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 : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (20752)	4/24/2004 10:48:55 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81781

Raymond > A eutectic satchel charge would need no radio control, it could have been set off by the heat of the kerosene fires or by a timer attached to a smaller incendiary charge. But we are dealing with two enormous buildings and there had to be a considerable amount of precision. Furthermore, as you know, the South building which was struck second came down first and, from what we can see in the movies (for those who care to look!), most of the fuel was burnt up outside the building in an enormous fireball. This happened because the plane went in at an angle and nearly came out on the other side. So, the fuel itself could not have been the determining factor in the collapse of the building because part of the floor which was struck was not even involved in flame. Indeed, people were walking down the stairs from above the affected levels even after the impact. Yet the building fell perfectly symmetrically. In my opinion, therefore, the fire from the burning airplane fuel was a "red herring" as far as the collapse of the building was concerned.