Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum...
    You are currently logged out and viewing our forum as a guest which only allows limited access to our discussions, photos and other forum features. If you are a 12ozProphet Member please login to get the full experience.

    If you are not a 12ozProphet Member, please take a moment to register to gain full access to our website and all of its features. As a 12ozProphet Member you will be able to post comments, start discussions, communicate privately with other members and access members-only content. Registration is fast, simple and free, so join today and be a part of the largest and longest running Graffiti, Art, Style & Culture forum online.

    Please note, if you are a 12ozProphet Member and are locked out of your account, you can recover your account using the 'lost password' link in the login form. If you no longer have access to the email you registered with, please email us at info@12ozprophet.com and we'll help you recover your account. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum (and don't forget to follow @12ozprophet in Instagram)!

How it Fell.

Discussion in 'Channel Zero' started by T.T Boy, Sep 13, 2001.

  1. T.T Boy

    T.T Boy Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: May 18, 2001 Messages: 21,803 Likes Received: 40
    in case you wanted to know.

    A good explanation



    How the World Trade Center fell

    The design of the World Trade Center saved thousands of
    lives by standing for well over an hour after the planes crashed into its
    twin towers, say structural engineers. But the towers' ultimate collapse was
    inevitable, as the steel cores inside them reached temperatures of 800C -
    raising questions why hundreds of rescue workers were sent into the doomed
    buildings to their deaths. The steel and concrete structure performed
    amazingly well, said John Knapton, professor in structural engineering at
    Newcastle University, UK. "I believe tens of thousands of lives have been
    saved by the structural integrity of the buildings," he said. "They had a
    lot of their structure taken out, yet they remained intact for more than an
    hour, allowing thousands to escape."
    But as fires raged in the towers, driven by aviation fuel,
    the steel core in each building would have eventually reached melting point
    - 800C. The protective concrete cladding on the cores would certainly have
    been no defence in these extraordinary circumstances. "It was the fire that
    killed the buildings. There's nothing on Earth that could survive those
    temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer
    Chris Wise. "The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and
    eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."
    The building's construction manager, Hyman Brown, agreed
    that nothing could have saved it from the inferno. "This building would
    have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he
    said. "But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid
    melted the steel.
    Nothing is designed or
    will be designed to withstand that fire."
    Once the steel frame on one floor had melted, it collapsed
    downwards, inflicting massive forces on the already-weakened floor below.
    From then on, the collapse became inevitable, as each new falling floor
    added to the downward forces. Further down the building, even steel at
    normal temperatures gave way under the enormous weight - an estimated
    100,000 tonnes from the upper floors alone.
    "It was as if the top of the building was acting like a huge
    pile-driver, crashing down on to the floors underneath," said Chris Wise.
    Early in the unfolding horror, some office workers were told
    to stay where
    they were - dreadful advice, said Professor Knapton.
    People's only hope was
    to run and keep running - reaching open ground. The building
    could have fallen over sideways, he points out, potentially bringing even
    greater devastation.
    Another 47-storey building belonging to Salomon Brothers
    caved in later, weakened by the earlier collapses, and more nearby buildings
    may still fall, say engineers.
    But the eventual collapse of the twin towers was so
    predictable that the order should have been given to withdraw emergency
    services within an hour, said Professor Knapton. He watched in horror,
    knowing the building would fall within two hours.
    The hundreds of dead firemen and police officers should
    simply not have been there, he said. "I think they should not have gone in
    at all," he said. "If they did decide to take the risk, they should have
    been pulled out after an hour."
    But in the panic and horror, the order was never given for
    rescue workers to abandon the building. "Mistakes were made," said Professor
    Knapton. "It sounds harsh - this had never happened in the world, so you
    can hardly criticise them. But I would have given the order to get out. You
    would have thought someone with technical expertise would have been advising
    them." But he acknowledged that the sheer scale of the tragedy probably
    overwhelmed the operation commanders. "I think everyone was not thinking. It
    was like a horror film and I think people's rationale had gone," he said.
    The building's design was standard in the 1960s, when construction began on
    what was then the world's tallest building. At the heart of the structure
    was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells.
    Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel uprights, forming the
    building's outer wall. All the steel was covered in concrete to guarantee
    firefighters a minimum period of one or two hours in which they could
    operate - although aviation fuel would have driven the fire to
    higher-than-normal temperatures. The floors were also concrete. The building
    had to be tough enough to withstand not just the impact of a plane - and the
    previous bomb attack in 1993 - but also of the enormous structural pressures
    created by strong winds.
    Newer skyscrapers are constructed using cheaper methods. But
    this building was magnificent, say experts, in the face of utterly
    unpredictable disaster.
     
  2. cracked ass

    cracked ass Guest

    Not that I'm an expert or anything but I'd like to point out that the steel doesn't need to melt to lose structural integrity, it starts to become unreliable at 1500 degrees Fahrenheit. (Think of an apple being held up by a chocolate bar over a gap between two tables. Raise the temperature. Long before the chocolate melts, it will be just soft enough for the apple to cave through it.)
     
  3. T.T Boy

    T.T Boy Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: May 18, 2001 Messages: 21,803 Likes Received: 40
    nevermind......
     
  4. bigpoppa.k

    bigpoppa.k Elite Member

    Joined: May 2, 2001 Messages: 3,150 Likes Received: 17
    thats one thing i was completely surprised at. It didn't topple like a domino. I never thought it would fall into itself like an executed take down by a demolition company.
     
  5. SPLINTER

    SPLINTER Guest

    i think it was more than the planes impact and fire i dont know why its just a thought.

    ------------------
    "Babylon throne gone down" -Rastaman
     
  6. bobobi11

    bobobi11 Elite Member

    Joined: Dec 15, 2000 Messages: 2,807 Likes Received: 0
    Thanks TT Boy, that was a concise and well written article that summarized all of the information I have been hearing.

    By the way Cracked-according to experts (I know a few engineers and architects) steel weakens at 1000 Degrees and melts at 1500 Degrees. They estimate that the fire which was being fed by the jet fuel was 2000 Degrees or higher.
     
  7. 23578

    23578 Elite Member

    Joined: Jul 2, 2000 Messages: 2,521 Likes Received: 0
    how would a demolition company take down such buildings if they needed to be demolished, that is a question which has been bothering me lately. it clearly fell in on itself, but the collateral damage was immense. i heard the guy from the demolition company that took down the oklahoma city federal building on the radio talking about it, he said his company had never attempted this scale of a project before. incidentally, the architects who designed the building did worry about what would happen if a airplane hit the building, dismissing the possibility that the structure would be weakened further due to the resultant fire. anyway if the fire was burning at 2000 degrees, the steel was insulated from direct contact by cement which has thickness the heat would have to come through before the steel sees it, then the steel which also has thickness, i'm sure somebody has to have done the math and i doubt any substantial amount had a chance to melt in that short period of time, and certainly not the entire core [​IMG]
     
  8. i have been thinking of that as well..
    i ran into a construction worker last night near the disaster center of wtc, and he started to explain some of what was going on at the moment, then it caught up with him and he got mad emotional... i felt really bad for that guy, and all the other people cleaning up that place, with body parts and whatnot.. there are going to be mad people who become emotional wrecks because of this, myself included.
     
  9. seeking

    seeking Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: May 25, 2000 Messages: 32,277 Likes Received: 233
    23578.
    so what i wonder, in your existence on earth, has prepaired you to understand the weakening process of iron and concrete better than scientists, architects and engineers the world over? the math had been done, and the estimate was two hours. they believe that the building would hold itself up for two hours. as cracked stated, you dont have to get the metal so hot that it melts back into a liquid state, just hot enough that it starts to loose its integrity. when that happens, you have thousands of tons of concrete bearing down on it and gravity does the rest. it wasnt poor planning or bad design, there are simply some things that you can design around. also, there is really no comparison to the OKC bombing, that building was a fraction of the height of this one. and how would they take it down? there is no precident for such a thing. no one has ever had to manualy take down a 110 story building before.
     
  10. Retired Hasbeen

    Retired Hasbeen Member

    Joined: May 9, 2001 Messages: 567 Likes Received: 0
    "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

    A demolition expert, Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.

    He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech. Romero told the Albequerque Journal that he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.

    The detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.
     
  11. seeking

    seeking Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: May 25, 2000 Messages: 32,277 Likes Received: 233
    so before the attacks, someone placed explosives inside the buildings at the very points where they hit? expert or not, thats pretty far fetched. especially considering the amount of fuel the planes were carrying and how the set up of a building and its compartmentalization (is that even a word?) would direct the burst of an explosion and perhaps make it look like smaller detonations in other parts of the floor...
     
  12. 23578

    23578 Elite Member

    Joined: Jul 2, 2000 Messages: 2,521 Likes Received: 0
    mr. seeking, i did in no way try to offend you personally by making the statement that no one can determine what exactly caused the building to collapse without some sort of simulation, reconstruction of the impact and subsequent fire. i feel i need to make myself clear, the variables are too great to consider at this time, the damage sustained by the core by the impact and subsequent explosion in the vertically confined space at the time of impact, subsequent temp. of fire, location and intensity of fire, and a whole lot of other stuff i am sure. it doesn't take an engineer to see that what they are telling us at this time is mearly circumstantial evidence. maybe there are lessons to be learned from this as relates to building of said skyscrapers in the future. as for the poor planning and design, i will say this: my opinion is that these type of buildings are not permanent structures, and that they can't be taken out, so why do they build path stations underneath them and in their shadow, bus terminals, etc. i don't think that cities are realistic in their planning, no. if you have a building like this it should be not be jammed up against many others, and certainly no transportation infrastructure should be built underneath it.

    "no one has ever had to take down a 110 foot story building before"-my point exactly.
     
  13. cracked ass

    cracked ass Guest

    Yeah that sounds far-fetched. I think the original explanation was adequate.
    I'm just really surprised they fell, I never thought I'd outlive the Twin Towers, they always fascinated me even from childhood. I never did get to go up in them.
    The Empire State building was hit by a small plane a long time ago, maybe the 1930s, and the structural damage was next to nothing, even with a subsequent fire. I guess the size, speed and jet fuel factors of a 767 make all the difference.
     
  14. seeking

    seeking Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: May 25, 2000 Messages: 32,277 Likes Received: 233
    then there was also the time that ginat monkey climbed up. that was nuts. thank god it made it through that too.


    23578. i wasnt taking it personaly at all, just arguing for the sake of factual representation. no offense i hope.
     
  15. 23578

    23578 Elite Member

    Joined: Jul 2, 2000 Messages: 2,521 Likes Received: 0
    absolutely, i guess if you thought i took offense it was probably because i normally do with you (you literally asked for it once, i just kind of took it to heart more than everyone else). i'm just about keeping things interesting and keeping people involved in this there are some pretty far reaching ideals that have to be forged out for the way we think about the world, and it's only going to profit from this, i hope.

    man these topics are building up a bit fast, i've got to step out for a while as well, peace.
     
Top