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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (15125)	1/5/2005 7:59:30 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

Oh Raymond you foolish fawn of conspiracy theorists...didn't you read Festus' "letter to the editor"? Why, I think I'll write one tomorrow. What should I disprove?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (15125)	1/5/2005 9:27:15 PM
From: Yogizuna	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

>>> This letter writer obviously hasn't a clue that dozens of modern hi-rise buildings have been built along the same principles as the WTC Towers, albeit not to 100+ stories. Furthermore, there was a revolution in engineering design that occurred in the late 1970s-early 1980s that completely transformed building design and allowed much lighter framing than had previously been the case. None of these modern skyscrapers have failed. Except for WTC 7 late in the day of Sept. 11, 2001. <<< Yeah well, none of the other skyscrapers were built exactly like the WTC twin towers, and none of the others had massive jets crashing into them at relatively high speed, loaded with plenty of fuel... So you are comparing "apples to oranges" in my opinion... On modern assembly lines, many vehicles are built the same way, but break down in many different ways. You should not be so stubborn as to think or believe that things built in similar ways will always react the same way to destructive forces, especially with two extremely large buildings like the twin towers struck by massive jets and having some "shoddy construction" involved in the equation.