New York – Twin Towers

Your faith in human ingenuity bears out your signature perfectly!!:D

“From little Acorns, mighty Oaks are grown”, so just think outside the box Chas, betcha owt you like, if push came to shove, they could do it. 🙂

Jim.
Lincoln .7

Hmmmm Paul, digging down, and Spitfires rings a bell……However, The Russians have bored a hole just over 7 MILES deep, makes Chases 1.000 ft seem simples 😀

Jim.
Lincoln .7

Mmm – 7 miles deep and 50cms in diameter – not sure you’d get much of a building in there, Linc!!;)

Many moons ago when I was a lad and Moggy was past his sell by date, Tomorrow’s World featured a device that was similar to the rubbish chutes you see builders using on the outside of buildings,…,

You’re more than a bit late…when I was a kid…there was a school with just such a chute: A sliding fire escape. Of course 3 stories is quite a bit different than 100+…and filled with 10,000 people.

Hmmmm Paul, digging down, and Spitfires rings a bell……However, The Russians have bored a hole just over 7 MILES deep, makes Chases 1.000 ft seem simples 😀

Jim.
Lincoln .7

Jim digging down might hit a stash of Spitfires or Fungus the Bogyman!

If 9/11 proved anything, it proved how successful this kind of murderous attack could be against a soft target. Soft targets like the Twin Towers are springing up around the world. They have become symbols of power and engineering excellence. The propaganda value of hitting one or more of them is immense.

I suggest that some practical way of quickly and safely removing large numbers of occupants is not only desirable but, if not implemented, also reprehensible in denying many people a chance to escape death and injury.

If some practical method of extraction cannot be devised, then it is likely that many will want to avoid working in such an environment.

Hi All,
You can bet that somebody commented about the adverse affects but was probably (Who is the architect here) of course an alternative is ask the Aliens after all they have plenty of underground bases :highly_amused:

Geoff.

Jeff Waynes War of the worlds — Brave new world http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ12HrOGNYw

Oh I know that, Linc hence my stack of smilies but even so quarrying the stuff is different from excavating a vertical hole 1000′ deep and a similar square.
It would be interesting to read expert opinion on the subject.

Nothing is impossible Chas, there are many things that have been built around the World, when sceptics said it couldn’t be done. Granite, I know a little about that, I went to the quarry where they got the stone from to build the Eddystone lighthouse from , nowadays, they use Thermal Lances to get the granite out of the quarry. Like a knife through butter, I was told.Gone are the days in many quarries, where the only method was blasting.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Now there you are, Linc – back on form posing a fascinating civil engineering question. Excavating 1000′ plus down into a granite shield!!:eagerness::highly_amused:

S’pose the obvious answer would have been to have built it “Downwards” instead of upwards. 😀

Jim.
Lincoln .7

The problem with building escape systems is weighing up the cost of implementation versus, the probability of a major catastrophe necessitating the system actually being used.
If there was an escape system on the twin towers would you actually have used it? Would you have anticipated the building collapsing? What if the system had been damaged in the attack, people who survived may have fell to their deaths.
The flip side of all this being how many people would kill themselves trying to use the system when the safest thing to do would be to stay in the building?
I think the best thing to do is design a building that doesn’t collapse regardless of what happens to it although protecting against an act of terrorism is pretty difficult to do.

Yes, I agree. I wonder just how many highly professional and skilled designers would have anticipated that particular set of circumstances. Maybe they should have but life is peppered with design flaws which were never foreseen but then learned from afterwards.

Hmmm.. a fair bit of 20/20 hindsight happening in this thread.

Moggy

Charlie, I have no particular problem with architects, but I have no time for any ‘professional’ who forgets basic “common sense” when trying to demonstrate to others just how clever he/she can be… 😉

I have no doubt the building meets all sorts of criteria, but if it “fries” things due to the way it’s shape reflects and concentrates sunlight, then that’s a failry fundamental error in my eyes – unless of course it was requested as a design requirement by whomever commissioned the building :D.

Yep, physics principles so basic that some smart-ar$ed, over-paid, full-of-his-own-importance and ability :highly_amused:, architect completely overlooked them in his attempt to make a “statement” design that would stand as a testament to his abilities! I suspect he may now be being asked if he might like to consider a change in career…. :stupid:

You don’t like architects, then!!:D

It looks as though he met some positive criteria in his specification, though.

http://www.20fenchurchstreet.co.uk/20FS_SPECIFICATION.pdf

In Aylesbury, there is (or was, I haven’t been there for years) a building, shaped like a parallelogram, and completely clad in blue glass; nicknamed, locally, the “Blue Leany,” it won several awards, until autumn, when approaching drivers found that the low-level sun was reflecting back, and blinding them. During winter, the council hit on the splendid wheeze of transplanting complete trees, and planting them in front, so that the leaves covered the glass, trumpeting their wondrous cleverness, in the local press, as they did so; unfortunately, they chose deciduous trees, which shed their leaves during the autumn………….
Maybe they should plant the super-growth Leylandii trees in front of that building.

Hi All,
One physics expert brought in by the BBC ? in the news programme said it is basic science when building a block with windows that curve the way they do as it will concentrate the heat like a magnifying glass. :stupid:

Yep, physics principles so basic that some smart-ar$ed, over-paid, full-of-his-own-importance and ability :highly_amused:, architect completely overlooked them in his attempt to make a “statement” design that would stand as a testament to his abilities! I suspect he may now be being asked if he might like to consider a change in career…. :stupid:

Short of covering the glass, or “etching”, it to reduce its ability to reflect the light (both of which then detract from the architect’s hoped-for result), then I’m not sure there is an easy solution…short of a fleet of wrecking balls and bulldozers, and a new design. I suppose they could always build a wall in the path of the reflected light, to stop the light energy being focussed on the current “hot spot” – or perhaps they’ll just hope the British weather comes to their rescue by providing less “sunny” days?