WHY THE

TOWER
FELL

The initial World Trade Center was a 16-

acre New York City complex featuring
seven skyscrapers that accommodated
more than 430 enterprises across the
world. Prior to being destroyed in 2001,
the Twin Towers, two 110-story
skyscrapers of the World Trade Center,
dominate the Manhattan skyline for
three decades. The structures gained
iconic stature in the popular
imagination, becoming symbols of New
York City and all of America, despite
initial criticism for their ambitious height
and uncompromising architectural
style.

The Twin Towers were the targets of two

terrorist attacks due to their popularity
and symbolism. The first occurred on
February 26, 1993, when a van
containing around 1,200 pounds of
explosives exploded in the open parking
garage below the World Trade Center.
On September 11, 2001, two hijacked
aircraft flown by members of the terrorist
organization al-Qaeda crashed into the
structures, causing their collapse.

AD8 MIDTERM
WRITTEN EXAM

IAN PAUL BOS

ARCHI 4E
The twin tower project was established under the direction of construction engineer young 34
yrs. old Leslie Robertson during the time. Unlike the empire state building, which relies on a
dense grid of steel girders for support in terms of mass and height, Robertson became rational
about the structural framework in order to maximize the leasable space of the building.
Robertson opted to relocating the inner column in the outer walls, which created space but
made the interior hollow.

The complete wind engineering component is the most important component of any structural
design for a highly tall building. That is why developers resort to strong steel palisades that can
support a building's downward weight. The external framework of the World Trade Center was
thought to be strong and able to sustain lateral strain for an extended period of time, even in
the worst scenarios.

Robertson established a central service core, areas where the emergency access such as stairs
and elevators are located, supported by large steel columns surrounding it. The vertical steel
columns were free standing stilts and tied fixed with floor trusses. These horizontal steel
assemblies were bolted to the columns at either end and later welded to the outer columns for
added stability. The trusses were a crucial part of the support and these was the focus of the
investigation

Due to Robertson’s cost efficiency and mass reduction. He used light weight heat resistance
foam to steel members and used drywall a light weight walling materials though this is a
practical way of fire resistant elements this lacks durability compared to concrete as basic core
standard materials for stability. Drywall cannot withstand heat that long.

The building’s design was strategically planned to withstand the impact of airplane as it was
considered the first skyscraper that is built to survive plane impact.

Despite of such claims about resiliency historical studies showed that there was no preparation
of evacuation scenarios, taking into account the height of the building, time, occupancy and
duration of such disaster.

The hijacking of the airplane that crashed into the twin towers on September 11, 2001,
destroying it to the ground, demonstrated that the design was not as efficient as it was thought
to be. The impact mostly affected the walls (support), columns (stability), and the core (access).

Jet fuel was initially thought to be the primary suspect in the catastrophe, however it was later
shown that while it initiated the initial burnout, it had a limited overall impact.
Investigators revealed that the drywall was a weak alternative for walling since it had showed
little to none resistance to the impact. The service core was breached allowing no people to
access the stairwell and only 18 people manage to survive form the area of collision to the
upper floors. The steel framework destabilize because the part of the wall systems and core
was destroyed so foundation of the building was compromised. Fire proofing created minimal
effect of fire resistance since the aftermath revealed the FP materials to be obliterated allowing
the steel members to soften and melt due to the exposure to heat. Most case scenario is that the
building collapsed to the ground.

My opinion is that the designer compromised potential support after moving the column toward
the exterior wall and leaving the interior to be hollow because he focused too much emphasis
on space efficiency or generating leasable spaces. The floor support and truss connection was
not strong enough to hold. Bolted and welded connections definitely add to the robust element,
but they are not durable. Centralizing the core was the ideal solution because it enhances
stability, especially after large steel columns are installed for support. Moreover, a core
composed of reinforced concrete would have been more durable and fire resistant. The service
area was not proportionate to the occupancy of the building and the stair ways were narrow
allowing crowding and rescue team such as firemen difficulty in access and secure rescue
locations. Reinforced concrete walls in core would have protected stairways or elevator shaft
from breaches and still become accessible even in worst case scenarios. The exposure of metal
to severe heat may have been avoided with the use of fireproofing that is compact and resistant
to both impact and fire. In order to reduce the number of fatalities, safety evaluations like
readiness for evacuation would have been extremely important.

The structural framework, cost efficiency and mass reduction impacts on the structural system
were some of the most significant pieces of information I discovered. That these characteristics
might have an impact on the building's very foundation. Our age is fortunate to have learnt
from the mistakes of the past and to have constructed a new foundation of building standards
in this modern day, particularly for architecture.