Did anyone else notice this in the WTC footage?

[Tranquilis]

Did the terrorists exploit what they knew to be a weakness in the design of the buildings?

Oh, and one other thing: The design wasn’t “weak”, any more than the fact that ships can be sunk makes it “weak”. It’s part it’s nature. Pancaking was as design choice made deliberately to reduce the threat that one of the towers would do a “long splash” across lower Manhattan. Rather than calling it a “design weakness”, it’s more accurate to call it an “inherent vulnerability”.

[rocking_chair]

this month’s architectural record deals with many of the things y’all are asking. if i were as good as duck duck goose with links i could provide you with links. what i can do is direct you to http://www.architecturalrecord.com then go to the wtc link. there are articles that deal with struct. integrity, and how the buildings fell. there are diagrams as well in the magazine. then perhaps a link type person could link them for me?

i almost forgot, there is an article on mohammad atta that states he may have been an architect.

[BiblioCat]

*Originally posted by MagicalSilverKey *
**Personally, I think one of the most disturbing parts of the whole incident would have been the following: (warning very disturbing)

To be one of the persons who were in the actual impact zones, looking out of the windows, and actually saw the planes coming straight at them!

Dear God, I can’t even comprehend how terrifying that would have been. Having witnessed two horrible auto accidents, in my lifetime, things like that always seem to happen in “slow motion” live, and upon recall. Those brief few seconds must have felt like an eternity The above realization bothered me intensely for weeks after Sep 11. It still horrifies me. **

I had the same thought. Just knowing that someone had to have been looking out the window. And in the second tower, they had some knowledge of what happened in the first tower. Did even more people see the second plane coming? At least the end was swift. And the people on the planes. Were they looking out the windows? Did they know the full scale of what was about to happen?
As you said, it’s bothered me for weeks. I try not to think about it anymore. It’s just too sad.

[tomndebb]

And, should the need arise (and it did), those buildings could hold up against a plane crashing into them. A small plane, DC-10 or so. (And why not? The ESB did it way back in the day… What kind of plane was that again? I don’t recall.)

The Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 that was nearly out of fuel (it was heading for, I think, Newark) and carried no bombs and a short crew, so that it weighed far less than its maximum of 35,000 lbs.

A 767 weighs 184,500 lbs. empty and can weigh over 380,000 lbs. fully loaded.

(BTW, I suspect you meant the DC-9 (a twin engine plane with an empty weight of 57,000 lbs.) rather than the DC-10 (a three-engine monster with an empty weight of 267,000 lbs.–maximum, 580,000 lbs.).)

[Ned]

How horrible could it have been, that people would rather die by jumping rather than at least trying to get to the fire stairs? I guess the route was completely blocked

Worse, from 911 calls and theories of the colapse, I imagine that the floors were collapsing into the fire below.

Pancaking was as design choice made deliberately to reduce the threat that one of the towers would do a “long splash” across lower Manhattan. Rather than calling it a “design weakness”, it’s more accurate to call it an “inherent vulnerability”.

I am not sure where you get this from. The buildings were designed to resist enormous lateral presures. No structural problem at the top is going to make the base tip over. That pancaking was inevitable does not imply it was a design choice.