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 : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (229248)	11/17/2009 10:42:50 PM
From: alanrs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

"In other words, we didn't know how vulnerable steel buildings are to prolonged high temperature fires?" Actually they do know this. The steel is fire proofed but there is a point where it will fail and the weight of the building above would collapse it just as the world trade center buildings did. I was home 9/11 and watched the second plane hit. I was surprised at how long it stood, given what looked like a very intense fire. I built high rises for a living. There are specs on that building that will give a time and temperature above which the steel will fail, plus quite a few support columns were taken out by the plane itself. No conspiracy needed. ARS Edit: I probably should have posted this to the other fella. My understanding is that the engineers thought they had an indestructible building. Obviously they were wrong, although there were sections of exterior columns standing some stories high (7?) after it fell, which was impressive.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (229248)	11/17/2009 10:50:47 PM
From: Think4Yourself	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 306849

There is some interesting footage that suggests the towers MIGHT have experienced some detonations but it ignores one simple fact. A lot of people actually saw the plane fly into the building. Unless the "bad government agency" rushed right in afterwards and planted the explosives, the buildings just fell. The falling alone probably turned the local ground above the bedrock into quicksand for a short time, like when you stomp repeatedly on the beach near the water and it turns to soup (get it? island/ocean beach/lake). the nearby buildings were essentially standing on 100+ foot long stilts for a short time. It's a great way to compromise a structure's integrity. One thing not many people know is that the twin towers were the first of their type, and had many technology innovations that allowed the outsides to have so much glass for that height. Instead of a concrete shell, it had a concrete core.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (229248)	11/17/2009 11:08:15 PM
From: roguedolphin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

<"I wasn't joking around. I was demonstrating how little I think of people who jump to conspiracy theory conclusions before doing any actual research."> I take great offense to that. How much research have you done? I think I need to open some minds here to the truth(??)...and I'm not going to let you stand in my way. I present to you and the board here the 9/11 tour de force "Who Killed John O'Neill"... video.google.com Well worth an hour and forty minutes of everyone's time here. This extremely interesting film will make you think.