SI
SI
discoversearch

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
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Doug R who wrote (203254)9/19/2006 3:06:44 AM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
Hi Doug R; Re: "If 2% of the dust ended up in the footprint of the buildings, it would be overstatement."

Yes, that's exactly my point. Anything turned to 60 micron dust 100 feet in the air will blow away in the high winds. The amount of dust outside the footprint of the building isn't enough to justify the assumption that all concrete was turned to dust. Therefore the vast majority of the concrete had to end up in the footprint.

Re: "Where is ONE photo of large chunks of concrete. There are NONE in your links."

How big do you think a chunk of concrete is left when it either falls from 1100 feet or falls from a shorter height and then has something fall on it? You expect pretty small chunks. But my pictures included plenty of pieces of concrete that were several feet across. For example:
time.com

Here are pieces that look to be about 50 feet across:
southflorida.com

Page 10 of this link shows pieces a few feet across all over the ground:
epa.gov

Re: "You've done nothing about showing that more energy was required to create the dust than was available in a gravity only collapse."

The energy calculations were wrong because (1) they assume that the concrete was FAR stronger than it was, (2) they assume that ALL the concrete was crushed to an extremely fine size (which is quite impossible even with explosives), (3) they overestimated the total amount of concrete in the buildings, and (4) they failed to subtract from their concrete budget the concrete in the substructure that was quite evidently not pulverized (see pictures above). What more can I reasonably be expected to show?

-- Carl
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News