Good Question.
One of the three buildings was not even hit by an airplane (building seven) and it still went down. Sounds like this may be an inside job, but who and why? To bad most of the evidence was sent to China and melted down before any further investigation could be conducted on it.
Building seven was supposedly pulled, meaning brought down with explosives. The question here is when was there time after the fire started to set the charges in place? There are more questions then good answers. Could it be that all three buildings were rigged before the fires?
Who could possibly have benefited by such an awful act, who had motive, Who had the opportunity and why is a lid being kept on it?
I'm sorry, I am afraid I have more questions than answers.
2006-06-14 09:52:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by Joe_Pardy 5
·
0⤊
3⤋
1. the internal supporting structure of the towers were damaged by the impact.
2. the heat of the fire was extraordinarily high due to the presence of the thousands of gallons of jet fuel causing the steel supporting structure to soften.
3. Eventually, the steel supports were weakened enough so the the weight of the buildings above the impact zone and fire could no longer be supported.
4. As the upper floors started to drop, the force of the impact of all that steel and concrete caused the lower floors to pancake down.
BTW: Many steel buildings have fallen due to fire, though none as spectacularly.
2006-06-14 08:44:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by Black Fedora 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
First of all you are talking about an explosion of fuel in those planes that incinerated the structure of the buildings. The fuel after exploding acted as a crematory of heat 4,000x hotter than any average fire. Therefore, melting more or less bending the steel out of form causing a severe collapse in the materials.
2006-06-14 08:42:52
·
answer #3
·
answered by TootsiePop 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Never happend before, where did you get that?
It happens more than people realize.
In Paraguay on August 1st, 2004 a fire burned out of ductwork that had not been properly cleaned and ignited a fire above the ceiling in a two story shopping center with a parking deck. The fire burned above the ceiling, unoticed and eventually MELTED the steel supports and the building's roof collasped. 417 Perished.
The WTC towers what just the first time it happened on that large a scale and that publicly. The WTC fire is constantly compared to other high rise fires such as the One Meridian Plaza Fire in Philadelphia or the First Interstate Bank fire in L.A. But there is one missing component that often is not talked about. The sprinkler systems in these other fires stayed functional and kept the steel frame cool enough to withstand the fire!
Fire weakens and melts steel, that's why we treat the steel with protective coatings and install water sprinkler systems. In the case of the WTC, these systems were compromised. Check out this question and answer...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
I ran with fire and rescue in a SMALL community for about 4 years and personally saw two fires in smaller facilities (steel frame) that were not large enough to merit fire sprinklers. The roof and steel trusses gave way in both of those fires.
Firefighters die every year from truss related failures, both wood AND steel, I'll admit more from wood. Check out this quote from third link below...
"More than 60% of the roof systems in the United States are built using a truss system. By design, wooden truss systems contain a significant fuel load and are often hidden from sight. Fires in truss systems can burn for long periods before detection and can spread quickly across or through the trusses. Steel trusses are also prone to failure under fire conditions and may fail in less time than a wooden truss under the same conditions."
THAT ALL BEING SAID, I think what you are getting at is was it REALLY the steel trusses that failed at the WTC? I agree that we don't know all of the factors that broght down the trade center for sure. Did the columns fail first or was it the trusses? Was there additional factors in play? I accept the truss failure theory as that, a theory. I have read the articles on both sides of this issue. I personally believe that truss failure may have not been the sole cause of the collapse, but based on my personal experince, it bet it played a part. Here's something to ponder. I think it's obvious why the sprinkler systems failed in the main towers, but what happened in WTC7?
BTW - Steel stuctures severly damaged or destroyed by fire in my area?
Toys R Us - Canton, Ohio
Card Pak - Aurora, Ohio
Like most smaller fires, they just don't make national news or have conspiracies surrounding them. Who'd want to destroy a Toys R Us anyway?
2006-06-15 14:03:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by todvango 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
You don't have to melt metal to make it structurally unstable.
Watch a blacksmith sometime. They don't have to melt metal to shape it, just get it hot and apply some force.
Let me guess. You heard that the CIA blew them up.
2006-06-14 08:54:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
EVER BEEN B4 !!! i don't think that somebody did/tried to hit bldng with such a big flight
2006-06-14 18:25:29
·
answer #6
·
answered by Pd 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well big airplanes hit them causeing an explosion and they collapsed
2006-06-14 08:39:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by reesespieces60202 2
·
0⤊
0⤋