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

Thanks for the extra detail....

2006-12-05 21:26:35 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics Engineering

I knew the answer already...The Japanese engineer that designed the building made sure that if it ever did fall,it would pancake upon itself,as not to cause the collapse of other nearby buildings...Tom Science 4

2006-12-06 12:17:25 · update #1

10 answers

If you watch the video of the collapses carefully, you will see thaat the buildings did not fall "straight" down. They did go off center a bit. But they did for the most part fall within a confined area of their respective foundations.

The reason for this is as the suppoerting beams of the floors became superheated from the airliner fuel they became weak and unable to support the weight of the upper floors. All it took was one failure in the supports to set off the chain reaction. When one floors supports failed, The upper floors all slammed down on to that floor causing the supports underneath that floor to collapse thus causing the ones under that floor to give. and so on until the massive weight crushed the building down to it's foundation.

If you watch the collapses you will also notice that the floors above where the collapse starts stay "reasonably" in tact and simply "ride" the fall down until they slammed onto the top of the collapsed rubble below them.

Also, The corners of the building would also be the strongest points of the structure and for the building to topple over one of these would have had to be damaged by the incoming plane which neither were. They both struck near the center of the buildings.

When most buildings fall it is because they are planned to fall that way. Demolition crews will analyze the builing structure and determine the most integral points of support and blow them away with explosives. Which will then cause a collpase of the structure. By timing the explosions in certain areas they can accurately predict the area of the fall and do a pretty clean job of it.

If there is a builing in a dense city, the building will most likely be designed to fall in upon itself. However, in a rural setting they may opt for the builing to be toppled to one side to spread out the debris and make it easier for clean-up.

2006-12-05 21:55:08 · answer #1 · answered by xeuvisoft 3 · 0 0

The correct Engineering explanation is this:

The planes hit the top of the building. Frames and structures holding the top few floors collapsed. The weight of the concrete was too much for the columns and structures below. They collapsed. Now with the added weight, further floors below could not withstand the weight and then ...........it was all a domino effect.

I do not think the planners in this terrorism act ever thought this thru that it will happen this way. They were delighted it did (from media reports) - but the fact is weight started to exacerbate the structure collapse.

It was repeated once again on the second building.

Do not believe any of the conspiracy theories. They are full of nonsense.

2006-12-05 21:42:26 · answer #2 · answered by Nightrider 7 · 1 0

When the planes hit the towers, the impact knocked much of the fireproofing off some of the structural members. The heat generated by the gasoline fire caused the members to begin failing in tensile strength ( Imagine you and and another person facing each other and grabbing each other's hands at arms length and pulling). This is what the steel members were doing, when they collapsed, it caused the "pancake" effect.

2006-12-06 05:58:24 · answer #3 · answered by The Architect 2 · 0 0

To fall to the side, an external force would have to be applied to move the building laterally. Since the Towers survived the initial airplane impacts and the collapse occurred later, the forces were all due to gravity, causing the fall to be straight down.

2006-12-05 22:15:29 · answer #4 · answered by Tech Dude 5 · 0 0

The standard answer is some form of structural failure in the central supporting core of the buildings caused by the extreme heat of the fires..but the scientific likelihood of that happenning is actually very remote, given the type of inital damage to them.

So the truth is that no-one really knows why they didnt collapse as you would expect them to..but, certainly, internal charges placed inside the building might be one reason. But you'd need a HELL of a lot of them to cause the entire building to collapse like that..

2006-12-05 21:36:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I heard it was due to the design of the buildings. The heat from the fire and impact of the planes caused the metal support beams to bend bow and melt after that it had now where left to go but down.

2006-12-05 21:50:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

construction fell no longer by way of fact of airplane, yet by way of fact of outcomes from the hearth that arose. the hearth grow to be burning so warm the temperature melted the metallic metallic shape help of the construction. The flooring began to bend and the partitions could no longer carry it mutually anymore. So impulsively the flooring only piled up on suitable of another. there grow to be no longer something to push the construction on way or yet another. only way down is gravity: quickly.

2016-10-14 03:16:20 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

They were constructed that way --- Thank God! Imagine if they were falling upon the City of Manhattan !!! What an inferno !!!

These Twin Towers were "sky scrapers light"...

You should order those interesting DVD-features
by "SPIEGEL-TV" about the Twin Towers....

Aaron.

2006-12-05 21:37:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

it was the way that the planes heated the structure... the supports where super-heated and collapsed upon themselves... or you could believe conspiracy theories that suggest the explosion was "to" perfect and was the result of explosives timed to go of when the planes hit... whatever helps you sleep at night i guess!

2006-12-05 21:30:30 · answer #9 · answered by lama_man2003 1 · 0 0

because they were blown up with detonation charges........hrmmm???

2006-12-05 21:29:17 · answer #10 · answered by mrsimonburns 2 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers