I kinda have to agree with you
here, and have always been
perplexed by the total collapse
of both towers.
I worked for a well known structural
engineering company, and it was
explained to me that individual
floors of a hi-rise are structurally
able (designed in) to maintain
integrity should any section in
that structure become damaged unless
50% min support structure failed.
Initial impact of the planes I
saw, daccelerator.
50% demolition
of a single floor.
Fire safety is another area where
it seems to me, where things just
don’t add up. This type of building
is also designed to “direct” any
major flame events to designated
routes where fires cannot survive
due to fire blocks in the structure
where oxygen becomes depleted.
A fire might burn all combustibles
on a particular floor, but won’t
transfer to the floor above it,
and it certainly won’t burn hot
enough to jeopardize the integrity
of structural steel. Even with
the addition of jet fuel as an
accelerant.
The World Trade Center towers did not have a conventional steel space frame construction. The exterior walls and floors were the structural elements that held the building up. The gaping holes from the impacts severely weakened theit structural integrity. The fires were not consuming only the contents of building, but were fueled mostly by the jet fuel. Once the floors above the impact zone softened due to the heat of the fire, the buildings could not hold the weight of the floors above.
The World Trade Center towers did not have a conventional steel space frame construction. The exterior walls and floors were the structural elements that held the building up. The gaping holes from the impacts severely weakened theit structural integrity. The fires were not consuming only the contents of building, but were fueled mostly by the jet fuel. Once the floors above the impact zone softened due to the heat of the fire, the buildings could not hold the weight of the floors above.