• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Compare the WTC..to a Tree?

Thunder

Banned
T
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
34,918
this is something interesting i heard recently. that we should compare the damage to the first tower that fell..to the cuts made in a tree when you drop it.

it is true, that usually, when u drop a tree, it falls in the direction of the initial cut. but thats only if the tree has slightly more weight on the side of the cut. if the tree has more weight on the opposite side...the tree will pinch the saw and try to fall the wrong way.

or...if in the amazing chance, that the tree is 100% level and 100% straight...then it will not fall at all. all the weight will compress on the remaining parts of the tree....and if that tree was a mile high...it would most likely simply crush the section of tree below the cut...just like how the wtc towers ended crushing the sections below it.

common sense...would say that the wtc should have fallen towards the plane damage...but clearly...with the wtc..and even with trees..common sense..is no substitute for physics, engineering, and science.
 
Ah yes and then, of course, there is the whole issue with the WTC roots that spanned 50 stories underground!
 
It always frightens me that these people can't understand the difference between a prdominantly solid tree and the framed structure of ANY building, especially one such as a skyscraper.

There can be little doubt that mm for mm, the shear strength of a tree trunk by far outstrips that of a steel or concrete frame.

The ability to cantilever branches so far from the trunk is a classic example.

What next? Shall we change the design of the Freedom Tower to timber? Nice bit of veneer wbp ply on the exterior in lieu of curtain walling? The restaurant on the top can be called "The Treehouse".
 
Architect said:
It always frightens me that these people can't understand the difference between a prdominantly solid tree and the framed structure of ANY building, especially one such as a skyscraper.

There can be little doubt that mm for mm, the shear strength of a tree trunk by far outstrips that of a steel or concrete frame.

The ability to cantilever branches so far from the trunk is a classic example.

What next? Shall we change the design of the Freedom Tower to timber? Nice bit of veneer wbp ply on the exterior in lieu of curtain walling? The restaurant on the top can be called "The Treehouse".
Click to expand...

Ah yes and Silverstein can have a little Keebler house full of elves and sell cookies out the window!
 
Anyone ever, honestly, for the sake of shutting the wackos up, ever compare the DENSITY of a tree compared to the DENSITY of the near HOLLOW (In terms of air:material ratio) WTCs?

TAM:
 
1. Take a junk of wood
2. Take a beer can
3. Bring your fist down on the beer can...easy enough...
Now, Step 4....
4. bring your fist down on one end of the junk of wood...OUCH!!!
 
its probably more accurate to compare it to a fragile glass sculpture. as it starts to fail the stem crumbles. if you want to compare it to a tree it would be the apple trees from the wizard of oz getting real nasty and throwing apples at the troofers.:D
 
parky76 said:
this is something interesting i heard recently. that we should compare the damage to the first tower that fell..to the cuts made in a tree when you drop it.

it is true, that usually, when u drop a tree, it falls in the direction of the initial cut. but thats only if the tree has slightly more weight on the side of the cut. if the tree has more weight on the opposite side...the tree will pinch the saw and try to fall the wrong way.

or...if in the amazing chance, that the tree is 100% level and 100% straight...then it will not fall at all. all the weight will compress on the remaining parts of the tree....and if that tree was a mile high...it would most likely simply crush the section of tree below the cut...just like how the wtc towers ended crushing the sections below it.

common sense...would say that the wtc should have fallen towards the plane damage...but clearly...with the wtc..and even with trees..common sense..is no substitute for physics, engineering, and science.
Click to expand...

I would compare it to the great big Hollow sassafras that I cut a notch out of and Who's trunk splintered in to about a thousand peaces and fell strait down toward me nearly killing me. Ya that was similar to what happened in the twin towers. DA it is not the cut that guides the fall but the lean! Cut a hollow tree balanced tree with no limbs and you might just find that out as I did.
No how did the limbs on the buildings pull the buildings? What type of material was the Hinge made out of, how much of it, how strong was it?

Comparing the World trade center to a tree is like comparing a 767 to a rubber band wind up toy plane, it is just not the same ride.
It is like comparing an Lamborghini contauch to a yogo, or a Dodge Charger to a bicycle.
It simply is stupid!
PS. If Cters cut trees for a living there would be no Cters, they do not know the first thing about them. They would get themselves Injured or killed with in the first few hours it is not that simple cutting trees.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind that one of the first to compare the WTC to a tree was Judy Wood - the BEST ENGINEER THE TWOOFERS HAVE.
 
So we need to find an engineer named Judy "Steel Framed Building" and have here put out her own theory.

:)TAM
 
8790453dbf9d25888.jpg

​
 
T.A.M. said:
Anyone ever, honestly, for the sake of shutting the wackos up, ever compare the DENSITY of a tree compared to the DENSITY of the near HOLLOW (In terms of air:material ratio) WTCs?

TAM:
Click to expand...

Using metric, and maple for the wood (hey, I'm Canadian!), I get a mass for a solid wood tower the same size as one of the towers as 1 491 740 metric tonnes. What was the mass of one tower?

Maple density is 755 kg/m3, and I used 417x69x69 for the volume of the towers. I think those numbers are right, but please check them.
 
Last edited:
Maple? That's like Sycamore, eh? ;) Big, strong devils.
 
Last edited:
parky76 said:
this is something interesting i heard recently. that we should compare the damage to the first tower that fell..to the cuts made in a tree when you drop it.

it is true, that usually, when u drop a tree, it falls in the direction of the initial cut.
That assumes only one cut and no other factors.

but thats only if the tree has slightly more weight on the side of the cut. if the tree has more weight on the opposite side...the tree will pinch the saw and try to fall the wrong way.

or...if in the amazing chance, that the tree is 100% level and 100% straight...then it will not fall at all. all the weight will compress on the remaining parts of the tree....and if that tree was a mile high...it would most likely simply crush the section of tree below the cut...just like how the wtc towers ended crushing the sections below it.
Click to expand...

Eh not really since there is a shortage of a drop. What you do get is the base of the tree jumps sideways and falls straight down.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
In structural terms, we would have to imagine that the tree trunk was composed only of one outer ring of growth, one or two central rings of growth, and that the intervening void was linked by a 2mm thick horzontal "plate" every (say) 150mm or so.

Betcha it wouldn't fall over straight then.....
 
Architect said:
In structural terms, we would have to imagine that the tree trunk was composed only of one outer ring of growth, one or two central rings of growth, and that the intervening void was linked by a 2mm thick horzontal "plate" every (say) 150mm or so.

Betcha it wouldn't fall over straight then.....
Click to expand...

Some sort of mutated super-bamboo, I suppose? :)
 
Hmmm ... back of the envelope time again.

Bell said:
To sum it up:

WTC height: 1,368 ft (417.0 m)
WTC width: 208 feet (63.4 m)
WTC weight: 500.000 ton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
Click to expand...

500000 tons / (417 m * 63.4 m * 63.4 m) =~ 0.298301 metric tons / m^3
or
298.3 kg / m^3

Google some reference densities fromhttp://www.simetric.co.uk/si_wood.htm and http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_materials.htm, we find that the nearest listed solid (not aggregate) materials are

1) bamboo (300-400 kg/m^3), which is not solid and very flexible, so really not the kind of tree Ms. Wood is using in her analogy. (It does emphasize how remarkable bamboo is, though - and why asian cultures use it for everything)

2) Solid Cork (240 kg/m^3). Wonder what odds of survival Ms. Wood would give her Keebler elves if they built their home in a WTC tower sized piece of solid cork and then a 68 kiloton object fell on it.

Entertainingly (at least to me) Rolled Oats (at 302 kg/m^3) is almost dead on in terms of density. Just trying to imagine a tower sized pile of rolled oats makes the whole idea of using everyday "common sense" to think about the WTC events look pretty silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom