Architect Minoru Yamasaki (right) posing with a model of the World Trade Center he designed, 1964 [500x781]

If he had been nevertheless alive for 9/11, which had to possess been a feeling that is terrible viewing one of one's prized tasks become an icon of tragedy and terrorism. He passed away 15 years before 9/11 if anybody ...

This image with the title of "Architect Minoru Yamasaki (right) posing with a model of the World Trade Center he designed, 1964 [500x781]" is one of a large collection of pictures from the category History . We collect quality images, from a social network website

Source: To view the original source also read the full comments of the original poster as well as from other redditor, you can click on the following Link.

Some random comments on reddit about Architect Minoru Yamasaki (right) posing with a model of the World Trade Center he designed, 1964 [500x781]

  • If he was still alive for 9/11, that had to have been a terrible feeling, watching one of your prized projects become a symbol of tragedy and terrorism.
  • He died 15 years before 9/11 if anyone was wondering
  • That's what I came in the comments to find out, thanks.
  • He also designed one of the terminals at Logan International, so he had a double link to 9/11.
  • And he probably has seen the Pentagon before. Coincidence?
  • He was dead at that point, but the lead structural engineer on the WTC, Leslie Robertson is still alive. He was interviewed for a NOVA piece about the WTC collapse and he discussed how they had failed to account for the damage burning fuel would do in the case of a plane colliding with the towers. The episode aired in '02 so he was still very clearly shooken up.
  • To be fair, before 9/11 I don't think it would have been a major concern for an engineer/architect
  • They actually discussed this on NOVA and it was a serious concern in the design to the WTCs. During WW2 the Empire State Building had been hit by a B-25, so they had done quite a bit of modelling to determine if the building could withstand a plane crash. The failed to take into account the heat generated by burning fuel though. Its been a long time since I watched this episode of NOVA, but if I remember correctly Robertson recounts watching the buildings burn and realizing that they had failed to take this into account and realizing that something even more terrible was about to happen.
  • The tests with planes on the WTC were meant to be "lost in the fog" type scenarios. A plane flying at low speeds with low fuel in a holding pattern waiting to land in low visibility conditions. It wasn't for a fully fueled jet hitting it head on at top speeds.
  • Robertson actually discusses this specifically in the episode of NOVA I mentioned. I had to go back and find the transcript because its been so long since I read it, but here's the quote from Robertson: LESLIE ROBERTSON: With the 707, to the best of my knowledge, the fuel load was not considered in the design. Indeed, I don't know how it could have been considered. They go on to discuss how the fuel itself really wasnt the big issue, however. The real issue was that the fuel ignited everything inside the building which then went on to burn super hot. All that office furniture, paperwork, drywall, etc etc Combine this with the debris that knocked fireproofing off of steel beams and destroyed the sprinkler system and collapse is inevitable. There really was no way to model for this at the time.
  • The planes that hit the towers were Boeing 767s, which were larger than 707s and weren't yet developed when the towers were built. Even if they accounted for burning fuel, there is no way they could model large planes yet to be developed.
  • A 707 has four engines, a 767 has two. Four high-speed engines rammining into the Towers would destroy more core columns than a 767. Therefore, you would rather have a 767 crash into your building than a 707. EDIT: It doesn't matter if a 767's engine is heavier, all that is required is that it have enough mass to destroy a column it is colliding with. Four engines would remove more columns than two engines. Removing columns is what compromises the structural integrity.
  • The 767's engines produce 62,000 lbf each for a total of 124,000 lbf. The 767 weighs 400,000 lbs at maximum takeoff. The 707 produces 18,000 lbf per engine resulting in a total of 64,000 lbf. The 707's maximum takeoff weight is 333,600 lbs. The 767 is faster, 528 mph compared to 514 mph of the 707. All of this means that the 767 will hit harder and carry through more of the building before the momentum is absorbed. In other words. Your wrong.
  • Um, no, I'd think the number of engines would be negligible considering the 767s are bigger and heavier.
  • They're so close in size and even fuel capacity that the type of airplane should not have mattered. Unless there was a huge difference in the way either plane distributed it's fuel load. The structure was designed to wuthstand the force. The structural design was not why the WTC fell.
  • It wasn't really that they 'failed to account for' the heat from the fuel. They made an assumption that a plane crashing into the WTC would be coming into land and therefore have mostly empty tanks. The analysis was correct; the assumptions were wrong. This doesn't really matter though. One way or another, the building fell down when they thought they could withstand that. It just reinforces the idea that you should always be clear about what your assumptions are.
  • It's actually kind of impressive. Each one took a fully loaded and fueled 767 hitting it at ludicrous speed and kept standing for over an hour.
  • Read more comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *