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: neolib who wrote (175287)	11/18/2005 6:56:19 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Respond to of 281500

By looking at the video of the second impact, most of the fuel exploded at impact and burned outside the building. What wasn't consumed at impact may have burned slowly in an oxygen starved manner, hence the thick dark smoke with little flame. I don't see how the buildings collapsed due to fire, when by the time they collapsed most of the fires burned out. There have been fully engulfed steel buildings that have burned far longer and hotter than the WTC which remained standing. What about the photo of the woman standing in the hole of the first impact? That would not indicate high heat and temperature to me. And what of the released fireman transcript that says send in a couple of hoses and we can knock this out? And most importantly, if the buildings collapsed in a progressive manner the time to collapse would have been far greater than free fall time. And Building #7 did not have any fuel in it. I think that these questions should be addressed. For some reason they have not been. The official investigations are full of assumptions and hypothesis. Orca