July 26th 05, 03:39 AM
posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
|
|
external usenet poster
|
|
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2005
Posts: 2
|
|
More bombs?
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
|