Right, I see the point about why it’s important to learn from these things, that investigations are necessary to improve future buildings, etc etc etc.
What’s making my blood boil is the tone of these reports about the bolts. I saw a news program that cued the dramatic music and used the lead “Coming up when we return: What is to blame for the collapse of the WTC? Some surprising answers …”
I am crystal fucking clear on where the blame should be placed for the collapse of the WTC. From the news tease, you would think that the Third Man was selling shoddy bolts on the black market when he wasn’t all tied up with diluting medicine. Or that Osama was on a covert op with the Ironworkers Local 580 in the late 60s.
I have a questions. If a large bomb had detonated in the same area that the planes crashed into the building would it have collapsed because of the structural characteristics? I though it was remarkable the both towers came down with the precision of a building demolition, straight down.
The reason the towers collapsed was because the walls failed when the floor trusses which held them in place, buckled, and drew in the walls. This left a (relatively) unilateral weakness in a few floors. . . i.e. a “ring of walls” failed around some levels.
The burning jet fuel’s heat is was brought the towers down. After the fire insulation was blown off during the original impact/explosion, there was a lot of bare steel to “recieve heat”. A bomb would have blown off insulation, but there wouldn’t nearly be as much heat generated after the initial explosion.
Had a bomb gone off, it may have obliterated a few floors, but in my honest opinion, the towers would have stood.
Tripler
My honest, opinon after seeing several engineering reports.
Oh I agree there is a valid reason or two to investigate. Anything that can be learned to make future building stronger and safer I am all for.
I cannot think of many if any building out there that COULD survive such an intense inferno. Granted I am not an engineer or have any serious study in how buildings are constructed.
Funny, it’s been over a year since September 11th, and as of yet no lawsuits against the WTC designers. Sure, maybe all the victim’s families are too busy suing the Saudi government or enjoying their government payout, but I find it amusing how people are willing to blame lawyers for something they most certainly HAVEN’T done!
Supposeyou couldprove that OBL had received financial support from the rest of his (non-fanatical) family? Then could you prove conspiracy, and seize their millions of $ in property in the USA?
Sounds like easy pickings to me! The BL family owns at least $55 million in real estate in the city of Boston; sounds like its time to file a class-action lawsuit!
I should probably ask this in GQ, but I’ll take a shot at getting it answered here anyway as there seem to be some engineering types participating.
I understand that both structured were damaged beyond repair, and that their ultimate collapse was inevitable. However, wouldn’t the enormous impact of the first building collapsing have further undermined the structural integrity of the second, causing it to collapse earlier than otherwise?
I know it’s largely irrelevant, but it’s just a point I wanted to clarify with someone who understands this stuff.
Ender: "That answer doesn’t help the engineers who want to design the next building to withstand these attacks.
It doesn’t help the firefighters who would normally recommend that those people trapped above an office fire stay there until the blaze is extinguished. "
Nor does it help the lawyers who are looking for somebody to sue.
Erp. I see that a number of people have brought up the legal aspect in this thread. Perhaps I oughtta read the entire thing before repeating the obvious. :wally
According to the documentary “Why the Towers Fell”, it wasn’t the burning jet fuel that caused the collapse. The jet fuel was completely consumed relatively early on, and for the remaining time it was burning debris from within the building itself that maintatained the heat that eventually weakened the bare steel and caused the collapse.
IIRC, the basic gist of the story was this:
The impact of the jets stripped the fire coating from the steel supports.
Burning jet fuel is sprayed all over the contents of many floors, creating a very hot, multi-floor fire.
The jet fuel burns out quickly, but the contents continue to burn at a very high temperature. Think of it as being like lighter fluid on charcoal–it burns out quickly, but the burning briquettes continue to produce a large amount of heat for quite some time.
The burning contents gradually heat up the now bare steel until it softens and collapses.
The experts on the documentary also concluded that the two towers collapsed differently because of the different ways they were struck. One had the outside supports collapse first, followed by the core, while the other’s core gave way first.
I don’t claim to be an expert, I’m just relaying the information that was presented as best I can.
Also, think about the weight above the weakened space.
Now, no matter a plane or a bomb or what ever. You get 10 plus floors to start moving down and the next floor can not withstand that impact and weight so it also starts down and nor you have 11 floors going down and they all land on the next floor and…
IMO, if you remove a one foot section of a building only 15 floors tall at the 5th floor and let the ten floor above start down, that weight/energy, momentum will not be stopped until the whole thing is on the ground.
How can they design to hold that kind of weight? The aircraft had crashed at the 50th floor. Let ½ the building get a one foot start. Now what were they saying about ‘bolts’?
All that is needed is a big enough bang/fire to weaken the one floor and give the weight a chance to move just a ‘little’.
Had they crashed into the top 2-3 floors, the WTC would have stood IMO.