Posted on 09/24/2001 5:34:45 AM PDT by Byron_the_Aussie
Mr Seidler ... "It was all a question of costs, of course."
New York's World Trade Centre towers collapsed because they were cheap and poorly constructed, the Sydney architect Mr Harry Seidler says.
Other buildings, such as the Empire State Building, would have survived the impact, an Austrian newspaper, Kleine Zeitung, quotes him as saying.
The construction of the World Trade Centre was so poor it would not have been approved in most other countries, Mr Seidler said.
However, the New York Port Authority, which owned the site, was also responsible for granting the building approval, he said.
"It was all a question of costs, of course", he said.
The Kleine Zeitung reported last week that Mr Seidler inspected the site shortly before the World Trade Centre was completed.
"I was extremely surprised at the time that the construction was so delicate. It was the lightest I have ever seen."
Other concrete buildings would not have collapsed, he said. The World Trade Centre had been built as if it was made from cardboard. Its steel girders were only sprayed with asbestos and melted "like spaghetti" in the heat.
The lift shafts and staircases were clad with plaster, which explained the white plaster dust on the faces of survivors. And the floors were made of metal plates with only a thin layer of concrete, Mr Seidler said.
The Empire State Building, a steel design, would have withstood the impact because it was clad with concrete, he said.
Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur and Sears Tower in Chicago, two of the highest buildings in the world, also would have survived, Mr Seidler said.
"All of this would not have happened with a concrete construction. Impossible."
The Herald was unable to contact Mr Seidler yesterday.
Plus, this AH doesn't know concrete dust when he seems it. Great engineer!
And maybe the terrorists selected the WTC in preference to the Empire State building, for precisely the reasons Seidler mentions. I mean, let's not underestimate the carefulness of their planning again.
It was on a FOX interview program and the interviewee was the NYPD chaplain or whatever.
He was at the site when one building collapsed, and mentioned seeing an explosion or flames at about the 20th floor right before the collapse.
Could have been gas pipes exploding (if they had any) or it could have been some help put in by terrorists to assure colapse.
prambo
Not only this, but at the time of construction, asbestos was being banned in new construction. It is not clear whether the towers had asbestos and it was later removed and replaced with celulose or that it never had it on to begin with.
As far as other cost limiters, no stories have surfaced that construction guides were bypassed in the construction. Everything man can build can be destroyed with the right weapon placed in the right place.
This guy is a idiot trying to get in the spotlight for a second of fame!
Good news is that if it toppled over, which is the way I thought it happened initially, it would have killed many more people and cause much more damage.
Okay. I thought I had read there was an asbestos concern amongst the firefighters and rescue teams.
Seidler's known as a bit of a grandstander, who's liable to pop up in the media here with an opinion on just about anything. On the other hand, he's an expert in high rise construction, who was present during construction of the WTC towers. So there's no way his opinion can be dismissed.
Showpony, yes.
Idiot, no.
I know virtually nothing about construction but it does seem peculiar that two buildings can collapse to the ground in that way. If it is because of heat melting girders, could a conventional fire have had the same effect?
Right on the second point. I believe I read that the firefighters were concerned about asbestos, and wore the masks, but detectors have failed to find any asbestos in the atmosphere. Concerns for asbestosos have led to a large number of laws supported only by junk science. Most persons can tollerate a few exposures to asbestos in a lifetime without ever developing lung disease.
Losses would have been much, much higher had the latter happened.
Of course they did. If they could afford pilot training, why couldn't they afford civil engineer's consulting fee? They are professionals with a lot of bombing experience after all, not just crazy idiots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.