Mike Johnston wrote:
> 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.
Was listening to CNN interviewing the architect of the Towers; he very clearly
felt that it was the explosion of the fuel tanks that caused the collapse rather
than the impact stress caused by the planes hitting the building.
This would be in line with what I would conjecture as well: the structural
members on the floor(s) housing the plane would be blown to bits by the
tremendous fuel tanks explosion and then the collapse of the unsupported floors
above would naturally follow, literally punching through the standing columns
below and triggering off the downwards implosion.
Did anyone note that both planes hit the towers about the same height? That is
about 3/4ths the total height of the towers?
Quite possibly any higher and the towers may not have collapsed so dramatically.
As per our building codes, it is mandatory for exposed structural steel members
to be encased in concrete for a fire resistance of 2 hours; any idea why this is
not followed in the US- or am I misinterpreting what I've been reading?
Lastly, may I express my deep shock and grief at this tragic loss- your
president is correct to name them "cowards"- what else would you term savages
attacking innocents unable to fight back?
My country has suffered much fundamentalist savagery (though never on such a
scale) for years- and those who back and support such madmen call them "freedom
fighters"- strange that the word Freedom is used to describe animals like these.
RK
-
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 .
