Quote:
Originally posted by Hubris Boy
The towers collapsed because their load-bearing members were bathed in flaming jet fuel by militant extremists. So what? Engineers could surely design a highrise office tower to withstand that sort of punishment, but no one could afford to build one. So why bother?
|
During destructive events, loadbearing members of smaller skyscrapers fail, that floor collapses, yet what remains is intact. But to build them higher, then load bearing members cannot withstand a collapse of just one floor. If any one floor collapses on excessively tall buildings, then entire building pancakes. However and for some unknown reason, Hubris Boy 'knows' that if any one floor of any building collapses, then it is normal for all buildings to pancake. That is normal? What about those buildings in Kobe Japan? His conclusion - buisness as usual because he 'knows' it would cost too much to build as smaller skyscrapers are constructed and because there will be a demand for real estate. He just 'knows' without a doubt.
Hubris Boy probably also does not know that most financial firms had been considering moves to NJ anyway because they did not have to be located in expensive NYC. IOW there is a shortage of class A real estate - in Jersey. Not in crowded, expensive, and now to be even more expensive NYC. NYC real estate insurance rates will increase substancially.
Before asking "Should the WTC be rebuilt?" with so much confidence, one must first learn an overabundance of details and have accurate details in support of those conclusions. IOW 'know' before you mock another with an answer. Should we build structures so tall that a collapse of any one floor results in the destruction of the entire building? Should we build buildings so tall as to take a half hour just to get out of the building? Should we build buildings so tall that firefighters cannot even effectively fight the fire? Those details must be answered before WTC is rebuilt. Is honor more important than those risks?
One dismisses the question of how a building collapses to just obtain a particular conclusion. An engineer instead would ask whether it is intelligent to build structures so tall as to be easily pancaked. Demonstrated is how different mental processes approach the problem. Hubris Boy dismisses the problem with a quick politician answer - not based upon technical knowledge and using flawed details to prove his answer. Others approach with the question only from the viewpoint of honor - which is a valid point but not sufficient to answer the question. An engineer's viewpoint takes a more detailed, wide ranging, and pragmatic approach. Is it smart to put too many marbles at risk on one table when the table is therefore too large to be stable? Remember this dirty little fact from engineers: the 1993 WTC bombing should have brought down both towers (contrary to Hubris Boy's erroneous comments on building insurance).
Many NYC financial firms have already answered that question to commercial real estate brokers. They don't want their new offices in larger, taller landmark buildings. Therefore is it smart to rebuild the WTC? Is there even a market for such real estate based upon an engineer's more pragmatic viewpoint or upon the experience and new attitude of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter?