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: maceng2 who wrote (65015)	6/14/2005 4:06:09 AM
From: energyplay	Respond to of 74559

There were a large number of vertical beams which supported the whole structure. Some of these beam were tied to the concrete floor. When the plane sliced through, especially the engines and fuselage, some of those vertical beams would cut into to pieces, and no longer aligned. Beams which were just dented or pushed out of alignment would still support weight, but not as much, adding stress on the remaining beams. Add heat and these beam will start to deform so they relieve the stress, causing the other beams to bear the weight.... The top part, which was previously in compression, is now being supported by the upper floors. The beam is in tension, where steel tend to be strongest. The concrete floors, instead of being in esential compression, are now in a shear mode or tension. Concrete does lousy in tension, that's why rebars are used to pre-stress the concrete into tension. As the whole structure distorts because of heat and the lopsided loads, parts of the concrete toward the top, where the pull of the unsupported verticl beam is greatest, will start to fail, piling up concrete and weight on the next lower floor, increasing the stress which will lead to the pancaking. **** I think the terroists objective was to cut or damage enough support that the pancaking wuold start very soon - either by slicing through enough of the structure, or maybe 5 minutes as the heat distorted the building. If that was their objective, they came closest with the second plane (757), which was going faster. There are some reports that Osama and Company were disapointed the buildings did not fall down immediately.... ***** Either the terrorists had some very good structual engineers - possible, since the bin Laden group is one of the largest construction firms in the Mideast, or they were lead to this knownledge. So either they acquired or had their expert 'lead' to some arcane knownledge, and / or something made the building weaker when they were hit... The fact that a number of anti-hijacking drills were scheduled for September 11 isn't something you learn putting up office buildings in the Gulf, however.... The FBI not putting 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 together, is tougher. It's pretty easy for Fact A not to be found near Fact B, but there were several combinations which would have resulted in a pattern emerging, or cause a few more resources to be assigned to address this threat, which would then cause the pattern to emerge. But that didn't happen...

To: maceng2 who wrote (65015)	6/14/2005 8:54:26 AM
From: Gib Bogle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

The planes were fully fueled up. That is an enormous amount of energy. Gib

To: maceng2 who wrote (65015)	6/14/2005 5:17:42 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Re: The only real explanation to the collapse being the structural steel became hot enough to buckle on one or more floors. Huh? The most reasonable explanation is controlled demolition. The characteristics and physics of the event are completely and easily explained by applying what we know of controlled demolition. What I'd really like you to do is to thoroughly study these two items and think through what you are looking at. First, here is an image showing live and uninjured human beings in the opening of the North Tower: 911research.wtc7.net OK, let's do a thought experiment. I've been in dry saunas where the air temperature was over 200 degrees Fahrenheit, so I know that a human can stand this temperature for at least a few minutes. So lets say that the temperature at the point this woman was standing may have been as much as 200 degrees. So at the point that the woman was standing, the steel was simply not hot enough to have lost its tensile or compressive strength. How about the temperature in the 47 core columns? We have some data on how steel framed structures react when a petroleum fire occurs within. corusconstruction.com Even with severe fuel loading, much more severe than was evident at the WTC towers at the time of their collapse, the temperature in these test structures never exceeded 360 degrees Centigrade, a temperature still below the elastic limit of steel. Keep in mind that steel is an excellent conductor of heat. Thus, as any section of steel in the World Trade Center were heated, it would immediately be dissipating this heat by warming adjacent framing elements. As with the Corus tests, no one has been able to prove that the 47 heavy structural columns in core of the WTC towers could have possibly collapsed with the synchonicity required for buildings to collapse in the fashion that they did. However, using a controlled demolition theory explains this logically and completely. I'll refer you to this post for more links: Message 21409812 *** As to the validity of the Scientific American article that you linked to: sciam.com The very first sentence on this page is utter poppycock: "Despite shocks and explosions estimated to be equivalent to that of the 1995 truck bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (about 400 tons of TNT) [Emphasis added], the towers remained upright." Either this author has written a typo which the editors failed to catch, or else someone is trying to bamboozle the public here. How so? We know that the type of device used by the Oklahoma City truck bombers was an "amfo" type bomb. That is to say, it was composed of ammonia and fuel oil. The degree of explosivity of various compounds is called Brisance. tinyurl.com The brisance of an amfo device is considerably less than that of TNT to begin with, and a Ryder rental truck's cargo capacity is on the order of 20 tons, at most. So the Scientific American article of off by at least 2,000% and possibly more like two orders of magnitude in its comparison. Ugh! How can this pass for real science? And that, Pearly Button, was just the first sentence of the disinformation that this article presented. You really ought to be looking for better, more honest sources, IMHO.