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 : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (14986)	9/7/2006 12:31:45 AM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Of course all support was removed. How did the building fall straight down at free fall if all support was not removed simultaneously? If on only one floor all columns simultaneously became "overstressed" that alone would be amazing. For it to precipitate a free fall collapse of the entire building simply doesn't make sense. The steel frame if intact would have resisted the falling in a very substantial manner. Would have slowed down the collapse significantly. Not by just a second or two. The upper part of the steel frame would have likely been left intact sitting on the lower part. Perhaps bent up and twisted, but not in a flat pile. Literally no portion of the steel frame kept any shape at all. Completely demolished. The symmetry of the collapses indicates a straight down simultaneous failure of all column collapse. That's what you get with a planned demolition. Show me any other steel frame that has collapsed in that manner in the history of steel buildings. There are none. Everything about these collapses is consistent with a controlled demolition.