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 : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (9151)	12/6/2004 1:52:38 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

You might find this picture more helpful than the drawing: home.comcast.net I can see where the drawing would suggest the core was one big piece of concrete, but it was more of a web of steel than anything else. What the photo shows quite well is how much floor space was actually taken up by the structure of the building. None of the stick drawings show how beefy the towers really were. From what I understand, all of the steel was chrome moly, which is the same stuff used for roll cages in 300 MPH dragsters. It's a safe bet the one thing you will never see accounted for in any multi million dollar, government sponsored theory, is why the core failed the way it did, or why not a single stick of it was left standing after the dust settled. I suspect if one were to interview a number of people on the clean up crews, some of the accounts would be rather enlightening. Since most of the evidence was destroyed, the next best thing would be observations by those who hauled it away, or cut it up for scrap. I'd sure be curious to hear what those 4 inch thick columns looked like on the ends.

To: sea_urchin who wrote (9151)	12/6/2004 10:47:02 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Searle, Re: Anyway, what do you think accounts for what happened to these four inch thick, central steel "columns"? It seems all that steel broke up into small fragments. Good question. I have rejected the "pancake" theory for the demolition because if that were the case, we should have seen something similar to the effect that we know from our youth where phonograph records slide down a central spindle to the turntable. Cf.: tinyurl.com In the pancake theory, basic laws of physics had to be disregarded. Such as the fact that the central core of the WTC towers was heavily cross-braced and designed to carry dramatically more load than the barjoist connectors which attached the floors to the columns. It is these bar joist connectors which should have failed, leaving the central core columns intact as the "pancaked" floors collapsed around the central core columns. I've been doing some reading just now and I re-examined the PBS Nova website's explanation of the collapse, and I've just read a science journal article by an expert from MIT that Nova relied upon: pbs.org tms.org Neither Nova nor the Eager article explain the failure of the central core columns to my satisfaction.