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 Administration's Media Manipulation--MediaGate? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (802)	3/4/2005 10:08:21 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9838

>>>A large beam with a piece of another beam laying across it over a column when a falling mass hits the other end of the beam it would launch the steel.<<< Ray, don't you know already that sometimes I type too fast--lol? And don't you know already that sometimes I think too fast--lol! Yes, I shudda described what I called "vertical beams" as columns. But as I was typing I didn't think to do that. Remember, in an earlier post I qualified structural engineering is beyond my ken; and for the most part, although interested, I'm on the sidelines in this great debate. By the way, I traveled along the many links you provided in your post and found the material, especially some of the references within your link, as remarkable. This one, for example: serendipity.li The description of the second plane hitting the South Tower and veering to the right upon impact, thus its fuel moving as much outside of the building as inside of the building creates a condition worthy of deep pondering: How could the building with the least structural impact, the least amount of burning jet fuel, collapse before the North Tower which had experienced a direct hit with all of that plane's fuel burning inside of the tower? And, given the references the writer provided, how is it possible that the fuel could melt enough of all of the steel so as to enable a collapse? Just the dynamic combination of how the planes hit, how the fuel and what amount of fuel burned and the manner of the collapse of the structures is enough to beg questions. Add to this the many, many mysterious conditions surrounding the day of 9/11, and both before and afterwards, one can only I wonder. I do! If I've learned anything over the past few years, it's not to trust what the government or media reports as true and factural.