:
: 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.

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.

So, the roof of the containment building will withstand a fully loaded 747,
will it?

Remind me not to be there when this happens.

"Oh yes, the roof withstood the impact of the 747, it was the subsequent
fire that brought it down."


--
Cheers
Roger T.

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

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:39:29 UTC, "Roger T."
wrote:

: If there's a difference, I'm sure the families of those who died
: will be happy and comforted in knowing that.

The families of those who lived - and a hell of a lot more would have
died if the initial impact /had/ brought the towers down - are
probably quite glad.

Ian


--

On 25 Jul 2005 15:47:34 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
wrote:

The families of those who lived - and a hell of a lot more would have
died if the initial impact /had/ brought the towers down - are
probably quite glad.

And that people died in a given situation is no reason why it should
not be discussed (perhaps with a suitable time span between the
incident and said discussion for sensitivity) - indeed, if it is not
discussed, we will not learn from the incident.

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.

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