Country Living
Country Living, Country Skills
Country People

KountryLife.com - A Country Living Resource and Community
Community
Message Board
Country Topics
Trading Post
Memory Lane
Country Skills
Country Cooking

Channels
Gardening
Livestock
The Kitchen
Machinery
Tools

Photographs
Photo Gallery
Vintage Photos
Special Collections

Fun
Country Humor
Country Sounds
Coloring Book
Interactive Story

Farm Tractors
Pictures
Tractor Parts
Tractor Manuals

Miscellaneous
Classic Trucks
Antique Tractors
Modern Tractors
Site Map
Links Page
Contact Us

  
Country Discussion Topics
To add your comments to this topic, click on one of the 'Reply' links below.

Anyone watch the Nova special?
[Return to Topics]

Aprille    Posted 09-07-2004 at 20:42:13       [Reply]  [Send Email]
Made me so upset..How the supports were built SO flimsy and if they had been reenforced it MAY have MADE a difference?? That poor old man!! He must be wracking his heart in the blame he is taking on himself..there are a few people that could have stopped this WAYYY at the beginning..and I mean the 60' and 70's....The poor man was just following specifications he was given and now he sits..in his New York office..and blames himself for the over 3000 that died..so sad..He is over 80..not the best way to live thru the golden years of your life..


Errin OH    Posted 09-08-2004 at 14:31:20       [Reply]  [No Email]
Yea I saw it. Saw it before and made a point to watch it again. However I didn't take away from it what you did.

I saw a marvel of a building that had never been constructed before. Imagin construction something a 1000 feet tall to withstand a fully loaded 707 flying into it at 350 mph. How they remain standing after the planes had all but cut one wall out is almost beyond belief.

I didn't buy the floor truss thing. I have enough understanding about construction to know that, by design, they are made to pull off the outer wall when they fail. The idea being they don't want failing floor joist pulling the walls (vertical support) in if they do fail. Again they are "designed" to do that. Somewhere, somebody, at some point, calculated how many they could loose and remain standing. Why didn't they have that in the program.

From a fire protection stand point. You can delay the effects, provided it remains intact. Idealy till the fire burns out or is put out. Don't recall the date but 20-30 years ago a high rise caught fire mid way up. Burned hot enough to melt steel and burned for days. It didn't fall. Poor design? I don't think so. I think it worked pretty good. Did some of the fire protection on the trade center get lost in the impact? Yes. Did it all? No. One of the survivors above the impact, stated that he could see fire between gaps in the drywall as he went down. So some had to remain. Where a 767 traveling 450 mph tore it off is where it failed. I don't know of any fire restance material that gonna survive that. Short of 12" of concret. But that is a problem in and of itself. Like before - Somewhere, somebody, at some point, calculated how long and intense a fire could burn before things started to fail. Why didn't they have that in the program.

I suspect the actual problem (from a "why they fell" stand point) was a combination of damage and not poor design. Loss of suport (outer wall), heat damage to said walls, and structal damage to the walls. Remove 1 and they'd still be standing.

Take the south tower. We know it would stand on less than four, because it did. The path of the plane litteraly took out the 1/2-2/3 of the south wall. And it remained standing. We know that with the east walls damaged (floor trusses missing when plane took them out) it still stood. Because it did. So with part of the south missing and the east damaged it still stood. We know the building was designed to survive a fire. Others had. So what did it? Was it impact, trusses or fire or a combination? I say a combination. But the program focused almost sololy on the design - trusses and loss of fire protection. Knowing what happens to steel when it gets hot. And knowing the massive amount of weight the vertical supports carry, I tend to lean that way. As uprights sucumed to heat, the others couldn't carry the added weight and buckled.

I don't know all the numbers, but there is a point of no return. A build of convention construction, concret center, uprights on 30' centers, etc. most likely wouldn't have survived either. With the exception of a concret center they use the same fire profing. I seroiusly doubt they even would have survived the impact. They by design are more ridged and not made to sway. Out west tall conventional buildings sit on springs, shocks, or both to absorb the effects (swaying) of quakes. Had the towers been constructed that way on hard bed rock (no quakes in NY), they would have most likey buckled rather than absorb the hit thus killing the 15,000 that were estimated to be in them at impact. Did you notice that all the windows on the ground floor were broke. Some serious twisting going on there. I say given the conditions they preformed way beyond expectations and saved thousands of lives.

As for the designer, I didn't get the feeling he was feeling guilty per-say. He was sad that his greatest achivement in life was gone and the loss of life just added to it. But mabey I miss something he said I did get up and visit the fridge a couple times.


r    Posted 09-08-2004 at 09:34:29       [Reply]  [No Email]
Just after the towers fell, every state, federal, and international agency that could, did examine the reasons.
They all agreed, nobody designed a building to withstand the impact of a jumbo jet, loaded to the limit with fuel. However they did think it could have stood up to a conventional bomb, of it's time.
Sad the hindsighters gotta keep dragging up the past for a few minutes of second rate air time.
Ron


bulldinkie    Posted 09-08-2004 at 05:35:54       [Reply]  [Send Email]
Yes we did ver interesting.Poor man he looked beaten too.


Len....NY    Posted 09-08-2004 at 03:22:14       [Reply]  [No Email]

I chose not to watch it as I still recall vividly the horror of that day.Hindsight being what it is, I realize it's our way to analyze,question,and finger point, ad nauseam. As far as I'm concerned ,my sights are squarely on the perpetrators.


Sid    Posted 09-07-2004 at 21:07:57       [Reply]  [No Email]
No I did not. What specifically was it about?


mojo    Posted 09-07-2004 at 20:53:29       [Reply]  [No Email]
I didn't see the episode, I presume you mean the twin towers are now being said to have been under designed? Bull hockey (if I presume right), no building has ever been designed to withstand a hit and firey blaze from a fully loaded airliner, surely the old boy realizes that.


Rowdy Yates    Posted 09-07-2004 at 21:07:52       [Reply]  [No Email]
I agree with mojo, I didn't see it either, but there's always some idiot or a group of idiots always trying to find someone to point fingers at for cash or something really selfish, or just someone trying to find something to do in order to justify their "cushy" government job. What I would like to know is who funded this investigation..."as to why they fell"? Any moron knows why they fell, but I don't doubt that the taxpayer paid a bunch of educated idiots setting on their rumps a mountain of money to look into the obvious.


Aprille in conclusion..    Posted 09-08-2004 at 18:23:16       [Reply]  [No Email]
I have to agree..who could foresee that someone was going to sail never mind one but 2 JETS into a building in the middle of New York!!?? The only thing that REALLY gets my goat is that poor old man who had the building specs in his hands and him BLAMING himself for those deaths..sad..


[Return to Topics]



[Home] [Search]

Copyright © 1999-2013 KountryLife.com
All Rights Reserved
A Country Living Resource and Community