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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Yogizuna who wrote (15078)	1/4/2005 4:22:11 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

Festus, Re: It was over three years ago, but when I studied the design of the WTC for a few days, they basically said there was not adequate fire-proofing material on the floor beams, and this report basically backs that up. iwar.org.uk; Ahem, you do realize that VOA is a "public diplomacy" shop, right? You do know what "public diplomacy" is, right? If not, you should really spend more time reading about government disinformation and way less time reading public disinformation. Let me ask you a really straightforward question: If the structural elements that are designed to hold a building up are 47 massive steel columns measuring 14"x36" with a thickness of 4" on the lower levels, how in the hell does an unprotected floor truss knock down the column? It can't happen. What happens in the "pancake" scenario, taken to its logical conclusion is that the floor plates collapse, but the central core remains standing, just as would be the case in old-fashioned phonographs with the records sliding down a central spindle. The only way the heavily diagonally reinforced central core collapses is if it is weakened by some force other than floor plates shearing away from the core. I spent 25 years in the construction business. I know how materials behave. And the "pancake" theory is a completely childish non-explanation for what occurred on 9/11. *** Re: About other high rise fires, we must remember that they did not have all that jet fuel to maintain a very high temperature for a prolonged period of time, Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Good grief, the fires in the WTC South Tower were already going out when it was knocked down less than an hour after it was struck. WTC 1 stood for a little over an hour and there were people waving out of the scar created where the jet impacted the building, indicating that there was no high temperature there. In comparison, the First Interstate, Meridien and Caracas fires all burned for 12-24 hours, with no structural damage to the key support columns. In the case of the WTC 7 collapse, you are expected to believe that a kerosene fire burning at no more than 1,520 degrees Fahrenheit (the theoretical maximum) weakened and caused a massive 8"x36" solid steel beam to fail. That defies every UL, FM, CSA or other fire test ever run on structural steel. If you can't see the fraud in the official lies you are being told, you are compeletly foolish, and too dumb for me to try to communicate with.