On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:18:24 UTC, Chris Tolley
wrote:

: On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 08:49:38 -0700, Roger T. wrote:
: "Chris Tolley"
:
: I didn't miss that, but since I assumed that the OP knew full well (as
: it has been one of the most broadcast incidents in history) that the
: aircraft didn't push the buildings over, what he wrote wasn't quite what
: he intended to convey.
:
: What I wrote exactly conveyed what I intended. Plane hits building,
: building burns, building collapses, building did NOT survive impact
: of plane!
:
: That's how I read it. Others, as their responses reveal, have assumed
: you meant something sufficiently different that they have room to split
: a few hairs.

It may seem like hair splitting to an amateur, but from the
engineering point of view the distinction is pretty important.

Q. Would making the World Trade Center stronger have helped?
A. No.

Q. Would making the World Trade Center more fire-resistant have
helped?
A. Yes.

Regards,

Ian

--

In message , at 19:14:36 on
Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Chris Tolley remarked:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:01:20 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Chris Tolley remarked:
There is an irony here which may be escaping you.

You've lost me. Are you being ironic, or are you claiming Roger was?

Neither, Roland. If you really don't get it, I'll be happy to explain by
email. Is yours a real email address?

Of course.
--
Roland Perry

"Tony Polson"


The fact that the building did not collapse on impact is neither here nor
there other than it gave those fortunate enough to be under the point of
impact more time to escape. Those above the impact were doomed the moment
the planes hit.


Doomed? ... except for the fact that so many of them escaped.

AFAIK, Only half a dozen people, in one tower, who were above the point of
impact got out.


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

On 25 Jul 2005 19:30:46 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
wrote:

Q. Would making the World Trade Center more fire-resistant have
helped?
A. Yes.

Indeed. I watched a documentary some time ago on the issue, which
suggested[1] that, had a different type of fire-resistant lagging been
used on the "core" supports, the buildings would probably have
survived.

To put a twist on it, however, it was also suggested that said
fireproofing, as provided, was weakened by the "blast" of being hit by
the planes. A different type may not have been more fire-resistant
per-se, but less susceptible to being blasted out of the way by the
impact and hence less susceptible to failure.

If the human cost is put to the back of one's mind, however difficult,
it is a very interesting and relevant civil engineering issue.

[1] IANACE, so I say "suggested" because I'm not certain that the
documentary was correct in its suggestion. It is, nonetheless, a
feasible-sounding one.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 13:50:18 -0700, "Roger T."
wrote:

AFAIK, Only half a dozen people, in one tower, who were above the point of
impact got out.

The two planes hit at very different angles. In one tower, all
stairways were severed, while those in the other were more lucky (or
less unlucky).

I have no idea of figures, however.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In article , Neil Williams wrote:
Indeed. I watched a documentary some time ago on the issue, which
suggested[1] that, had a different type of fire-resistant lagging
been used on the "core" supports, the buildings would probably
have survived.

It does show up a potential weakness in our Building Regulations in
that you would design a building of any note to be capable of
withstanding accidental impact and also to have the requisite fire
resistance, not the two considered together. The latter is tested by
putting a protected steel beam (or whatever) in a test furnace in the
undamaged condition: if you took the average test specimen and hit it
a few times with a club hammer before testing many of the rigid board
type fire protection systems would probably not then pass.

--
Tony Bryer

Neil Williams wrote:
On 25 Jul 2005 19:30:46 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
wrote:

Q. Would making the World Trade Center more fire-resistant have
helped?
A. Yes.

Indeed. I watched a documentary some time ago on the issue, which
suggested[1] that, had a different type of fire-resistant lagging been
used on the "core" supports, the buildings would probably have
survived.

To put a twist on it, however, it was also suggested that said
fireproofing, as provided, was weakened by the "blast" of being hit by
the planes. A different type may not have been more fire-resistant
per-se, but less susceptible to being blasted out of the way by the
impact and hence less susceptible to failure.

If the human cost is put to the back of one's mind, however difficult,
it is a very interesting and relevant civil engineering issue.

[1] IANACE, so I say "suggested" because I'm not certain that the
documentary was correct in its suggestion. It is, nonetheless, a
feasible-sounding one.


There is always an alternative scenario.

http://www.tomflocco.com/modules.php...rder=0&thold=0

Roger T. wrote:
:

: Rather like the Twin Towers? Able to take the force of a jet aircraft
: impact?
:
: They did.
:
: However, they did not survive the subsequent fire.


People, I was just making a point!

We all know it was the heat that made the towers fall but we only found that
out during the enquiries after they fell Even the people who designed them
thought they'd stand.

I thought that that weakness had been detected some time (probably
years) before 9/11 and that the structural steel was being exposed and
coated with a new fire retardant material.

However without closing the buildings down and kicking all the tenants
out that was a slow process. Until it was complete the buildings were
vulnerable to an extreme fire, most floors failed when an overwhelming
load (the floors above) fell on them.

Yes, the towers withstood the impact but the impact caused a fire and the
towers still fell. AFAIC, the aircraft impact caused the towers to
collapse. If there's a difference, I'm sure the families of those who died
will be happy and comforted in knowing that.


snip

--

regards

Stephen

"Gerald Henriksen"

It was pointed out in one of the shows about the collapse that the
stairwells in a modern building would likely have survived (as they
are typically in a concrete shell in the centre of the bulding)
whereas the stairs in the wtc were only protected using fireproof
building materials.

AIUI, two layers of "firestop" drywall.


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

Tony Polson wrote:

I will never forgive the BBC for poaching the gorgeous, pouting
Natasha Kaplinsky (for it is she) from Sky News.

;-)

You might like some of this.
http://www.breakfastfakes.co.uk/