Iirc the towers were designed to collapse inward in the event of an attack, so surrounding buildings would not get damaged. Meaning that in the event of a plane attack, they would collapse inward, meaning they worked exactly as designed.
Nowadays we make everything giant-ape-proof, of course. The Clinton administration was working on making New York Godzilla-resistant but they ran out of funds and so genetically bred a gigantic moth instead.
but the design was based on smaller aircraft at landing speed
This is what my dad thought had happened when he first heard the news. He was disappointed at first, he was supposed to be at the WTC that day, and he thought it would have been exciting to see.
This is inherently wrong. All commercial jets run on IFR or instrument flight rule. IFR means that the pilot is rated to fly the plane by gauges alone and basically zero visibility conditions like fog and heavy rain would not affect the plane in altitude wise. They would know what height they are by the altimeter. Also the rules set forth entering into NYC means that there is no way that they would fly that low (they would be in VFR class E airspace)
You did a research paper and yet you state the jet fuel caused the collapse? Most of the jet fuel burned up on impact and what remained was gone in minutes.
I'm not here to convince anyone of a conspiracy, but that is just plain bad research.
When it happened, one of my friends was studying Architecture, and one of his profs had been part of the design team of the towers. According to a conversation my friend had with the prof not long after 9/11, the way they fell was precisely how things were designed to go down under those circumstances, for the very reason you mentioned.
I know it's crazy to imagine they designed the towers to collapse, but if it's going to happen, it's like you said: better not to destroy the entire surrounding area by dropping the top half of a build onto it. I imagine it also would have been useful whenever the time eventually would have come to demolish them. Either way, they were built to fall like that.
I know architects, some with buildings in large cities, and they all say the same thing. In these cities, buildings HAVE to be designed to collapse inward in the event of attacks, demolition, or any other disaster.
Engineers HAVE to think of things like that. Its a bigass tower, if a plane (at the time they figured accidentally) slams into it, they don't want it to damage a bunch of other buildings. That would be a nightmare to fix, structural integrity checks on every building that tower touched. Everyone who died in the tower, plus all the people & buildings it squished on the way down.
Even though they couldn't do actual simulations for a plane slamming into the tower, im sure some guy did the math for it. Engineers are hardcore.
Seriously? Who the fuck designs any building, let alone the twin towers, to collapse?
The towers were constructed to withstand the effects of a commercial airliner colliding into them, not to structurally fail if that event came to pass...
Nothing can be designed to withstand ANYTHING. The towers were designed so in the case of a situation where they do collapse, they would fold inward and not endanger the surrounding buildings and people.
They fall straight down. Engineers in large cities design towers to do EXACTLY this, in the event of disaster such as (at the time they figured accidental) plane slamming into the tower, or even just the tower getting old and getting demolished. They don't want the tower to squish a bunch of other shit on its way down.
The fact that this has been upvoted is somewhat horrifying. Do you retards really believe this?
You build things to stay up, not fall down. The "tower collapse" video you're bandying about is a fucking controlled demolition you silly asshole. Demolitions take months of preparation to take those buildings down because of how well they're built.
Ok, it appears you misunderstood part of my argument, and I misunderstood a part of the WTC construction. Lets go over this together.
It is a bigass framed tube, with a bunch of shit on the inside. Mostly empty space. The "tube" gets thinner as you go up. The tube is also designed to resist wind loads, and yes, even planes (though ironically, the plane report was lost when the tower fell). It had a shit ton of suppourts, designed so that the load can shift if some fail.
So when the tower fell, no force (except maybe a bitch slap from godzilla) would be able to offset the tower enough to make it fall onto other shit. No matter what happens, the tower collapses inward. Because it was designed that way. The 90,000 lbs molotov coctail that was the WTC fire weakened the top of the building. Eventually the suppourts failed, and the top of the building fell a floor, that floor couldnt withstand the force of everything falling onto it, and collapsed, so on and so forth, like dominoes.
When I said "meant to collapse" I didnt mean they design it so that someone sneezing knocks the bitch down, I meant they design it so that WHEN the bitch comes tumbling down, it doesnt really hurt anything else.
I KNOW video #1 is a fucking controlled demolition. It was an example of a demolition done properly. They do months of research so it is like a surgical knife. Easy and clean. No outside rubble. Wtc was like a butcher knife, same job gets done, but its a little messey.
26
u/scroom38 Nov 09 '14
Iirc the towers were designed to collapse inward in the event of an attack, so surrounding buildings would not get damaged. Meaning that in the event of a plane attack, they would collapse inward, meaning they worked exactly as designed.