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: Rock_nj who wrote (10161)	3/1/2005 9:42:55 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

I guess the airplane's stress are the only explanation for why the WTC 1 & 2 collapsed... I guess so too, Rock. ...but still why did they collapse straight down... As opposed to what? Suddenly toppling to the side, to land lengthwise? ...no resistence [sic] from building materials?!? I don't understand what this means. How can you say, or upon what are you basing the statement, that there was "no resistance" in the buildings' collapses? I think there is enough doubt about how and why WTC 1 & 2 collapsed to raise serious questions. I don't see what is to doubt. How do you envision them having fallen? Do you believe that there were explosives in the buildings? But it still doesn't explain WTC 7 falling straight down at all. The front of WTC 7 was severely damaged, deeply gouged up by the fall of the north tower. I saw it, as did hundreds of other volunteers and rescue workers. I don't know, structurally, how/if that damage caused or otherwise affected the collapse, but there too - being as it was a short, squat building - I can't imagine how else it might have fallen. Forward, like a house of cards? In pieces, like huge dominos? After all, as far as I know, no steel frame building had ever collapsed as a result of fire before this. And, in Madrid, once again a building stood after fire for 17 hours. Same happened in Philadelphia, a 24 hour fire didn't take down a steel framed building. Again: are those comparisons appropriate, from a structural point of view? I don't know enough to say that they aren't, but do you know enough to say that they are? All in all, the who [sic] WTC collapses really reek with questions. That might be true, but as I see it: once engineers and other subject matter experts are roundly, summarily, being cast as "disinformation agents" and their assertions being dismissed with a flamboyant wave of the hand - however figurative - it begins to become evident to me that the primary goal is to keep those "questions" alive as opposed to seeking answers to them. In my personal opinion, of course. e

To: Rock_nj who wrote (10161)	3/2/2005 12:33:37 AM
From: Doug R	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

Hunter (S. Thompson) telephoned me on Feb. 19, the night before his death. He sounded scared. It wasn't always easy to understand what he said, particularly over the phone, he mumbled, yet when there was something he really wanted you to understand, you did. He'd been working on a story about the World Trade Center attacks and had stumbled across what he felt was hard evidence showing the towers had been brought down not by the airplanes that flew into them but by explosive charges set off in their foundations. Now he thought someone was out to stop him publishing it: "They're gonna make it look like suicide," he said. "I know how these bastards think . . ." theglobeandmail.com