Too controversial?

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by ezeedee

controversy is an idea thought up by weak people who are too afraid to hear the truth.

A pain in the butt/waste of time is the maintenance dealing with people claiming controversy. I like turning "sayings" like around...

Steady and slow wins the race, but then you won't have time to stop and smell the roses

[repete86]

I grew up looking at it, came very close to losing two family members in the WTC (my FDNY uncle, and my aunt who worked in it), and know a few people who died in it (my uncle's firehouse). It isn't too controversial.

[GasSavers_TomO]

Originally Posted by ezeedee

controversy is an idea thought up by weak people who are too afraid to hear the truth.

I'm going to add this to my signature!

And, to keep this thread on topic, Can't wait until this info is posted.

[ezeedee]

Originally Posted by TomO

I'm going to add this to my signature!

SWEET! i made that up too!

[repete86]

Uh oh, the feds got him!

[Snax]

I'll take an educated guess that the trade center feature/flaw was the exo-skeleton supported design. The heating of the inner floor web support beams effectively allowed them to bend and buckle the exo-skeleton inwards, contributing to the ultimate collapse of the most damaged floors and the upper floors propagated futher collapse through the outright force of their momentum.

In a nutshell, had the towers been constructed with a relatively small number of inner support columns, they probably would not have collapsed.

[trebuchet03]

I guess I should have linked my post here

I posted this a couple days ago

http://www.gassavers.org/showthread.php?t=4927

The heating of the inner floor web support beams effectively allowed them to bend and buckle the exo-skeleton inwards

Pretty close -- but keep in mind that the outer core structure did not support the weight of the building (at least, that was not it's primary function).

In a nutshell, had the towers been constructed with a relatively small number of inner support columns, they probably would not have collapsed.

We sure can say "probably" -- but we do know there is safety in redundancy.