Posted: Mar 27, 2011, 8:14 PM
|
 |
Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: the Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 12,497
|
|
How are those columbs not believeable? I'd assume that the bulk of the building's weight is supported by the concrete core, with the perimeter columns playing a secondary supportive role. Of course they still have to be really thick and sturdy, but perhaps not as much as you think. Philly's Comcast Center, just 30 feet shorter, had a similar concrete core yet its perimeter columns were about as thick as the ones here, and those were just steel in a tower that rose straight up without any setbacks until the very top. The Twin Towers of the WTC, obviously much taller and rising without any setbacks at all, did not rely on a central supportive core at all, and though the perimeter columns were much more frequent and much skinnier, they were still strong enough to not only support both buildings for decades, but also to withstand strikes by Boeing planes flying at full speed. Long story short, I think you're underestimating the strength of the columns that you're seeing.
The building is vulnerable to truck bombs? Of course it is, but so are most buildings in the city, and the last time New York was successfully attacked by a car bomb was in the mid-1900's on Wall Street, more than a century ago. Overbuilding the WTC makes perfect sense, as the complex has proven to be a repeated target of terrorist attacks, but designing every other highrise in the city like the vertical concrete bunker of the United States Mission to the United Nation makes no sense.
|
Prev
Linear Mode
