2006-07-11 04:23:13 · 32 answers · asked by midi_junkie 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The impact of the jets knocked the fire retardant foam off the steel beams. This allowed the fire to weaked the metal framework to the point of collapsing. Once a few floors collapsed, it created a "pancake" effect the floor below could not handle. The weight was supposed to be distibuted but when the full load came down onto one floor, that floor would collapse. Then the next, then the next, etc. So the fire alone would not have brought them down. The impact alone would not have brought them down. It took the combination, something the original engineers could not forsee, to do it.
2006-07-11 04:31:10 · answer #1 · answered by Sebring Sage 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither.....if it was a very intensive fire as most claim I think we would have more visual evidence. If the raging fire was hot enough to melt steel I think we would have seen the part of the building actually bend. As we know when steel is heated hot enough it will weaken but it does not happen instantly. It gradually heats up and also gradually weakens, with the theory that heat brought the towers down you are believing that all the steel support beams gave way simultaneously also meaning that the fire ( that was hot enough to melt tons and tons of steel in less than 70 minutes ) was equal through out the building. I think if this raging inferno was there we would have seen it heat up and weaken the outside steel beams as well, I would expect to see glowing red hot steel if the fires is so hot it is able to melt it in 70 mins. Thats my thoughts about why I don't believe it was the fire.
2006-07-11 04:44:37 · answer #2 · answered by The Angry Stick Man 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is now a well documented. Empty aircraft would have caused damage but the buildings would have survived. In fact they would likely have survived another aircraft hitting as well.
The terrorists deliberately chose aircraft taking off because they had a full fuel load. The burning fuel was what did the real damage. The structural steel and concrete absorbed the impacts well without losing much structural integrity at all.
The heat from the burning fuel softened the steel girders, cause concrete to fritter and fall apart until the piers holding one floor collapsed. After that gravity and the shock of the weight of the floors falling above it did the rest.
2006-07-11 04:44:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The fire. PBS had a very informative special showing how the heat of the fire weakened the structure and lead to it's collapse. The WTC towers were built with a cost cutting metal frame stair/elevator tower in the center. This usually made of concrete, or at least CMU. When the jet fuel filled the space and ignited; it was all over.
2006-07-11 04:29:08 · answer #4 · answered by perfecttiming1 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When building anything two types of loads are considered, consistent loads and impact loads. Impact loads are short loads on the building, the fact that the buildings did not fall the second the planes hit means that they did withstand the impact load. Thus is was the the fire fueled by the plane fuel which brought the buildings down.
2006-07-11 04:28:53 · answer #5 · answered by lexie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the impact of the jets destroyed the structural integrity of the buildings. There are fires in buildings that don't bring down the building...
2006-07-11 04:25:55 · answer #6 · answered by ray of sunshine 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ok, i'm an engineer and that i studied arch yet it truly isn't any longer my field. yet from what i understand, the only fireplace became the gasoline which poured out and ignited in an explosion. It did not evaporate like you're making it sound. Jet gasoline burns warm adequate to soften some thing. it truly is why planes promote off all their gasoline before any emergency touchdown. The gasoline contained in the construction burned lengthy adequate to start up melting the metallic the position it spilled. once the metallic starts to soften you've a waterfall of molten metallic igniting better metallic lower than it like dominoes. each and everything burned alongside the way in spite of the indisputable fact that the molten metallic became the igniter each and each and every of how down. there became a pit of molten metallic the position the towers fell that burned for hours. The molten metallic pouring by potential of the flooring is likewise why the flooring collapsed inward. no longer a particularly photo yet you had to ask.
2016-12-01 01:38:24 · answer #7 · answered by severance 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was definitely not the impact of the jets that brought the building down-they were still standing for some time after wards. It was not the jet fuel either, jet fuel does not burn or melt steel.
2006-07-11 06:31:29 · answer #8 · answered by Music Man 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well we can ask what if all day long, the end result is still people lost their lives and the building collapsed.
So if the jets would not have hit, not of this would have happend.
We just need to stop any and all terrorist before they have a chance to strike again.
2006-07-11 04:58:44 · answer #9 · answered by american_angel068 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Impact of the jets
2006-07-11 04:24:56 · answer #10 · answered by jasonerika_conley2000 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋