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 Administration's Media Manipulation--MediaGate? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (762)	3/3/2005 1:38:59 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9838

Ray, I see nothing in any of those videos that is inconsistent with the type of collapse I described. In fact I draw my conclusions from those very same videos. The video of Tower # 1 collapsing may show that the collapse initiated in the core columns. It's very hard to see any differential between the core movement and the exterior movement. The frame by frame analysis appears to show the center portion collapsing ahead of the exterior by a small amount. That amount is approximately equal to a few stories at most. That's about the depth of the impact zone. One would expect the temperatures in the core to be higher from the fire, and this is where I would expect the collapse to initiate. Having the core collapse first drew the outside columns inward and contributed to the collapse occurring in a straight down manner. As for debris being flung straight out that is not inconsistent with the progressive collapse. Imagine all that volume of air trapped in the building interior. As the building collapsed that air had to escape. The only exit for the air was laterally. In addition buckling columns release a tremendous amount of energy which could fling debris laterally or even upwards. The example of other buildings burning and not collapsing does not prove anything either. The fireproofing materials in the impact zone were probably knocked off of many of the steel columns and trusses, thereby making them more accessible to the fire. A building that is hit by fire alone will have all of the columns in tact and will have the fireproofing in tact. In addition the frames are different, The building in Madrid had many more columns more evenly distributed in the building. The WTC had only the exterior columns and the core columns. I don't think there is any evidence in the building collapse that supports a conspiracy theory. As for Bush and his administration and what they knew and did leading up to and after 9-11, I think that's still up for debate and analysis. I think that it's likely that the 9-11 report whitewashed some aspects of the event. That would be consistent with previous commission reports. Orca