Hey FredT ,

Just to add a personal note of my own as someone who eyewitnessed the second plane's impact. My personal theory (which could go along with this one) was always that this tower collapsed first because it was hit lower down. Obviously the areas that were directly impacted by the plane would be the ones under the most stress, both from the fire and from the structural damage from the hit itself. My own belief while watching was that since the second impact was so much lower it must have been far more weight for the weakened structure to bear. Additionally I remember seeing on video later that the plane was turned almost diagonally to get more surface area on the hit which could have made things worse as well.

In hinsight though to be fair... I dont think Architects they will go with that method of construction again (Stairwell in center, Full floor load resting on "cleats", .

I saw the "Frontiers of Construction" I think it was. The Architect was obviosly shaken up, but also expressed some "if I could have" thoughts.

1. I think he would have rather designed the stairwell system to be more emergency exit friendly (ie: mulitply stairways at opposite location in the structure so that if one exit was taken out there was an alternate.) The stairways, mechanical/electrical/plumbing was all run up directly through the center of the building, giving it awsome structure, but limited exit paths.

2. Each floor (imagine each floor in the building you stand on to be one sheet of floor that rests on top of supposts ["cleats"] that are at the edges/center of the floor) was supported by these "cleats" that not only provided proper support for a functioning floor system, but also allowed to use way less material then had previosly been done in other buildings... Now when the floors started to fail, this is where the floor systems were overlooked (Me being an Architect in training, I have studied this) As these floors heated up, and the steel started to get soft and sag the floor edges where pulling away from the walls (ie: sagging in the middle, pulling outer edges to the center of the sag.) thus pulling away and off of the "cleats" these floors were sitting on. Its hard to explain by word but if I could draw something up you would understand. I have also seen a model of the trade center floors that was made up in CAD, had the floors been supported in the center of the floors or another construction method been used.... Well who knows, but these are the reasons for the floors system failing and falling on top of each other, in turn the images that are burned into our minds.

It was a brilliant design to the buildings, but I get the feeling from him that he wont be designing buildings the same way from now on.

Fact-there was no fireproofing on the structural steel above the 64th floor of either building. It was stopped due to environmental concerns during construction. (asbestos). The rapid colapse is due directly to environmentalist morons.................

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Fact-there was no fireproofing on the structural steel above the 64th floor of either building. It was stopped due to environmental concerns during construction. (asbestos). The rapid colapse is due directly to environmentalist morons.................

I have never heard of this claim.... it would make sence in the events that took place, but again I have never heard of this...

Original data I saw was on the discovery channel. I looked up newspaper accounts during the construction period. The data is avavilable but I suspect is being somewhat suppressed.

I'm sure you're talking about the timing of asbestos being banned from new building construction in the early 70's. Yes, from the reports I've heard the lower portions of both buildings (they were built simultaneously, not consecutively) contained asbestos as fireproofing. Is it safe to say that the upper floors contained zero fireproofing? I doubt it.

I see that the drug induced theories of bombs are still around. That's sad. As I have said many hundreds of times on here, the top section collapsed onto the bottom sections because due to the weakening of the beams by the fuel-fed fire and the impact itself it could no longer hold up. That is why (and videos are worthless to someone who was there) the collapse that I actually witnessed looked like the top fell onto the other floors, straight down. I'm not going to change anyone's mind. If you believe that bombs were planted in a building that housed 50,000 people and no one but some web "authorities" noticed, then god bless you, do your thing. I prefer to stick with what i personally saw, what the people i work directly with saw, and what is in fact "reality". To those who subscribe to another belief, you have every right to do so, I don't make fun of people who send out "Publisher's clearing house" vouchers for 50 million bucks either, to each their own.

No, there are specific articles relating to WTC fireproofing being discontinued above the 64th floors. This is Fact-not fiction.

I'll have to look for those when I have time, Im not trying to discredit you at all. I just have not heard of this before.

~Do you have any links?
~Do you know what they used in replacment for asbestos (because this would have been a requirment, there is no way that the fireproofing was eliminated above the 67th floor, the floors where a plane strike would be most likely)?

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Fact-there was no fireproofing on the structural steel above the 64th floor of either building. It was stopped due to environmental concerns during construction. (asbestos). The rapid colapse is due directly to environmentalist morons.................

Nevermind the thousands of people who have died from asbestosis. And what's up with you and the name calling? I've read other posts of yours and they all amount to you calling people names. Grow up OK?

Originally posted by Djarums
Humpty, I wish I could tell you what was used instead, but I have been unable to find anything that gives a good chemical makeup of the replacement. I do, however, know for sure that some manner of fireproofing was used as New York City does have certain laws you know. DrHoracid, asbestos fireproofing was discontinued by the contractos Mario & DiBono after the FDA panic, not any and all fireproofing.

The question will always remain, as this speaker said, if asbestos had been used in the remainder of the buildings, would they have stood 4 extra hours as Levine said and allowed so many more people to get out.

Great info, Thanks (Iam at work, designing homes, lol)

Yep it sounds like the fireproofing is an issue here... but I belive that this would have only prolonged the final collaspe (Just speculating).

See, as I understand it the planes took the center section of the building out totaly (See above, the center is where the stairwells were located and only in the center), which shut off all exits from the plane entrance up (other than windows). So essentialy the only people that could have been saved (if Im right about a total failure even with proper/asbestos fireproofing) were the ones below the crash site, if they were not already out of there by the collapse time. Im no expert so again Im just speculating.

~webvida
Ok I see what you mean, but howcome there was not more of these explosions as the collapse spread - that was quite a big explosion so what caused it? You would think anything that could explode like this would have done so already...

Iam not a phyisist, but Ive had a little experince with this (Architecture). I think it is because when the first floors fall (creating that explosion) they (the floors weight which was the entire area of floor * depth * mass) are landing on (at that moment) what was a solid structure creating the expolsion (air pressure, ect.) of a falling structure (the floor and all the mass on it) from roughly 16' high (or what ever the height was, also multiply this if there was more than one initial floor that fell) You remeber seeing the dust cloud and air pressure that came down on ground level when the whole structure failed???... Basically this is what you are seeing in the 'explosion' video only a smaller scale... Thats my explanation for the first 'explosion' in the video.

The reason there was not another or more explotions was because of this law, I belive.... "Bodys in motion, stay in motion". Where as the other floors were falling to a solid structure (at that moment) untill that solid structure (the floors below the first floor collapse) collapsed also upon its own weight of the upper floors on top of it. Basically, Once all the weight of the upper floors were on top of the remaining structure (the explosion) the WHOLE structure failed in an instant creating a united falling body of mass. (ie: bodys at rest stay at rest, bodys in motion stay in motion). Remember once the First floor fails it creates a chain reaction that probley only lasted seconds (ie: the 'explosion', then the total collapse with the above floors supported on the remaining structure)


This is all that I can work out in my mind with my experience, schooling, and the info I have watched and read. Take it for a grain of salt cause I have not proved it either.

[edit on 10/20/04 by HumptyDumpty]

I'm pretty surprised that anyone actually expected either of those buildings to keep standing after impacts like that. I knew they were coming down as soon as I saw the live pictures of them standing there burning. My biggest fear was that they would domino instead of collapse straight down and countless lives were probably saved due to the way they did fall. I don't buy the planted explosion stuff either.

lol, I was at Collage doing a contest at the time of the attacks... guess what I was doing?

We were having a contest with the different classes in the building and design feild. It was to see who could build the tallest tower with out having it fall down out of cardboard, tape and glue... I remember thinking "Damn Iam going to use those designs into my tower, they can withstand a plane crash!"... lol, little did I know.

Humpty, it definitely is good having an architect on board here for additional perspective.

One of the first thoughts that came to my mind while walking through what was titled "Ground Zero" upon my return to the scene a few hours later on the 11th was "What is the white crap on my pants and shoes?" Most people on the scene were more than happy to explain it as pulverized concrete, but the occasional person called it toxic and said I shouldn't bring my clothes back into my house. Personally, I don't care, I still have the shoes in a closet as one of a few personal mementoes.

To the person who mentioned thousands dying of asbestos related respiratory diseases, one correct point was made in the speech i linked to above, no differential was made to compensate for other issues like smoking etc. These were not immediate tests, these were long term tests, and the fact that a construction worker might have smoked for 45 years in this period could have contributed. No one is saying it wasn't a threat, but it is highly possible that it was slightly overblown.

With regard to Levine's comments, I must state that I don't think anyone believes asbestos would have prevented the collapse. People STILL don't understand the amazing difficulty of putting out a fuel-fed inferno a thousand feet in the air, but the Levine theory believed that the asbestos would have kept the building up for approx. four hours more. I consider it a possibility, not a fact, as it's too late for that.

Thanks to everyone for the ideas.

Cheers Djarums!

Architecture is my passion, though Im not a certified Architect yet, Im in the field (I design modular homes and work for a local Architect on the side) and saving for my last 2 years of school. Just wanted to clear that up (Im a certified Mechanical & Architectual Technologist or a Draftsman for lack of a better term ). Thank you though, I know what you mean.

Originally posted by webvida
Ok I see what you mean, but howcome there was not more of these explosions as the collapse spread - that was quite a big explosion so what caused it? You would think anything that could explode like this would have done so already...

Also looking to left of the video you see bursts flying out the side of the building what are these? NOtice there are 3 of them just before collapse so it can't be from pressure, can it?

There are several possibilities of why there could have been some explosions, ever heard of a backdraft? Those can be pretty powerful and can rock an entire structure with a tremendous explosion. There is also the possibility that there were some gas contianers, or perhaps some gas lines running into the wtc, I am not sure about the last one. You also have janitors closets with a bunch of chemicals that will create a powerful explosion too.

[edit on 21-10-2004 by Muaddib]