If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by DerbyDad03 on November 9, 2009, 9:23 am
.
> > Sorry. =A0I meant to agree with Robert, but my computer hiccupped. =A0S=
o,
> > I guess I'll re-iterate (again) that it's amazing the building didn't
> > crumble more.
> > I suspect that the reason it gives that appearance is because the
> buildings
> > collapse was cushioned a bit in the soft mud, allowing the stresses to
> snap
> > things sequentially as it fell rather than an explosion where the energ=
y
> is
> > applied all at once.
> Yeah but . . . (-: =A0Many of the windows didn't even break. =A0That's ju=
st
> bizarre. I wonder what the "rate of descent" was. =A0I guess if it tipped=
over
> gradually enough there wasn't a big slam at the end, but still, it's a
> pretty amazing site. Or sight. =A0Or even cite. =A0Thanks for posting tha=
t,
> Jeff.
> I guess I am used to seeing collapsed buildings in the aftermath of
> earthquakes where the buildings fall because they are shaken apart. =A0Th=
e
> Shanghai building didn't have to endure any pre-collapse shaking and I am
> betting the ground gave way slowly and the pilings appear to have bent
> before they broke, asborbing both time and energy and moderating the forc=
es
> on the building. =A0Still, what a ride that must have been. =A0Sounds lik=
e a
> project for Disney World. =A0Here are some random EQ photos, FWIW:
> http://images.google.com/images?q=3Djapanese+earthquakes
> --
> Bobby G.
re: "I guess if it tipped over gradually enough there wasn't a big
slam at the end..."
Imagine being in the building at the time and feeling it slowly lean
over. If it went over slow enough, you could just walk across the
floor and step onto the wall, remaining upright the entire time.
As long as you could avoid the objects sliding across the floor with
you, and the pictures and stuff falling from the opposite wall, it
looks like you could have walked away from this type of collapse
relatively unharmed.
Of course, getting to the door that was now on the ceiling could be
tricky!
|
|
Posted by hallerb@aol.com on November 9, 2009, 10:37 am
ote:
...
> > > Sorry. =EF=BF=BDI meant to agree with Robert, but my computer hiccupp=
ed. =EF=BF=BDSo,
> > > I guess I'll re-iterate (again) that it's amazing the building didn't
> > > crumble more.
> > > I suspect that the reason it gives that appearance is because the
> > buildings
> > > collapse was cushioned a bit in the soft mud, allowing the stresses t=
o
> > snap
> > > things sequentially as it fell rather than an explosion where the ene=
rgy
> > is
> > > applied all at once.
> > Yeah but . . . (-: =EF=BF=BDMany of the windows didn't even break. =EF=
=BF=BDThat's just
> > bizarre. I wonder what the "rate of descent" was. =EF=BF=BDI guess if i=
t tipped over
> > gradually enough there wasn't a big slam at the end, but still, it's a
> > pretty amazing site. Or sight. =EF=BF=BDOr even cite. =EF=BF=BDThanks f=
or posting that,
> > Jeff.
> > I guess I am used to seeing collapsed buildings in the aftermath of
> > earthquakes where the buildings fall because they are shaken apart. =EF=
=BF=BDThe
> > Shanghai building didn't have to endure any pre-collapse shaking and I =
am
> > betting the ground gave way slowly and the pilings appear to have bent
> > before they broke, asborbing both time and energy and moderating the fo=
rces
> > on the building. =EF=BF=BDStill, what a ride that must have been. =EF=
=BF=BDSounds like a
> > project for Disney World. =EF=BF=BDHere are some random EQ photos, FWIW=
:
> >http://images.google.com/images?q=3Djapanese+earthquakes
> > --
> > Bobby G.
> re: "I guess if it tipped over gradually enough there wasn't a big
> slam at the end..."
> Imagine being in the building at the time and feeling it slowly lean
> over. If it went over slow enough, you could just walk across the
> floor and step onto the wall, remaining upright the entire time.
> As long as you could avoid the objects sliding across the floor with
> you, and the pictures and stuff falling from the opposite wall, it
> looks like you could have walked away from this type of collapse
> relatively unharmed.
> Of course, getting to the door that was now on the ceiling could be
> tricky!- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Imagine walking thru that building TODAY.
it could be a tourist attraction:)
|
|
Posted by Robert Green on November 9, 2009, 2:48 pm
> > > Sorry. ?I meant to agree with Robert, but my computer hiccupped. ?So,
> > > I guess I'll re-iterate (again) that it's amazing the building didn't
> > > crumble more.
> > > I suspect that the reason it gives that appearance is because the
> > buildings
> > > collapse was cushioned a bit in the soft mud, allowing the stresses to
> > snap
> > > things sequentially as it fell rather than an explosion where the
energy
> > is
> > > applied all at once.
> > Yeah but . . . (-: ?Many of the windows didn't even break. ?That's just
> > bizarre. I wonder what the "rate of descent" was. ?I guess if it tipped
over
> > gradually enough there wasn't a big slam at the end, but still, it's a
> > pretty amazing site. Or sight. ?Or even cite. ?Thanks for posting that,
> > Jeff.
> > I guess I am used to seeing collapsed buildings in the aftermath of
> > earthquakes where the buildings fall because they are shaken apart. ?The
> > Shanghai building didn't have to endure any pre-collapse shaking and I
am
> > betting the ground gave way slowly and the pilings appear to have bent
> > before they broke, asborbing both time and energy and moderating the
forces
> > on the building. ?Still, what a ride that must have been. ?Sounds like a
> > project for Disney World. ?Here are some random EQ photos, FWIW:
> >http://images.google.com/images?q=japanese+earthquakes
> > --
> > Bobby G.
> re: "I guess if it tipped over gradually enough there wasn't a big
> slam at the end..."
> Imagine being in the building at the time and feeling it slowly lean
> over. If it went over slow enough, you could just walk across the
> floor and step onto the wall, remaining upright the entire time.
> As long as you could avoid the objects sliding across the floor with
> you, and the pictures and stuff falling from the opposite wall, it
> looks like you could have walked away from this type of collapse
> relatively unharmed.
> Of course, getting to the door that was now on the ceiling could be
> tricky!- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
<Imagine walking thru that building TODAY.
it could be a tourist attraction:)>
I remember driving across the Verazzano Narrows Bridge in NYC during a very
windy blizzard. I think that's the most scared I've every been. The bridge
deck was icing over, tractor-trailers were rocking from side to side from
the high wind and the bridge deck was shaking very hard.
Everbody in their cars had the hunkered down look you see on pictures of
Civil War soldiers charging into a storm of bullets. Not one smile, hands
clenched to the wheel, passengers all ashen-faced with fear. All I could
think about was that famous film of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge breaking up in
high winds. I was driving an Oldsmobile F-85 with rear wheel drive (I don't
think very many cars had FrontWD back then) and it was fishtailing all over
the road. The only way to drive was to make sure you had slow, but steady
forward motion. If you stopped, you were going to spin on start up.
This was back when the VN bridge first opened, about 1964 or so, and there
had not been a storm that bad so I figured I was a goner. What I worried
about was whether I had clean underwear on and whether God would mind that I
suddenly couldn't remember the words to the Lord's Prayer. Yes, the mind
works in really weird ways. So I kind sort of imagine what a ride like
that feels like. Sort of. (-: I'll bet, by some standards, the building
would be less scary because it was over in seconds. My bridge ordeal took
about an hour to cross a bridge that normally took 4 minutes.
--
Bobby G.
|
|
Posted by Robert Green on November 9, 2009, 2:36 pm
> > Sorry. I meant to agree with Robert, but my computer hiccupped. So,
> > I guess I'll re-iterate (again) that it's amazing the building didn't
> > crumble more.
> > I suspect that the reason it gives that appearance is because the
> buildings
> > collapse was cushioned a bit in the soft mud, allowing the stresses to
> snap
> > things sequentially as it fell rather than an explosion where the energy
> is
> > applied all at once.
> Yeah but . . . (-: Many of the windows didn't even break. That's just
> bizarre. I wonder what the "rate of descent" was. I guess if it tipped
over
> gradually enough there wasn't a big slam at the end, but still, it's a
> pretty amazing site. Or sight. Or even cite. Thanks for posting that,
> Jeff.
> I guess I am used to seeing collapsed buildings in the aftermath of
> earthquakes where the buildings fall because they are shaken apart. The
> Shanghai building didn't have to endure any pre-collapse shaking and I am
> betting the ground gave way slowly and the pilings appear to have bent
> before they broke, asborbing both time and energy and moderating the
forces
> on the building. Still, what a ride that must have been. Sounds like a
> project for Disney World. Here are some random EQ photos, FWIW:
> http://images.google.com/images?q=japanese+earthquakes
> --
> Bobby G.
re: "I guess if it tipped over gradually enough there wasn't a big
slam at the end..."
<<Imagine being in the building at the time and feeling it slowly lean
over. If it went over slow enough, you could just walk across the
floor and step onto the wall, remaining upright the entire time.
As long as you could avoid the objects sliding across the floor with
you, and the pictures and stuff falling from the opposite wall, it
looks like you could have walked away from this type of collapse
relatively unharmed.
Of course, getting to the door that was now on the ceiling could be
tricky!>>
I thought about what a ride that must have been. It's a natural for Disney.
(-:
--
Bobby G.
|
|
Posted by mm on November 6, 2009, 10:43 pm
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:02:17 -0500, jeff_wisnia
>A more complete set of photos of this June's Shanghai building collapse
>and diagrams explaining what happened and why.
>http://home.comcast.net/~jwisnia18/bldg_fall/
>Jeff
This is actually a better arrangement, because it puts more people on
the ground floor, and doesn't rely so much on elevators.
|
Page 3 of 9 < 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Sunsetter Awning Collapse | July 16, 2005, 3:56 pm |
| Above Ground Pool Collapse | June 27, 2005, 10:55 pm |
| office building bathroom tile building code | October 18, 2005, 1:56 pm |
| Shower Tile Wall Collapse! Now what?! | February 23, 2006, 9:25 am |
| Drain collapse insurance covered? | February 23, 2006, 2:16 pm |
| building living quarters inside building | April 22, 2007, 9:17 am |
| 500 sq ft building | May 20, 2006, 9:37 pm |
| building lamp | July 10, 2005, 5:06 am |
| Building costs | October 16, 2005, 5:03 pm |
| fence building | June 23, 2005, 11:14 am |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap