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

--

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.

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