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: Orcastraiter who wrote (15891)	9/17/2006 10:21:42 PM
From: David Howe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Some portions of the floors were intact (for a while) and pulled in the columns. Other portions of the floors were falling apart, and that took away the columns lateral support. Either by being pulled or losing their lateral support, or both, the columns failed. It seems straight forward to me.

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (15891)	9/18/2006 2:09:57 PM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 20039

that pancake premise flies right in the face of NIST's conclusions that floors did not fail. The say the floors stayed attached to columns, and the pulling in of the sagging floors buckled the columns. You are stating this all out of context. The floors which sagged and pulled the side walls in were the 3 or 4 floors adjacent to the fires. They were not writing about the 80 floors below that area. Those floors were crushed by the 20+ floors from above. You imply that NIST conclused that all 110 floors of the WTC sagged and pulled in columns. TP