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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (76101)	8/9/2006 6:59:40 PM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362386

That's the crux of the conspiracy theory. Even if WTC 1 and 2 required explosives to ensure they collapsed, the perpetrators had the cover of the planes and the jet fuel burning. However, the same does not apply to WTC-7. Look into it, no planes, no jet fuel, 2 small fires and a traditional steel framed building collapse. It's worth looking into the WTC-7 collapse, you'll be surprised what you find, because even FEMA would not go on record saying fire took WTC-7 down, that is just an urban legend that has arisen from the events of 9/11/01. There is nothing to support that theory that fire that burns far lower than the melting point of steel, not even close to it, that's why fire does not cause steel framed buildings to collapse EVER, expect on 9/11/01.