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 (606)	5/11/2003 12:35:49 AM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Ray, Some of your points are good ones. The real problem with the bent metal theory is the lack of bent metal. If the steel had been heated to a point where it was possible for it to bend enough to flat out collapse, there would have been a LOT of pieces bent into hairpin shapes. I wasn't overly impressed with the way that particular article was written up either, but to bend steel requires temperatures high enough to turn the steel at least red. One of the better write ups I've seen on the topic included an analysis of the time it took for the top of the building to hit the ground. There was a one second difference compared to an object in free fall from the same height IN A COMPLETE VACUUM. Picture the typical Hollywood stunt where the falling person hits a series of platforms on the way down. As each platform is hit, the speed of the stunt man is slowed enough to prevent him from coming to harm. Each floor of the WTC should have acted in a similar fashion, plus as the top section broke up, there would have been less weight hitting each successive floor. I find it a little hard to believe an object hitting reinforced concrete and steel would hit the ground at one second off of the 32 feet per second per second acceleration of gravity in a total vacuum. The official theory isn't believable. Heck, even the official theory is qualified to reflect the missing evidence. The law prohibits evidence being destroyed in the event of a structural failure, and most of the WTC steel was destroyed before inspectors had a chance to look at it. Which brings us back to the common theme which runs through every piece of evidence related to 9/11: all the evidence has been destroyed, covered up or classified in one fashion or another. There's only one reason people keep secrets. It's because they have something to hide which they believe would cause them harm if the secret were discovered. Some stuff on terminal velocity: hypertextbook.com

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (606)	5/11/2003 7:28:25 AM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

That the floor trusses on the levels where the fires burned out of control would sag over time and thereby break free from their point of attachment at the columns. Once this occurred, a progressive collapse became an inevitability. The way I read his theory was, that if the floors did indeed break loose from the central supporting column, that column should have retained at least partial integrity and perhaps even continued to stand...not an unreasonable hypothesis, IMHO. I agree with you regarding the Pentagon attack...there is little doubt in my mind that that was a military operation. It will be interesting to see if the Keane Commission really has teeth and intends to not back down from the Bushista stonewalling.