Was the WTC the most shoddily designed tall building ever constructed?

Question

The buildings' structural integrety was dependent on the outer perimeter which in turn was dependent on floors bolted to the inner core preventing the outer perimeter walls from buckling out.

What also shocked me is that there were only 3 stair ways (wells) that were standard in size! NOT built for evacuations.

I think the terrorists knew DAMN well the towers would collapse. Also the stair ways were woefully inadequate no matter what period of time we are in. Its common sense not to rely on elavators.

hmm I see this question has dug up some negative emotions. Ok the structure I can forgive, but the pathetic 'stair wells' I cannot. I have recently learnt that prior to the 1993 attack the stairs did not even have emrgency lighting or was it any lighting, either way its a disgrace and not very practical in ANY emergency situation, 9/11 or not.

Answer 1

You have been reading some false reports, probably based on the 9/11 Conmission report, which is also false.
The WTC buildings were extremely strong.
There had already been an estimate given for demolition, and it ran into millions.
The only way they could be destroyed was by placing explosives inside the buildings. This is the important part of the myth built up around 9/11. There is absolutely no way that they could have collapsed as a result of a jet fore.

The article below gives some detail, and links to very detailed research data

Answer 2

1. The towers were designed to withstand an impact from a jet liner but they have increased in size since the towers were built and designed.
2. In addition to the increase in plane size those planes that hit the towers were full to the brim with fuel. They were on cross continental journeys. They were selected with this in mind
3. The speed of impact was tremendous. The wings were almost ripped on those impacting planes. Planes were travelling a maximum speed.

These contributed the magnitude of the disaster. A deliberate pre meditated attack rather than an accident that the planners would have envisioned.
With all that it still took a period of time for the towers to collapse. So I believe the structure was a good design....

except for your point about the stairwells. Many more could have survived.
I expect that space is tightly controlled 80 stories up and it may not have been economically viable for wider stairs. Wouldn't be the first time peoples lives have a bottom line

Answer 3

For its purpose, it was obviously adequate (bar the absence of emergency lighting, if the latter is true - in the UK I'm sure that wouldn't be allowed). for normal day to day use. The structure you describe is typical of modern buildings, but i think it's pretty fair to say that the impact of a fully laden airliner wasn't a design consideration. Usually only wind loading is considered for a building in that sense. As regards the size of the stair wells, none of the many post mortems carried out on TV seem to have addressed their ability to evacuate all offices(beyond the fact that they were impassable anyway).

Answer 4

I don't see problem with the structural design. Fact is it the impact of the plane crash didn't knock the building down. The explosion of the crash blew insulation off the steel allowing it to be effected by the heat.

A steel structure doesn't have to reach the melting point of steel to fail. I don't know about the stairwells. That would be an architectural decision not an engineering decission.

I think the terrorist were as surprised as everyone else when the buildings fell. I think it is very common to use the inner floors as column bracing on large buildings.

Answer 5

Certainly not. It took some very clever people to identify the means to destroy the WTC, and they had to impose a scenario well beyond the structural design basis to bring the towers down. Comment about stairwells is irrelevant to the question, as evacuation standards and fire-resistance are not fundamental to the structural design, and can be retro-corrected.

The most shoddily designed buldings fell down long ago, probably during construction.

Answer 6

Firstly, it was not designed to be hit by a plane. the structure was designed to resist stresses from the inside. In effect it is rather like an egg in reverse. You need a hard blow to break in to it, but a tiny chick can get out with ease.

The buildings were designed NEVER to be evacuated in their entirety. In the event of a fire, only the affected floor, and those immediately above and below were to be evacuated. Everybody else was meant to stay put.

So not a shoddy design, but further proof that you can never think of everything. I'm sure that even the terrorists didn't ever imagine they would actually bring them down.

Answer 7

The building was up to code for the time during which it was built. In that regard the answer is no, it was not the most shoddily designed building of all time. Had it not been up to code, it would have been redesigned before it was even started to have it do so. I'm surprised you didn't blame George Bush for its design...

Answer 8

no it was not the most shoddiest, i would say the leaning tower of piza, because u cannot live in it, unless your an amateur sir isaac newton learning about gravity, who in there right mind would live in a building like that. but looking into what you have said further, do you think its possible that they built it like that knowing what was going to happen?? and didnt want anyone to survive, lets see what they do with the replacement, it'll probably have bungee cords on every floor, please dont take that the wrong way, but it would have saved alot more lives than a stairwell, or better still put it underground and have a massive monument dedicated to those that perished, placed on the surface

Answer 9

The engineers of WTC have said it was built to withstand an impact from an airplane.... the jet fuel did not last long enough to melt the beams (and it did not burn hot enough to do so anyway) plus the stuff in the building could not have burnt near hot enough to melt the steel... so you figure it out...it's rather obvious eh?

Answer 10

LOL. quite, you're an architect? pay attention youngster, getting a B.A. in shape at some liberal arts college does not make you an authority on engineering skyscrapers. i'm advantageous you're a nifty little artist, yet you don't be responsive to what the hell you're speaking approximately. You point out steel "bends." Wow. Did you overlook approximately thermal growth and the ductility of steel decrease than stress? while you pass look those words up in Wikipedia, permit me say that no engineer that i be responsive to thinks that those 9/11 theories are something yet bullshit. i've got heard human beings say, engineers layout those homes to stand up to the impression of a jet aircraft! permit me permit you be responsive to, we don't. that's no longer a calculation that is going into the layout of any development. You conspiracy nuts take the cake. You men take each and every grain of incorrect information you will detect and run with it. @ LOL. you have worked on a skyscraper? i do no longer think of so. call your enterprise youngster. you opt for for to convince human beings. call it. you're so packed with ****. you assert, steel will only bend like "taffy." LOL. steel is ductile, yet unlike taffy. it is going to snap decrease than stress. And, any sufficiently warm hearth will create sufficient thermal growth to snap joints. you opt for for to chat engineering youngster. pass forward, tutor which you're an architect who works on skyscrapers. greater suitable yet, call a skyscraper which you have have been given worked on. you won't be able to do it on account which you're a liar.