Was the twin towers' structural design really safe?

[Martin S]

Actually, Quantum I didn't say that the ESB would perform better or worse just that it can't be taken for granted one way or the other.

I am not interested in taking on conspiracy theorists - it is a bit like wrestling a pig in mud, after half an hour you realise he's enjoying it.

However, I see that this thread has now run its course so I will sign off with one last thought.

I believe that Windows on the World's initial question was perfectly valid and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the towers could have been safer than they turned out to be. That is not to criticise the original designers as I don't believe that they could reasonably have foreseen an attack such as 9/11. I think that there is a tendency for people to get too defensive when discussing this issue - probably due to the fact that there are so many people willing to distort the truth to fit their pet conspiracy theory.

A tremendous amount of research has been carried out since 9/11 and no doubt the skyscrapers being built now will benefit greatly from that research. However, there is concern within the engineering profession that many of the recommedations that came out of the initial recommendations are still to be implemented.That is a concern - but I am sure people will continue to live and work safely in very tall buildings.

[windowsoftheworld]

Originally Posted by QuantumX

Read what I said for change and comprehend. I didn't call you a troll. I'm not a North American moderator for nothing. I don't believe the Empire State Building could have actually survived such an attack. I didn't actually design the thing. I was just trying to get a handle on how any building would have performed better since you think the WTC should have performed better "since it was a structure within a structure." Considering what actualy happened, that's meaningless. I just speculated how maybe the Empire State Building might have performed better with so much more redundant steel. I don't actually know. Martin the civil engineer says no, so I take his word for it. I don't expect you to take my word for it. My field is medicine, not civil engineerng, and believe me, I have more important things to concern myself with than getting defensive with you or going around in circles with you, which some people would consider trolling.

I realized not very long after joining Skyscrapercity that many of the guys on this website are young enough to be the sons of both me and Martin and they really do try my patience sometimes talking to me any damn way they please when they have no idea who I am, where I've been, or what my experience is. If you are not trolling and Martin wants to carry on with you fine. He's already told you once at least that he's already said something, but I have to move on to other threads, other forums, and other things in life.

You essentially called me a troll, it's not hard to comprehend. I am not forcing you to go around in circles, you're doing that on your own.
Also, the WTC were modern skyscrapers, a comparison to a structure similar to it's kind would have made more sense than comparing it to the ESB.
It just seems you're going on the personal route for no reason, so i'll just leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Martin S

Actually, Quantum I didn't say that the ESB would perform better or worse just that it can't be taken for granted one way or the other.

I am not interested in taking on conspiracy theorists - it is a bit like wrestling a pig in mud, after half an hour you realise he's enjoying it.

However, I see that this thread has now run its course so I will sign off with one last thought.

I believe that Windows on the World's initial question was perfectly valid and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the towers could have been safer than they turned out to be. That is not to criticise the original designers as I don't believe that they could reasonably have foreseen an attack such as 9/11. I think that there is a tendency for people to get too defensive when discussing this issue - probably due to the fact that there are so many people willing to distort the truth to fit their pet conspiracy theory.

A tremendous amount of research has been carried out since 9/11 and no doubt the skyscrapers being built now will benefit greatly from that research. However, there is concern within the engineering profession that many of the recommedations that came out of the initial recommendations are still to be implemented.That is a concern - but I am sure people will continue to live and work safely in very tall buildings.

Agreed, thank you for being levelheaded about this. Considering the amount of support the wtc towers had, it's hard to believe they would go down so damn fast.

[briker]

The truth should come out already. It will eventually, but hopefully soon enough for G.W Bush to stand trial for this.
http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_08.htm

[ThatOneGuy]

You are buying in to a fraud and a scam, sheep. Go post your playtime theories somewhere else, where other crazy people like to talk and pretend it's still 2004.

[windowsoftheworld]

theoneguy you are very fucking rude, how about you take it down a notch.

[briker]

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy

You are buying in to a fraud and a scam, sheep. Go post your playtime theories somewhere else, where other crazy people like to talk and pretend it's still 2004.

Totally uncalled for. But go ahead and bury your head in the sand like an ostrich, ignorant ostrich.

[QuantumX]

Guys, WindowsoftheWorld started this thread, and this is what he said in his very first post.

"Note: This is not a conspiracy thread or anything of that sort so please refrain from turning it into that."

Therefore, I ask you to respect this and stick to discussing the structural integrity of the towers from your knowledge and viewpoint. Whenever he wants to, he can PM me with a list of the post numbers in the right hand corner he wants deleted as they are off topic and not in keeping with the reason he created this. Whatever differences we had, we settled privately and quite amicably by PMing each other.

Windowsoftheworld, feel free to PM me with your requests whenever you want because I won't be looking in to babysit as I was just a participant in this discussion anyway and I've had enough, just like MartinS. I believe this forum is actually the charge of DesertPunk, but he won't mind me cleaning house of off-topic posts at your request.

[windowsoftheworld]

Will do, thank you.

[TufaVideo]

... this issue has been solved. The conspiracies are also solved. I have one or two links, that might enlighten you.
I do not wish to offend anyone. This issue seems to be a bit out of topic for this site.
You have wonderful pictures of sky-scrapers. I live in Sweden, and our tallest count to about 40 floors.

[redbaron_012]

OK.......sorry don't have time to read all previous posts.
The WTC stood.............
Now if a huge meteor or an atomic bomb or the attack of killer aliens came we might dispute that the structural integrity of the WTC may be disputed.
BUT.............in the real world 1960's..........they did good !
END OF STORY !

[TufaVideo]

There are many ways to solve a puzzle. Sometimes, be given a solution, can be offensive! How about a this picture:


Don't take the entire building. We limit ourselves to just the perimeter beams that is in the picture, in the lower right corner (6 columns). The building is coming down. Ignore the reason why. But what happened to these perimeter beams?

[QuantumX]

If you're trying to prove a point, I really can't tell much from that picture. I wasn't able to make much sense out of what you sent me in a private message either, but I was able to make sense out of the video footage I saw on 09/11/2001.

[redbaron_012]

Put it this way.........Tell me any building that copped what the WTC copped on 9/11/2001 and would still be standing ? Engineers designed a very strong efficient structure in the 1960's. It stood till 2001 and it's about time people had respect for that complex of buildings that not only had office space but also because it was so iconic across the world became the target for nutters who don't want to live out a peaceful life but dedicate their entire existance to mahem............The original WTC did good and although failed it stood long enough for many thousands to evacuate.........heck if it collapsed on impact what would the terrible toll have been ? I wish the cores were solid concrete so those above the impact zone may have had a better chance but we know that now and the future is not the past...move on !