On Sat, 11 Jul 2009, Peter Evans wrote: > Thats normal. Quick break down here, based on elementary mechanics. > Skycrappers are built for the static load "their own weight" and > the dynamic load "wind" > > the plane did not knock it over, a couple of hundred tonnes hitting the > side is peanuts compared to wind loading. what it did was cause a fire. > the fire melted important stuff, this could no longer hold the static > mass > above it. it came down under the influence of gravity, > you now have "chunk of building mass M moving down = monstrous dynamic > load. > And from then on it's house of cards. Game over. > The reason it looks more like a professional demolition job is because > that is exactly what they do too. (search for "top gear toyota" on > youtube ^^) >
Also, please remember, that the WTC towers were designed to survive exactly this type of "event", but at the time, the only plane of the correct size (747's were deemed too big to pull this off), was a Boeing 737. The WTC towers _would_ have survived if they had used 737's instead of 757's. 757's had like 3 times as much fuel at impact time as a similar 737 flight, and did a lot more damage to the vertical supports than a 737 would have done due to mass*velocity. -- steve _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
