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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Ride the Tiger with CD -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gib Bogle who wrote (169214)	7/11/2009 9:57:39 PM
From: pocotrader	2 Recommendations Respond to of 312222

I saw a program on TV that explained why the towers went down, part of it was the steel, it was insulated and a lot of the insulation had fallen off, flames hit the steel directly, weakening it.

To: Gib Bogle who wrote (169214)	7/11/2009 10:19:26 PM
From: loantech	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 312222

Hello down Under, Yes it surprised all involved I think.How are you wintering? Got gold stocks still? Tom

To: Gib Bogle who wrote (169214)	7/12/2009 2:17:38 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 312222

Oh, I don't know about that. A bomber hit the Empire State building quite a few years before. Aircraft strikes on building is a factor designers have always had to consider. The WTC was built with one thing in mind. Money. Safety was not paramount. This whole issue was covered in the disaster movie Towering Inferno. Above 25 floors, most modern towers are deathtraps in a serious fire. MGM grand is a case in point. If the WTC were built in the same fashion as the Empire State, it would not have had the problem it did. In addition if they had water tanks on the top, which was rejected at design stage because of expense, and no flammable furniture or materials above the 25 story, except in flame proof cabinets, the results might have been different as well. The fuel burnt-out quickly. It was the flammables of the building itself, as well as the lack of asbestos coating which caused the failure. As well, the minimalist skin design coupled with single bolt beams was far too weak for the fire and extensive trauma. Better built features designed for exigencies and better non locked, free standing redundant stairwells, would have allowed hundreds to escape that did not. They lock the escapes with chain even above the 25th floor, for "security". Fire escapes should never be locked. It is sufficient to make them one way. Above the 25 floor, they do not need locking at all. Nobody is going to climb 50 floors to get into offices, and nobody is going to get thru one way doors, are they? Chains killed many people by causing up to 10 minute delays. Lack of towers and water tanks killed many people as well. EC<:-}