Thread: More bombs?
View Single Post
  #158   Report Post  
Old July 26th 05, 07:46 AM posted to uk.transport.london,uk.railway
Stephen Osborn Stephen Osborn is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Dec 2004
Posts: 31
Default More bombs?

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