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: cirrus who wrote (107895)	6/9/2007 3:15:19 PM
From: Travis_Bickle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362398

Enough stuff was burning that people jumped out the window quite a bit after the planes hit. Did they jump out the window because they knew a controlled demolition was on its way, or because there was so much fire that it was jump or burn? Imo for people to jump to certain death, the consequences of staying had to have been worse, which points to a very intense fire. I doubt smoke could have caused it because most people would have taken their chances with the smoke.

To: cirrus who wrote (107895)	6/9/2007 3:25:34 PM
From: SARMAN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 362398

Lets say I buy in into your theory. Your theory hold true to the immediate impacted area, i.e. couple floors up and couple floors below the impacted area. There was no fire in most of floors beneath the impacted area. What is the explanation for the weakness of the structure at the lower floors or the ground floors? Remember that some people were using the stairs to evacuate from lower floors.

To: cirrus who wrote (107895)	6/9/2007 5:35:01 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 362398

It all sounds plausible. OTH, why did it fall a half an hour before it fell? After This Fiasco, How Can We Trust Anything They Told Us About 9/11? The BBC Building 7 farce lends about as much credibility to the official story of 9/11 as weapons of mass destruction do for justifying the invasion of Iraq Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Tuesday, February 27, 2007 “...how did officials know in advance that Building 7 was going to collapse when no modern steel building in history had collapsed from fire damage alone?... How about Industrial Risk Insurers [Swiss Re]...surely they would be interested to find out that Silverstein was rapaciously anticipating their $861 million payout before Building 7 ‘accidentally’ collapsed?...” The fiasco of a BBC journalist reporting in advance that Building 7 had collapsed as it loomed large behind her strikes at the very root of how the media were complicit in acting as facilitators for the official myth that was manufactured on 9/11. After this debacle, how can we trust anything we were told about September 11? Though the video was almost immediately purged by Google, it has since been re-uploaded to You Tube and feverishly copied everywhere. For an extended clip where the Building 7 farce is clearly annotated, skip forward to 14 minutes at this link:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3554806229162908449&q=duration%3Along mujca.com

To: cirrus who wrote (107895)	6/12/2007 12:06:25 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362398

Do you really think so. What about the guy - who conveniently disappeared 9/11 - who stated that even if hit by a jet, the towers could never collapse.

To: cirrus who wrote (107895)	6/13/2007 6:24:56 PM
From: Metacomet	Respond to of 362398

I wondered why it was that Popular Mechanics would even delve into that type of story, until I read this.... "Benjamin Chertoff, the 25-year-old senior researcher who authored the 9/11 article, is related to Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The PM article illustrates how a propaganda method, used by dictatorships, is now being employed by the U.S. government: controlling mainstream media outlets to promote its version of 9/11." rense.com Message 23611542