Comments on: Comments on 17215

Post number 17215

baylink — Fri, 17 May 2002 07:17:14 -0800

Well, well, well... it's amazing the unrelated links Google can turn up when you're careless about your keywords. Looking for the 75th anniversary Hallmark commercial (with all the people on the hillside), got this PDF file [110kb] from a UK insurance actuaries organization about the possible risks at the World Trade Center.

By: ook

ook — Fri, 17 May 2002 07:26:02 -0800

You are going to tell us what keywords you used, right?

By: pracowity

pracowity — Fri, 17 May 2002 07:36:00 -0800

Aircraft Striking a Tower This scenario is with in the realm of the possible, but highly unlikely. In 1946 a military aircraft struck the Empire State Building. Since that time the manner in which aircraft are "controlled" has dramatically changed. In the event such an unlikely occurrence, what might result? The structural designers of the towers have publicly stated that in their opinion that either of the Towers could with stand such an impact from a large modern passenger aircraft. The ensuing fire would damage the "skin", in this scenario, as the spilled fuel would fall to the Plaza level where it would have to be extinguished by the NYC Fire Department. The replacement of the "skin" is estimated at 35% of the building replacement value or $420m. Loss of rents for 1 year or $150m for a total estimate of $600m.

By: bittennails

bittennails — Fri, 17 May 2002 07:47:40 -0800

What, no one has blamed Bush for prior knowledge.

By: Dick Paris

Dick Paris — Fri, 17 May 2002 08:21:15 -0800

Nice calm description of the need to extinguish the jet fuel which falls to the plaza level. Insurance is so cool.

By: DragonBoy

DragonBoy — Fri, 17 May 2002 08:28:06 -0800

The PDF was created on 10/31/2001, after the terrorist attack.

By: schlyer

schlyer — Fri, 17 May 2002 08:32:41 -0800

Maximum Foreesable Loss The 1993 terrorist bombing of the WTC resulted in the maximum foreeable property loss. This event shut Tower 1 down for 6 weeks and Tower 2 down for 4 weeks.

By: bittennails

bittennails — Fri, 17 May 2002 08:36:56 -0800

I was being facetious, but, the while the pdf file may have been created on said date, it must have been written before. If not, the UK insurance actuaries organization are quite stupid.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Fri, 17 May 2002 08:40:34 -0800

Yeah the PDF was create 31 Oct, but it's not so difficult to "touch up" the creation date, so that's meaningless. "Skin" is an interesting concept : the outside structure of the building I think. Probably having no data on how and if a plane could literally enter into the building they just consider that a plane would be smashed in one kazillion pieces, exactly like in thriller b-movies. Oh wait not even such movies ! Guess directors got a clue more then analysts sometime.

By: gohlkus

gohlkus — Fri, 17 May 2002 11:06:41 -0800

"Hallmark" is the 20th word in the first sentence, and "commercial" is the 11th word.... so it makes sense that it would show up in the results of a search for "Hallmark commercial."