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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (177452)	12/8/2005 1:22:04 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The FEMA report further states that until the attack at the WTC, no protected steel-frame buildings had been known to collapse as a result of a fire. The key word is "protected." Excuse the absence of the word protected, as it was implied in my statement since fire protection is required on all multi story urban buildings. Yes, there are some buildings such as Hangers and other steel buildings that don't have any protection, but they are not office building occupancies. Comparing an aircraft hanger to the WTC is comparing fleas to flounders. As you note, the steel frame building in Spain was fully engulfed in fire for 26 hours, and did not suffer a total free fall collapse. If anything this should make us ask the question as to why an entire building collapses with spot fires that only burned for a few hours. When one member collapses, the weight it once held falls on other members which then collapse. It's near simultaneous, particularly when there is some sort of common element failing, and especially when the design was particularly balanced (like a soap bubble). Like a soap bubble? POP! thar she goes....!!!! Insane. The building was framed using giant steel columns and beams. Orca