SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LLCF who wrote (51388)5/17/2006 1:13:54 PM
From: booyaka  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 116555
 
Not many people have the expertise to critique the official version of events. Also, there's a tremendously strong predisposition to disbelieve that our own gov't could have been involved. Like you, I used to scoff at the "conspiracy theorists" until I read that article I linked to. The author casts serious doubt on the official story, imo.



To: LLCF who wrote (51388)5/17/2006 2:12:48 PM
From: Broken_Clock  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 116555
 
DAK,
I suggest you take the time(if you haven't yet) to watch the 911 docu-video currently making the rounds on the internet. It's about an hour and a half long.



To: LLCF who wrote (51388)5/17/2006 2:28:39 PM
From: booyaka  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116555
 
but what would be the incentive to collapse the building rather than let it burn out, and or fall over on it's own??

For one thing, to limit damage to other buildings. Say, for example, that the WTC floors above the impact had tipped over and fallen, leaving the rest of the building standing. That could have damaged/destroyed buildings for several blocks. If you collapse the building onto it's own footprint, you can prevent such collateral destruction.