I understood the buildings were designed to withstand a large plane crash as well as a fire. What went wrong structuraly?
2006-06-17 03:11:34 · 4 answers · asked by Joe_Pardy 5 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Engineering
Yes, but not having a Boeing 747 crashed into them. They actually stood up for quite a long time with the fires and the structural weakening. No building is meant to withstand the magnitude of a crash from a Boeing 747 with a full tank of fuel. The steel inside should have actally expanded, but yet it stayed still long enough for most of the survivors to get out. I think the structural integrity weighs out the disaster. The twin towers weren't going to stay up forever, as with most skyscrapers they are very succeptable to the elemetns as well.
2006-06-17 03:42:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Well, the Twin Towers were not designed to withstand a plane crash of that magnitude. Nobody in the United States ever imagined that an attack of that capacity can happen in our land. In fact the towers were made of steel which melted due to the high temperature created by the crash.
2006-06-17 10:15:54 · answer #2 · answered by organicchem 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of the size plane that hit them, what the designers didn't plan for is that the airliners would be carrying a full load of fuel and that they would be going at the speed they were. They anticipated an accidental hit...not a deliberate one.
2006-06-17 10:20:27 · answer #3 · answered by Thomas Hoey 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My understanding is that they were designed to withstand the impact of an airliner from the time period they were constructed (1960's) What happened? Simply put, commercial aircraft got a whole lot bigger, and, in the case of 9/11, this proved to be fatal.
2006-06-17 10:17:43 · answer #4 · answered by Christina D 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋