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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (75379)	8/27/2007 1:26:59 PM
From: LTK007	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

From my thread header: ********************************************** a favorite site debunking911.com We do better in attacking the dark powers with truth and NOT fantasies. Those that don't understand the collapse of the towers was without use of demolition devices simply don't understand the science of this, for if they did i assure you they would NOT be supportive of demolition devices being involved.Max *********and a repost of post i made 8/25 Message 23827236 (link to Fisk article at bottom) i do not get into 9/11Towers discussion, but i will say something today because of Robert Fisk. Robert Fisk is saying he has now questions about 9/11 WTC, that being the burning temperature of Keroscene 820C be below the Melting Point of steel. So happens the chief engineer described precisely before the towers were completed a worst possible case that in fact happened. He chose a Jumbo Jet smashing into a tower at high speed and concluded, it was CERTAIN the towers would collapse: the decision was then made that the chances of such an event happening was about a million to one, so they chose to build towers without protection from his worst possible case. Now i hate to advertise it, but i have an ABNORMAL memory, so abnormal, that i have to hide it; for i found constantly correcting people leads to being an outcast, so my in public self remains quiet as i hear people saying an erroneous bit of information. i will now state ANYONE that has a tape of CNN the morning and afternoon of 9/11 will see an interview with the chief engineer explaining why he KNEW for certain the WTC towers were coming down and in a massive collapse.(i did not tape any of this) i now state that interview was PULLED from CNN, and its content immediately suppressed. Why??????? Obvious, INSURANCE!!!!!! He was shut up because his knowledge would endanger Silverman winning his insurance battle. But i guarantee, anyone that taped CNN on 9/11 starting at say 9:20am, and saved their tape has a an DYNAMITE and powerful interview that was then CRUSHED, due to matters of insurance litigation. i know people did tape and save, now if only someone would look at it, from the start. i estimate interview appeared closing in on Noontime(wasfor about 15 minutes)---it was a remote, as CNN went to the man's home. Why was he certain, well because he was ONLY the Chief Engineer for the Twin Towers and had made all the calculations before the WTC twin towers were built. Key number one, on contact with the towers the tower "sways", in interview he pointsd out the sway and it of course can still be seen. This sway immediately weakened rivets and such, the shock wave driving hard down to the bottom of the tower/towers. Inluded in this initial moment of contact and penetration, all the heat shielding on upper beams were detached from the critical beams. The inferno that then commenced was centered inside the inner walls of the tower supporting beams. Steel does NOT need to melt or become molten to collapse. Simply picture something simple. The heat is quite sufficient to soften steel and this softening is a good deal more rapid on the INSIDE if the steal beams and THUS they CURL INWARD(this is where total collapse becomes a CERTAINTY). i could draw the rest of the process but sadly this is just a post. i end with link to Robert Fisk who has been standing up to RAVERS for a long time but for lack of detailed knowledge is giving an inch now, and to say he does have some questions. To Robert Fisk i would say those questions can be answered to your satisfaction--but to a RAVER NEVER--they are true fanatics, they DESPISE facts, despise them, despise them---they are FRINGIES, in my book.Max the link Message 23827107

To: stockman_scott who wrote (75379)	8/27/2007 4:57:07 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Edwards would definitely do better than Obama in the general election. That much I know. And since they are both fresh faces, they probably won't be a team. Gore-Obama would make sense, but Edwards would need a military expert like Webb with him. So would Hillary. That said, we'll see. The Edwards plan is to win Iowa, deny Hillary and Obama any clear victories then come from behind. I believe he is ahead in Iowa and extremely well-liked there. Nobody has a lock on New Hampshire because Hillary is not that well liked there.