Check out some similar questions!

Starman · Sep 25, 2006, 10:37 PM

If the architects were aware of the design's susceptibility to heat why didn't any of them make a quick call to inform those who were in danger of the buildings collapsing on them?

Fr_Chuck · Sep 26, 2006, 01:20 AM

The metal had a heat protection coating, but it was blow off by the crash on the several floors with the direct hit ( from my understanding)

And of course they did know before the towers fell that they were in danger, from the police helecopter who said it appeared to be weakening, and of course when the first fell to the time the second one fell

What happened was that first of course the elevators were not working, so everyone was on the stairs, firemen going up, people trying to come down.

The fire radios could not reach the firemen further up in the buildings, so they had no way to talk to each other. The police radios could not talk to the firemen. So while they tried to get the warning out, by the time they got to some of them it was too late for them to get out.

( an over simiple version)

They had approved new radios that would allow fire and police to talk to each other a year eariler, but the police chief and fire chief could not agree on who was to be in control of them, and the radios were never used. *** side note, and to this day they still have not agreed and the radios are still not in use.

colbtech · Sep 26, 2006, 02:28 AM

I don't think you can design a structure that caters for every eventuality. After all, when designing a product, your first concern is for the safety of who or what may be inside.
Fire is one of the hazards taken into account and there are the building regs that state (among other things) that you cannot build a structure that does not have any hazard protection.
I have yet to see or hear of a set of building regs that state the structure must be safe against a plane flying into it. You may as well write building regs that state the structure must be bomb proof!

It was a sad day, not only for those that lost their lives but for the whole world, muslims included. This has coloured the western view of the muslim religion and the people that follow Islam.

It is strange that considering all religions (well the ones that I know of) teach peace and yet throughout history more people have died because of ones God being better than other. Even as an atheist I cannot undertsand such a senseless act.

NeedKarma · Sep 26, 2006, 04:30 AM

I believe that the structures, as the Empire State building demonstrated, can withstand the impact of a small plane. I'm not sure any building could withstand a wide-body jet fully laden with fuel crashing into it a very high velocity. That risk mitigation probably did not occur to them during design in the early 70's.

javedahmad · Oct 11, 2006, 10:47 PM

For more information on what really happened on 9-11 please visit http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

Krs · Oct 12, 2006, 01:46 AM

Well everybody has different views on what really happened...
No website or story may change some peoples minds.

Starman · Oct 15, 2006, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by colbtech

I don't think you can design a structure that caters for every eventuality. After all, when designing a product, your first concern is for the safety of who or what may be inside.
Fire is one of the hazards taken into account and there are the building regs that state (among other things) that you cannot build a structure that does not have any hazard protection.
I have yet to see or hear of a set of building regs that state the structure must be safe against a plane flying into it. You may as well write building regs that state the structure must be bomb proof!

It was a sad day, not only for those that lost their lives but for the whole world, muslims included. This has coloured the western view of the muslim religion and the people that follow Islam.

It is strange that considering all religions (well the ones that I know of) teach peace and yet throughout history more people have died because of ones God being better than other. Even as an atheist I cannot undertsand such a senseless act.

I do agree with you on the inability to prepare a structure for all eventualities. That would mean conceivably preparing it for a direct hit by an asteroid-right? No, what my question entails is within the realm of the possible. I design a building, see that it's being subjected to temperatures which might cause its immediate collapse, make a quick phone call or else go personally to the site if it is possible, and dutifully inform the authorities that those inside are in grave danger due to imminent building collapse.

That is all I am asking about.

DwightB · Nov 26, 2006, 09:11 PM

The structural members had fire protection that was sprayed on and rated for 4 hours of protection, which would have allowed the building to completely empty safely under foreseeable conditions. What was NOT foreseeable, was that the impact would blast off the spray-on fire protection (a product that has been used successfully in thousands of installations) and expose the steel to burning jet fuel thus drastically reducing the time required to soften the structure. At the same time, the impact made elevator inoperable and blocked exit stairs for all above the floors of impact, eliminating their only route of escape other than windows.