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 (10041)	2/17/2005 2:23:21 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

> high-rise buildings which have been on fire [they] don't collapse. In fact, they seem to burn for days and days until nothing more than a shell is left swissinfo.org >>A 32-storey Madrid skyscraper gutted by the biggest blaze in the city's history will be taken apart piece by piece from the outside because it is too dangerous to enter, a townhall official says. Madrid's eighth tallest building was reduced to a blackened concrete skeleton at the weekend when a fire that lit up the night sky like a huge torch devoured the 106-metre-high building from the top down.<<

To: sea_urchin who wrote (10041)	2/17/2005 4:45:42 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Okay, fair enough. Thanks for your thoughts. I, personally, can envision that (an internal fire ranging for hours, even days) as not only a possibility but a potential outcome/scenario as well, with the exception of one factor: the enormous structural damage left to the buildings left by the aircraft. Does your imagining of the damage not permit, or otherwise preclude, collapse by virtue of the combination of fire and structural damage? To me, it seems eminently possible, even probable - e

To: sea_urchin who wrote (10041)	2/17/2005 4:45:47 PM
From: LPS5	Respond to of 20039

dupe.

To: sea_urchin who wrote (10041)	2/17/2005 4:45:56 PM
From: LPS5	Respond to of 20039

dupe.

To: sea_urchin who wrote (10041)	2/18/2005 9:21:07 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

From my reading about high-rise buildings which have been on fire they don't collapse. What readings are those? In fact, they seem to burn for days and days until nothing more than a shell is left. With an example being...? Therefore, I must believe that, absent theoretical explosives, the WTC should have burned in a similar fashion to similar buildings which were ablaze. What buildings "similar" to the WTC towers - in size, structure, and the circumstances (being hit by commercial airliners) are you referring to in comparison? Indeed, there are reasons to believe that the fires at the WTC were not as severe as in other conflagrations... What are those reasons? ...and therefore there was even a good possibility that they could have been put out. Yes, if the buildings hadn't collapsed. e