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 : Technical Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The1Stockman who wrote (1702)	1/1/2013 2:19:03 PM
From: Beam	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14245

The plane appears to have an extra bulge in the undercarriage fuselage -- much like a military plane. There's no denying this is not something that's normally attached to commercial airlines. Regarding the so-called "collapse" of the twin towers -- the plain visible facts of the matter are that rather than toppling over to the sides where the damage occurred, both these buildings explode, flinging steel girders out sideways at high velocity for hundreds of yards. You see windows popping out well below the points of collapse while the building itself seems to disintegrate on it's illogical free-fall speed downward. There were 47 massive steel columns in the center of the buildings which literally disassemble along the path of most resistance. The buildings were obviously blown-up and didn't collapse through heat, nor the specific weakening by short-lived low-temperature fires as indicated by the black smoke of oxygen-starved fires that the firefighters estimated could be knocked-out by just two water lines. People are led to believe that kerosene-based jet fuel burns hot enough to melt steel. If that were true, than why wouldn't kerosene stoves and heaters melt when used? Why wouldn't jet engines melt from the supposed heat of the kerosene?