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 (16266)	3/31/2005 4:58:34 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Ray - The issue is not the "most efficient way to bring a building down" but whether or not a very hot fire that covers the entire cross section of a steel structure with a central core can bring that building down. I have said quite a few times how and why this is entirely possible, and in fact is taught in schools. Perhaps not on conspiracy theory websites, but in universities. Here is the abridged version: Message 19929934 and more recently on this thread: Message 20910417 If you have any objection to what I say in those posts, let's hear it. I would be interested to hear if my professors in "Strength" and "Structure" classes were in some way teaching us flawed material. [Perhaps this whole cover-up started in the early 1990s, hm?] If not, please do try to refrain from statements like "it cannot have been the planes, it cannot have been the fire, so it must be a bomb/nukes/etc" which are demonstrably false. Such wacko claims undermine your credibility and take away any serious attention from other issues you are raising which may in fact have some merit. Maybe 9/11 investigation was indeed a "farce" but who is going to take that allegation seriously when you have just preceded it by "that fire couldn't have caused WTC towers to collapse"? Just my thoughts but I do hope you will listen.