I’ve been wondering about the John Hancock Center building in Chicago. It’s got this massive steel “X” bracing on the outside of it. Would something like that have prevented this?
Originally posted by The Great Gazoo:
Not quite the most ever, but the most in quite a while. I believe I heard something on the news about how this would probably be the most American deaths in one day since the Battle of Antietam in the Civil War (which, if I’m not mistaken, ranks #1 on the list of greatest number of American deaths in one day). IIRC, the number dead was somewhere around 22,000.
It’s just you.
Or maybe just you and others who don’t comprehend the magnitude of what happened this week.
Or maybe just you and others who didn’t lose dozens of friends in a couple of hours.
But I’m hoping it’s just you.
The total casaulties of Antietam were 22,000, which includes killed, wounded, and missing. Right now, I cannot find the breakdown for Antietam, but Gettysburg had roughly 15% of it casualties as battle deaths. If we use the same percentage for Antietam, around 3300 died. If all the missing from the NYC end up dead, it would be greater than Antietam.
The largest single-day loss? A hurricane in Galveston, Texas in 1900 cost 6000 lives.
IAAE, and I really don’t see how this is possible. Think of the statics and dynamics involved here. If the top 20 floors come down onto 5 heavily reinforced floors, those floors themselves may not collapse, true. But what of the floors immediately below the reinforced ones? They still have to provide an upward force to hold the falling floors. What I’m saying is - every floor below the ones that fall would have to be reinforced, all the way to the ground.
As for the shunting idea - that sounds good in theory, but I don’t think designers are going to say that sending the top 20 floors off to the side to hit other buildings and the street below is necessarily a preferable option. Also, even in a situation where, say, the floors and their debris are shunted off at a narrow angle, the building is still going to have an enormous active load coming down onto it.
The thing is that there really is not going to be a practical way to prevent this in the future. The only thing I could see is an enormous increase in the fire protection of the main steel supports, coupled with a distributed multiply-redundant fire supression system which is sized for handling a jet full of fuel. And while option 1 is costly but doable, option 2 may not be possible. That’s a lot of jet fuel burning.
If you work or live in one of these tall buildings, it is a risk you unfortunately will have to face every day. From what it sounds like to me, the building was far overbuilt, and had a very effective escape system as well. I expected a horrific loss in the 20,000-30,000+ soul range, not the (still horrific) 5000 soul range. Given the atrocities that occurred, it could have been far worse.
‘Shunting’ well actually you would have to sheer the building and sent it into the streets most likely crashing into many other smaller buildings that couldn’t withstand the impact (can you imagine the liability of building this intentionally to fall on someone’s else’s building. Also such a design would create a weakness in the building running diagnally through several floors.
As you know the WTC survived the impact of the planes it failed because the burning jet fuel weakened (not melted) the steal supports. If better fireproofing was around the supports it may have survived.
Yeah, I was going by the original estimates that there were over 20,000 people in the building. So, at least that part of the news is a little better.
I guess my point was that, if all the debris collapses this tower, you have the possibility of killing 20,000 to 50,000 workers. If some of it is shunted to the all sides. Think of a floor with a pyramid on it. Now, some of the debris would go to the buildings nearby, but a lot would go to the street. Perhaps the amount that went to the buildings nearby would not be enough to cause significant damage. In this case, there were very few people on the street after the jet hit. They ran like hell! Most of the people who are lost are trapped in the debris inside this building.
the B25 that hit the ESB was smaller and slower, and probably was carrying far less fuel than the planes that hit WTC. So that’s not a valid comparison.
Tho i’m curious if anyone would like to entertain any conjecture as to whether the ESB would have survived those hits.
btw: Audient Senior saw the B25 hit in 1945. He’s always told that story.
The B-25 may have struck a glancing blow. The planes which impacted on the WTC ended up totally inside the buildings. All the kinetic energy was delivered to the structure as well as all the fuel.
Nope, the B-25 ended up stuck in the side of the ESB. It was a direct hit.
** Telemark** has beat me to it, but I have a cite : )
that’s not what my dad saw.
from
http://www.discovery.com/area/wayback/wayback971027/wayback.html
reading this article, I also learn that Rudy G comes from a real honest lineage of take charge NY mayors. This first hand account of a ESB tenant notes that as they came down the stairs, they ran into Mayor Laguardia on his way up, already soaked from fire hoses.
What’s the 2nd highest building in Chicago? I was talking with my sister the other day…the WTC were twice as tall as the rest of the NYC skyline. Compare that to Chicago, where (and it may just be an illusion) the Sears tower can barely be made out from among the other buildings.
It wouldn’t work. If the 80[sup]th[/th] floor could support the 81[sup]st[/th] - 100[sup]th[/th] floors crashing down on it, the 79[sup]th[/th] would collapse instead.
For example, if I could hold Arnold Schwarzenegger above my head, and he could catch a falling Maria Shriver had she fallen 100 feet, I would probably collapse if I were holding him at the same time he caught Maria.
Basically, the weight of each floor’s mass was transmitted to the central supports, which were supported by the massive foundation. So nothing on any specific floor was holding up the floors above it.
There are buildings whose floors are designed to hold the all the floors above them. They’re called pyramids, but each additional floor requires a larger footprint of land to ultimately support it. And since land is a premium in Manhattan, straight up and tubular was the design of choice.
I know this is bad form for this area, but I cannot remember where I read this. I believe that the WTC buildings were designed to colapse the way they did, straight down. If they had tipped over or colapsed to one side, they would have taken out a lot more surrounding buildings. I think there is something in the NYC building code for skyscrapers that addresses this. (To prevent a Domino effect.)
As for the Idea that certian floors could be reenforced to withstand colapse, the problem with this is the same problem I used to have with “the Six Million Dollar Man” when I was a kid. You would watch him lift some insane weight with his bionic arm and his bionic legs, but it was all bone and meat in between. What kept his torso from telescoping?
Same thing with the reenforced floors. It’s what’s in between those floors that matters.
I really don’t know what the designer of the WTC could have done that would have saved more lives. I was running the numbers the other day and as near as I can figure, you have about 200-250 people per floor. If you figure about 10 floors of WTC 1 was engulfed in flames and about 30 floors of WTC 2 were engulfed in flames, you have anywhere between 5000-8000 people in and above the flames.
Given the death count and how many many of the people either died on impact of the planes or died quickly from the smoke and flames, it’s quite possible that even if the towers didn’t fall, the death count would still be very close to where it is. Granted, if the towers didn’t fall, we would have at least saved the NYPD and NYFD, but the fact that they stayed up so long enabled us to save 20000+ people.
By the way, I was right outside of WTC 5 when the second plane hit, and I’m still amazed that the building didn’t crumble immediately upon impact. I will never forget how large that plane was.
As far as I know, (and my info comes only from newspapers), there isn’t anything practical that could be used that would protect a building against the intense heat of a plane full of jet fuel.
As far as having pieces of the building shunted to the side… If that happenned, I think we may be missing most of southern Manhattan. Even with the near implosion of the buildings, we have lost all of the WTC buildings (there were 7 of them) and we came very close to losing neighboring buildings. Had the building not gone straight down, I think we would have lost several more nearby buildings and fires from those buildings may have caused us to lose even more.
As it happens, the towers did not fall exactly straight down.
The top several floors of the South Tower pivoted and fell off to the east onto 4WTC. Another big part came down to the northwest and essentially sliced the Marriott in half. The lower facade of the Nouth Tower went every which way, damaging several nearby buildings and sparking the fire which would consume 7WTC.
Here is a page of interactives from the New York Times. Choose “WTC: Clearing the Debris” for the details. Also, here is an article that talks about some of the underground damage from the towers’ collapse, including some extensive damage outside the buildings’ area.
[Edited by manhattan on 10-16-2001 at 03:57 PM]
The second tallest building in Chicago (the Amoco building) is about 300 feet shorter than the Sears tower. The WTC was a bit over 100 feet taller than the Empire State Building. I’m not familiar with the Chicago skyline, but the reason the WTC appeared to stand out so much more was that it was near the southern tip of Manhattan, whereas most of the really tall buildings in Manhattan are closer to Midtown. Here is a list of the tallest buildings in the world (not yet updated). New York still has more on the list than Chicago, though Chicago does have more buildings over 950 feet than New York. If those buildings are near each other, that may expalin why the Sears tower doesn’t stand out as much.
Interesting. I could have sworn that the Hancock building was taller than the Amoco building. Then I saw the note at the bottom of the page on that site:
“Height is measured from sidewalk level of main entrance to structural top of building. Antennas and flag poles are not included.”
Heh. The Hancock building is nine feet shorter than the Amoco building-but it has those two big radio towers on top. Pretty sneaky-makes it look a lot taller than it is. 
The difference between NYC and Chicago is NYC has a canyon feel that Chicago lacks. The BIG THREE, Sears, Aon(formerly Amoco, Formerly Standard Oil, and John Hancock) are spaced out so it gives the city a much broader skyline. You don’t feel the RUSH you get in NYC.
When Chicago burned in the 1800 it gave architects from all over the world a chance to experiement and to this day Chicago is most consistantlt recognised as having the best skyline.
The AON building was not open to the public when ownd by Amoco. Due to the fact it was a petro company it was heavily guarded by Amoco security.
I knew a woman who was one of the security heads there and she has fantastic shots of her on the top of the building. Also the Aon building while taller than the Hancock has less stories only 80 of them I believe.