추가질문입니다~^^;
한
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 |
---|---|---|---|
2653219 | 부분을 나타내는 말의 단복수 (1) | 시윤 | 2024-04-29 |
2653189 | 동사 reach come? (1) | 새길 | 2024-04-29 |
2653158 | 오지선다형에서 옳은 것은 몇 번일까요? (2) | 푸른마을 | 2024-04-29 |
2652949 | 삼인칭 단수 현재시점이면 동사에 s를 붙이는데 헷갈려요! | 아름나 | 2024-04-27 |
2652924 | 현재완료에서요~! | 방방 | 2024-04-26 |
2652869 | 이해가안되서요.. | 호빵녀 | 2024-04-26 |
2652838 | 두가지경우? (4) | 소윤 | 2024-04-26 |
2652766 | 구조분석&해석좀해주세요 | 나려 | 2024-04-25 |
2652736 | All but ~해석좀 (1) | 통꽃 | 2024-04-25 |
2652708 | 영어표현 궁금합니다... (1) | 파도 | 2024-04-24 |
2652657 | 질문좀 봐주세요^^ | 푸우 | 2024-04-24 |
2652604 | 질문합니다 !!! | 세실 | 2024-04-23 |
2652574 | Never has a more exciting movie been ande than this. | 달달한캔디 | 2024-04-23 |
2652543 | all that remains of it 에 대해서요... | 한말글 | 2024-04-23 |
2652519 | 짧은 어법문제 하나 부탁요 | Orange | 2024-04-23 |
2652487 | otherwise의 쓰임 꼭좀 답변해주세요 | 안녕나야 | 2024-04-22 |
2652405 | 부사 부사 부사 부사부사 또 질문 | 뿡뿡몬 | 2024-04-22 |
2652381 | 해석부탁드려요...^^;;; | 장난감 | 2024-04-21 |
2652355 | either 질문요 ㅠ | 하람 | 2024-04-21 |
2652330 | 해석 못하겠어요.ㅠㅠ | 루라 | 2024-04-21 |