• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Would WTC 7 have survived the 1906 SF Earthquake?

Galileo said:
UPDATE!

Pro:

If WTC 7 were in San Fran, it would NOT have been built upon a ConEd substation, and thus would have survived the ordeal.
Click to expand...
So now you're changing the design specifications of the building you're trying to compare to?


Galileo said:
The thermal expansion caused by the three-day inferno in SF would probably have exceeded the thermal expansion caused by the small office fire on 9/11.
Click to expand...
Uh... what? You do realize that thermal expansion is a function of temperature, not time right? (I really hope you do...)


Galileo said:
Just some additional facts for ya to chew on and throw into the mix.
Click to expand...

Changing the design isn't quite the way to do it... Then again, comparing the two events arbitrarily doesn't make much sense at all either...
 
You ignore the way the building was built, you ignore the fact that none of the WTC's were designed to survive kamikaze attacks, you ignore the damage that was done to the WTC's, the comparison is just silly.

Older steel buildings were constructed using a grid, an immensely strong structure, but it doesn't provide that much floor space, to get around that the columns were shifted outwards, making a tube in a tube structure with floors suspended between outer columns and inner core columns. |--------------------------------|

This method hangs the floors like a suspension bridge.
Because of damage done to the supports and because of fire, sagging occurs, pulling on the remaining supports making them bow
)__________\this bit would sag most/___________(


Now only half the surface area of the column can actually bear the load, the rest is starting to suffer from a bending moment, with torsion and tension occuring, and not only that, at a molecular level, the metallurgical properties of the steel has been weakened by fire, losing its martensitic hardness that gives it rigidity.
Martensite is easily destroyed by heat leaving the steel too soft and bendy to do the job.
 
firecoins said:
Just the facts. WTC 1 and 2 were designed to withstand an accidental airplane crash with nothing figured in for the fuel. A smaller jet going in at slower speeds than what occurred on 9/11. WTC 7 was not designed to withstand any such event.
Click to expand...


Yeah, they always figure planes dont have any fuel onboard when they are flying around.

Sharp engineers and planners alway forget to consider that
 
roundhead said:
Yeah, they always figure planes dont have any fuel onboard when they are flying around.

Sharp engineers and planners alway forget to consider that
Click to expand...

Oh wait! Burning fuel from a planecrash WAS concidered in the design of the WTC? Can you show me this? I bet you can't.
 
roundhead said:
Yeah, they always figure planes dont have any fuel onboard when they are flying around.
Click to expand...
Actually, that's not such an unreasonable assumption. If in an emergency the pilots know they are going to make a crash landing (especially in a city) they will dump the remaining fuel because they know that a crash landing with fuel is going to be much more devastating than one without.

To answer the OP, a quote from [url="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167915/]this[/url]:
I can see the Twin Towers... They are still standing!
Click to expand...
 
roundhead said:
Yeah, they always figure planes dont have any fuel onboard when they are flying around.

Sharp engineers and planners alway forget to consider that
Click to expand...
WTC design was for a lost plane, in the weather (pilot can't see), low on fuel (cause if he was lost in the fog he would go where he would not be in the weather if he had lots of fuel), and landing, or lost trying to land. Landing speed is about 180 mph at 700 feet, and thus we have a low energy impact designed for in the WTC, and low fuel. However, the structural engineer for the WTC did say he did not plan for lots of fuel being injected (at high speed) into the WTC. He did not consider it, a slow speed aircraft impact low on fuel would not destroy the WTC, most the plane would fall to the ground and poke a few holes in the building, killing only those near the impact point.

The impact speed of the planes on 9/11 is what caused the damage and destroyed the fire systems in both towers. The fuel started fires on multiple floors.

Sorry, the design of the WTC was for a slow impact, and low fuel. Your point is lost on those who are not as smart as you are, or you say you are will all that common sense.

Where are the 47 story steel frame buildings that survived the SF fires and earth quake?
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
WTC design was for a lost plane, in the weather (pilot can't see), low on fuel (cause if he was lost in the fog he would go where he would not be in the weather if he had lots of fuel), and landing, or lost trying to land. Landing speed is about 180 mph at 700 feet, and thus we have a low energy impact designed for in the WTC, and low fuel. However, the structural engineer for the WTC did say he did not plan for lots of fuel being injected (at high speed) into the WTC. He did not consider it, a slow speed aircraft impact low on fuel would not destroy the WTC, most the plane would fall to the ground and poke a few holes in the building, killing only those near the impact point.

The impact speed of the planes on 9/11 is what caused the damage and destroyed the fire systems in both towers. The fuel started fires on multiple floors.

Sorry, the design of the WTC was for a slow impact, and low fuel. Your point is lost on those who are not as smart as you are, or you say you are will all that common sense.

Where are the 47 story steel frame buildings that survived the SF fires and earth quake?
Click to expand...

WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane.

You lie. I never said there was a 47 story tall steel framed building in SF in 1906.
 
Galileo said:
WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane.
Click to expand...
And it wasn't designed for it either. Unless you intend to provide the necessary design specifications that indicate otherwise in order to bolster your argument.

Galileo said:
You lie. I never said there was a 47 story tall steel framed building in SF in 1906.
Click to expand...
Everyone here is still trying to find where your comparison matches with WTC 7. All you did was point to an earthquake and subsequent fire and say "look at all these steel buildings that survived". Are you even trying anymore? If you want to make any legitimate comparison to WTC 7 you're going to have to do better than just point out that buildings survived both an earthquake and fire. Designs play every bit a role in structural performance, and I see nothing in your attempt that makes any effort to take that into account...
 
Galileo said:
WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane.

You lie. I never said there was a 47 story tall steel framed building in SF in 1906.
Click to expand...
The point is WTC7 was not designed for and aircraft impact, the towers were. But you have no idea what you are talking about.

Please show me by name the steel frame buildings in SF that survived the fires in 06, fires not fought. Please take your time.

Galileo said:
...
Click to expand...
Galileo said:
Pros:

WTC 7 was a steel framed building designed to withstand multiple fully-loaded airplane strikes, had fire-proofing, a water sprinkler system, and a fire alarm system to to quickly alert firemen.

On top of that, other tall steel-framed buildings in San Francisco survived the 1906 earthquake and three-day fire, and still stand today.

Cons:

WTC 7 fell down from a small office fire on 9/11. Surely the wallop of the 8.3 richter quake and three-day inferno would have taken Building 7 out.
Click to expand...
No your post, your OP was a lie. WTC7 was not designed for aircraft impacts, and you have not shown any steel frame buildings that survived fires not fought in SF.

Plus WTC7 was not a small office fire. Strike three.

Strike four - no fire sprinklers worked, there was no water! Have to revise this ball game.

Were there any 47 story buildings in SF in 06? Great comparison.
 
Last edited:
Galileo said:
I never said there was a 47 story tall steel framed building in SF in 1906.
Click to expand...

There also was no earthquake in New York on 9/11.

What the hell is the point you are trying to make?
 
I live in San Francisco. There are no 47 story high rises here. There's a 48 story one. There's a 52 story one. There's a brand new 60 story one that's just about finished and ready to occupy. For Bell's sake, there's less than 100 million chinese here. Another useless point, I wasn't alive during the 1906 quake, but did experience the 1989 7.2 quake from inside a 29 story high rise. It did not collapse. I did not die. What's my point? I don't know. What's yours?
 
beachnut said:


Strike four - no fire sprinklers worked, there was no water! Have to revise this ball game.
Click to expand...


What's your evidence the WTC 7 water sprinklers would not have worked during the '06 quake or the ensuing fire?

:yikes:
 
Galileo said:
What's your evidence the WTC 7 water sprinklers would not have worked during the '06 quake or the ensuing fire?

...
Click to expand...
Just say no.

The sprinklers did not work in WTC7 on 9/11, there was no water; WTC7 fires were not fought by firemen.
 
Galileo said:
No airplanes flew into tall buildings in S.F. during the '06 earthquake. You are fighting the straw man.

:shocked:
Click to expand...

Galileo said:
WTC 7 was a steel framed building designed to withstand multiple fully-loaded airplane strikes, had fire-proofing, a water sprinkler system, and a fire alarm system to to quickly alert firemen.
Click to expand...

You made the claim... whether it refers to the 1906 earthquake or not... Do yourself a favor and look up what a strawman is, because clearly you missed something when you read my posts.

Not that it matters, you've yet to demonstrate what examples specifically represent a comparison to WTC 7 and you've apparently ignored all comments criticizing your lack of emphasis on any one particular design that makes you case viable,
 
You know Galileo's just making these threads as an excuse to repeatedly post that picture of Mr. Galilei's finger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom