추가질문입니다~^^;
주나
질문 내용에 적절한 질문 제목을 써 주세요.
답변을 얻은 뒤 반드시 감사의 덧글을 남기고, 좋은 답변은 채택해 주시는 센스...
질문할 때 예의를 지키시기 바랍니다.(빨리... 고수분만..... 이런 식의 요구는 자제 바랍니다.)
질문 내용 :
어제 제 질문에 답해주신 nanumi0725님, 누들님, ENM DANTE님 감사드립니다^^
그런데 제가 전체 글을 올리지 않아, 문맥 파악하시는 데 감 잡기가 어려우셨던 것 같아서 - 그래서 제 의문도 완전히 해소되지 않은 듯하여ㅠ-전문 올려봅니다.
굳이 다 안 읽으셔도, 색 다르게 한 부분만 읽으셔도 될듯요ㅎ
The Bush administration kicked off a vital two-year investigation this week of the factors that caused the World Trade Center towers to collapse last Sept. 11. It is a necessary follow-up to the initial six-month inquiry into the structural collapse, which was hobbled by a lack of resources and legal authority. The only missing element now is subpoena power for the federal investigators so that they can compel testimony and the production of documents. The House has passed a bill granting that power, and the Senate needs to do likewise.
The initial investigation determined that neither the impact of the huge airliners nor the fireball of jet fuel was enough to bring the towers down. The crucial factor was the extremely hot fires that the jet fuel ignited in the flammable contents of the towers, which softened the structural steel and triggered the collapse. But just which parts of the buildings were critical in the failure has not been determined.
The new investigation, scheduled to last two years and cost some $23 million, will be headed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a federal agency with expertise in building performance and structural failures. It will examine such issues as the strength of the steel, how well fireproofing materials worked, why people were trapped on the upper floors and how well firefighters responded. That, in turn, could trigger revisions in building codes and performance standards to make all high-rise buildings safer. One disturbing finding of the initial investigation was that an extremely fierce fire alone could be sufficient to bring down a 47-story building that had not been hit by the planes.
It is unfortunate that the new study is starting so late, when memories have faded and some of the structural evidence has been lost. But the administration is to be commended for putting substantial resources into the inquiry, which could expand into a five-year effort costing more than $50 million for a series of related studies. The construction industry -- and the public -- need to understand the dynamics of these traumatic collapses.
보니까 첫문단에선 과거로, 셋째문단에선 또 미래로, 제 궁금증이었던 마지막 문단에선 현재진행이네요..대충 느낌상으론 물흐르듯이 알것두 같은데요.. 아무래도 여기서 왜 현재진행으로 쓰였는지가 정말 궁금합니다ㅠ도와주세요~!
번호 | 제 목 | 글쓴이 | 날짜 |
---|---|---|---|
2700086 | One 과 the scale 사이 생략? The scale A|attack 주어? | 핫파랑 | 2025-07-01 |
2700056 | 정확한 해석 좀 부탁드립니다. | 뽀송뽀송 | 2025-07-01 |
2700029 | 아 형식에서요 ㅠㅠ | 에가득 | 2025-07-01 |
2699972 | me to가 문장뒤에 붙는데 어떻게 해석하는거죠요? | 푸우 | 2025-06-30 |
2699913 | Tens of millions of | Sona | 2025-06-30 |
2699884 | 빈칸 채우기 질문입니다 | 눈꽃 | 2025-06-29 |
2699856 | 관계대명사 문제... (1) | UniQue | 2025-06-29 |
2699805 | 수동태에관한질문 | 화이트캣 | 2025-06-29 |
2699751 | to부정사 시제 문제푼거 답좀 확인해주세요. (2) | 주나 | 2025-06-28 |
2699719 | 가정법 관련이에요. | 아지랑이 | 2025-06-28 |
2699691 | 의미상의 주어에 | 봉봉 | 2025-06-28 |
2699660 | 여기서 true의 쓰임은 형용사인가요? 부사인가? (EBS n제) | 노을 | 2025-06-27 |
2699597 | that 뒤에 완전절, be seat (1) | 스릉흔다 | 2025-06-27 |
2699572 | 구문 설명좀요 | 횃대비 | 2025-06-27 |
2699541 | 어법상 틀린 것 찾기 | 구슬 | 2025-06-26 |
2699515 | 이것도 좀 부탁드립니다 ^^ (2) | 해가빛 | 2025-06-26 |
2699463 | but,however (1) | 스킬 | 2025-06-26 |
2699403 | The different city is another one in the another two | 뿡뿡 | 2025-06-25 |
2699324 | 이거 번역좀 부탁드립니다. | 차나 | 2025-06-24 |
2699292 | 비인칭주어 it 궁금하네요. | 큰길 | 2025-06-24 |