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 : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rock_nj who wrote (13344)	8/15/2006 3:41:59 AM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

RE: "But could thermite not be used to weaken the supports of a building and bring it down without too much fuss?" Anything is possible, but it's hard to imagine thermite being used that way. RE: "An obvious detonation like an explosive would cause a lot of questions." Isn't that pretty much the bottom line on the smoking gun? Thousands of people saw and heard explosions. All the videos show massive detonations. The seismic evidence shows huge shock waves prior to collapse. The problem with the thermite theory, as proposed by Professor Muttonhead, is that it's flat out impossible for thermite to do what we saw done. Added to the fact that thermite is not an explosive, the stuff burns absolutely hell bright. From various clips and photos I've seen, the stuff puts the flare of an arc welder to shame. Have you seen any photographic evidence showing that level of light being emitted at the WTC? I haven't. I think it's a case of "hear hoof beats, expect horses, not zebras". We know explosives were used, so what would be the point of speculating about thermite? The molten metal? The fires were hot enough for aluminum to burn, if not hot enough to melt steel, and there's a lot of aluminum in airplanes. Is there any reason to assume the molten metal wasn't melted airplanes?