It doesn't though. This isn't steel frame, or else it wouldn't have collapsed like that. Looks like reinforced concrete frame, or even some pre cast, which is a house of cards if foundations are in some way comprised or not man enough. It actually looks like a controlled demolition explosion would be. Although I assume it's not the case as hasn't been mentioned.
Here you go mate, watch the beginning of the video, I hadn't realised until just seeing this, it came down in two sections....
I've no idea how those tower blocks are constructed, but you see loads of similar things being thrown up in central and south america which are just basically concrete breeze block built towers with steel reinforcement mesh and then rendered over. Cheap materials that come tumbling down in Earthquakes. Not saying the one in Miami was the same, but the way it came down just looked like it was shoddy af
From what I've heard, they only have to be hurricane resistant, which probably don't amount to a lot.
Yeah, I'd seen that. The second section just literally fell over. From limited pictures I've seen, it does't look steel frame to me?
Nah mate, I've seen no steel frame, just floors tumbling down off pins is the best description I can give it.
Hell of a blast dude wasn't it......set off last Friday and possibly weakened poorly and cheaply built foundations and structure of hotel which fell.....3.9 earthquake as the result of testing in the seas off the florida coastline. Surely it's not just brush it off and ignore
Yeah I've got no idea what the building regs are in Miami, but I've spent a bit of time in central and south america some years ago and some of the construction looked dodgy af, where I suspect building regs are pretty sketchy. This was buildings going up in earthquakes zones too and they just looked like the kind of places you could take down with a sledgehammer.
@Chief will probs know more, but that looks exactly like the type of construction I'm talking about. Concrete with steel mesh reinforcement.
The building was due for recertification this year, as per regs as it was 40 years old, built in 1981. Only untoward I know about with the building was some work on the roof. No suggestion it had anything to do with the collapse at this stage, although concerns were raised over weight. I don't know why those concerns were raised or what that extra weight was.
Talking of layers impacting on each other and causing catastrophic consequences. I went to see a Chiropracter today. The neck injury I sustained was a total compression of the spine, basically every vertebrae impacting on the next like a domino effect. Akin to being in a head on collision, the chiro couldn't believe that I hadn't sustained any nerve damage or concussion. Got very lucky.
For tel eyes https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 Quote; The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.
RC Frame, they don’t tend to collapse. Especially if there’s no prior signs of the structural integrity being compromised. Due to the weight of this stuff, the fault could have been almost anywhere and the resulting collapse would have looked the same. Weak foundations would usually show signs over time of compromised structure, rather than just collapse out of the blue.
It's got reinforcement but not much tying it all together. The flats themselves look like they're pre cast stuff, built on some frame or other. Which clearly wasn't sufficient. Like I said though, the collapse itself looked like an explosion, it shouldn't just fall over. Once one bit went though, the other did fall over.
