psikeyhackr
Yes, I know.
I didn't say it was built that way, but recent buildings in Abu Dabbi show that it can be done that way. You can even do it with steel reinforced prestressed concrete, ever seen a really big cooling tower? They are completely hollow on the inside. The Twin Towers were designed with a core, mostly because the investors were nervous about external elevators and untested building techniques, not because it couldn't be done. The Twin Towers were designed in the same way as the Chrysler Building was, it was cutting edge technology entirely different from "traditional" skyscrapers such as the Empire State Building and it allowed a 75% total usable office space per floor instead of the 50% traditional methods would allow. And, unfortunately, as in all cutting edge technologies, they had an unforeseen Achilles heel that only got exposed through a catastrophic failure. In the Titanic it was iron rivets instead of steel, in the Space Shuttle it was brittle O rings and fragile leading edges on the wing hit by foam, in the Concorde it was fuel tanks behind the landing gear, in the Twin Towers it was spray on and foam block fire protection for the steel and truss floors, aided and abetted by religious fanaticism.
You do know how bridges are made, don't you? 200 feet, even without using composites or carbon fiber, is well within current engineering abilities.
Urich is correct, and if you have seen them over and over again, why are you still so ignorant of what I am telling you? Everything I have said is in the NIST reports.
There were no differences in the floors and no floor carried any of the loads of any other floor. The frame and core were the sole support of the building and each floor was attached to that frame on each end, transferring it's individual live load to the frames, not to the floor below or above. So each "level" was independent of every other level. The frames themselves were stronger at the bottom, thicker steel on the spandrels of the perimeter frame and bigger cross sections on the columns, but each floor carried only it's own load to the frame. The concept of levels like in the Empire State Building(rigid, monoblock masses of steel and concrete with the full weight of the building spread throughout the footprint and each floor supporting all the floors above it)just does not apply to the floors of WTC(diaphragms in a tube designed to support only their own weight and live loads(times~2)and to transfer all that load to the frames between which they were suspended at each end).
There was no difference, and none of this is because I say so, it's because those are the facts, deal with them.
Grumpy
Yes, I know.
I didn't say it was built that way, but recent buildings in Abu Dabbi show that it can be done that way. You can even do it with steel reinforced prestressed concrete, ever seen a really big cooling tower? They are completely hollow on the inside. The Twin Towers were designed with a core, mostly because the investors were nervous about external elevators and untested building techniques, not because it couldn't be done. The Twin Towers were designed in the same way as the Chrysler Building was, it was cutting edge technology entirely different from "traditional" skyscrapers such as the Empire State Building and it allowed a 75% total usable office space per floor instead of the 50% traditional methods would allow. And, unfortunately, as in all cutting edge technologies, they had an unforeseen Achilles heel that only got exposed through a catastrophic failure. In the Titanic it was iron rivets instead of steel, in the Space Shuttle it was brittle O rings and fragile leading edges on the wing hit by foam, in the Concorde it was fuel tanks behind the landing gear, in the Twin Towers it was spray on and foam block fire protection for the steel and truss floors, aided and abetted by religious fanaticism.
You do know how bridges are made, don't you? 200 feet, even without using composites or carbon fiber, is well within current engineering abilities.
Urich is correct, and if you have seen them over and over again, why are you still so ignorant of what I am telling you? Everything I have said is in the NIST reports.
There were no differences in the floors and no floor carried any of the loads of any other floor. The frame and core were the sole support of the building and each floor was attached to that frame on each end, transferring it's individual live load to the frames, not to the floor below or above. So each "level" was independent of every other level. The frames themselves were stronger at the bottom, thicker steel on the spandrels of the perimeter frame and bigger cross sections on the columns, but each floor carried only it's own load to the frame. The concept of levels like in the Empire State Building(rigid, monoblock masses of steel and concrete with the full weight of the building spread throughout the footprint and each floor supporting all the floors above it)just does not apply to the floors of WTC(diaphragms in a tube designed to support only their own weight and live loads(times~2)and to transfer all that load to the frames between which they were suspended at each end).
There was no difference, and none of this is because I say so, it's because those are the facts, deal with them.
Grumpy
