Subject:
|
Re: Building speculation (was: My Prayer on this National Day of Prayer)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Sep 2001 02:28:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
772 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Chris Leach writes:
> In lugnet.general, Ross Crawford writes:
> >
> > Someone on a local Australian show last night brought up the notion that US
> > buildings (including WTC) using more steel[1] may have been a factor in the
> > collapse. I figure things got pretty hot there for a little while, so • concrete
> > would've been in pretty bad shape anyway, but it may have provided a little
> > more resistance to the planes, possibly reducing the number of structural
> > elements directly damaged by the impact.
> ROSCO more concrete would have not made a difference.The building withstood
> the impacts.The fuel melted both the steel and concrete at the point of
> impact which caused the floors weight above them to collapse the rest of
> the structure.
The suggestion was not that the concrete would've survived the fire, but less
of the building would've been directly involved in the fire, and maybe that
little bit extra surviving support may have stopped the catastrophic collapse.
> Mafia? Come on ROSCO.......
Not my suggestion. I, too am skeptical about that, however I'd be interested to
know whether or not he was correct about American skyscrapers using more
structural steel than in Australia, and if so, why? Note also that they were
built in 1966, factors affecting building techniques may have been different
than they are now.
ROSCO
(trimmed .general)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
98 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
