Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (190815)	10/10/2001 6:37:57 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Lots of "liberties" will be redefined in the next one to four years, including the "constitutional right" to bear arms. I SURE hope the Demolibs jump on the gun ban wagon for the next election....a guaranteed losing position, now.

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (190815)	10/10/2001 6:46:31 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

<<Irresponsible people like the bubba in Alaska shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Wouldn't you agree?>> Well duh? He shouldn't be able to drive. Why do you want to take away my gun when a guy with 14 arrests does something stupid 2,500 miles away from me? Ok, I have a record. Did 36 in a 30 zone after driving back from Chicago at 11 at night in 19 and 76.

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (190815)	10/10/2001 6:59:20 PM
From: DOUG H	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

A gun is a weapon whose sole purpose is to inflict damage from a distance.. In the first round of debate we always defined terms to be used. A guns sole purpose is to discharge a projectile. It can be fired harmlessly into the water. It is therefore the user of the gun who needs to be looked at, not the gun. Nutballs like the guy in Alaska should not have them. There are many more out there like that. Unforunatley there are some, (you??) who would not allow anyone to own them. Even more sinister are those who "use" guns and their damage as political footballs to hammer at ideological opponents with whom they disagree on othewr issues. Our former president was such a man.

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (190815)	10/10/2001 10:41:23 PM
From: ManyMoose	Respond to of 769670

You had better hope the Bill of Rights stands in whole after all this. When one goes, the rest will follow. If you don't believe this, see the following summary details of an engineering analysis of the WTC disaster: The failure of the World Trade Center was caused by a series of events resulting from the terrorist attack that individually may not have resulted in the catastrope that occurred. The aircraft sheared most of the structural members at the impact site (wingspan about 160 feet vs width of the tower about 210 feet), causing uneven loading on the remaining local structural members, which over time would could cause failure if not corrected. The impact of the aircraft although great obviously did not cause failure (failure occurred sometime later allowing many to escape). The uneven loading although problematic, could have been corrected. The most serious effect found was that some structural members lost more than have of their cross section from the fire, which would cause failure (buckling) of structural members. Adiabatic flame temperature of kerosene = 1727C and the melting temperature of steel = 1570C. Even if the temperature was half the adiabatic flame temperature of kerosene, the metal would creep rapidly, kink a column and buckling failure occurs. The aircraft would have had about 20,000 gallons of fuel, which when burned would release energy equivalent to about 2.4 million sticks of dynamite. Structure fires do not reach this intensity, except in very isolated instances. This is most likely the primary cause of failure. Also, they have found evidence that the aircraft sheared through the structural core of one of the towers The core is designed to maitain structural rigidity and structural integrity if something happens to other structural members and loading is shifted. Presumably this could have happened at the second tower also. Uneven loading, intense heat that could melt or at a minimum cause creep and buckling in the steel as well as loss of the structural core resulted in the failure of the structural members at the impact site and possibly the floors immediately above and below. Once the structure fails locally gravity takes over. In effect the structure below the failure recieves impact loading related to the weight of all the floors above, the drop height and the force of gravity. No structures are built with safety factors to withstand that kind of loading so the towers collapsed with the force growing with each additional floor. Put it all together and you have catastrophe beyond imagination. An interesting question is did the terrorist calculate that failure would occurr as it did or were they just going for a horrific spectacle?