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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (290571)	6/15/2006 5:42:04 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571903

In mid-February in Madrid, the Windsor Tower (see above) burned for over 20 hours, which led to a fire stronger and hotter than that in the WTC, but even the collapses of the Windsor Tower caused by the very strong and long-enduring fire were minimal and limited to the upper floors. If either of the WTC tower had started to collapse because of fires the collapse would have been limited to only a few of the floors and then stopped. The two towers were built differently than most skyscrapers........the exterior walls carried more of the weight of the buildings than is normal. It was considered a very innovative approach back in the 1970s. The architect described it in a presentation I attended. When the planes penetrated the exterior skin and then a second time as the planes passed through the buildings and came out onthe other side, that action weakened the integrity of the exterior walls. The loss of structural integrity combined with the heat from the fires brought the buildings down. I know this won't satisfy your need for a conspiracy that reads much differently, but I wanted the other people on the thread to understand the cause in case they didn't.