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 (17157)	4/14/2007 2:49:18 AM
From: Orcastraiter	Respond to of 20039

TP, You are missing some important data. How long did it take for those buildings to collapse? How does that compare to the calculated freefall times for the building heights? Note the following: The buildings did not collapse straight down into their foot prints. From your link, the buildings collapsed in different directions due to the ground motions being opposite on either side of the fault line. Also, in Turkey many buildings are made of unreinforced masonry or under reinforced concrete. These types of buildings almost always collapse completely in large quakes. Especially when adjacent to a fault line with a M7.4 Quake. Unreinforced brittle construction cannot be compared to modern steel buildings. Those type of buildings have little lateral strength and no ductility. The death tolls for quakes in old world cities is often devastating because of the lack of construction standards. That said, there appears to be many other buildings in the photo that survived. They were likely of stronger construction. The frames of the three WTC buildings are much stronger and more ductile than the buildings in your photo. Try again...

To: TigerPaw who wrote (17157)	4/14/2007 3:42:57 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Hi TP, I have no problem being proven wrong on this one. In fact it was several years before I swung over to the "conspiracy" explanation, and my posts on SI will reflect this change over the years. Reason? The other explanation just didn't fit. The event was very hard to take in in the first place. "Shock and Awe" is all the rage these days though. I thought the weight of the floors above plus dynamic loading plus shock waves transmitted through the steel structure would explain all the unusual effects. The speed of sound in steel is high for example. The structure doesn't all just fall down at once though, there is not enough energy at any time for instantaneous failure of all load bearing points. Building 7 convinced many that more was going on then just the plane strikes. I watched the BBC report live btw, it was kinda naf, especially when it fell down "just like in the movies". The horror of the events swamped any reasoning going on at the time I think. It was stated that the lateral loading from the plane strike was 95% of the designed tolerance for wind resistance. OK, but the actual tolerance will be about three times that before it actually starts to break. Same with the vertical supports. They will be many times stronger then any max loading. Perhaps some photos from Mexico Earthquake would give better examples? The city had many high rise building if I remember correctly.