I have to research skyscrapers. I'm studying the WTC, its design, and the reason for its collapse. Also I am studying the Empire State Building. Those of you who can help guide me please add messages. Thanks
The World Trade Center collapsed because some madmen with dillusional notions, and a distorted view of faith slammed two planes into it. The fuel tanks exploded creating temperatures that caused the steel supporting members to melt and fail. The weight of the top floors, no longer supported by the melted members, crashed down on the lower floors, which were unable to support the weight. This was not an engineering failure, but rather a failure to recognise the extent at which fanactics would go to create terror.
I totally agree with Shiraz. Buildings are not designed to meet requirements of terrible acts. |
For you Atif, I think it might be better to look forward not backward. It is important to start and think positive about the urban and architectural consequences, and investigate efforts to the redevelopment of lower Manhattan. Over the past few months, there have been proposals and selection processes of projects that will replace the towers. They are discussed heavily in the media. One idea would be to critically examine the proposals submitted by architects and how they address urban intervention, memory and place attachment concerns, and how different name architects (Meier and Eisenmanm; SOM, Vinoly, Foster, and Libeskind) view these constraints within their proposals. You can find discussions of these projects in December 2002, February, March 2003 issues of "Architectural Record", and February 2003 issue of "Architecture"
Have a look on the website of the New York Times: www.nytimes.com . They have recently added a large section on all the new buildings that are going to be built, not just Liebeskind's project but also, for example, Koolhaas' and Richard Meyer's buildings. There are lots of visuals available on the website: video, panoramas etc.
Worth checking out!
Mr Allibhai, I agree with your comments but since you are an administrator of the forum you should be careful with your comments which can spark off a debate on politics and religion. |
For the information of everyone..there was a ongoing debate on Iraq war...where statements had been misinterpreted and various accusations were made by parties involved. I had questioned the administrators then about the moderator who kept misinterpreting my comments. I was informed by an email that this forum was for discussion exclusively on architecture and personal opinions were not welcome if they would spark debate on politics and religion. Since then, I have only visited this forum for discussion on architecture. But this is extremely unjust that Mr Allibhai the moderator himself have instigated and made value judgement which definately could spark debates on forbidden territory of the forum.I request Mr Allibhai to take note and also request him to observe the rules which he promptly applies on many members including Mr Salim .
P.S The poster wanted information on collapse of skyscrapers which could have excellent scientific explanations.
Mr Atif , George Esfthathiou of SOM is designing the tallest tower, that is currently being floated by a developer in Dubai. The design consists on closely packed micro-RCC columns which reduces the risk of steel to lose its yield strength due to the high temperatures reached by jet fuel explosion.
"The World Trade Center collapsed because some madmen with dillusional notions, and a distorted view of faith slammed two planes into it. The fuel tanks exploded creating temperatures that caused the steel supporting members to melt and fail. The weight of the top floors, no longer supported by the melted members, crashed down on the lower floors, which were unable to support the weight. This was not an engineering failure, but rather a failure to recognise the extent at which fanactics would go to create terror. "
Well, I was some how offended by the last response. I find Shiraz's response an advice for Atif to concentrate on architecture, and a stress to shift away of non-architectural reasons of the towers collapse, not to evoke religious or political taboos, specially when followed by Prof. Salama's named architectural issues. Here's the new WTC plans:|
This of course more of "news" category and not a critical analysis.
But here's some public feedback:
"Well, I was some how offended by the last response." |
And what exactly was offensive about the response, although it wasn't a response, it was a observation.
"I find Shiraz's response an advice for Atif to concentrate on architecture, and a stress to shift away of non-architectural reasons of the towers collapse, not to evoke religious or political taboos"
I agree Prof. Salama's response was only about architectural issues...but I find it mind-boggling to assume that the original poster had hinted about anything beyond architecture. Infact my reaction and consequent observation was when I read Shiraz's response...which is studded with value judgements. Frankly, I was also offended by Shiraz's response which was a opinion formed on an incomplete and popular story about the culprits.
Believe me I agree with what Mr Allibhai when he said about "madmen with dillusional notions," , but my observation was made because as I and many other members here would agree that the tragedy was beyond just the issue of religion and faith which I would not wish to discuss on this forum.
To prevent such a line of debate to spark I made my observation since the protagonist in question has repeatedly made such comments in various other threads.
This is my last response to this topic. My point was that it is quite unjust that the administrator himself made value judgements against issues where he was instrumental in curbing discussions and debates which were reactionary to such comments made previously.I do not understand why he can make such value judgements that can spark a debate on such a sensitive issue, especially when he himself has actively censored and advocated non-instigation of such issues.
I thought it is important to make some clarifications here on the Role of the Discussion Forum, and what is really meant by online Forum. Some would say "We already know that", but the following points act as a gently reminder not only to US here but to all archnet members. Please pay attention to words with Capital Letters:
- The overall purpose of an online discussion forum is to raise and discuss issues, EXPRESS VIEWPOINTS, offer thoughts and suggestions.
- A Forum is a community where many forms of interaction occur. Visitors may read discussions and post topics of COMMON INTEREST.
- A participant in a forum submit postings for all to read, then DISCUSSION ensues.
- Participation in a forum whether as a member, moderator, or ADMINISTRATOR helps generate critical leads in the discussion.
- THE ADMINISTRATOR IS A MEMBER TOO, HAS ALL THE RIGHTS OF THE MEMBERS INCLUDING EXPRESSING PERSONAL VIEWPOINTS (even if they are really personal).
- I believe an online discussion forum can be regarded as a GROUP INTERACTION MECHANISM such as "BrainStorming" - "Visioning Sessions" The difference is that these involve face to face interaction. Generally speaking in order to generate GOOD DISCUSSION it is important that AN ATMOSPHERE "FREE OF CRITICISM" be created, so that thoughts suggestions, ideas, ....etc . on a subject flow and OFFERED FREE OF ANY CONSTRAINTS but following the GENERAL DISCUSSION ETHICS.
As to this discussion, Atif is seeking help, the best thing is to offer it to him if we can. He was asking a question,followed by a reply from Shiraz in a good concise format, followed by Ashraf who offered ideas and resources, then Eric offered another online resource, then Somshankar offered his knowledge on the SOM project, then Heba offered nice Media resources. All these were great thoughtful and useful contributions that might be of help to Atif.
Now, Somshankar, I do not see any reason to refer to another discussion in this context. Shiraz expressed his interpretation as a member. There was nothing political or religious. Couple of commentary words do not mean anything..The answer was purely architectural. The discussion you are referring to went completely beyond architecture, and as an administrator he was to draw the attention of the participants to avoid certain tendencies.
I HOPE THINGS ARE NOT TAKEN PERSONAL.
OK. Lets go back to this fine and important topic.|
Mr. Atif, I don't know the scope of your research and your particular goals. Is it a comparative study among certain skyscrapers, a comprehensive study of the two buildings or something else?
If its a comparative one, then I assume you must already have many materials. All you need to do is matriculate the specs of the buildings and fill in the blanks. I believe many Archnetters would be more than willing to assist if they can.
If it is a comprehensive one, then there is just one route that I can think of. You must somehow read the official reports or even better visit the place where the remaining were kept and have a first hand look.
From what I read between the lines of Mr. Shiraz's comment, is the fact that we're living in a situation where the other side of the blade of the 'unthought' and the 'unthinkable' (i.e. the negative side of the blade) have emerged and have to be considered by Architects while they design a building potential to become a political target of certain individuals.
For example, how to design the site entrance so it makes it difficult for someone to drive a car full of explosives to ram directly into a building, building materials, other security aspects, construction, etc.
Of course it sounds frustrating cause there are just too many possibilities. But the battles have already begun and as far as buildings are concerned, its an Architect's role.
Mr. Atif, ever since the WTC tragedy, many Architects discused all the building design aspects of the 'construction failures' (of course it failed...sigh). This is why your work is very important and I hope you'll succeed in your research.
Inspired by this interesting and dynamic discussion, I have done a quick check of the Internet based resources on skyscrapers and found surprisingly lot of sites that could be helpful for your research. It seems that we could talk about a virtual knowledge base related to these two buildings...|
I would like to recommend two information resources:
The Database on Skyscrapers - SKYSCRAPERS.COM
This database contains records on both buildings (World Trade Center and the Empire State Building) and a special part dedicated to WTC (Construction, Usage Phase, Demolition and Redevelopment)
Great Buildings Online
Pages dedicated to WTC and the Empire State Building
Bottom line: An extremely healthy atmosphere for discussion and debate, with more positive outcomes than expected.
A new article that might be helpful in the context of this discussion URBAN WARRIORS
Dear Ms. Eldeen,|
I'm a bit late in posting an answer to the following statement of yours:
"I find Shiraz's response an advice for Atif to concentrate on architecture, and a stress to shift away of non-architectural reasons of the towers collapse, not to evoke religious or political taboos.."
I think there is nothing in the original posting by Atif that suggests that he is talkinig about anything other than architecture. He is clearly trying to understand the "structural" reason for its collapse, not political. Neither is there any implication of a reference to anything religious. He is asking HOW, not WHY and WHO.
I saw a nice program at Discovery Channel the other day. "WTC: Anatomy Of The Collapse" the DVD can be found at Amazon if you're still interested.