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 (16234)	3/29/2005 7:44:13 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 20773

Festus, Re: but the twin towers went down in my opinion "normally" for such shoddily built structures I'm curious what you find shoddy about this structure? home.comcast.net home.comcast.net The Twin Towers were designed to withstand Class 5 hurricane force winds of up to 140 MPH. This is far more severe than the impact forces of the 767s striking the towers. In fact, the towers did lean several inches when the planes impacted, but then quickly righted themselves. Since the central core columns were designed to withstand severe wind loads, their structural strength greatly exceeded what would have been necessary for simple gravity loads. I simply cannot agree with you that the structure was in any way "shoddy". In fact, an analysis of the structure would show that the "pancake" theory as proposed by PBS's Nova program is a preposterous explanation for the destruction of the remarkably robust central core. You would perhaps be better persuaded of my comments to realize that I make them based on the opinion of a real expert in the area of forensic fire investigations, Bill Manning, the editor of Fire Engineering Magazine who remains on the record stating that the investigation into the collapses of the three towers at the WTC were "a half-baked farce": fe.pennnet.com