New Inquiry Sought on Towers' Fall

International Herald Tribune ^ | Wednesday, December 26, 2001 | James Glanz and Eric Lipton

[Shermy]

LOL! But I thought it was Hillary who said that. Maybe it was Chelsea.

Anyway, we need to examine the "root causes"--let's go all the way back to the 1920's and the Bauhaus architects who foisted the flimsy skyscraper ethos upon us and gave us wimpy buildings, etc., etc.

Hey, it's better than blaming asbestos! ;)

[Wright is right!]

"A large airplane flying at high speed crashed into the empire state building and it did not fall down."

Construction practices as used on the Empire State Bldg.(ESB) that were economically feasible back in The Depression are no longer economically realistic today. All of the steel girders in the ESB were SURROUNDED by poured concrete, which not only added an element of strength but which worked as insulation as well. Such construction for high-rises today is, as they say, "COMICALLY EXPENSIVE." Such construction would result in rents SO astronomical that no one could afford them, and the place would sit empty while everyone flocked to the more economically-feasible high-rise construction nearby - on the chance that a passing encounter with multiple jet airlines would be infinitesimally rare.

In other words, YES, it could be done. And, YES, the pricetag would be cost-prohibitive in today's times.

Not only that, but the "heavy" jet liner that hit the ESB was not - NOT - a "heavy" in today's aviation terms, was not loaded to the gills with Jet A, and had very little else in common with the two birds that hit the WTC. Not a good analogy.

Michael

[Cool_V]

That was a WWII era bomber flying relatively slow and much lighter fuel load. I don't think that is a fair comparison. Though without a doubt the Empire State Building is very stout.

[jpsb]

I will agree with you that the esb is a much more strongly built building and perhaps we can't afford to build them that way any more. My only point was that it is possible to build tall building strong enough to survive the impact of a large plane. Building like the esb appeal to me, they are solidly built, lots of mansonary, built to last 100's if not 1,000's of years. I like that, these glass and steel building on the other hand, will be lucky to last a 100's years or so.

[Fulbright]

I've seen a report which indicates that the spray-on fireproofing in the WTC may not have been applied completely on the structural members as required to create a Type I-FR building.

This is required when you are building a very large structure. It appears as if this was discovered after the 1993 attack and photos exist of the condition.

Whether documentation exists of the as-built conditions on the floors most affected by the September attacks is doubtful.