English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I'm referring to the WTC and building 7.

2006-11-28 14:19:58 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics Engineering

15 answers

it still baffles me as well!

2006-11-28 14:22:28 · answer #1 · answered by Elsen 2 · 0 1

In 1993, terrorist planted a bomb in the underground garage of the World Trade Center that weighted 1500 lb. If it had been placed closer to a vital part of the structure, it could have brought it down, in fact that is what the terrorists were hoping for.
Now, compare with a B767 that weights about 150 tons, that is 200 times the weight of the bomb, and nearly half the weight of an aircraft at takeoff is fuel; so you have about 100 times the energy content -- actually more, as aircraft fuel does not have to be a mixture of oxydizer -- and you do have way enough energy to bring a structure down. Ideally placed, explosives can bring an impressively large structure down with a surprisingly limited amount of energy. That is what is behind those controlled demolition implosion techniques.

2006-11-28 14:38:16 · answer #2 · answered by Vincent G 7 · 0 0

The reason the WTC fell was because of the heat. The building was build with a core to keep impacts and things of that nature from knockign it over and it worked as you can see both towers withstood the impact of the planes, but the buildings were not prepared to cope with the intense heat so the metal girders used for withstandign the impact and keepign the tower aloft melted and collapsed so the towers fell.

2006-11-28 14:32:27 · answer #3 · answered by Josh 2 · 0 0

You placed up this question many times. Why do not you're taking a physics direction? No,an plane isn't "Aluminum". maximum plane are made out of hardened Aluminum Magnesium alloy. It has an really severe ignition element, yet even as it ignites, it burns like a highway flare. Throwing water on it purely supplies you oxygen to it. The WTC being as tall as they were, were equipped to face up to the rigidity of an plane hitting it. that's weak spot became that a sparkling rigidity became utilized from the right, spreading the progression out because the truly perfect heavy section got here down. It splintered the progression from interior. Gravity did something else. huge apple is mostly bedrock, that why it helps such fairly some homes. Being the progression became so close, the seismic wonder from the WTC coming down weakened the shape to some extent were it collapsed. Your conspiracy idea ability it really is thousands of persons had to be thinking this type of brutal and heinous act. inspite of each and every thing the discomfort 9/11 brought about, and nevertheless causes, your sticking a knife decrease back contained in the wound of all those who lost loved ones and twisting it gleefully.

2016-11-29 22:05:33 · answer #4 · answered by matis 4 · 0 0

There was enough damage caused by the impact and resulting fire that the floors above the impact point fell on the floors below. Gravity and kinetic energy did the rest. If you don't believe me, build a tall stack of wooden building blocks and then knock out a few near the top. When the ones on top fall they will knock down the ones below them on the way down. Basically the same thing happened with the world trade center towers except on a much larger scale.

2006-11-28 14:28:18 · answer #5 · answered by fat_albert_999 5 · 0 0

Not all that hard but you need to understand the structural dynamics. Once the metal was hot enough to allow the upper floors to collapse it caused a chain reaction that kept building in energy as it collapsed. I could explain it better if you knew some structural engineering. But if you knew structural engineering I wouldn't need to explain it.

2006-11-28 14:29:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

A tremendous amount of energy from an impact and a tremendous amount of fuel to heat and melt the structure of the buildings.

2006-11-28 14:24:56 · answer #7 · answered by rab 4 · 0 0

that's a good question, and one of the reasons for the "controled demolition" conspiracy theory about 9/11. maybe the third plane was flight 93, but 93 didn't hit building 7 as planned and they just demolished it anyway?

2006-11-28 14:23:34 · answer #8 · answered by George B 3 · 0 0

They obviously had sufficient kinetic and chemical energy to do the job. Contributing factor was that buildings are not designed to resist concentrated side loads.

2006-11-28 14:23:57 · answer #9 · answered by Steve 7 · 0 0

It was not the planes but the FLAMES.The heat grew so intense that the steele began to melt,hence the collapse of the lost towers.

2006-11-28 14:36:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

just as they did.
dont forget bin ladin is a trained building engineer and although many of his conspirators doubted him he said he always knew that they would come down. at least that is what he claimed after the fact in a famous video that bush bashing nuts always ignore.

2006-11-28 14:29:27 · answer #11 · answered by karl k 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers