OHV notec wrote:sndsgood wrote:why wouldnt' the weight of the plane be a factor. they dont figure that much weight into the saftey factor when doling out concrete floors?
and your answer was more based on the concrete where as mine mixed in the fact that there would be so much more dust then just the concrete so there lol.
Because they don't know exactly what will be located in the space (a server room weighs much more than office cubicles after all), there is significant addition known by engineering folk as a "factor of safety". The structure is also strengthened for earthquakes (probably not so much of a concern in NYC, but still factored in), storms, and the incredibly powerful winds experienced WAAY up there. Bottom line: The plane could have sat there all year and the building would have remained structurally sound, just ask NIST 
Also, remember the weight of the plane was well distributed (in pieces and fluid) and over multiple floors.
Bwah, I made mention of the office contents creating "ash" after being burned... more than dust. I WIN THE INTERNET 
usually anytime they are putting in something of any signifigant weight they will build a pad (thicker concrete ) to contain the weight they dont go. hey we may need to park an airplane here in a few years lets just go ahead and double the thickness on the entire floor. not to mention when weight is added, its not flown in thru the side of the building, the initial crash could have signifigantly destroyed or cracked large portions of the floor deck itself thereby lowering ist total weightload capacity by a large percent. you mention about the weight of the plane being distributed since it would have since it went to pieces but you have to also remember that entire weight at one point would have hit that floor solidy in one location and that is what would have caused it to seperate there is a large diffrence between taking a plane in pieces and distributing it on a building floor. i'd say that any building floor could hold that easily. but that by an far worlds away from having a plane come in in one solid piece at a couple hundred miles and hour and impacting a 4 or 5" concrete floor in one point. as far as the added in earthquake factor. generally they figure the building to move with the earthquake, not stay solid, dont think they would have beefed up the concrete in that instance.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
My wife's engineering class did a study on that, the building was designed to collapse in on its self, should something like that happen. Engineers are calling it a modern engineering marvel I guess.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
sndsgood wrote:OHV notec wrote:sndsgood wrote:why wouldnt' the weight of the plane be a factor. they dont figure that much weight into the saftey factor when doling out concrete floors?
and your answer was more based on the concrete where as mine mixed in the fact that there would be so much more dust then just the concrete so there lol.
Because they don't know exactly what will be located in the space (a server room weighs much more than office cubicles after all), there is significant addition known by engineering folk as a "factor of safety". The structure is also strengthened for earthquakes (probably not so much of a concern in NYC, but still factored in), storms, and the incredibly powerful winds experienced WAAY up there. Bottom line: The plane could have sat there all year and the building would have remained structurally sound, just ask NIST
Also, remember the weight of the plane was well distributed (in pieces and fluid) and over multiple floors.
Bwah, I made mention of the office contents creating "ash" after being burned... more than dust. I WIN THE INTERNET
usually anytime they are putting in something of any signifigant weight they will build a pad (thicker concrete ) to contain the weight they dont go. hey we may need to park an airplane here in a few years lets just go ahead and double the thickness on the entire floor. not to mention when weight is added, its not flown in thru the side of the building, the initial crash could have signifigantly destroyed or cracked large portions of the floor deck itself thereby lowering ist total weightload capacity by a large percent. you mention about the weight of the plane being distributed since it would have since it went to pieces but you have to also remember that entire weight at one point would have hit that floor solidy in one location and that is what would have caused it to seperate there is a large diffrence between taking a plane in pieces and distributing it on a building floor. i'd say that any building floor could hold that easily. but that by an far worlds away from having a plane come in in one solid piece at a couple hundred miles and hour and impacting a 4 or 5" concrete floor in one point. as far as the added in earthquake factor. generally they figure the building to move with the earthquake, not stay solid, dont think they would have beefed up the concrete in that instance.
You said the 'weight' of the plane, not the 'impact' loading of the plane...
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:@!#$ you!
And after I just got done discussing the lack of validity of this argument...
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:My wife's engineering class did a study on that, the building was designed to collapse in on its self, should something like that happen. Engineers are calling it a modern engineering marvel I guess.
What is this in response to?
If you are talking about airplane impacts on the buildings, they were actually
designed to survive that (albeit a smaller plane). There was no consideration for a plane that large.
If you are referring to it falling in its own footprint, then yes, but not intentionally. The load redistribution redundancy was employed to actually help keep the building standing, a side effect would be that it is more likely to fall straight down than topple over.
Your wife took an engineering class? She must be a hippy!
11 speaker JL Audio stereo setup for sale:
http://www.j-body.org/classifieds/audio/52021/
Just look up the weight on any one of those floors(empty or loaded). The weight of the plane is comparable to handing you a CD and expecting you to collapse from the weight. Weight was not listed as a factor in any official explanation of what happened - there is a reason.
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring
Quote:
OH NO's Popular mechanics must be owned by bush... McCain....or..... oh hell, some non liberal, right?
and they do explain it there.....
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
sndsgood wrote:well was more getting to the point that if you set plane pieces on the floor it could probably take the weight, but after having the floor impacted from the crash it was likely weakened enough that it couldn't hold the weight.
The thing is, concrete's properties (brittle, weak bonding forces) make it so that the impacted parts would most definitely break off, so they wouldn't be the parts holding the weight, as they would have already failed
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:P&T sum it up best,
@!#$ you!
I've got a P&T video for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9ffO9mLlEo
It has three parts, let's see if you can watch them all. Remember, Penn & Teller are right about everything, and their arguments are 100% factual, as you've so eloquently stated.
Forgot to reply to this one earlier:
sndsgood wrote:usually anytime they are putting in something of any signifigant weight they will build a pad (thicker concrete ) to contain the weight they dont go. hey we may need to park an airplane here in a few years lets just go ahead and double the thickness on the entire floor.
But they don't know what's going there in the future since it is all leased office space. They have to design for the worst case scenario, as they can't later add concrete 80 floors up when someone new moves in and wants to use it for something else.
sndsgood wrote:as far as the added in earthquake factor. generally they figure the building to move with the earthquake, not stay solid, dont think they would have beefed up the concrete in that instance.
Earthquakes bring hardcore vibrations, concrete does not like vibrations. You would have to add concrete to prevent it from flexing (concrete is brittle again), or add steel reinforcement IN the concrete (re-bar). The building sways through the vertical steel supports, not really through the horizontal floors.
But, again, not a whole lot of earthquakes in NYC, so probably not much of a factor.
11 speaker JL Audio stereo setup for sale:
http://www.j-body.org/classifieds/audio/52021/
yeah earthquake protections wasnt big anywhere until after 9/11 now it is allot larger part of any type of construction going on. maybe theres another conspiracy theory in that.
the impact nocking off all the brittle parts and loose parts would cause the weight load to weaken though. and i'll let it go since they say weight was not a factor. but honestly how would they know what damage the impact did to the concrete? there wouldnt be any way to really gauge how much damage was done unless they did a test flying another plane into a slab of concrete somewhere. other then that it just be tests and simulations which could get you close if they new the exact make up of the concrete floor x amount of years old.
for what that building is used for it is mostly office space so there would be little need to add concrete at a later time. walls and sever rooms and desks dont create much weight.
was any info ever given if it was known what damage occured to the beams when the plane landed? that could have also played a major factor in the bulding giving way.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Quote:
yeah earthquake protections wasnt big anywhere until after 9/11 now it is allot larger part of any type of construction going on. maybe theres another conspiracy theory in that.
It's actually been a HUGE design consideration all up the west coast. maybe i'm misreading you, but in building consideraions, they take the largest possible quake to happen within a given span of time, and build for that.
New York would not likley have the same restraints as, say, Seattle or SF.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
[quote=Keeper Of The Light™ (Strazca)]
Quote:
yeah earthquake protections wasnt big anywhere until after 9/11 now it is allot larger part of any type of construction going on. maybe theres another conspiracy theory in that.
It's actually been a HUGE design consideration all up the west coast. maybe i'm misreading you, but in building consideraions, they take the largest possible quake to happen within a given span of time, and build for that.
New York would not likley have the same restraints as, say, Seattle or SF.
i wasnt referring to just the concrete aspect but every trade, hvac, plumbing, fire protection. now every single trade is involved. the amount of buildings we designed with quake consideration as far as the piping aspect of it before 9/11 was maybe 5% the bulidings we do now with quake bracing since then is now around 75%.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
OHV notec wrote:sndsgood wrote:as far as the added in earthquake factor. generally they figure the building to move with the earthquake, not stay solid, dont think they would have beefed up the concrete in that instance.
Earthquakes bring hardcore vibrations, concrete does not like vibrations. You would have to add concrete to prevent it from flexing (concrete is brittle again), or add steel reinforcement IN the concrete (re-bar). The building sways through the vertical steel supports, not really through the horizontal floors.
But, again, not a whole lot of earthquakes in NYC, so probably not much of a factor.
Actually NYC buildings are built to sustain earthquakes(yes we do have earthquakes here as well, last one was in July 2008 it was 2.1 in Milford NJ) and hurricane type forces. Even before 9-11 buildings had to be able to take a crap load of damage and punishment. Generally speaking though I believe it was either in 95 or 96 when they became in full effect. I dont know for certain whether the twin towers were grandfathered into that being they were built way before 95/96. But they should have been able to take one hell of a beating no matter what the circumstances where.
Do I believe in the conspiracy theories, yes I do, I was saying it the day it happened. Our Gov't isn't some beacon of truth that's for damn sure.
Click Sig for Jersey GM's Official Website
I wasn't just referring to concrete. In all aspects anything we design here has to be able to take what would be considered the worst expected for a 100-year or a 500-year event--depending on the servicable life of whatever we're building.
For us, that means a 9.5 on the richter scale earthquake for a 500 year and easily an 8.5 on a 100 year level. Flooding is also a major concern, wherewas tornadoes and hurricanes really aren't.
My point was is that it wasn't everywhere that *just* started doing earthquake protection.
For example, a project i'm working on now for San Fransico for a water pipeline has to be able to deflect 5' in every direction without shearing where it crosses a fault line. the previous pipelines in the area do as well. Some built as far back as the 50's or earlier.
Hell, I remember one project i was working on in 1999-2000 where we were installing a concrete vault to house an odor control unit for a sewage regulator, and part of the design contraints for the vault is that it was required to remain flush with the existing asphalt/concrete surface within +/- 1" in the event of a major flood that would cause it to literally float on the rising water table or not sink in case of a 7.5+ uqake and the soil liquefies. This was before both 9-11 and the 2001 Nisqually quake.
I think, though, that 9-11 did open some eyes on how critical planning for the worst is for any and all structures within their conceivable lifetime, but people have been doing it far beforehand.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Of course...
it's just the way you worded your statement made it sound like it was a brand new thing, and before 9-11 it wasn't even considered anywhere...
no worries
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
