Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A designer for my old town harps incessantly on the dangers of flammable materials on the exteriors of large structures. People roll their eyes, and ignore him (I don't). THIS is what he tries to warn people about. I suppose that in this instance, it's a combination of foam insulation beneath cladding, and the coating on the glass. The place just went up like the skin on the HINDENBURG.
A designer for my old town harps incessantly on the dangers of flammable materials on the exteriors of large structures. People roll their eyes, and ignore him (I don't). THIS is what he tries to warn people about. I suppose that in this instance, it's a combination of foam insulation beneath cladding, and the coating on the glass. The place just went up like the skin on the HINDENBURG.
I wonder if "Alluhah Akbar" has more to do with this than meets the eye.
Yes there was a fire, but it wasn't hit by anything that seriously compromised the structural integrity like on 9/11 that some posters seem to reference here.
Are you sure? This is a prime case for terror; a secular Muslim country and a bunch of Islamist nuts who think having fun is sinful, except when they do it.
Yes there was a fire, but it wasn't hit by anything that seriously compromised the structural integrity like on 9/11 that some posters seem to reference here.
Precisely.
First, multiple floors of the buildings didn't have an airliner go right through them, severing multiple load-bearing supports and stripping the fire-retardant insulation off remaining supports. Second, the fire wasn't stoked by 10,000+ gallons of jet fuel. For the fools that point out that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, a) the main function of the jet fuel on 09/11 was to rapidly spread the fire to other combustibles, and, b) the problem on 09/11 wasn't melting metal but metal that got hot enough to lose its structural integrity and thus fail (and, yes, jet fuel itself does burn hot enough for that).
All that was necessary for the collapse was for one floor to be sufficiently weakened - once it was, everything above it dropped, and the kinetic energy of that massive load was far too much for the unweakened floors below to withstand.
Oh, and as for the "But why did they pancake and not topple over sideways?" crowd? Jeez, take a ninth-grade physics class - and this time, pay attention.
Poor construction/safety measures over that way I guess. Geez, you don't see that in modern buildings in the US. Looks like all show over that way and smoke and mirrors. Happy New Year all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
