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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richnorth who wrote (959)	12/22/2004 6:54:06 PM
From: cirrus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224668

It is generally believed that the fuel in the fuel tanks of the jets was incapable of causing the kind of explosions that were observed! I disagree. And that phrase "generally believed" is one of those vague, unsupported statements often used to make a point that can't be supported by the evidence. Although I'm not an expert and can't define the difference between "fireball" and "explosion", there are folks whose business it is know the difference. We did not see "explosions" per se that would have done extensive damage well beyond the impact point. We saw huge fireballs that were consistent with jet fuel igniting. See the Souix City, IA DC-10 crash video (available somewhere) and note the similarities. In contrast, review the images of Baghdad buildings being hit with high explosives from US bombs and missiles. The differences are quite apparent. Remember the Challenger? It's a common misconception that the shuttle Challenger was destroyed by an "explosion". Actually, the shuttle survived the fireball generated by igniting hydrogen in the external tank - only to break apart immediately afterwards from aerodynamic stresses caused by the fireball causing the shuttle to lose directional control... About a year ago, someone or some entity posted photographs (seen on rense.com) that purported to show the planes firing missiles into the buildings shortly before impact. Oddly enough, there was no government comment. Nor from any other group. Passenger jets do not carry missiles. In the video I saw there was no evidence of missles impacting before the aircraft. There were some claims that objects exiting the buildings from the side opposite the impacts were missile fragments. Unlikely. 50 ton jets crashing into glass and steel buildings with open floor plans at 400mph are going to propel debris and aircraft parts pretty far. Besides, what's the point in firing missiles if you've got explosives on board? The theories get so wild they almost contradict one another. Of all the plane crashes on 9/11 it was only the crash of the plane (intended for the White House) into a field in Pennsylvania that caused a seismometer to register significant readings. Not true. Reread mgs.md.gov. Scientists at Columbia University were able to determine accurate times of the plane impacts and building collapses using seismic signals recorded at numerous seimographic stations... There is a detailed engineering account of the towers collapse out on the net somewhere. It explains what happened, when it happened, how it happened and why. I don't have time to find it now, but look here: civil.usyd.edu.au One aspect of the 9/11 story I find odd relates to the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. Why? 1. Parts were found in a pond below the flight path miles away from the crash site. 2. A military officer mentioned to me at a party that he happened to be in a Washington area meeting on 9/11 when someone came in and remarked "We got the fourth one." That's hardly conclusive, but, hey... everyone has a theory...