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 : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John who wrote (34499)	7/28/2010 2:31:58 PM
From: GROUND ZERO™	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

I'll take a look at those sites, but it would have to be very strong and convincing to sway me, conspiracy theories are typically bogus, but we'll see... I'll let you know what I find... GZ

To: John who wrote (34499)	7/28/2010 2:36:15 PM
From: grusum	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

not only is the conspiracy theory improbable for logistical reasons, but it was illogical to perform the mission in the manner that the theorists suggest. for instance, why have the buildings collapse inwardly on themselves? after all, demolition teams plan the demolition of buildings that way to PREVENT collateral damage. why would the terrorists OR the government want to prevent collateral damage? especially when causing the building to just fall on it's side would have been much easier. and why fly planes into the buildings at all if you could destroy them with strategically planted charges? it seems like you would choose the most efficient method to bring down the buildings and go with that. why double the chances of being discovered by using two schemes? and even if you did want to double the risk, why try to time both schemes for the exact same moment? why not see if one works first and then use the other as a last resort if the first one doesn't work? i mean, if i was a terrorist for bin laden, i'd be asking why i had to fly a plane into a building if we could destroy it with bombs. perhaps bin laden had a few too many volunteers and decided to use 20 or so of them up? there are other logical inconsistencies, but you get the idea..

To: John who wrote (34499)	7/28/2010 7:16:39 PM
From: GROUND ZERO™	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

I looked over those sites... there are as many architects and building design specialists who would tell you that the heat from the fire was intense enough to melt the metal support skeleton of those buildings, and it was actually put to the test in controlled settings numerous times, so when the higher floors began to collapse, it merely collapsed in pancake fashion... it may "look like" a designed demolition, but looking like something doesn't mean it is... to believe a conspiracy raises even more questions than not... I don't buy it... GZ