While I think that it is highly unlikely that Mozart1220 will take the time to read this I’ll post it anyway, a nice discussion of the basic construction and some info on the collapse mechanism that is easy to understand, including how the floors collapsed onto one another and some simple reasons why WTC1 and 2 didn’t just tip over like a fallen tree.
Article does mention that the volume of WTC1 and WTC2 were approximately 95% empty space.
Using a rough weight of 500K tons and dimensions of 64m x 64m x 411m we get an average building density of 16.8pcf - compare that to the density of reinforced concrete (about 150pcf) and structural steel (about 500pcf) and you can see that yes, Virginia, big office buildings are in fact mostly empty space. Or you can just go into any building and look around you.
Hopefully some folks lurking this thread will find this useful.
Well, on the assumption that somebody who cares is reading (ie: one not having the appellation of a dead composer), the point of showing such a model wasn’t do discuss the sturability of the building construction. It was to discuss the manner in which a tall non-solid structure with crushable support stuctures would collapse. The fact that it also happens to vaguely resemble girder construction and was hit in the middle and remained standing after the first impact until further damage was done is nifty and all, but the point was to counter the theory that all tall constructions, due only to their tall-and-thinness, must topple over sideways like (completely solid) trees.
I especially like the fact that there was no effort made to mimic the Twin Towers in either materials or design. This school project is an independent illustration that very tall structures collapse on their own when damaged, and do not topple.
Oh yes, totally. I realize that we can’t draw a lot of parallels to the WTC, but I wanted to at least put it out there that even more robust construction techniques will fall down when hit with fast moving flying things.
So who is threatening you or anybody else who thinks that the “official answer” is wrong? Is disagreeing with you a threat?
If somebody consistently makes claims that not only are not backed up by but are directly contradicted by actual facts, education and experience, it’s not surprising that they’ll be considered nutty by everyone else. I’m not saying it’s utterly impossible that the WTC was destroyed by orbital lasers or secret demolition teams or anything else you care to propose but until you can come up with something far more convincing than “I think this is what happened” you’re not going to make much headway with anyone.
I would have been satisfied with evidence you were thinking at all - or willing to entertain other people’s arguments and debate in a civil manner. Since you’re not interested in those things and since you’ve ignored instuctions from the moderators about your tone and your question-dodging, I don’t see any point in your continuing to post here.
Since this thread was just an argument between Mozart1220 and other posters, I’m going to lock it.
