On 06/04/2014 12:58, polygonum wrote: ...
The assumption was that the aircraft would weigh 263,000 lbs, as compared to the 274,000 lbs of the aircraft that hit. However, it was also assumed that any aircraft that hit would be landing at a nearby airport, and would, therefore, be travelling at 180mph. The aircraft that hit the WTC were doing at least 470mph, so would have had a lot more energy.
Colin Bignell
Ah, I see. Thanks. Some deeply questionable assumptions.
Suicide bombers hadn't been invented in the early 1960s :-)
I don't think that aircraft hijackers had been either. Certainly airport security hadn't.
Colin Bignell
Only with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. When the WTC was being built, flying was a luxury that only the rich could afford. The masses, if they travelled, went by train, or, if they were British and brave enough to take a driving holiday in France, had their cars craned on and off a ship to get there.
And people were *amazed* that something the size of a 707 could not only get to the end of the runway, but actually take off..
Tell 'em that within their lifetimes aircraft would be carrying over 500 passengers, each only paying a couple of days wages to fly from London to the Mediterranean, and you'd be laughed at.
When my family needed to travel from South Africa to England in 1962, the ship was by far the cheaper option, and the plane we ended up on took four days to do the trip. The last time I did the trip about 7 years ago, not only did it take a mere 15 hours, it possibly cost less in money terms, never mind real terms, than the flight in 1962 did.
That's the 1950s. WTC was built 1975-1985 according to my source, well after the 747 entered service and Clarksons, Thomson et al were running el-cheapo air holidays to the Med from the mid 1960s
I allowed in my comment that the WTC must have been designed long before it was built. Hence I took the introduction of the 707 as the date for comparison of aircraft weights.
The design was unveiled in 1964, having been a couple of years in development.
Colin Bignell
In the late 1960s I regularly flew between London and Glasgow. The train cost £7 single and took more than 7 hours. For an extra 10 shillings I could fly it in little more than a couple of hours, including check-in and transfers.
Dover installed Ro-Ro loading bridges in 1953.
Colin Bignell
Hardly. My first time taking a car to France was 1967. Ordinary drive on/off ferries. In 1969 I put my car in the Lydd - Le Touquet air ferries a couple of times. Turned out a chap I was at school with was one of the pilots.
How many times did you get diverted by fog to Prestwick?
Likewise. Dan Air from Luton.
Not really. Look on them as a failed experiment in how to build communities. They failed but we learned something from that.
Philip
And some hollywood film sets as fake snow in the 40s
The buildings easily survived the crash. It was the huge fire that did them in.
Philip
That never happened to me. However, even adding on the time to get from Prestwick, it would likely still have been quicker than the train from London.
The only time I have ever flown from Luton we were diverted to Gatwick, because of snow. It got us home earlier, but I did have to go and pick up the car from Luton the next day.
Colin Bignell
Indeed, and, if you can convince a bank that you have a good idea and the ability to turn it into a success, funding shouldn't be a problem. Twice I have borrowed tens of thousands of pounds solely on the basis of my business plan, both at times when banks were supposedly not lending money. If the bank won't lend you money, you really need to think 'what is wrong with this idea?'.
It is also possible to find places that don't ask for those.
afford it.
As I said, if they don't think the business is going to survive six months, they shouldn't be considering the idea. If it is, then there is no financial risk, as the business will cover it.
In any case, if people want a risk-free life, they certainly shouldn't be thinking about going into business for themselves. If you don't think that the risky bits are the most interesting part of running a business, then it is probably not for you.
...
I doubt I am far off on my estimate of the rates payable on office space that is the same area as a converted flat.
....
That is exactly the sort of thing that local authorities have been doing in development areas for decades.
One person for 4,000 businesses? That is less than half an hour per business per annum.
You seem to be assuming that there is a huge reserve of people who want to work for themselves and who are only being held back from doing so by a lack of cheap accommodation. I seriously doubt that. Only three people who have worked for me have ever even wanted to work for themselves. One became a taxi driver part time for several years before branching out full time - he only needed the car. One set herself up as a child minder, which she does from home. The third was my second in command and bought one of my businesses from me when I retired. He currently rents the factory unit from me at a full commercial rent. The rest prefer to work for somebody else and not have the headaches of running their own business.
Colin Bignell
What the f*ck are you on about, waste? They're nearly half a century old, for f*ck's sake, and lasted longer than many other tower blocks. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to live in them, but thousands of families did, over the years, and managed to make a go of it.
You're talking out of your arse, as usual. Glasgow has long had small startup schemes to encourage people to give it a go, offering rent and rate-free premises from the LA.
Andy
Technically, the Luftwaffe had those too, to fly piloted V1s, although they never went into action. However, they weren't a danger to anybody by the 1960s.
Colin Bignell
I flew to New York in a Pan-Am 747 in April 1970. The WTC towers were nearing completion.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.