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: maceng2 who wrote (203512)	9/19/2006 3:48:06 AM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi Pearly Button; Re: "Where is the evidence that shows building collapsing because of fires that DO NOT involve explosives? " It's tough to prove a negative, but the government did a pretty good job in this link: wtc.nist.gov On the one hand there have been very few steel framed buildings that have collapsed by fire alone. On the other hand, the WTC buildings were very special and were built to construction standards that include very few other buildings with which to compare with. The closest comparison is between the WTC buildings themselves, and well, they either all burned down or all didn't. But while there have been very few steel framed buildings that have burned down, it has happened before. Plenty of steel framed warehouses burn down, for example. But as far as I can tell, everyone agrees that (outside the debatable example of the WTC buildings) there are ZERO examples of buildings that were brought down by controlled demolition while there were raging fires in them, and even fewer that were brought down by controlled demolition while there were raging fires and after they were severely damaged by debris from crashing airplanes or the crashing of other buildings. Conspiracy theories for the Kennedy murder are a lot easier to deal with. Plenty of people get shot, that's not a big surprise. What would have been a surprise would be if they were claiming that Kennedy was not actually killed by the bullet, but instead died because government spies injected poison into him while he was in the hospital. Or was that too believable compared to the lunacy that something other than a very specific Boeing 757 flew into the Pentagon? I looked at the frames and couldn't see any evidence of the plane at all. It would be better if they'd included more frames before the one showing the alleged plane, but I guess I can understand the government's penchant for secrecy regarding what goes in and out of the Pentagon. On the other hand, I do not think it is a mistake on the part of the Republicans to not spend much effort squelching the conspiracy theorists. Most of the theorists are left wing voters, and the more they go on about this sort of thing the less the centrist voters are likely to vote Democratic. There is similar conspiracy theorizing going on in the right wing, mostly having to do with how Saddam got rid of his WMDs just before any rational person would have thought he'd have wanted them to use against US troops. There are others. For example, that if it weren't for the Democrats, Iraq would already be pacified. -- Carl