Building Constructions twin towers vs japanese towers (Earthquake)

If this is in the wrong thread I apologise, I was gonna post it in the 9/11 thread but apparently your only allowed to post if you have something to say about that if you have some credibility on previous posts you have posted on the 9/11 forum. (wtf) I'm english and even I know that a discussion forum without freedom of speech is exactly against the american constitution (A.T.S hypocrites) So I have seen this video of a earthquake in japan and the whole structures are shaking. Why in the hell did two airplanes take down two towers in that quick time. I know a Earthquake is ground up so they would shake like jelly and are built to resist that. but yet a plane hits the top of a building massively bigger structure and implodes and takes the whole thing down. Yes maybe the top half collapsed from apparently burning jet fuel melting the structure. but that weight could not of destroyed the base like it did. Just want to put out there how much damage a building can take without toppling over. Don't slag me off people a simple answer would suffice just struggling to comprehend how much it can take to bring a something down that size and see something else survive it so well

WOW! The stresses at the foot of those buildings must have been huge! Far greater than anything the towers were subjected too.
It must have been very worrying to be in one of those buildings while they were swaying.

originally posted by: VoidHawk
WOW! The stresses at the foot of those buildings must have been huge! Far greater than anything the towers were subjected too.
It must have been very worrying to be in one of those buildings while they were swaying.

yet there was no fear in the videos of the people recording, must be used to that kinda stuff

a reply to: brettcal82

Buildings are supposed to give a bit, they are designed to do that. It's when they don't flex that the problems occur.

Imagine standing in the middle of a board supported at both ends. If it flexes to compensate your weight it will support more stress. Now if that same board doesn't flex it is brittle and will 'snap' much easier then the one that does flex.

Buildings are designed just like diving boards(cantilevers) though it's hard for most to understand this.

originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: brettcal82

Buildings are supposed to give a bit, they are designed to do that. It's when they don't flex that the problems occur.

Imagine standing in the middle of a board supported at both ends. If it flexes to compensate your weight it will support more stress. Now if that same board doesn't flex it is brittle and will 'snap' much easier then the one that does flex.

Buildings are designed just like diving boards(cantilevers) though it's hard for most to understand this.

Cantilever's are supported what supporetd them that made them crumble? more to the point what supports the buildings in the video because they seem solid?

originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: brettcal82

Imagine standing in the middle of a board supported at both ends. If it flexes to compensate your weight it will support more stress. Now if that same board doesn't flex it is brittle and will 'snap' much easier then the one that does flex.
.

That depends entirely on the materials used and shape of construction.

a reply to: brettcal82

There's not really much to it mate, the twin towers were blown up. It's as clear as day when you watch them come down.

But I'm sure it's been discussed here thousands of times.

originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: brettcal82

Buildings are supposed to give a bit, they are designed to do that. It's when they don't flex that the problems occur.

Imagine standing in the middle of a board supported at both ends. If it flexes to compensate your weight it will support more stress. Now if that same board doesn't flex it is brittle and will 'snap' much easier then the one that does flex.

Buildings are designed just like diving boards(cantilevers) though it's hard for most to understand this.

A tree would make a better analogy. Most everyone has seen a tree sway in the breeze.

a reply to: Bilk22

You are absolutely right!
Funny I learned that little analogy in Construction Class, it still went over most peoples head.

originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: Bilk22

Funny I learned that little analogy in Construction Class, it still went over most peoples head.

So did I But that was quite a while ago