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: TigerPaw who wrote (16275)	3/30/2005 8:02:46 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Re: 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) You don't seem to understand structural engineering. The floors are irrelevant to the support of the structure, which is carried by the vertical structural elements called columns. Furthermore, you seem oblivious to the fact that AA175 hit the South Tower at an oblique angle and left almost all of the central core intact. The support of the building was not weakened in an significant manner either by the impact of the B-767 nor by the small, insignificant and diminishing fires which were being extinguished at the time of the collapse. Wake up and smell the coffee, TP. The South Tower was brought down when it was because the fires were going out, not because they were raging. In other words, the cover story (i.e. the fire) for the collapse was falling apart, and someone decided to bring the South Tower down first, in spite of the fact that it was far less structurally damaged than the North Tower. Answer me this simple question. How could the Windsor Tower in Madrid have been a raging inferno for well over 24 hours and not collapsed, and yet the South Tower of the WTC collapse with a smudgy, cold fire slowly self-extinguishing in less than one hour? This does not make any sense: whatreallyhappened.com But this does: rense.com The WTC Towers were demolished. Deliberately. And there has been a four year semi-successful cover-up of this fact ever since. *** Re: I think it would be very difficult to cut the vertical supports out of a building and have none of the occupants, Are you familiar with RDX, DREXs, Brisance, eutectic reactions and DARPA's role in the world? Do you understand the physics of controlled demolitions? A straw man argument is one which is preposterous, obtuse and misleading. No one (in their right mind) ever talked about men with sawzalls or torches cutting up the WTC towers over weekends. Good grief, Charlie Brown. Where do you come up with such fantasies?