To: eggman, Jim Boyd
Can a stronger steel be used, or one more fire resistant? How about some combination of titanium/stronger steel for some of the beam and regular steel for others? I know its not possible to plan for everything, nor is it cost efficient. It seems as though these days it may be prudent to spend a little more if you want to build a landmark building.
patent
29 posted on
09/12/2001 9:30:30 AM PDT by
patent
To: Bryan, Carrie_Oakie
See my post #28 on this thread. Thanks, summer
31 posted on
09/12/2001 9:44:50 AM PDT by
summer
To: patent
It seems as though these days it may be prudent to spend a little more if you want to build a landmark building.
-----------------
patent, IMO, great point. Thanks for sharing it. summer
34 posted on
09/12/2001 9:51:20 AM PDT by
summer
To: all
Why hasn't anyone said WEIGHT. Do you know what a plane like these weigh. Add fire of all that jet fuel and the intitial impact, it is easy to see how these towers came down.
Note ... the impact took out a large number of outside building supports.
Note ... the fire consumed several floors immediately.
Note ... they chose some of the heaviest common planes.
If you carefully examine the collaspe sequence you will see the top floors came down on top of the 'on fire floors', then a chain reaction progressed as the weight(gravity) brought the buildings down one floor at a time. The added weight of the A/C played a role in the final collaspe, IMHO. I happen to have a DVR-TIVO hooked up and in slow-mo frame stop mode you clearly can see the sequence.
This was a sophisticated attack. As a engineer it is not clear how you defend a building against such a catastrophic attack. But I am sure engineers the world over will be looking for a solution since the vulnerability is now crystal clear.
snooker
37 posted on
09/12/2001 10:01:16 AM PDT by
snooker
To: patent
Another possibility, what about making the beams hollow and filling them with a coolant such as water?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson