Is there really any kind of comparison?
2007-04-30 04:07:11 · 16 answers · asked by Magpie 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes there is. In a number of ways. If you're talking about the make up and construction, well they are obviously the same. If they are both American, then yeah, you blow it up, you'll be sorry. On the same note, you blow up either one, you risk killing and injuring people.
2007-04-30 04:15:54 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Well, as a Mechanical Engineer, I can say YES. The same calculations are used for strength, tension, compression, torsion, or any other basic load. Steel expands (or contracts) at a rate of .0006" per inch in length per 100 degrees (F) in temperature change. The strength or modulus of elasticity changes also with temperature. Bridges, buildings, or other structures are designed for specific loads within a specific temperature range. When you heat steel, ven 4-500 degrees it not only expands but it also looses strength. When metal expands the compressive loads dramatically increase. With the increased forces, the metal has to go somewhere, i.e. it yeilds (bends) which causes warping. In the case of the towers, the heat expanded and weakened the steel and the builind basically collapsed.
Just an example a piece of steel 100" long ( a little over 8') will grow .300" (almost 5/16) of an inch if heated 500 degrees over ambient. Now if you have something that grows that much in a structure, but it CAN"T grow because it is between concrete floors what do you think happens? It buckles.
Just take a look at a railroad track on a summer day or walk onto a bridge at night and see the gaps in the expansion joints and then go back at noon and see how much the gaps have closed.
Sorry to bust your bubble but heat will distort and if hot enough will melt steel. How do you think we make steel?
2007-04-30 04:26:14 · answer #2 · answered by ray4vp 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Steel structures, fire, collapse.
Actually, one factor appears to be missing from the bridge equation - velocity. The gas truck just exploded. The planes did not merely explode, they exploded after being RAMMED into the buildings at approx 500 miles an hour. The difference between the bridge and the WTC is the difference between someone tossing a bullet at your chest from their hand and firing it at your chest from a high-velocity rifle.
So, no, the comparison is not 100% apt. The WTC had much, much more force applied against it than the bridge did.
2007-04-30 04:19:57 · answer #3 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes there is. The steel used to build bridges and the steel used to build buildings is exactly the same. It is also the same steel used in lawn mower blades.
Here is a simple experiement for you to try at home if you don't believe me. Take a propane torch and a lawn mower blade. (Please remove it from the mower first). Put it on the ground and try to bend it without putting a huge amount of force on it. (don't jump on it) It will not bend all that easy.
Now heat the blade with the torch until it is red hot. Put it back on the ground and try to bend it. The steel has lost its strength and will bend.
The same thing that happened with the bridge happened with the world trade center. There was as much or more fuel in the airplanes as in one of those trucks. So if it can happen to the bridge, it can happen to the world trade center.
2007-04-30 04:18:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Aren't steel girders, stretched from one side of a building to another, essentially a BRIDGE!
Fire melts steels, if it didn't, then my father-in-law- had better explain to his wife what he was doing for thirty years while she thought he was operating furnaces at the STEEL MILL!!!!!!!
2007-04-30 04:19:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I think the whole point is steel is steel.
I know Rosie O'Donnell's studies and experiments with steel indicate that it can't be melted but I would like and independent analysis of her data.
2007-04-30 04:15:42 · answer #6 · answered by Brian 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Ummm, yeah. Steel... it's the same in a bridge as it is in a building. In fact, there was far less weight coming down on itself in the bridge, it's actually easier to see why the twin towers collapsed. Go back to the ashram and drink your kool aid like a good brain washed person.
2007-04-30 04:11:26 · answer #7 · answered by Scott B 7 · 12⤊ 2⤋
If you honestly believe your question, there is nothing that can be said to make you see the truth.
Steel and concrete are still steel and concrete.
2007-04-30 04:12:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
As a matter of fact, there are a lot of comparisions that can be made. Structures employing steel and concrete have similarities.
2007-04-30 04:10:47 · answer #9 · answered by libstalker 4 · 14⤊ 1⤋
Well, they are both made of steel, they are both made of Concrete, and they are both really heavy.
Anything else?
2007-04-30 04:17:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋