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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mistermj who wrote (175250)	11/18/2005 11:27:10 AM
From: Orcastraiter	Respond to of 281500

Don't know why they call it FACT, Because everything in the subsequent paragraphs are conjecture and untested hypothesis. One thing they don't address is the time it takes to collapse, which was very near to free fall. Nor do they mention the squibs going off which can be seen in the video of the collapse. They do not explain the symmetry of the collapse, with all vertical support in the building "giving way" at the same time. The video shows the building before collapse, and three corners and two faces are without any damage. If there was damage to the other side as they say then where are the photos and or videos of the damage? Is this damage only eyewitness damage? Then who is the eyewitness? There are many unanswered questions, and the Popular Mechanics article simply adds additional questions without answering any of them. Like the physics professor Jones says, the only way that the building could have collapsed symmetrically, in near free fall time, is if all support is eliminated simultaneously, such as in a controlled demolition. Orca