daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old April 5th, 2009, 09:37 AM   #8161
Krattle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 437
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by micrip View Post
Very cool shot. It shows that the interior of any skyscraper is mostly empty space...which is why 2 buildings over 1300 ft tall collapsed into a pile only a few dozen feet high...
*Face palm*
Krattle no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 5th, 2009, 09:55 AM   #8162
Eddie - USMC
Move!
 
Eddie - USMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune NC.
Posts: 531
Likes (Received): 6

with all due respect... this constuction is moving really really really slow... years just to get above ground...
__________________
Long Live Our Central American Sovereignty

The Few, The Proud, The Marines
Eddie - USMC no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2009, 10:08 AM   #8163
kingsc
Registered User
 
kingsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,761
Likes (Received): 199

Yes it normal doesn't take this long. But we're not talking about a plot of fresh land. The underground was destroyed as well. So they're not just rebuilding this building. If you could see below ground you wouldn't say it's to slow. And haven't heard it called slow in a while or maybe I just stop caring, see you next year when you post here again.
__________________
My site
Entertainmentcove.weebly.com
kingsc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2009, 05:34 PM   #8164
stewartrama
the stoop- little jackie
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 389
Likes (Received): 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by micrip View Post
Very cool shot. It shows that the interior of any skyscraper is mostly empty space...which is why 2 buildings over 1300 ft tall collapsed into a pile only a few dozen feet high...
that's actually not why...sorry....nice try though. It collapsed becasue the fire reached over 1200 degrees, which melts steel. the freedom tower would collapse too,god forbid, if that happened, it doesn't have to do with where the columns were placed.
stewartrama no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2009, 07:44 PM   #8165
RKOwens
Registered User
 
RKOwens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 227
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by stewartrama View Post
that's actually not why...sorry....nice try though. It collapsed becasue the fire reached over 1200 degrees, which melts steel. the freedom tower would collapse too,god forbid, if that happened, it doesn't have to do with where the columns were placed.
No. The final NIST report on the collapse is 10,000 pages on the Twin Towers and about 780 pages for WTC7, but if you want a very, very brief summary on why the buildings collapsed, here goes. Nothing melted. The fires in the towers reached 1832 degrees F. Structural steel loses 50% of its strength at 1100 degrees F and about 90% of its strength at 1832 degrees F, and the location of the columns did have a lot to do with why it collapsed. The towers had to collapse, they couldn't have possibly remained standing. NIST concluded that if there was no damage from the planes and there were only the fires, regardless of fireproofing, the towers wouldn't have collapsed; other engineers argue that the towers would have collapsed regardless of whether there was any damage from the planes.

WTC7's fireproofing did its job well and kept the steel from reaching temps any higher than about 400 degrees F (don't remember exact temp), which is why it remained standing for 7 hours and allowed everyone to evacuate before it finally did collapse. Still, 400 degrees was enough for key steel beams to experience thermal expansion and lead to structural failure. Again, nothing melted. Freedom Tower will be much stronger because it has a concrete core and concrete-coated external columns, which withstands fire much better. The Freedom Tower will be the safest building (from fire) in the world. (Off topic? )
RKOwens no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2009, 08:45 PM   #8166
Msradell
Always looking up
 
Msradell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Louisville, Kentucky
Posts: 1,772
Likes (Received): 209

Quote:
Originally Posted by stewartrama View Post
that's actually not why...sorry....nice try though. It collapsed becasue the fire reached over 1200 degrees, which melts steel. the freedom tower would collapse too,god forbid, if that happened, it doesn't have to do with where the columns were placed.
If you read his statement correctly, he didn't say that was the reason they collapsed. All he said was that the amount of open space showed why the pile of rubble wasn't any bigger than it was. A very valid point since most buildings are over 95% open space to allow for habitation.
__________________
"Written using Dragon Naturally Speaking"
I've learned that depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.
Msradell no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2009, 09:03 PM   #8167
McGrupp34
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Denver/NYC/Boston
Posts: 80
Likes (Received): 1

i feel as if the next person who posts on how slow this project is should be banned. On another note, I have a question, why the double core? I saw this project for the first time last week and was absolutely shocked by the scale of it, and one thing i noticed is that the cores seem to take up a lot of space, so i guess, why are there two cores, and are they going to be as immense as they are now until the roof? stupid questions i am sure, so flame away, i know you all want to...
__________________
Po jama people are boring me to pieces, I feel like I am wasting my time.... ~FZ
McGrupp34 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2009, 09:50 PM   #8168
Zensteeldude
Registered User
 
Zensteeldude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 602
Likes (Received): 11

The core may appear to be two separate cores at this point in construction but it is in fact one central core. The central corridor is the divide between the two halves, as the north half catches up with the south half they well be joined together with massive concrete and steel beams. Higher up in the building the core gets smaller and takes on an octagonal shape, mirroring the outside walls.

There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.

Last edited by Zensteeldude; April 5th, 2009 at 09:57 PM.
Zensteeldude no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2009, 10:14 PM   #8169
Zensteeldude
Registered User
 
Zensteeldude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 602
Likes (Received): 11

The perimeter columns well not be encased in concrete above the ground floor. They well be covered with a vastly improved form of spray on fire proofing.

In the unlikely event of another 9-11 style attack the building well be able to withstand the loss of as many as 3 of the 6 perimeter columns on any face without the collapse of the entire building.

"The two foot thick core walls well protect the redundant sprinkler system allowing the system to extinguish any resulting fires." -Larry Silverstein

He was talking about #7 but #1 is designed the same way.
Zensteeldude no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2009, 10:45 PM   #8170
RKOwens
Registered User
 
RKOwens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 227
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Msradell View Post
If you read his statement correctly, he didn't say that was the reason they collapsed. All he said was that the amount of open space showed why the pile of rubble wasn't any bigger than it was. A very valid point since most buildings are over 95% open space to allow for habitation.
I understood his statement about why the rubble pile was fairly low, but I was responding to this:

Quote:
It collapsed becasue the fire reached over 1200 degrees, which melts steel.
RKOwens no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2009, 10:53 PM   #8171
RKOwens
Registered User
 
RKOwens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 227
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zensteeldude View Post
Higher up in the building the core gets smaller and takes on an octagonal shape, mirroring the outside walls.
This is something I've been concerned about for a long time. In WTC7 there seems to be a good amount of distance between the core and outer wall, but for the Freedom Tower it looks like the core will be larger with added refuge rooms. I know you've said the core tapers off as the building gets higher, but can you tell us about what the average distance between the core and perimeter wall will be?

Also, will the core be like the core in the original towers, rectangular with two sides of the core closer to the outer walls than the other two sides of the core? Or will the core be evenly octagonal with the outer walls? I think that would be cool.
RKOwens no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2009, 10:59 PM   #8172
herenthere
I♥H.K.
 
herenthere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NYC/紐約市/Nueva York
Posts: 427
Likes (Received): 70

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornish pasty View Post
Well some Chinese temples and pagodas are still standing after 2,000 years, some in major earthquake zones. I think they know how to construct things.
Not that I want to continue this harsh debate, but any structure/consumer products made back then was of a higher quality than today's regardless of which culture made it...just look at some of the stuff made in the U.S.-you can't really find high-quality products anymore without sacrificing more money than before to buy it.
__________________
Proponent of Mass Transit, Livable Streets, and Progressive Politics
herenthere no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2009, 11:33 PM   #8173
Zensteeldude
Registered User
 
Zensteeldude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 602
Likes (Received): 11

There well be about 40 feet between the core and the perimeter all the way around. The east and west sides of the core get quite a bit smaller above the 3rd floor due to the vents for the PATH exhausting on the 3rd floor and several shafts ending on the mechanical floors before the 20th floor.
Zensteeldude no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2009, 11:39 PM   #8174
Zensteeldude
Registered User
 
Zensteeldude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 602
Likes (Received): 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by herenthere View Post
Not that I want to continue this harsh debate, but any structure/consumer products made back then was of a higher quality than today's regardless of which culture made it...just look at some of the stuff made in the U.S.-you can't really find high-quality products anymore without sacrificing more money than before to buy it.


There has always been a price for quality, "you get what you pay for!" As far as structures are concerned, many older buildings were over designed due to lack of engineering knowledge or materials. The steel being used today is far better than steel used 100 or even 30 years ago.
Zensteeldude no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2009, 01:48 AM   #8175
kingsc
Registered User
 
kingsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,761
Likes (Received): 199

Hmmm the fire wasn't the cause of the collapsed the plane crash was. Since the planes cause the fire to begin with. The planes also destroyed the sprinkler system, Knock off most the old fire protection. Anybody who believes just a fire would have made those build collapsed is out of their mind. If a 315,000 lb aircarft moving at 500 miles per hour hits a building what do you think is going to happing. And both buildings started to collapse where the planes had hit them.
__________________
My site
Entertainmentcove.weebly.com
kingsc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2009, 02:03 AM   #8176
NewYorker2009
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 240
Likes (Received): 132

I have to agree with kingsc. American Airlines Flight 11 hit the North Tower at nearly 500 mph and United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower at nearly 600 mph. Do you know how much damage there had to be. The Towers actually did better than what was expected from there design. Leslie E. Robertson the structural engineer designed the Towers to take a fully loaded Boeing 707 flying into them slowly lost in the fog. The fire was partially to blame but the structural damage was nearly beyond repair. Had the Towers survived it would be dangerous to go near them as they would have been weak.
NewYorker2009 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2009, 03:10 AM   #8177
stewartrama
the stoop- little jackie
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 389
Likes (Received): 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by Msradell View Post
If you read his statement correctly, he didn't say that was the reason they collapsed. All he said was that the amount of open space showed why the pile of rubble wasn't any bigger than it was. A very valid point since most buildings are over 95% open space to allow for habitation.
You know, you're right, his statement can be interpereted both ways. sorry if i misinterpereted it
stewartrama no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2009, 06:54 AM   #8178
RKOwens
Registered User
 
RKOwens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 227
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewYorker2009 View Post
I have to agree with kingsc. American Airlines Flight 11 hit the North Tower at nearly 500 mph and United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower at nearly 600 mph. Do you know how much damage there had to be. The Towers actually did better than what was expected from there design. Leslie E. Robertson the structural engineer designed the Towers to take a fully loaded Boeing 707 flying into them slowly lost in the fog. The fire was partially to blame but the structural damage was nearly beyond repair. Had the Towers survived it would be dangerous to go near them as they would have been weak.
To both of you, no structural engineer in the world believes that it was the damage from the planes that caused the towers to collapse. If it were damage from the planes that caused the towers to collapse, then they would have collapsed the instant the plane hit and the columns were severed. The towers wouldn't have just stood there in mid-air for an hour plus like a cartoon character going over the edge of a cliff, and then falling. The fires caused the collapse. Yes, you can look at it as the planes caused the fires so the plane caused the collapse, but it wasn't structural damage from the planes which caused collapse. (And, yes, this is off topic, so back to the Freedom Tower!)
RKOwens no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2009, 09:27 AM   #8179
Northerly
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 145
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKOwens View Post
To both of you, no structural engineer in the world believes that it was the damage from the planes that caused the towers to collapse. If it were damage from the planes that caused the towers to collapse, then they would have collapsed the instant the plane hit and the columns were severed. The towers wouldn't have just stood there in mid-air for an hour plus like a cartoon character going over the edge of a cliff, and then falling. The fires caused the collapse. Yes, you can look at it as the planes caused the fires so the plane caused the collapse, but it wasn't structural damage from the planes which caused collapse. (And, yes, this is off topic, so back to the Freedom Tower!)
That is absolutely correct. The impact of the planes alone caused monumental damage but the towers could have been repaired. It was the damage from the plane(s) in addition to the impact of the fires that weakened the floor trusses and eventually pulled the walls in that combined to doom the buildings. Practically any other building in the world hit by a massive jet travelling at that speed would have either immediately toppled over or snapped in half at the impact point. The towers did remarkably.
Northerly no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2009, 09:44 AM   #8180
kingsc
Registered User
 
kingsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,761
Likes (Received): 199

My point is, in case you miss it. there would have been no fire if a plane wouldn't have crash into the building. And I doubt a fire would have live long enough to get that hot sprinkler system would have tooking care of it. No plane crash no fire don't make it hard then it has to be. That the last I'll say about it we're getting way of topic.
__________________
My site
Entertainmentcove.weebly.com
kingsc no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
construction updates, development, ground zero, manhattan, new york city, nyc, port authority, supertall, world trade center

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu