The combustion of 40,000 gallons of aviation fuel, along with the design of the building and the impact damage did them in. In fact, the buildings preformed quite well, considering they were designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707, a much smaller plane. Should have ben designed for a 747, because they were flying then, but the design was old before construction started (no one wanted them, and in fact they were owned by the Port Authority, a government agency, because no one could figure out a way to make them profitable). Those towers stood for HOURS with a big chunk of the main structural element broken and a major "heat event" going on inside. Aviation fuel burns hot -- it wasn't just the contents as would be the case in a more normal building fire, although there was plenty of combustible material in there.
I don't think any current building would have stood indefinitely under those conditions -- a major failure in the main structural member (the outside skin) and steel softening heat. There were problems -- if the stairwells had been concrete instead of 4" drywall, likely nearly everyone would have gotten out, and the death toll would have been even lower that the 3500 or so it is. Remember, on a busy morning there are usually 50,000 or so people in those two towers, for more than 90% of the typical occupants to have escaped is astonishing. The buildings would still have come down, I don't think you can build one that will withstand that kind of damage, even government owned. Fire was indeed the major cause of the collapse, the last I heard. No steel structure that I know of has ever had an entire plane load of fuel burned inside it AFTER sustaining serious structural damage. You cannot build a building that will NOT collapse once one floor goes, there wouldn't be enough room inside to rent! The fire, along with fairly fragile fire resistant coatings, heated the floor beams and attaching bolts until they sagged and the bolts failed. Eventually the load of collapsed flooring exceeded the strength of the exterior walls, the man structural element in the building, and a catastrophic failure and progressive collapse ensued. Watch the videos of the collapse carefully, and you will see the exterior wall begin to explode outward, then the building come down. Peter On Jun 29, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Steve MacSween wrote: > on 6/29/08 18:59, Alex Chamberlain at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> >> This is the weakness in Occam's razor, isn't it? Other things being >> equal, the simplest explanation is the best, but what's your >> definition of "simplest"? For me it is easier to accept that the >> president and much of the federal government are totally incompetent >> than that shadow forces of some kind within the executive branch >> planned and carried out that kind of deception on such a massive >> scale. > > Okay, someone -- preferably someone who believes the conclusions of > the 9/11 > Commission Report -- explain WTC 7 to me. > > And forget using the word fire, unless you have a compelling reason > to argue > why this was the first steel-framed building in history to COLLAPSE > from > fire damage, and not even an engulfing fire at that. > > Mac > > > _______________________________________ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ > For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
