Jostein wrote:
> Don't know how much truth there is in it, but Norwegian television
> said the WTC was built so that the outer walls were carrying most
> of the weight, and that the number of internal support structures
> were less than normal for skyscrapers.
What the networks are reporting here is that the WTC towers were
exceptionally stable and strong--witness the fact that neither building
"toppled" (a word that has been much misused since yesterday morning) or
collapsed after direct hits by the airliners. The upper floors of most
recent skyscrapers would not be able to retain their structural integrity
after such a trauma.
What the buildings couldn't sustain was the heat of the fire. There is no
substitute for steel, and steel cannot maintain its strength at high
temperatures--it gets soft and elastic.
Unfortunately, there is just no way to build a skyscraper strongly enough to
withstand a direct hit from an airliner and the ensuing inferno. It was not
the architects' fault.
--Mike
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
