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 (16274)	3/30/2005 7:11:59 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Please show me any legitimate source for your comment that WTC 2 had the "heavier top". This is the first time I've ever seen anyone make this argument. By heavier top I mean that the second building had a lot more floors above the collapse level and that amounted to a heavier weight pushing on the weakened floor(s) therefore a faster collapse. I presented no straw men, I think it would be very difficult to cut the vertical supports out of a building and have none of the occupants, who stare at those walls week after week, notice. Even if it were done at night or weekends it would unlikely in the extreme that there would be no signs of repaired walls and wet paint. I've had pipes repaired in my wall and know that even experienced professionals can't go into the drywall and leave it looking just like it did before they started. These are serious flaws in the theory that it was sabatoge, much more serious than changes in schedules. Schedules and installations go on all the time so some were bound to be in a similar timeframe as the 9/11 incident. As to the pancake theory. As I understood it you have argued that the central core would not have collapsed unless it had been cut. That would be true for each of the floors, because I have seen the video and there was no central core sticking up during the collapse at any time. If the central core was really that strong it would stick up at some point unless it had been cut at every floor. That ties into the first paragraph since that would amount to an awful lot of central core cutting that left no visible remainder that was noticed by the thousands of survivors. It would also take a lot of workers to disable the building, and I find it improbable that not one got a guilty conscience and confessed nor did even one boast to his other cia buddies. Sure, there are some head scratcher puzzles that went on that day, but the gestalt of the situation just doesn't line up with sabatoge. What it does line up with is Karl Rove's well known tactic of embrace and extend. In this tactic he looks for areas in which he (or his client) is weak and he takes hold of the critism of that trait and extends it into absurdity. In this way he makes everyone discount the whole line of inquiry. This is exactly what he did when he sent the phony documents to CBS to embrace and extend the Bush/Guard story until it was no longer a credible story in the eyes of the media. I think you, like Rather, are the recipient of easily discredited documents. TP