Collapse: Structural engineers say the terrorists apparently knew they had to strike the World Trade Center as low as possible to cause the most damage.
By USHA LEE McFARLING
Times Staff Writer
September 12 2001
The terrorists who piloted two planes into the World Trade Center apparently managed--either by careful calculation or evil luck--to have hit the buildings at their weakest spot to cause their disastrous collapse, structural engineers said Tuesday.
"It's like hitting someone at the back of the knee," said Nabih Youssef, a structural engineer who heads the Tall Building Council in Los Angeles and is an expert on the design and strength of skyscrapers. "With enough weight above you, you take the entire building down."
Government officials believe the terrorists wrested control of the passenger jets, then skillfully steered the planes toward the doomed towers.
"Whoever took over the plane knew what they were doing," said Greg Fenves, a professor of civil engineering at UC Berkeley.
Had the buildings been hit higher up the towers, they would have sustained damage but probably would not have collapsed because the weight on the damaged portion of the building would not have been enough to overwhelm a tower's structural supports, engineers said.
Planes Had to Clear Nearby Buildings
The planes might have done more damage if they had hit the buildings lower, but they had to fly at a height of about 60 stories to clear nearby buildings. The first tower was hit at about the 80th story. The second tower was hit at about the 60th story.
"They showed some knowledge of physics in the attempt to make the hits as low as possible," said Ron Hamburger, chief structural engineer for ABS Consulting in Oakland and a past president of the Structural Engineers Assn. of California.
To many who saw the buildings fall on television, the collapse resembled a planned demolition, especially in the way that the twin towers imploded--tumbling in on themselves. But engineering experts discounted the notion that additional explosives had been planted around the base of the buildings to ensure that they came down.
Demolition of a building the size of the ones in the World Trade Center would require "literally hundreds of charges around the building," Hamburger said. "It's inconceivable to me anyone would be able to place that many charges--even with years of planning."
Instead, the impact of the planes themselves, and the tremendous heat generated by tons of burning jet fuel--upward of 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit--would suffice to destroy the buildings, said Scott Gustafson, owner of Demtech Inc. of Blue Springs, Mo., one of the world's leading demolition experts.
A Boeing 767 has a fuel capacity of 20,000 gallons. A Boeing 757 has an 11,000-gallon fuel capacity. Because the planes were scheduled for transcontinental flights, they would have been fully loaded with fuel.
Plane Was 'a Highly Explosive Bomb'
"The plane probably made its way halfway to the core of the structure," Gustafson said. "The fuel went through a couple of floors, loaded them with fuel, and the impact opened a corridor to the outside for air. Some fuel probably got into the elevators and spread the fire. One thing led to another, and it just kept snowballing."
"It was very well thought out," said Hank Koffman, who directs the construction engineering department at USC. "These guys were evil geniuses.
"The plane was really a highly explosive bomb," he said. Terrorism experts were calling the attack "low-tech and high-concept."
Even though structural steel used in buildings is coated with a fireproof material, extreme amounts of heat cause the steel to soften and lose its strength. The weight of the floors above then causes them to crash.
"The technical term is progressive collapse--the slang term is pancaking," said Ron Klemencic, president of Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire, the Seattle firm that engineered the World Trade Center. "What basically happens is that one floor falls on top of the floor below it, and with one floor falling on top of another there's no way to stop it."
The steel is protected to certain temperatures and for certain periods of time, but "an explosion of this magnitude would have exceeded all those limits," said James C. Anderson, a professor of civil engineering at USC. "Buildings are not designed for this. Not in their wildest dreams."
"Buildings are designed thinking of internally generated heat," added Jon Magnusson, the chairman and chief executive of the Skilling firm. "Nobody anticipates putting jet fuel in a building. If you had to build buildings to withstand this sort of event, you wouldn't be able to build any buildings."
In 1945, a B-25 bomber smashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. It caused an explosion and fire and killed 14 people but did not destroy the building. That plane was not loaded with the huge amount of fuel that Tuesday's jetliners carried.
Engineers suggested that the south tower of the World Trade Center collapsed first, even though it was hit by the second plane, because the fireball caused by the crash was larger and because the plane hit the corner of the building, rather than the center, where there is more structural support.
The World Trade Center towers have always been a familiar icon to those visiting New York. They were New York's most frequently purchased postcard image.
To structural engineers, however, they are famous for something else: their strength.
"I was personally very surprised to see the entire building collapse," Hamburger said.
'Tubular Skyscraper' Construction Hailed
The towers were so tall--1,362 and 1,368 feet--that they swayed by up to 11 inches in a strong wind. Building towers of such height posed challenges for engineers, requiring development of a new system of construction that placed major supporting elements in the outer portions of the building to increase stability. Traditionally, such elements had been placed in the building's core around elevators and restrooms.
At the time of the towers' construction, this "tubular skyscraper" scheme was hailed as the key that would push the world's buildings to elevations undreamed-of by previous generations.
In most buildings, structural steel supports are 20 to 25 feet apart. In the World Trade Center, the supports are only 39 inches apart, said John Hooper, a structural engineer with the Skilling Ward Magnusson firm.
"Watching something come down without our say-so is just a nightmare," Hooper said.
Because the tubular steel supports are so close to each other, they act as a rigid box, encircling the building and giving it strength.
"It's quite a famous structural system," said Fenves. "It's very well-designed."
Steel buildings in general are known for their strength. Even less well-designed steel buildings survived the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco and the 1933 Long Beach quake, Youssef said.
When they were built in 1970, the World Trade Center towers were the world's tallest buildings. But the strength designed to withstand wind was no match for the fireball of an exploding plane. "We didn't have any terrorism in mind when the buildings originally went up," Hooper said.
While engineers are exploring ways to "bomb-proof" buildings to protect occupants from flying glass and crumbling walls, it is considered too costly and not socially desirable to attempt to protect buildings from the type of attack that occurred Tuesday.
"We'd be living in bunkers," Youssef said. "We cannot turn the country into bunkers."
The towers were the focus of one previous terrorist attack--a deadly 1993 car bomb blast in the 16-acre subbasement that tore a 60-by-100-foot hole. That explosion, however, did not compromise the buildings' structural integrity, and experts said there was no indication that the damage then, which was repaired years ago, had any connection with Tuesday's collapse. Six men ultimately were convicted for the 1993 bombing, which killed six and injured more than 1,000.
The buildings housed about 55,000 workers employed by more than 700 firms, including the executive offices of the New York Stock Exchange and leading investment, law and accounting firms. Counting those passing through the buildings to transact business, their population during working hours routinely exceeded 100,000 people.
The towers were the centerpiece of an urban renewal project intended to revitalize lower Manhattan. Construction began in 1966, and the first tower formally opened four years later. The architect was the late Minoru Yamasaki, who also designed the Century Plaza Towers in Los Angeles. The twin 110-story towers cost their owners, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, $700 million. Last July, they were leased to a New York real estate firm for $3.25 billion, one of the largest such deals in history.
At the time of their opening, the towers were praised as technologically marvelous but aesthetically soulless.
Architect Said Towers Would 'Soothe' Spirit
Stung by that reaction, Yamasaki insisted to one architecture critic that his buildings would "soothe" the human spirit. "Above all, with political turmoil, traffic problems and vast increases in populations and the tremendous impact of the machine, we must have serenity. Man needs a serene architecture to save his sanity in today's world."
Tuesday, those humane sentiments were reduced to rubble and ash.
_ _ _
Times staff writers Tim Rutten, Thomas H. Maugh II and Kenneth Reich contributed to this story.
For information about reprinting this article, go to http://www.lats.com/rights/register.htm
quote:bv, en liefst ook nog ingesproken op mp3
Op woensdag 12 september 2001 18:26 schreef StephanL het volgende:
zeg het is effe in een zin en nederlands graag
valt me nog mee dat het niet meteen is ingestort.
ze hebben nog geluk gehad dat alles recht naar beneden is gekomen en niet nog meer gebouwen heeft beschadigd, stel voor als het schuin was gevallen. dan was de ramp nog erger dan dat het al is
Vampier
quote:deze boom kon je niet met vliegtuig aan de onderkant kappen.
Op woensdag 12 september 2001 18:32 schreef Vampier het volgende:
Common Sense heet dit... je kapt een boom toch ook niet om bij de top?Vampier
is niet als grap bedoeld maar toch eens proberen
Stalen constructies als deze zijn zeer sterk, want zelfs slechter gebouwde construcies overleveden een aardbeving, en een vloedgolf (geloof ik).
Tot slot wordt gezegd dat het onmogelijk is gebouw goed te beveiligen, want dan zouden we in bunkers leven. En er is geen bewezen verband tussen de instorting nu, en de beschadiging na de bom in 1993
quote:(kan het originele artikel niet vinden, dus paste ik maar een stuk van wat er op /. gepost werd).
This was a sophisticated attack. Let me point out what these guys HAD to know in order to do something that is pretty tough to do: collapse a building in on itself by fire-weakening all the steel verticals on one or more verticals, then cause the building to settle down on itself and use its "down" momentum to crush the remaining floors underneat it. Professional building exploders do this all the time -- and a lot of engineering work goes into such an implosion.The key to an implosion (a vertical demolition, so the building collapses on itself -- which is what happened) -- is to sever or weaken the steel verticals as low as possible, then let the weakened and no-longer-supported upper half crash down on the remainder.
How do you do this? With a massive fire using a liquid fireball of sticky fuel -- and tens of tons of aircraft fuel from a just-departed airliner is a wonderful liquid-fireball source. You want to hit the building as low down as you can. Finally, you want to ram that fireball into the building as far as it will go -- and at 150 knots, a 150-ton airliner goes in quite a ways, right into the building's core structure, rippng everythingup and creating a massive conflagration zone extending up maybe 10 floors or more. Then you let the fire weaken the steel verticals.
In a few minutes, the "half building" directly above the impact area is no longer supported by the bottom "half building." It starts descending vertically -- like building implosions where you sever the columns at ground level and the building settles on itself -- only here you used an airplane to sever columns halfway up. You count on the momentum of the upper half-building, which will fall maybe 10 floors before meeting the still-standing lower byuilding half, to create an accelerating-downward "piledriver" effect that crushes the rest of the building on its way down to the street. This is very likely the first time that a major skyscraper has been demolished in this way -- but you can ONLY do it by ramming all that fuel tonnage into the building's core.
<snip>
These guys knew exactly what they were doing to create the first unconventional building implosion of its type. Somebody put a lot of engineering work into this, calculating -- probably from public or stolen drawings of the WTC's steelwork -- how much steel (nominally fireproofed or otherwise) might be exposed in a fireball created by the ram-impact of a large airliner coming in frontally through the side, rathert than a glancing impact. Somebody had to figure out whether a 737 or larger plane carried enough fuel to do the job. You needed something with lots of fuel and lots of mass (weight) and lots of speed. An airliner fits the bill well.
Seizing the plane was probably the simplest part. But knowing how to take the building down took more engineering than is initially apparent. These guys used some damn good structural engineers and fire-safety experts who knew what kind of fire-cladding the WTC towers had higher up.
Ik gaf mijn eerder reactie 'een boom kap je niet bij de top' op het feit dat dit als wereldnieuws gebracht wordt.
Greetz
Vampier
Dit is mijn mening over waarom ze zijn ingestort, ondanks dat de ontwerper van het WTC nog in een interview in '93 (dacht ik) zei dat het WTC 'vliegtuigbestendig'is.
In Amerika wordt hoogbouw gebouwd met staalskeletbouw. Men zet dus een heel hoog skelet van stalen kolommen en liggers neer. De vloeren worden tijdens de bouw gestort met beton. De gevels bestaan uit zogeheten 'vliesgevels'. Vliesgevel bestaan meestal of geheel uit glas of uit een lichtstalen frame met glas of bv beton elementen met glas, zoals dus bij het WTC. Zo'n vliesgevel zit als het ware op de bestaande constructie geplakt. Kijk maar naar de beelden nu, je ziet soms alleen die gevels overeind staan. Ze hebben dus totaal geen enkele invloed op de sterkte van het gebouw.
Oke nu gebeurd die aanslag dus. Veel vuur op heel erg veel verdiepingen. En ook heel heet vuur, vanwege alle kerosine.
Na zeer korte tijdje wordt het staal ook heet. Staal heeft de eigenschap erg sterk en licht te zijn. Echter bij vuur bezwijkt het onder de hitte al vrij snel. Denk maar aan een afgefikte loods ofzo, helemaal verbogen, niks van over. Hiertegen wordt het wel beschermd, maar dit geeft alleen een korte tijd bescherming. Meestal net genoeg tijd (of niet zoals dus bij WTC) om het gebouw bv te evacueren. Dus op een gegeven moment bewijkt het staal van het WTC onder deze hitte. Dit is echter nog geen rede voor het instorten van het gebouw. MAAR, het vuur woedt op vele verdiepingen. EN, vergeet ook niet, de vloeren zijn van beton en dus relatief zwaar! Dus als enkele verdiepingen met hun zware vloeren bezwijken, krijg je een soort harmonika-effect en gaat de rest ook mee! Gewoon omdat de onderliggende verdiepingen niet berekend zijn op zulke krachten!
Hoe dan ook, ALS dit... DAN dat...-verhaal. Dus niet echt interessant meer, of wel?
Het zou erg treurig zijn indien er ongemerkt ook nog eens springstoffen in deze gebouwen waren geplaatst.
Men blijft ook maar ontkennen dat vliegtuig 4 zgn "gecrashed" in de bossen, door een F16 uit de lucht zou zijn gehaald, men wist dat hij gekaapt was, men wist dat hij koers zette richting Washington met als mogelijk doel het witte huis, de passagiers zouden het toch niet overleven, ik ben er vrijwel zeker van dat ze het uit de lucht hebben gehaald, maar dit zullen ze toch niet toegeven, eigen burgers uit de lucht schieten is vrij pijnlijk, ookal stond hen een soortgelijk lot te wachten.
[Dit bericht is gewijzigd door Cosma-Shiva op 12-09-2001 23:37]
En gekeken naar het Pentagon, onderbezet gedeelte in de renovatie, zijdelings geraakt, in onbelangrijkste gedeelte van het gebouw.
Klinkt meer als "op goed geluk"
quote:Inderdaad, er wordt gelijk weer heel veel achter gezocht. Volgens mij is het feit dat heel WTC ingestort is, gewoon 'geluk' voor de terroristen. Ze hebben dat echt niet uitgerekend.
Op donderdag 13 september 2001 10:58 schreef BigDick het volgende:
als ik als niet zo slimme terrorist aandacht wilde zou ik met mijn vliegtuig net zo op die torens mikken. Zonder technische onderbouwing, maar meer met het idee dat op het dak toch minder effect heeft dan in een zijkant.
Hoef je niet echt voor gestudeerd te hebben.
BTW is er een officiele bron (geweest) over de f16?
quote:Of je het nu bull vindt of niet, het had wel effect.
Op woensdag 12 september 2001 19:19 schreef Frutsel het volgende:
Als ik eerlijk moet zijn vind ik het BULL.
De impact van het eerste vliegtuig lag volgens mij relatief hoog. Althans, de bovenste 10/20 meter van het gebouw stond in de fik...Dat is nou niet echt gezegd "LAAG" vind ik De tweede werd wat dat betreft "beter" gemikt.
|
Forum Opties | |
---|---|
Forumhop: | |
Hop naar: |