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: LPS5 who wrote (10022)	2/17/2005 10:32:26 AM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Mr e > Not only have I not seen any credible engineering reports, but from a purely epistemological standpoint I am not aware of a single incident of this kind which might be used as some sort of a benchmark for comparison You won't either because there no precedents. The WTC was the first fire-induced "collapse" of reinforced steel skyscrapers in history. In fact, the "pancake" theory which some believe explain what happened had to be created for the occasion. Traditional controlled demolition involves implosion of the major supports to the structure which then falls from the bottom. This was, in fact, the situation with WTC7. I say was because to all intents and purposes the videos which I have seen of the "collapse" of WTC7 conform perfectly to those of other controlled demolitions which I have seen. WTC1 and 2, however, disintegrated from the top. That is not to say that the steel columns were not interfered with at the bottom but, and this is the point I was trying to make, it is the appearance of the the disintegrating structure as it disappears from the top down, and in billowing clouds of dust, which satisfies me that there had to be a series of major explosions. It is these plumes of dust which Ray referred to and which I also believe are characteristic of an explosion. But the choice is yours. If you can explain what is seen in another way, and indeed a way which intellectually satisfies you, then so be it. I can't.