There were lightweight steel trusses which connected the core to the perimeter columns. The steel deck on top of that was covered in concrete. The steel truss was a flimsy zig zag pattern which was commonly used just to hold up rooftops and the like.
No tenant would feel comfortable in such a remake... ... unless you would let crash an aircraft at top speed into it. I'm not afraid the tower could colapse. But I'm afraid some guys would not allow us to do so in order to keep the official conspirathy theory alive 😎
The towers died with the victims that day. It would seem low key disrespectful to bring the buildings back. What they did with the One World Trade Center, is symbolic in many ways.
They were, they did initially survive getting hit by 127,000 pound missiles going 568mph loaded with explosive jet fuel. They held up long enough for thousands of people to escape. That is pretty badass when you think about it in those terms.
No steel melted. It heated up to the point it expanded and failed. How on earth was compromised steel supposed to support the weight of the 20+ storeys above it?
@@donoturnbackbecause there was a giant hole in the side of the building, so dozens of support columns were severed… the entire top of the building began leaning immediately after impact.
There's a saying by New York firefighter's...and it's never trust a floor truss as they can fail in a fire...which in the 2 twin tower's proved that they can fail during a fire ....
A plane hit the world trade center then the fuel say a Boeing 767. The fuel burns then collapses, but i think the floors would have survived if they hit higher 107 and 104 for both of the twin towers.
Now that you have an accurate model, the $64M question, what happens to the bottom portion when the top section starts to come down. Does it pancake? Does it obliterate into dust particles?
I found the videographic evidence of the collapse of WT2 to be very interesting. You can see the antennae rotate as the top section drops-- I ask why did that mass not continue on its path?
Firstly, only the concrete flooring 'turned to dust', not the steel. Secondly, you cannot build a 'box' 110-storeys high that is independently stable. The stability was maintained by being connected to the inner core columns by the floor trusses (which were designed to be as light as possible). Each airplane impact damaged large sections of the perimeter columns AND of the core columns, which severely compromised the ability of the structure to support the floors above the impact points. When each collapse initiated, the upper section 'fell' approximately three storeys through the damaged areas and then struck the upper floor(s) of the lower section. The kinetic energy generated by the upper section was simply too much force (not mass) for the structure of EACH lower floor to resist, and a progressive collapse occurred. If you're going to have an intelligent conversation about what brought the towers down, then you must begin by having a very clear understanding of what kept them up in the first place.
@@95bochamp So you're saying that the engineers made huge mistakes when they calculated and contructed the towers to withstand impacts from big airplanes?
@@per.gammerath The towers were designed to withstand an impact from the largest passenger jet at the time of design (1960's) which was the Boeing 707. The planes that hit the towers (American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175) were Boeing 767s which are larger, heavier, carry more fuel and weight, are longer from nose to tail, and have a wider wingspan. When they designed the building to withstand a plane crash, they designed it to withstand a plane operating normally and traveling at cruising speed (what you would find in an accidental plane crash). They didn't take into consideration, and no one probably would have at the time, a suicide pilot traveling probably as fast as the plane can go right into the towers. So those two factors had a major effect on it.
@@joooaoooable It has never happened before, that’s what I was thinking about? My father was an engineer and there is no way he wouldn’t have known how much wind or anything else his buildings could resist. And I still can’t believe they didn’t think it was possible for any size of an airplane might possibly crash into it sometime, after all it stood 90 story’s high lol In New York, if they didn’t they were the dumbest people in the universe, and if they lied to everyone who asked that question they should be shot and if nobody asked them that question they should be shot. After all a plane did hit the Empire State Building.
@@NUSORCA They were desinged to withstand a fully-loaded 707, the biggest airliner at the time of construction... A 707 has 4 jet engines instead of 2 engines of a 767 and is similar in mass. The architect frank demartini who was hired by the port authority to manage the twin towers said in an interview prior to 9/11 that the buildings would probably sustain multiple impacts of jet airliners. The way these buildings were designed, gave them a sheer strength. Sadly demartini died on 9/11 in an attempt so save people trapped in the upper stores of the north tower. He and some of his Co-workers had aleready saved lifes before heading upwards. Their knowledge simply prevented them from ever thinking that these building could possibly collapse from an airplane crash
They could be rebuilt similarly to the freedom tower but put More Elevators on each Corner with stairs, Maybe this Twin Tower Rebirth could be In D.C. as it would symbolize Capitalism? Jk
Wow ! Just when I was really getting interested. Cut. 😡☹️
There were lightweight steel trusses which connected the core to the perimeter columns. The steel deck on top of that was covered in concrete. The steel truss was a flimsy zig zag pattern which was commonly used just to hold up rooftops and the like.
the video misses the most important fact: the trosses which connect core and hull.
The twin towers should make a comeback. These towers are an engineering marvel. Would be nice to see a diagrid in them.
No tenant would feel comfortable in such a remake...
... unless you would let crash an aircraft at top speed into it.
I'm not afraid the tower could colapse. But I'm afraid some guys would not allow us to do so in order to keep the official conspirathy theory alive 😎
The twin towers were structurally unsound. They will NEVER buildings like this ever again. Nor would they be allowed to.
@@gerhardkutt1748 They were very sound and stable
The towers died with the victims that day. It would seem low key disrespectful to bring the buildings back. What they did with the One World Trade Center, is symbolic in many ways.
You are so wrong. They are outdated architecturally.
They look pretty sturdy
Looked
They were, they did initially survive getting hit by 127,000 pound missiles going 568mph loaded with explosive jet fuel.
They held up long enough for thousands of people to escape. That is pretty badass when you think about it in those terms.
@@Adino1 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
@@se7ensiinz Yeah, we know you're a clown. Let me guess?
The Earth is flat, and the Moon Landings were a Kubrick production?
@@Adino1 Lmaooo
The stuctures were technically sturdy but heating steel to a melting pt made the whole thing collapse.
There's no need for steel to melt for it to give way. Structural strength is lost long before melting. This is the basis behind common blacksmithing.
No steel melted. It heated up to the point it expanded and failed. How on earth was compromised steel supposed to support the weight of the 20+ storeys above it?
@@leeriches8841 the steel at 20th storey supported 80 storeys above. Why won't 20 storeys
@@donoturnback because there was no burning jet fuel at the 20th floor from what I remember
@@donoturnbackbecause there was a giant hole in the side of the building, so dozens of support columns were severed… the entire top of the building began leaning immediately after impact.
There's a saying by New York firefighter's...and it's never trust a floor truss as they can fail in a fire...which in the 2 twin tower's proved that they can fail during a fire ....
A plane hit the world trade center then the fuel say a Boeing 767. The fuel burns then collapses, but i think the floors would have survived if they hit higher 107 and 104 for both of the twin towers.
cool animation!
Very Nice!
Now that you have an accurate model, the $64M question, what happens to the bottom portion when the top section starts to come down. Does it pancake? Does it obliterate into dust particles?
I found the videographic evidence of the collapse of WT2 to be very interesting. You can see the antennae rotate as the top section drops-- I ask why did that mass not continue on its path?
It bends on itself, like any metal
Firstly, only the concrete flooring 'turned to dust', not the steel. Secondly, you cannot build a 'box' 110-storeys high that is independently stable. The stability was maintained by being connected to the inner core columns by the floor trusses (which were designed to be as light as possible). Each airplane impact damaged large sections of the perimeter columns AND of the core columns, which severely compromised the ability of the structure to support the floors above the impact points. When each collapse initiated, the upper section 'fell' approximately three storeys through the damaged areas and then struck the upper floor(s) of the lower section. The kinetic energy generated by the upper section was simply too much force (not mass) for the structure of EACH lower floor to resist, and a progressive collapse occurred. If you're going to have an intelligent conversation about what brought the towers down, then you must begin by having a very clear understanding of what kept them up in the first place.
@@95bochamp So you're saying that the engineers made huge mistakes when they calculated and contructed the towers to withstand impacts from big airplanes?
@@per.gammerath The towers were designed to withstand an impact from the largest passenger jet at the time of design (1960's) which was the Boeing 707. The planes that hit the towers (American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175) were Boeing 767s which are larger, heavier, carry more fuel and weight, are longer from nose to tail, and have a wider wingspan. When they designed the building to withstand a plane crash, they designed it to withstand a plane operating normally and traveling at cruising speed (what you would find in an accidental plane crash). They didn't take into consideration, and no one probably would have at the time, a suicide pilot traveling probably as fast as the plane can go right into the towers. So those two factors had a major effect on it.
There's no way they just collapsed. Pancake!
Its not purposely built to withstand a commercial airliner going into the tower in full speed
It was a strong construction, but what happened in 9/11 was too strong too
@@joooaoooable It has never happened before, that’s what I was thinking about? My father was an engineer and there is no way he wouldn’t have known how much wind or anything else his buildings could resist. And I still can’t believe they didn’t think it was possible for any size of an airplane might possibly crash into it sometime, after all it stood 90 story’s high lol In New York, if they didn’t they were the dumbest people in the universe, and if they lied to everyone who asked that question they should be shot and if nobody asked them that question they should be shot. After all a plane did hit the Empire State Building.
@@NUSORCA I don’t see how you can just take everyone’s word for everything, I don’t get that?
@@NUSORCA They were desinged to withstand a fully-loaded 707, the biggest airliner at the time of construction... A 707 has 4 jet engines instead of 2 engines of a 767 and is similar in mass. The architect frank demartini who was hired by the port authority to manage the twin towers said in an interview prior to 9/11 that the buildings would probably sustain multiple impacts of jet airliners. The way these buildings were designed, gave them a sheer strength. Sadly demartini died on 9/11 in an attempt so save people trapped in the upper stores of the north tower. He and some of his Co-workers had aleready saved lifes before heading upwards. Their knowledge simply prevented them from ever thinking that these building could possibly collapse from an airplane crash
They could be rebuilt similarly to the freedom tower but put More Elevators on each Corner with stairs, Maybe this Twin Tower Rebirth could be In D.C. as it would symbolize Capitalism? Jk
Ojalá hagan las torres gemelas otra vez
A plane couldn’t possibly make them collapse
Yes it could and it did. The towers were made to withstand the impact of a 707 at low speed, not a 767 going 500+km/h
It couldn't, but it did. What do you say?
Yawn💩💯
@@seann3526 it wasn't the planes brought down twin towers. It was the jet fuel that ignited.
@@KaioOliveiraVEVO controlled demolition. Countless accounts of second hand explosions at the base of both buildings