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: maceng2 who wrote (203237)	9/17/2006 7:12:59 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Pearly_Button; Re: "If the collapse of the building was normal, why did not anyone want to look at the rubble and check where things went wrong?" It would be silly to hold up the reconstruction in order to verify what is obvious to any reasonable person. Their contents caught fire and they burned. And in order to avoid that in the future, yes, buildings are going to be built a little stronger. Re: "As it happened all the evidence was sealed off and carted away, and nobody was allowed to inspect it." I would have been more surprised if they'd kept that carcinogenic mess in place unsealed. Re: "Don't think that's a bit odd in the light of the fact it collapsed at near free fall velocity???" No, the buildings were built in such a way that near free-fall collapse is what you would expect. They were barely standing up even on a good day. You can see one of the WTC towers start to bend before it collapsed completely, and you can see the center structure of WTC-7 fall in on itself well before the rest of the building fell down. All this is perfectly normal in this sort of thing. We're just lucky that we don't live in Lebanon or Iraq and get to see how tall buildings collapse more often. -- Carl