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: nz_q who wrote (4927)	1/9/2004 5:28:09 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

<<<And what was burning at the lower floors that destroyed all columns at onse? What hit WTC7 and what started the fires? >>> According to the official story there were some very large tanks of stove oil stored below WTC7. Unfortunately, the official story doesn't provide much in the way of an explanation as to how the spontaneous combustion occurred. Some accounts I've seen talk about the construction of WTC7 being unusual as the result of putting the building over a power station or something like that. From what I understand it called for engineering some very heavy duty load bearing supports at odd intervals. In other words, it would be hard to bring the building down in its own foot print without a lot of extra care paid to the non uniform, beefed up supports. Personally, I'm not sure what to make of the length of time the fire burned that you mention in the previous post. Debris can smolder for a long time and there was certainly plenty of debris involved; lots of paper, chair stuffing and kerosene. On the other hand, there aren't any good explanations for the melted steel at the bottom of the hole, which was probably keeping things hot, without accounting for what was keeping the steel hot. Incendiaries would explain the situation. The official story doesn't include even a half baked explanation. Something to think about is what would have happened if the buildings hadn't fallen down? It would have been expensive, if not impossible, to fix them, and we've already seen the damage caused by bringing them down with explosives. It seems obvious whoever set the charges wanted to avoid the endless red tape of environmental issues, safety issues, damage to other buildings, objections to leaving the buildings standing, objections to fixing the buildings, and objections to bringing the buildings down. The whole thing would still be tied up in legal battles, which would distract from the terror of it all. Blowing up the buildings after hitting them with airplanes probably made perfect sense to the sort of criminally insane minds that hate the environment and consider murder for profit to be socially acceptable.