themselves.

It's probably still fair to say that this building isn't 110 floors and isn't constructed in the same way as the WTC.

Captain Chaos

Still the plane was full of fuel, it just took off. And yet the burning aviation fuel did not cause the building to fail, amazing.:rolleyes:

espinolman

I have an idea , build a tower the same as the twin towers world trade centre , build it the same way , then fly a plane by remote control into it , and see what happens , if it collapses .

Mike...

digme wrote: »

Sorry Mike I'm not quite following you.

Looked on wikipedia there and they do have one, sorry man was sure it was a misprint

Divorce Referendum

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Still the plane was full of fuel, it just took off. And yet the burning aviation fuel did not cause the building to fail, amazing.:rolleyes:

My powers of detection from that limited footage is that it was a pre-cast concrete structure. Are you suggesting a comparison to the WTC......steel?

Divorce Referendum

This quote is also interesting from the times article:

It went into the ground very fast, very close to the building," said 30-year-old Mohammad Rasooli, a local resident. "

Seems it might actually hit the ground first.

meglome

So let's see...

A reinforced concrete building not steel.
Way smaller than the twin towers
Plane moving way slower
Smaller plane
Less fuel
Not intentionally hit
may not have hit the building directly

So if you're telling me apples and oranges are different then yes they are.

Captain Chaos

meglome wrote: »

So let's see...

A reinforced concrete building not steel.
Way smaller than the twin towers
Plane moving way slower
Smaller plane
Less Fuel
Not intentionally hit
may not have hit the building directly

So if you're telling me apples and oranges are different then yes they are.

Actually almost identical fuel levels of the first 767-200 crash and a fully fueled C-130 at takeoff. Both around 9,500 US gallons.

The 767-200 that hit first had around the same fuel load at the time as the fully fueled up '130 at takeoff.

The 767-200ER, the second to hit, had more on board, yes.

Divorce Referendum

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Actually almost identical fuel levels of the first 767-200 crash and a fully fueled C-130 at takeoff. Both around 9,500 US gallons.

The 767-200 that hit first had around the same fuel load at the time as the fully fueled up '130 at takeoff.

The 767-200ER, the second to hit, had more on board, yes.

And the fuel did what exactly?

Captain Chaos

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

And the fuel did what exactly?

Melted the steel in the WTC causing the twin towers to collapse but in Iran the burning fuel did not manage to melt the steel rods and beams encased in the concrete (like the WTC had) of that building to cause it to collapse. But WTC7 did collapse due to fire damaged cause by the twins falling around them, managing to burn the same temperature to melt the support columns of steel encased concrete without the aviation fuel getting near it. These things happens it seems.

Granted the C-130 did not actually penetrate the building like the 767s did to the WTC but it still managed to set fire to it by hitting it and spilling it wings and two external tanks of fuel all over it and the surrounding area.

Divorce Referendum

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Melted the steel in the WTC causing the twin towers to collapse but in Iran the burning fuel did not manage to melt the steel rods and beams encased in the concrete like the WTC of that building to cause it to collapse.

Granted the C-130 did not actually penetrate the building like the 767s did to the WTC but it still managed to set fire to it by hitting it and spilling it wings and two external tanks of fuel all over it and the surrounding area.

The building in Iran was a precast concrete building which means it will have steel reinforcement contained in the concrete thats all. No steel beams at all juding by the span and building size. The world trade centre had steel columns along the perimeter and core with trusses offering rigidity and holding up the concrete floors. This steel had 2 hour fire protection coated on.

Steel encased in concrete offers the best fire protection and does not fall off like some fireproof coating. This wasnt used in the WTC as its to expensive/time consuming.

Captain Chaos

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

This wasnt used in the WTC as its to expensive/time consuming.

This I did not know. I can understand the cost and time reason for not doing it but, wow, the fact that they didn't for a building that size, that supposedly by it's designers was ment to be able withstand a hit from a fully loaded B707 (at what speed I don't know).

That's a lot of faith, and hope I think to cover themselves put into the fireproofing material.

Divorce Referendum

Captain Chaos wrote: »

This I did not know. I can understand the cost and time reason for not doing it but, wow, the fact that they didn't for a building that size, that supposedly by it's designers was ment to be able withstand a hit from a fully loaded B707 (at what speed I don't know).

That's a lot of faith, and hope I think to cover themselves put into the fireproofing material.

Thts fair enough mate I thought you did . See thats the thing it was designed to withstand the impact of the smaller 707 and to be fair it did just that with it larger cousin, it survived the impact. After the impact then its down to how the building performs with the fire. The yield strength of steel at 550C is about half. I believe that the fire weakened the steel trusses to cause failure of floors which put additional weight of the structure below. This coupled with the damage of the perimiter and core columns from the plane brought it down. Here is a pic of the perimiter structure during construction.





These buildings were extremly strong but fire is a weak point that cant be completely eliminated in steel structures.

Dave!

No sign of the OP, hit and run maybe? Or maybe he'll come back in and concede all of the points that have been made.

I won't hold my breath!

digme

Dave! wrote: »

No sign of the OP, hit and run maybe? Or maybe he'll come back in and concede all of the points that have been made.

I won't hold my breath!

im here davey boy

Dave!

Great!

Given the points that have been made in this thread regarding the vastly different size/weight/speed/etc of the aircrafts, don't you think that this thread is just a bit silly and serves no purpose other than to make the usual 'troofers' salivate? You're not comparing like with like?

bonkey

[QUOTE=Captain Chaos;68379371that supposedly by it's designers was ment to be able withstand a hit from a fully loaded B707 (at what speed I don't know).[/QUOTE]

There seems to be an amount of uncertainty about the exact details in that regard.

What seems to be agreed is that the designers verified (by calculation) that their design would be capable of withstanding an impact from a 707, based on assumptions similar to what happened when a plane crashed into the ESB....i.e. low on fuel, lost in low-visibility, looking for landing.

Either which way, its somewhat of a strawman. Both of the WTCs withstood the impacts from planes.....whether by design, over-engineering, or luck. What they did not withstand according to the NIST report was the combination of the structural damage incurred by the impacts, and the resulting fires. Alternately, if you're a believer in the controlled-demolition conspiracy, they withstood the impact of planes, but did not withstand the following use of explosives / thermal cutting charges / directed energy beam weapons.

We should be able to accept - pretty-much with certainty -- that the designers of WTC 1 and 2 did not include the resulting fires in their calculations, for the very simple reason that the computer-modelling of fire was insufficiently advanced at the time to enable meaningful design-verification, nor did the computing power exist to process such a model even were one made.

Of course, one could argue that "maybe" they did some actual tests....y'know...built a couple of floors somewhere, and then burned it down. Unfortunately, there's no record of them doing this anywhere, and AFAIR one of the people involved in the design has gone on record as saying that they only considered the impact....their aim was to show that the building would stay standing long enough to evacuate...and that the building performance on September 11, 2001 far exceeded any design expectations.

squod

bonkey wrote: »

We should be able to accept - pretty-much with certainty -- that the designers of WTC 1 and 2 did not include the resulting fires in their calculations, f

We should be able to accept - pretty-much with certainty -- that the designers of WTC 1 and 2 did not factor the use of thermite (or something similar) to cause a controlled demolition.

seamus

Looking at the first ten seconds of the video, it's very clear that the ground took the bulk of the impact. There is some minor structural damage to the building on the ground floor - no doubt cause by the secondary impact from the aircarft - but no damage above that except for the fire.

"Plane crashes into tower block" is a much more fun headline than "Plane crashes near tower block" though. I would have thought that CT of all places would learn to be wary of media headlines.

Penn

Sorry, phone is acting mental today. I'll try post this again

You cannot compare steel frame to reinforced concrete in this regard