stacychase Posted September 16 Report Share Posted September 16 is a building that tall safe???? if it takes an average person say 3 - 4 minutes to walk down 10 flights stairs.... how long does it take for someone to get down over a 100 flights of stairs??? i know a couple of people who walked down 99 flights of stairs in 93 and in the dark, with crowds, it took a little bit over 4 hours....I ASK EACH OF YOU... IS A BUILDING THAT TALL EVEN SAFE??? What good does it do us, if we can build them that tall, however cannot save the lives that occupy them????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubtness Posted September 16 Report Share Posted September 16 Yes, a building that tall is safe. There are other buildings that's even taller than the WTC. It's just that no one anticpate crashing a 767 jet into one of them. You add a 767, with 25,000 pound of jet fuel, you're just going to look for great fireworks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stacychase Posted September 16 Author Report Share Posted September 16 Originally posted by doubtness Yes, a building that tall is safe. There are other buildings that's even taller than the WTC. It's just that no one anticpate crashing a 767 jet into one of them. You add a 767, with 25,000 pound of jet fuel, you're just going to look for great fireworks. sorry i do not agree with you. how bout if there was a fire in that building that blocked the stair well, hello.... a building that is that tall may look great, scream we are powerful, but is not safe!!! we should think twice before rebuilding anything that tall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xpander Posted September 16 Report Share Posted September 16 I read this thread and something that I found yesterday came to mind....Not necessarily 100% relevant but I hope it brings some more angles to this question...http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/uctr/20010914/cm/tear_it_down_and_they_will_die_1.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highmay Posted September 16 Report Share Posted September 16 Originally posted by stacychase sorry i do not agree with you. how bout if there was a fire in that building that blocked the stair well, hello.... a building that is that tall may look great, scream we are powerful, but is not safe!!! we should think twice before rebuilding anything that tall. I'm sure the designers have already thought of that. They're not safe in a sense that it could dodge 767's, but they can resist wind and lightning strikes. Also, people won't think twice: they will build even bigger and better buildings in replace of the WTC. You want to know why? Economics. Supply and demand. Those buildings can hold 50,000 people each. Corperations would want to utlize that a building of that nature can provide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmb1975 Posted September 16 Report Share Posted September 16 Originally posted by stacychase sorry i do not agree with you. how bout if there was a fire in that building that blocked the stair well, hello.... a building that is that tall may look great, scream we are powerful, but is not safe!!! we should think twice before rebuilding anything that tall. BUt the same can be said for a building that is 20, 40, 50, or 70 stories tall. If a stairway is blocked then there are limited options for escape. I realize that 110 stories makes it difficult for outside options, but so does most buildings over a certain height. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubtness Posted September 16 Report Share Posted September 16 Like i said, no one expected a jumbo jet to kamikaze the WTC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stacychase Posted September 16 Author Report Share Posted September 16 Originally posted by xpander I read this thread and something that I found yesterday came to mind....Not necessarily 100% relevant but I hope it brings some more angles to this question... thanks!! it did not totally answer my questions, however it discussed my thoughts... more and more businesses are moving towards radical office approaches. people working in clients sites, working from home, etc.... this is the time for these firms to really dig into it and decide if massive buidlings are that important or needed.http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/uctr/20010914/cm/tear_it_down_and_they_will_die_1.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xpander Posted September 16 Report Share Posted September 16 The biggest problem with the WTC was perhaps its exoskeleton. What was "revolutionary" about these towers when they were built was the fact that their main support structure was essentially the steel frame on the outside.Many people thought there were other bombs in the buildings, this isn't the case. When the explosions and the fires that ensued melted the steel away, the collapse caused any subsequent force to be directed straight down. This is why it looked like the buildings imploded from the inside. The exoskeleton prevented too much force from exerting outwards.If you don't get this, think of the towers as syringes with no opening at the bottom. Think of what would happen if too much pressure was exerted from the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crobra Posted September 16 Report Share Posted September 16 Originally posted by stacychase sorry i do not agree with you. how bout if there was a fire in that building that blocked the stair well, hello.... a building that is that tall may look great, scream we are powerful, but is not safe!!! we should think twice before rebuilding anything that tall. What you have to understand is that a building like that has fire protection - i.e. sprinklers, the steel is encased with cement or sprayed with a chemical, but it isn't 767 proof - infact the towers where designed to take a hit from a plane. But the jet fuel and size of the plane wasn't taken into consideration. This attack was a planned attack and everything was done so that the twc would fall. Most fire codes and building codes don't take into consideration what just happened - how could they. The two planes took out the floor and surrounding floors it hit - that means electricity, stairwells, sprinkler mains - everything is gone in the impact. Plus the heat generated by the massive amount of jet fuel - Most fires are not as devasting as what took place - You are asking for the building to be missile or bomb resistant - What they are going to do now is have code put in place that emergency lighting is both generator and battery operated, this way if the conduit gets cut off, the batteries will activate. But these type of circumstances are very unsual and are not like the average fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crobra Posted September 16 Report Share Posted September 16 Originally posted by xpander The biggest problem with the WTC was perhaps its exoskeleton. What was "revolutionary" about these towers when they were built was the fact that their main support structure was essentially the steel frame on the outside.Many people thought there were other bombs in the buildings, this isn't the case. When the explosions and the fires that ensued melted the steel away, the collapse caused any subsequent force to be directed straight down. This is why it looked like the buildings imploded from the inside. The exoskeleton prevented too much force from exerting outwards.If you don't get this, think of the towers as syringes with no opening at the bottom. Think of what would happen if too much pressure was exerted from the top. Actually the design was purposely done that way so that the building break in half and fall in one direction. The biggest problem wasn't a problem at all, the exoskeleton is what kept the building from collapsing on impact - Structural engineers on TV where say that the design was good - if the building didn't implode it would fell else where - Imagine 30 stories of the building tip over and fell into the area!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xpander Posted September 16 Report Share Posted September 16 Originally posted by crobra Actually the design was purposely done that way so that the building break in half and fall in one direction. The biggest problem wasn't a problem at all, the exoskeleton is what kept the building from collapsing on impact - Structural engineers on TV where say that the design was good - if the building didn't implode it would fell else where - Imagine 30 stories of the building tip over and fell into the area!! whoops......i meant problem=feature=aspect........umm.....errrrr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.