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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (60767)	3/7/2005 6:28:02 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 74559

Ray, it looked like gravitational collapse to me. Expecting a few spindly columns to provide resistance to 1000s of tons of steel and concrete falling from 50 metres up is unreasonable. They might look big and strong in construction, but they are only designed to hold something like twice the normal expected loads from earthquakes and wind, together with live loads [people and stuff in the offices]. Those earthquake and wind loads are horizontal, not vertical [not much vertical anyway]. The forces and energy involved with 10,000 tons of stuff falling from 50 or 100 metres higher is a LOT. I guessed 20% longer because I know the energy the columns and other construction materials would absorb would be small compared with what's coming down. The material flying sideways, including big columns, is going sideways because it got popped out - bend a stick by loading it vertically and it goes sideways, it doesn't just crush vertically. Bend it fast and it snaps sideways, sending bits flying out just as send on tv. I trust my eyes and see a gravitational collapse due to structural weakness caused by fire and impact. One could add poor design; fire resistance could have been better, height could have been much, much smaller - other buildings in New York are shorter for a reason = it's better to do things smaller due to laws of physics and economics. The replacement is going to be seriously spectacular apparently. Maybe the economics will cover it by attracting status conscious customers who will pay the rent. Mqurice