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: TigerPaw who wrote (15117)	9/7/2006 7:06:43 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

well then post the video that you think best shows it...

To: TigerPaw who wrote (15117)	9/10/2006 12:59:49 PM
From: David Howe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

The post I'm responding has a still photo that shows objects that have fallen faster than the collapse. Videos I've seen show this even clearer, but this photo does a good job. How could the numerous objects that are 50 to 100 feet below the location of the ongoing collapse get there if not by gravity? You could say that they broke free much higher up on the structure and had a head start on the collapse therefor are moving faster than the collapse, but, if that was the case, there would be video of these objects breaking loose before the collapse started. That video doesn't exist because it didn't happen. That many objects breaking free that much ahead of the collapse would be very easy to see and the videos would have shown it. You could say that an explosion blew these objects down. But, the so called explosives (that didn't exist, sorry) would have been IN the building and wouldn't have had the opportunity to blow something down, only outwards. These objects simply broke free at the location of the collapse and fell via gravity. And, the pictures and videos show that they fell FASTER than the collapse. I don't see how this logic can be faulty.