Madrid tower block building close to collapse.....
Discussion
After this, and the NY Twin Towers disaster I wouldn't work at the top of a high rise building for a gold clock........
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4263667.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4263667.stm
Using a parachute is not something that can be done without adequate training. Base jumping is one of the most dangerous forms of parachuting, and is illegal in most countries.
Nobnody died in this incident either, and if the WTC buildings had been built better, far fewer people would have died there too.
Nobnody died in this incident either, and if the WTC buildings had been built better, far fewer people would have died there too.
Eric Mc said:
Nobnody died in this incident either, and if the WTC buildings had been built better, far fewer people would have died there too.
I'll have to argue that. Considering the buildings had an aircraft fully laden with fuel smash into them at about 400mph, those buildings stood up incredibly well. Imagine the forces created with such an impact and then following explosion!!
I think he means the internal fire protection rather than construction, the dry wall (plasterboard) although fireproof was blown to dust by the explosion allowing the fire to spread and block stairs, plus the fire protection on the girders was also brittle and blown off to allowing the heat to melt and bend the floor supports. As for the strength of the building that was good, it was built to only withstand a smaller jet collision so to stay up for as long as it did was excellent, it arguable whether it would have collapsed at all if the fire retardation was working properly.
b17nns - the WTCs were built in 1973 to a standard which was supposed to allow them to withstand an impact from a fully laden Boeing 747. Neither the 757 nor the 767 are as big as a 747 and neither of the aircraft that hit the Twin Towers were fully laden. The building SHOULD have been able to stay standing.
The danger of New York skyscrapers being hit by aircraft was well known, mainly because of the crash of a North American B-25 Mitchell bomber into the Empire State Building in 1945.
As has already been mentioned, the factor no one built into their "models" was the significant loss of fire retardation material caused by the initial impacts. It wasn't the crashes that brought the buildings down, it was the subsequent intense fires.
The danger of New York skyscrapers being hit by aircraft was well known, mainly because of the crash of a North American B-25 Mitchell bomber into the Empire State Building in 1945.
As has already been mentioned, the factor no one built into their "models" was the significant loss of fire retardation material caused by the initial impacts. It wasn't the crashes that brought the buildings down, it was the subsequent intense fires.
eunosroadster said:
The use of parachutes in a build as a form of escape is not as good as it sound, as I am sure that some people have now gone and got them for the just in case moment. Parachutes when they open swing you round 180 degrees, spot the problem then. Base jumpers use a 'trash pack' method to stop the parachute from spinning you round. This has its draw backs as the lines can then end up wrapping around the canopy. But having said all of that if I worked in a high building and the threat was high enough I would have a rig ready. Correctly (trash) packed and ready for use.
True. Base-jumping 'chutes are the hardest to use, and the ones people can be trained more easily to use are really only effective from a much greater height.
Also, surely the building itself might restrict air flow to the parachute when it opens, so if you jumped out in the wrong place the canopy might just collapse without warning. And can you imagine the logistics of a mass evacuation by parachute from a single source? Mayhem that could end up causing more deaths through mid-air collisions and botched landings than the fire or building collapse itself.
b17nns said:
if the WTC buildings had been built better, far fewer people would have died there too.
didn't this have something to do with loons flying jets at them?
Relatively few people died as a result of the initial impact, must were killed when teh structures collapsed after the metal structure melted.
Eric Mc said:
b17nns - the WTCs were built in 1973 to a standard which was supposed to allow them to withstand an impact from a fully laden Boeing 747. Neither the 757 nor the 767 are as big as a 747 and neither of the aircraft that hit the Twin Towers were fully laden. The building SHOULD have been able to stay standing.
No they were designed in 1966 to survive the impact of a 707, the 767's that hit were a tiny bit larger and heavier the result should have been the same. They just did not anticpate the impact of the jet fuel on the structure plus the angle at which they hit did the most damage.
Why would they have limited the design to withstand only 707 size aircraft. Even if they were designing the WTCs in 1966, the 747 and similar sized aircraft were also being designed AT THE SAME TIME. The 747, DC-10 and Tristar airliners were all launched in 1966.
As has been pointed out, the 757 is virtually the same size as a 707 although the 767 is somewhat larger. However, neither plane was fully loaded with fuel or passengers so they may very well have had less of an impact on the building than a fully fuelled up an passengered 707 might have had anyway.
I watched a documentary on Discovery a year or so after the incident and they were fairly categorical in stating that it was the metal framework of the building failing due to the intense fires that was the root cause of the collapses.
As for the B-25 crash being "due to fog" - that is irrelevant. As I said earlier, I wonder how one of the older skyscrapers might have stood up to being hit by 757/767 aircraft. Aeroplanes of this size were certainly not envisaged when the Empire State and Chrysler Building were erected in the 1930s.
As has been pointed out, the 757 is virtually the same size as a 707 although the 767 is somewhat larger. However, neither plane was fully loaded with fuel or passengers so they may very well have had less of an impact on the building than a fully fuelled up an passengered 707 might have had anyway.
I watched a documentary on Discovery a year or so after the incident and they were fairly categorical in stating that it was the metal framework of the building failing due to the intense fires that was the root cause of the collapses.
As for the B-25 crash being "due to fog" - that is irrelevant. As I said earlier, I wonder how one of the older skyscrapers might have stood up to being hit by 757/767 aircraft. Aeroplanes of this size were certainly not envisaged when the Empire State and Chrysler Building were erected in the 1930s.
Right.
You're on the 30th floor of an office block. There is a fire on the 16th floor, blocking the fire escapes. Naturally, you do not use the elevator. The fire services are fighting the fire, but from below. The fire is making rapid progress up the building, and due to the radio masts on top of the building, helicopters are unable to land on the roof. At a rough guess, there are four hundred people above you waiting to be rescued.
Do you,
1/ Sit tight, hope the fire goes out or is put out.
2/ Go to the roof, hoping to be rescued by helicopter.
3/ Jump.
4/ Take parachute from wall and jump.
Now discuss.
You're on the 30th floor of an office block. There is a fire on the 16th floor, blocking the fire escapes. Naturally, you do not use the elevator. The fire services are fighting the fire, but from below. The fire is making rapid progress up the building, and due to the radio masts on top of the building, helicopters are unable to land on the roof. At a rough guess, there are four hundred people above you waiting to be rescued.
Do you,
1/ Sit tight, hope the fire goes out or is put out.
2/ Go to the roof, hoping to be rescued by helicopter.
3/ Jump.
4/ Take parachute from wall and jump.
Now discuss.
mrmaggit said:2 for me. Just because the helicopters cannot land doesn't mean you cannot be rescued.
Right.
You're on the 30th floor of an office block. There is a fire on the 16th floor, blocking the fire escapes. Naturally, you do not use the elevator. The fire services are fighting the fire, but from below. The fire is making rapid progress up the building, and due to the radio masts on top of the building, helicopters are unable to land on the roof. At a rough guess, there are four hundred people above you waiting to be rescued.
Do you,
1/ Sit tight, hope the fire goes out or is put out.
2/ Go to the roof, hoping to be rescued by helicopter.
3/ Jump.
4/ Take parachute from wall and jump.
Now discuss.
mrmaggit said:
Do you,
1/ Sit tight, hope the fire goes out or is put out.
2/ Go to the roof, hoping to be rescued by helicopter.
3/ Jump.
4/ Take parachute from wall and jump.
1 is a possibility but the fire is climbing.
2 is not an option (you said the building has a mast)
3 will result in almost certain death
4 seems the way to go.
Geronimo!
mrmaggit said:
Right.
You're on the 30th floor of an office block. There is a fire on the 16th floor, blocking the fire escapes. Naturally, you do not use the elevator. The fire services are fighting the fire, but from below. The fire is making rapid progress up the building, and due to the radio masts on top of the building, helicopters are unable to land on the roof. At a rough guess, there are four hundred people above you waiting to be rescued.
Do you,
1/ Sit tight, hope the fire goes out or is put out.
2/ Go to the roof, hoping to be rescued by helicopter.
3/ Jump.
4/ Take parachute from wall and jump.
Now discuss.
Haven't you seen Towering Inferno?
Just tie everyone to pillars and then blow the water tanks on the roof and this puts the fire out. Simple.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff