WTC: Were the buildings up to code?

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
What do you mean then? Build some buildings and try to push them over?

And isn't it pretty obvious by looking at it? You could do the math, but it does not really seem needed. It's just torque. The long spans are, well, longer, so when a turning force is applied to them there's huge torque on the connections and then the connection break. The building is also a lot bigger than the small examples you show, so that also results in way more force.

And with the WTC compared to your toppling buildings, it's more like this:
So you are saying the resulting torque at impact of the falling 15 stories twisted all 95 floors of independently bolted gutters/support columns either all at once or perfectly, one at a time, to result in a near perfect symmetrical descent??
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So you are saying the resulting torque at impact of the falling 15 stories twisted all 95 floors of independently bolted gutters/support columns either all at once or perfectly, one at a time, to result in a near perfect symmetrical descent??
No. I'm saying it's impossible for a building like WTC1,2 or 7 to topple over.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Yes - people look at a building and think it is like a plank of wood - tip over a plank that is sitting on its end and it topples.

but to ge that toppling you need 2 things - it has to topple over far enough so that the centre of gravity is no longer above the original "footprint" of the building on hte ground, AND - and most importantly - it has to stay together as a unitary structure.

But tip over a building and the internal structure gives way usually long before the CoG is outside the footprint. And if the CoG does get outside the footprint then the structural integrity usualy fails shortly after.

And as soon as the structural integrity fails the components stop "toppling" and fall vertically - retaining the initial sideways velocity they have gained from toppling - regardless of where the CoG is.

You can see this happening in some chimney demolitions - especially brick ones - the chimney topples, then the brickwork breaks up and is all collapses. Here's an example - albeit hte view is foreshortened and it doesn't collapse quite as vertically as it seems but it clearly does break up and stop toppling:

 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No. I'm saying it's impossible for a building like WTC1,2 or 7 to topple over.
That is the first time I have heard that . . . you may be correct . . . but do you have structural engineers, architects, demolition experts testifying to that opinion?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes - people look at a building and think it is like a plank of wood - tip over a plank that is sitting on its end and it topples.

but to ge that toppling you need 2 things - it has to topple over far enough so that the centre of gravity is no longer above the original "footprint" of the building on hte ground, AND - and most importantly - it has to stay together as a unitary structure.

But tip over a building and the internal structure gives way usually long before the CoG is outside the footprint. And if the CoG does get outside the footprint then the structural integrity usualy fails shortly after.

And as soon as the structural integrity fails the components stop "toppling" and fall vertically - retaining the initial sideways velocity they have gained from toppling - regardless of where the CoG is.

You can see this happening in some chimney demolitions - especially brick ones - the chimney topples, then the brickwork breaks up and is all collapses. Here's an example - albeit hte view is foreshortened and it doesn't collapse quite as vertically as it seems but it clearly does break up and stop toppling:

I See your chimney and will raise you two . . . chimney poker. . . LoL!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FAVG1AaZ98&sns=em

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa2ddHX05Hc&sns=em

Here is an all brick one . . .
http://englishrussia.com/2008/09/23/pipes-collapsed/
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
So you would consider this to be conclusive proof of controlled demolition then?
Oy, you! Turn that phone OFF for once (feel the love!)! I thought you were off to superbowl, you tart!....watch out for pyramids with thirteen steps.....

No, I certainly wouldn't consider it conclusive proof of anything, as you know.

Enjoy the game! x
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
So Lee . . . you agree the (unless you have a better name) Crush Rate would exceed 44 seconds??
Funny we both chose the same quote! ^^^^^ Mick, have a night off, mate!

Of course. But beware of such phrases as 'crush rate' - that could prove misleading in retrospect.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Oy, you! Turn that phone OFF for once (feel the love!)! I thought you were off to superbowl, you tart!....watch out for pyramids with thirteen steps.....

No, I certainly wouldn't consider it conclusive proof of anything, as you know.

Enjoy the game! x
Thanks, we are not actually there yet, just about to pop over.

Hows about conclusive proof of it not being gravity driven collapse?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Funny we both chose the same quote! ^^^^^ Mick, have a night off, mate!

Of course. But beware of such phrases as 'crush rate' - that could prove misleading in retrospect.
I am off to a game party . . . have a good evening Lee!!!! You too Mick have some fun!!
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Note that at least the 2nd one there - the Steetly chimney in Hartpool - was reinforced concrete - so it is not surprising it didn't fall apart.

And indeed it IS possible for buildings to collapse sideways without disintigrating - time frame and construction are the main criteria I think - shorter buildings take less time to fall and so may not have time to break apart, and concrete ones may hold together better for a while than steel ones where the load is all on bolts and welds.

Here's a great example of both aspects combining:



with explainations of how and why here


good shot - you can see the bricks "letting go hands" in a few places.
 

Joe

Senior Member
From what I've read, the buildings were all reeking of asbestos... not sure if it's important to this discussion, though.
Yes they were and my brother in law is paying the price . They lied and told them all it was safe . Retired+911+cop+told+to+take+down+flag.jpg
 

Joe

Senior Member
Sorry for your brother in law . . . seems there is other evidence that rescue workers have had increased health problems as compared to the average . . . if so . . . what else have they been wrong about????
Well he is still alive but barely . Iv never asked him what he saw being he was there at the time of the collapse . and afetrwards at the cleanup . [h=1]World Trade Center Rescue Workers Believed EPA, Ended Up Sick http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/ground-zero-air-pollution.html[/h]
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Well he is still alive but barely . Iv never asked him what he saw being he was there at the time of the collapse . and afetrwards at the cleanup . World Trade Center Rescue Workers Believed EPA, Ended Up Sick http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/ground-zero-air-pollution.html
Interesting they are claiming no greater health risks for first responders and residents. As usual, claims and counter claims... no wonder people are confused and suspicious.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/18/news/la-heb-world-trade-center-cancer-risk-20121218

 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Anyone heard of this theory? I find it very fascinating =)

Yes, but many and I think it would be impossible not to have detected radiation and seismic signatures appropriate for such massive underground detonations . . . still fascinating. . . .
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
The vet school at the U of Penn has been doing a health study of the search and rescue dogs that worked the WTC site. Their study did not find any increased health issues with the dogs. The dogs may not have spent as many hours as the first responders did, some were already in middle age, so there wasn't time for them to develop cancer and dogs many respond differently to cancer inducers.

Most of the dogs worked until a normal retirement age. I think that the last one was retired within the last year. At least one of them was killed by a criminal he was chasing

I still find it interesting.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Aha:

http://www.astaneh.net/#

Nothing illegal. But he's criticizing what was done.

Another description of the lecture.
http://www.euken.com/group/seaoc/mailarchive/2009c/msg01241.html
Reposting from other thread as it as it belongs here as well.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChange...pic/3873416/1/
Content from external source:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
My interpretation of the above post is that despite all the retro analysis and theories as to why the towers came down and all the claims that 'you cannot compare the Empire State crash', 'the towers were only designed to withstand a lighter aircraft only lost in fog and travelling at 200mph with a low fuel cargo and the 'pancake' progressive collapse theories etc... it is all BUNK and DISPROVED.

All these factors were looked at extensively by the highest calibre architects and structural engineers:

1. A structural analysis was carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson and is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1,200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 - DC 8) travelling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.
It was even calculated that the towers would stand if a local PARTIAL COLLAPSE resulted from an impact such as occurred on 9/11 and naturally the effect of fire weakening and expanding the steel was factored in. As was the dissipation of the heat through the conductive properties of the steel.

 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Here are the actual figures. . . .707-320 and 767-200 next

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But the buildings DID survive the plane impacts, just as expected.

It was the fire that caused the collapse.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
But the buildings DID survive the plane impacts, just as expected.

It was the fire that caused the collapse.
It was designed to survive a plane impact and the resultant fire from fully fueled aircraft.

We did not witness a partial collapse or even a series of partial collapses... we witnessed a total collapse at near free fall speed virtually in it's own footprint. This should not have happened.



It was clearly engineered to withstand a partial collapse even. i.e. a massive chunk out of the building and still it should stand...


We are not even talking about one fluke... three total collapses in hours...

Are you seriously suggesting that the top people in their field would design and engineer these buildings to withstand a fully fueled jet crash and fail to take into account there may be a fire? I think that would be classified as gross professional negligence and I do not believe they were guilty of that.

Planning to withstand such a crash would encompass the event and the consequences or else it would be pointless to bother engineering against the event.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Perhaps someone though a fire would only lead to partial collapse, but they were wrong. There WAS a partial collapse in both cases, but partial collapse quickly led to global failure.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Perhaps someone though a fire would only lead to partial collapse, but they were wrong. There WAS a partial collapse in both cases, but partial collapse quickly led to global failure.
Ok, we have moved from, no one envisaged this type of event and the towers were not designed or engineered to cope with it.

To

Yes they were designed to survive an event such as this but they didn't.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ok, we have moved from, no one envisaged this type of event and the towers were not designed or engineered to cope with it.

To

Yes they were designed to survive an event such as this but they didn't.
No, they were not designed to withstand this exact event. If they were, then the interior columns would have been encased in concrete. The new WTC is designed to withstand this type of event.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
No, they were not designed to withstand this exact event. If they were, then the interior columns would have been encased in concrete. The new WTC is designed to withstand this type of event.
So what is different to the envisaged disaster they were evidentially designed to withstand and the actual disaster which they did not withstand?

According to Jazzy concrete is so weak it could be knocked off with little effort and a sledge hammer, how is encasing the columns in concrete going to help when according to the physic on here the extremely strong aluminium of a plane can slice through the steel core easily?
 

JRBids

Senior Member
So what is different to the envisaged disaster they were evidentially designed to withstand and the actual disaster which they did not withstand?

The "envisaged" disaster was being hit by a 707, which would not have contained the amount of fuel these planes were carrying and would have been traveling slower.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Perhaps someone though a fire would only lead to partial collapse, but they were wrong. There WAS a partial collapse in both cases, but partial collapse quickly led to global failure.
BTW let's clarify this, the holes made by the impact are not 'partial collapses', they are impact damage.

Partial collapse would be a separate and distinct event.

It happened for a few seconds as the top slipped forward but due to the fact the top did not slide off completely before the total collapse ensued, even that would be moot.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
The "envisaged" disaster was being hit by a 707, which would not have contained the amount of fuel these planes were carrying and would have been traveling slower.
You have just posted debunked, bunk.

Do you not bother reading the posts?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So what is different to the envisaged disaster they were evidentially designed to withstand and the actual disaster which they did not withstand?

According to Jazzy concrete is so weak it could be knocked off with little effort and a sledge hammer, how is encasing the columns in concrete going to help when according to the physic on here the extremely strong aluminium of a plane can slice through the steel core easily?
The fireproofing was stripped off many locations by the impact and explosion. So encasing the columns in concrete would have mean they would have withstood the fire for a lot longer. It was one of the recommendations of the NIST report.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
BTW let's clarify this, the holes made by the impact are not 'partial collapses', they are impact damage.

Partial collapse would be a separate and distinct event.

It happened for a few seconds as the top slipped forward but due to the fact the top did not slide off completely before the total collapse ensued, even that would be moot.
I did not mean the impacts were a partial collapse. I was referring to the first few seconds of the collapses when one side fell more than the other. Initially it was a partial collapse, but due to the damaged columns and the widespread fire damage it quickly spread to the entire cross-section of the building.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
The fireproofing was stripped off many locations by the impact and explosion. So encasing the columns in concrete would have mean they would have withstood the fire for a lot longer. It was one of the recommendations of the NIST report.
A 'lot longer than an hour'...before a total collapse at near free fall in virtually own footprint?

So you are saying they did not take fireproofing being dislodged into account during their evaluations even though they "undoubtedly took into account the possibility of a plane's hitting the building and causing the steel to stretch in a resulting fire."

And they also forgot to take into account steel stretching and weakening in WTC 7?

Very remiss and highly unlikely when you consider the massive technical work they put in, bearing in mind "The preliminary calculations alone cover 1,200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings" and that being at the top of his game; "when Yamaski was designing the buildings he was aware that steel, when it reaches an inherent temperature of 1200 degrees,will stretch at the rate of 9 1/2 inches per 100 feet".

As stated, all of which amounted to;"the most complete and detailed of any"(evaluation) "ever made for any building structure."
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I did not mean the impacts were a partial collapse. I was referring to the first few seconds of the collapses when one side fell more than the other. Initially it was a partial collapse, but due to the damaged columns and the widespread fire damage it quickly spread to the entire cross-section of the building.
You cannot in any logical way have it that 'the first few seconds' amounted to a partial collapse otherwise it would all have to be categorized as 'a series of partial collapses'.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
So what is different to the envisaged disaster they were evidentially designed to withstand and the actual disaster which they did not withstand?
A factor of TWELVE if you calculate the energies involved.

According to Jazzy concrete is so weak it could be knocked off with little effort and a sledge hammer, how is encasing the columns in concrete going to help when according to the physic on here the extremely strong aluminium of a plane can slice through the steel core easily?
I said none of that. You made it up, which is what you do when you can't follow an argument.

Concrete is BRITTLE. It has very little tensile strength either. When reinforced with steel rods to take care of the tensile loads it is indeed VERY STRONG.

The concrete in the WTC tower floors was a lightweight version with perlite* admixed. It is indeed easy to smash it with a sledgehammer, and even easier to smash it with a hammer weighing, say, a hundred thousand tons.

The steel in the WTC tower structures was surrounded by a weak foam concrete which didn't resist the impact blast. Where it was stripped it wasn't protected from the following fire.

You need to get a grip.

* Similar to pop-corn, but instead of starch "puffs" you have asbestos "puffs". It is made by quickly heating vermiculite.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
A factor of TWELVE if you calculate the energies involved.


I said none of that. You made it up, which is what you do when you can't follow an argument.

Concrete is BRITTLE. It has very little tensile strength either. When reinforced with steel rods to take care of the tensile loads it is indeed VERY STRONG.

The concrete in the WTC tower floors was a lightweight version with perlite* admixed. It is indeed easy to smash it with a sledgehammer, and even easier to smash it with a hammer weighing, say, a hundred thousand tons.

You need to get a grip.

* Similar to pop-corn, but instead of starch "puffs" you have asbestos "puffs".
What a surprise... you know better than the designers and engineers who constructed them.

A factor of 12 you say... care to back that up?

Or should I expect 'look' and 'internet' in any response?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
A 'lot longer than an hour'...before a total collapse at near free fall in virtually own footprint?

So you are saying they did not take fireproofing being dislodged into account during their evaluations even though they "undoubtedly took into account the possibility of a plane's hitting the building and causing the steel to stretch in a resulting fire."

And they also forgot to take into account steel stretching and weakening in WTC 7?

Very remiss and highly unlikely when you consider the massive technical work they put in, bearing in mind "The preliminary calculations alone cover 1,200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings" and that being at the top of his game; "when Yamaski was designing the buildings he was aware that steel, when it reaches an inherent temperature of 1200 degrees,will stretch at the rate of 9 1/2 inches per 100 feet".

As stated, all of which amounted to;"the most complete and detailed of any"(evaluation) "ever made for any building structure."
What was not accounted for was an uncontrolled fire with removed insulation (in WTC1 and 2) and an uncontrolled fire for 8 hours with no sprinklers or firefighting (WTC7)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You cannot in any logical way have it that 'the first few seconds' amounted to a partial collapse otherwise it would all have to be categorized as 'a series of partial collapses'.
Only if there was a delay between collapses. Here one led directly to the next, and then it was all falling.
 
Top