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: Raymond Duray who wrote (234)	4/25/2003 12:36:49 AM
From: space (Hijacked)	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

What I find interesting about the collapse of each of the towers is that they "pancaked", i.e. both towers fell straight down. One would think that the towers would collapse on the side they were hit because of the weakening of the structure.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (234)	4/25/2003 1:10:08 AM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

<<<And speculation is all it is at this point in time for me.>>> Me too. The article you posted was the first one I've run across that mentioned molten steel. Speculation on thermite devices was merely a first impression. To even make a theory out of it, I think you'd have to go to an expert and say, "I want to bring down this particular building. I don't want to make an excessive amount of noise. And could this be done with a certain number of incendiary devices placed to weaken the structure before setting off smaller cutting charges?". Something like that anyhow. I don't think it's a hypothesis that could be put together by a layman. Although it might be interesting to see an analysis of the metal, if any is still around, to see if there are any traces of something that shouldn't be there.