I kinda like the "Borg Cube on a docking collar" look too.

Demolish and Deconstruct are two different things.

Interesting... There's a building of similar construction in Vancouver BC (and elsewhere, I'm sure). I never thought about it, but I guess this would be the only way to deconstruct it.

There's a similar looking building right next to the Ikea in New Haven, CT. Apparently, it was a distinctive building, and so it wasn't demolished to make way for the Ikea; rather, it became an office building for them.

They should leave the building in that have demolished state and say it has flood protection.

How can a building in that state stay supported by the core all the way at the bottom. Didn't anyone watch footage from 9/11? The core should explode into rubble once any support is shifted to the fragile and easily damaged core. Just like WTC.

The building pictured here was not built in the same way as the World Trade Center. Those buildings were each supported by a strong outer wall as well as a central core. The core itself did not fail untill the exterior walls did. This building is not supported whatsoever by the outer walls making this deconstruction process possible.

makes a nice monument!
Here's a cool but new functional variation...
[www.archinect.com]

@qbrad: If you read the post, you'd understand that the building essentially hangs from the top of the central column. If the WTCs had been built like that (which they couldn't have), they would've been fine. Instead, they used the outer skin as their frame.

For my part, I dig the new building, even if the half deconstructed one looks like a Syd Mead wet dream. That's got to be one of the world's most architecturally fascinating neighborhoods (the Lloyds building, the Swiss Re gherkin and this within a couple of blocks).

@QBRAD : please learn to read. The construction of the build was that the floors were hung from a central beam at the top which was supported by the center core.

The World Trade Centers were built with an exoskeleton and an inner core. Like a box in a box. The floors were hung between the two supporting structures. When the first plane hit the north tower it took out one of the sides of the outer box, and ripped right through the inner box. when the second plane hit, it not only did the same, but it also took out a corner, which held a lot of weight. With support from only the 3 undamaged outer walls, and the internal floors pancaking inside adding to the weight and stress, it was amazing the building held up as long as it did. Of course once the weak part gave in, it was a free fall of thousands of tons of steel and concrete easily ripping through the floors below, because again, the open floor plan left little structural support in the majority of the space.

QBRAD, that makes no sense.
The world trade center collapsed because of the weight of the higher floors falling down on the lower floors after the core was damanged by huge airplanes ramming through it.

As long as they don't get a huge batch of highly combustable sumo wresters to start jumping on the top of the building, then it should be fine.

I was being sarcasrtic people... But the towers WERE built to withstand a direct impact from similar sized planes to the ones used in the attacks. The architects themselves were stunned that those buildings fell due to such an impact, and you should have been too. The 9/11 commission report doesn't even acknowledge that the core collapsed due to impact, but due to heat, and the fact that it did collapse at all was glossed over as highly improbable but good enough for the administration in charge to refrain from any further investigation.
On a matter getting back to the post, the building does indeed look quite kewl.

@drumz0rz:

Yea, and that of course causes the building to fall at the same rate of speed and amount of time as a billiard ball falling from the same height.

Cool looking building though. I hope it doesnt catch on fire on 2 floors, or else that will surely be enough to bring the entire building down in seconds like building 7.

And by the way, which engineering company do you work for. You must have made some excellent buildings since you seem to have extensive knowledge of structural design.

But those engineers that designed the WTC buildings are pretty bad. I mean, i would be pretty pissed if a stove fire brought down my entire house in less than an hour.

@qbrad:

Come on man, stay on topic. We're not here to discuss your angst about the WTC.

Let's end this piece of shit:

Everyone sufficiently qualified to comment (structural engineers, crash investigators, architects, materials scientists, etc. etc.) and who has seen the evidence first-hand (not through friggin' YouTube) has concluded that the damage to the World Trade Centre buildings is consistent with crashing a laden passanger jet into the buildings. The people who disagree are all quacks, laymen, or retirees who haven't been within five hundred yards of the actual evidence.

@qbrad:
>"The architects themselves
>were stunned that those buildings
>fell due to such an impact."

How did you expect them to react?

"Man we just knew those things were gonna get knocked down. We barely passed our architectural exams. What were they thinking paying us to design those things?"

@Sockatume:

Building 7 didnt get hit by a plane...nor was it even mentioned in the commission report.
And it came down like a champ.

@qbrad:

ok hippie calm down. No need to bring your bush hatred to this site. If you think its a conspiracy, go run to one of those consipacy sites or go hang out with the other unemployed hippies in Union Sq.

@ishred: Okay, no need to reverse the hatred with comments like "hippie." Most hippies I know are NOT the conspiracy theorists who believe this garbage, and most of my fellow bush-haters don't believe this conspiracy crap either. You can treat HIM like the uninformed fool he's acting like, but no need to lump him into stereotypes of other people that you've created in your head.

@TurboFool:

so calling him a hippie was insulting the hippies?

Yeah, what Turbofool said, I'm no hippy. And I don't think I'm really "hating" on anything specifically. I'm really just saying that there is doubt about the explanations given for that episode in our lives. I'm also employed. Doing great things for mankind. I'll let you in on a little secret... We're gonna land on the moon someday.

@qbrad:

i agree with you on the moon thing...

but there was no need to bring the WTC into this :)

QBRAD -- As a firefighter a few hundred miles away, I have to say you sound like a fool here. A LOT of investigation was done. The structural failure was studied, the study distributed, and the information used even be little rural fire departments like us, and I'm sure a lot more in the big cities.

For that matter, nearly all big fires where there is significant loss of life are studied. I've seen extensive technical studies of the fire in RI that detail second by second EXACTLY what happened and what conditions were like -- details that would frankly stun you.

Don't confuse your political beliefs (which I likely agree with) with your science.

Hey Addy, where's that damn ban hammer?

Most people come here for the cool gadgets, not the politics and stupid name-calling. There's plenty of sites that specialize in that sort of thing, which is where I go for THAT.

/rant

Ok, lets all get off our soap boxes and read some more iPhone, I mean technology, news.

Seriously though, lets solve this in one comment. Qbrad: they were NOT built to take damage from a 767 - they were made to take the damage from a much smaller aircraft, the 707.

Diablousunknown: They were a genious design of the time, using much less valuable steel than other construction methods and allowing for more open usable space. No building has been designed to take that much damage and withstand that much heat.

Ishred: Simply put, stop being a stereotyping biggot.

There is plenty of disagreements with polotics today, but why bring a topic like this into a lighthearted tech blog?

I think QBRAD's brain collapsed in a controlled demolition.

I like ice cream.

No need to insult hippies. Bonehead does not = hippie.

I love the new building. Gorgeous.

I think QBRAD's brain collapsed in a controlled demolition.
HAHAHAHAHA!!! Gold STAR! Now That was funny.

Oh yes! Another skyscraper I can try to spot from Curley Hill, Lightwater.

Is it just me, or does the half deconstructed building seem kindof.... what's the word... phallic?

Oops, sorry. Forgot this wasn't fleshbot.

BY DIABOLUSUNKNOWN AT 10:53 AM
But those engineers that designed the WTC buildings are pretty bad. I mean, i would be pretty pissed if a stove fire brought down my entire house in less than an hour.

------------
A curtain being set on fire by a 4 year old girl burned my sister's 2 story Chicago-area house in about an hour. She and her husband were pissed.

FAKE FAKE FAKE!! I call BS!! That's physically impossible.

That's a photoshopped pic if I ever saw one! Total alteration. All those people and the cares and the sky and everything else are all superimposed or blue-screened in!!

You can tell by the barrel distortion, zoom-factorials and massive pixel interpolated dithering!!

Just kidding!! haw haw haw...

BY DIABOLUSUNKNOWN AT 10:53 AM
But those engineers that designed the WTC buildings are pretty bad. I mean, i would be pretty pissed if a stove fire brought down my entire house in less than an hour.

_____________________

you don't know what you are talking about

Office on a stick?

QBRAD: The WTC was not designed to withstand impact from an aircraft the size of the B767. They were designed with the B707, a much smaller jetliner, as the baseline. And if you've watched any of the *many* interviews with the architects and engineers who designed the WTC, they're actually not that shocked by the collapse. Sure there was 'shock' over seeing it happen and all, but that's not the same as disbelief or surprise that it did happen. They're repeatedly stated that the towers were not designed to withstand the impact received, but a much smaller impact. And they were certainly not designed to withstand the impact *and* following fire.

Frankly I can't stand Dubya and his cronies, and I lean fairly far left in general, but the 9/11 conspiracies drive me up a wall. I've been into engineering disasters most of my life and studied engineering, and the WTC collapse isn't really that remarkable from an engineering standpoint as a progressive collapse. It was just larger than others that have happened. And I know personally people who worked at the scene and experts who analyzed the debris, and they're positive it was a collapse due to damage and fire and no conspiracy.

And that's more than enough on that really.

Allright, let me see if I got everything

* 9/11 was an inside job, reports and research by everybody with a shred of credibility to the contrary.
* Building 7 shouldn't have collapsed, despite a little thing like being engulfed in flames.
* No plane crashed into the Pentagon; everybody who was on the supposed "plane" was actually in on the conspiracy and their grieving families are just covering for them.
* There was no moon landing.
* JFK was actually shot by Abraham Lincoln from the grassy knoll.

That about cover everything? Can we get back to talking about something relevant now?

JFK was shot by future JFK from the grassy knoll while Lister and Kryten looked on. I believe he was dressed as a cop.

BY DREWHEYMAN & BY BR4ND0NH347:

If you look above your heads, you will see the 747 carrying the point i was trying to make.

Building 7, according to the official story, came down due to some fires. An entire building collapsed like anything holding it up disappeared and came down due to fires (i think they were on 3 floors). The building was the furtherst away from the towers.

What i was trying to say was more of a satire on the whole story. We will leave the 2 main towers offical story as plausable. But building 7, if i am to believe the official story, doesnt make any sense at all. The reason i mentioned the stove fire was because if a stove fire occured in a house, it would no doubt bring it down, assuming nothing was done to supress it. Dont assume people making comments are idiots, and think about what is being said before responding to it. In any case, Building 7 would have had to be made entirely of wood for a fire on 3 floors to bring it down in the fashion it came down in.

Seeing as though most of you are slow as mules, please try to track the 747 carrying this point for a while so it doesnt fly over your heads.

@HeartBurnKid:

Believe what you want, and others will believe what they want. Alot of the theories out there i dont believe, but some have the possibility of being true. But the thing that irritates me the most is when people come about and insult others for their beliefs. In my previous post, i insulted people for being slow, which is different. What your doing is just like insulting a Hindu for believing in an elephant god, or christians for believing a man can walk on water. With every major event or topic, there are always 2 sides of the story. Each have their possibilities, some are correct in their logic, while failing at other parts.

Regardless of whats true or not, you can no doubt agree that alot of information has not been revealed about that day. That is a fact. And its these holes that cause these theories to come about. You may believe that all these holes are well covered, but then again most of you have pretty much concluded that "it cant be anything else, so what they tell me is the true". However, there are lingering questions. That is all, just questions. And they are not being answered.

And dont waste your time attempting to school me and giving me answers to these questions. Ive read so much (including the 9/11 commission report and numerous books that cover both sides) over these past years that i am still unconvinced on quite a few things.

@diabolusunknown: I love you, man. And I'm in the boat with you too. "Nothing gay, just two guys having some fun."

@diabolusunknown: You want to know why Building 7 came down?

That's why!

@diabolusunknown: The part that irks me is that the infrormation is out there. All you have to do is look. Instead, these conspiracy theorists take one freaking photo and a grainy YouTube video, and start making up stuff about how the government did this and the Illuminati did that and Skull and Bones did the other... frankly, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, and that's one thing that nobody has bothered to put forth!

Wow, I didn't know this Giz post was about re-hashing the collapse of the WTC towers!!

Those Giz editors sure do know how to disguise a topic!!!

[/end_rant]

Anyway, from an architectural view, I still don't understand how you can't just implode the building in the original post, or just place charges along the beam that supports the building's floors.

Anyone qualified out there who wants to explain it better?

I thought it was generally agreed that the moon landing was faked... It's much easier to prove that it didn't happen than that it did, and when you consider the equipment they had in 1969, it seems a bit more unlikely.

@ HEARTBURNKID:
Nice picture that disproves your point! Where is the fire? Other steel buildings have burned for 12 hours or more completely engulfed in flames and have not fallen completely straight down into their own footprint. Does it make sense that a CORNER of the building was missing and yet the building came straight down? Why did it not collapse toward the missing corner?

@drumz0rz:
Finally, someone on the internet who understands how the WTC towers were built and the wonder they lasted so long. I know my post is days late, and I dont care.