I've been interested in building design and construction for a long time now and looking at some of the articles and posts above, I think some people are taking them at face value rather than looking at the other side of the story.
Are you trained in building design, practice it professionally, or are you just \"interested\" in it?
Firstly with regards to the collapse of the WTC towers. The core was designed, as is rightly said, to support the building weight multiple times over, and house lifts, ducting, cables, electricity, gas, water and stairs as well, to create an open-plan working area. In my mind there is no doubt that the core failed on at least one building though I cannot remember if it was WTC 1 or 2. If you look at footage of the building coming down, on one of the towers you can plainly see that the core remains intact for a few seconds AFTER the building collapses round it.
Really? ?Is this your opinion in some professional capacity, or just your opinion. ?They both look like controlled demolitions to me. ?Do you have some evidence by impartial professionals that support your opinion?
What I am putting to you now is that there was another factor aside from possible core breakdown and that is the floor structure. The floors were made up of trusses- think of thick, crossbraced lattice structures, going vertically, supporting a floor on top and ceiling underneath- thats what the floors of the WTC were made of. These were (supposed to be) sprayed with a fire proof foam layer to prevent fire and heat getting to the trusses- if heat and fire get to them they are as good as guaranteed to collapse.
Guaranteed to collapse? ?Really? ?You mean like all the other steel structures that HAVEN'T collasped under much worse circumstances? ?How hot would the fire and heat have to be to melt them enough to cause a collapse? ?See the article in my next post for scientific \"facts\" about the melting temp. of steel without fire proof foam, and how hot jet fuel and furniture, paper, etc. burns. ?Truth is the 9/11 fires weren't near hot enough to melt anything of the structure, with or without fire proof foam.
Before 9/11, a survey was undertaken on the trusses to assess the condition of the fire proofing. It was found that large sections, particularly around the joints between the outer 'skin' of the tower and the inner core, were largely unprotected as well as the cross bracing on the crossbraces. This means that large amounts of heat and flame were probably able to get to the trusses and warp them to the point that they would collapse- think of heating a plastic rod while holding it horizontal.
Again, I refer you to the article in my next post below. ?The fire was not close to being hot enough given the known combustables. ?Do you have any proof or evidence to back up your claim about this alleged \"survey\" as in by whom, when, and what were the results reported.
The above argument explains the collapse of the floors in both the buildings. On just one of the two towers, the aircraft collision was such that the aircraft penetrated the core of the building, meaning that the structure was weakened because the flame and heat had a way of getting into the core- the core was protected by sheets of fireproof cladding. I believe this was blown off the core during the collision of the aircraft which allowed for heat to penetrate the core of the building.
The above arguement explains nothing. ? Sounds like you bought into the govt. commissioned report on the towers' collapse.
The reason that the core stayed intact on one building and didn't on another was again caused by the collision of the aircraft- one managed to penetrate the core and the other did not.
You have evidence or proof that the core stayed in tact in either building? ?They both looked like they completely collapsed to me.
What we have to remember is that the building was designed in the 1960's, and only built to withstand the impact of the biggest and fastest commercial airliner then- the 707. Fire caused by fuel was not considered- only impact. Aircraft have moved on. Nor can we say 'Well, another steelframed building caught fire and didn't collapse....' Each building design is different! One building could stay perfectly in shape but a similar sized building with a different construction method could topple like a house of cards. The method of construction used for the WTC was designed to allow quick and cheap building, unlike many other construction methods.
Yeah, it was designed in the 60's. ?And? ?Did the laws and rules of physics, engineering, or architecture change from that time to the present? ?If they designed it to withstand the impact of an airliner, do you think they counted on the craft being devoid of fuel, or do you think they might have, just in case, figured that maybe, just maybe an aircraft might have some unspent fuel on impact? ?The twin towers were built as the tallest structures on the planet at the time. ?I seriously doubt that slip shod, slap happy architecture, engineering and construction methods ?were used. ?If anything, the designers would have gone to extremes to make sure that the building was as safe as humanly possible. ?Again, do you have any proof to back up your claim of \"quick, and cheap building, unlike many other construction methods.\"?
[/b]
because: