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 : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (6921)	6/7/2004 6:23:08 AM
From: Don Earl	Respond to of 20039

Re: <<<These blasts are caused by 80,000 lbs. of ammonium nitrate>>> I've seen that quoted on quite a few sites, but I've never seen it questioned. While it may be true, and I'm not an expert on that sort of thing, that strikes me as an absurd amount of explosive to mine rocks. I don't know how much 80,000 pounds of explosive costs, but for example, gravel is around $14 a ton. It's always been my understanding that holes are drilled in the rocks at strategic points, and relatively small amounts of explosive are placed in the holes to break chunks of rock loose. I find it difficult to imagine what useful purpose would be served by setting off a blast of the size quoted. I'd also think information on what seismic activity is typically recorded during controlled demolitions, would be far more useful than information on mining rocks. From what I've been able to find online, a good sized building is typically brought down with less than 300 pounds of explosive. No doubt the WTC towers were considerably larger than "good sized", but that would be the idea. All we get to see in the photos and video is what happened to the outside of the building. The seismic activity suggests something happened to the inside of the building first. Dropping the core into the basement might account for the shaking, plus the core was tied into the bedrock which would probably tend to transmit seismic signals better. That's about the only thing I've been able to come up with. Those cores were strong. I don't think it would have been possible to bring the towers down without destroying the core first. With the core gone, and some cutting charges on the outside columns, the building probably couldn't go any place other than straight down. The building's design was fairly simple and straight forward. The actual mechanics of how to bring it down were probably considerably more simple than something like a football stadium. I fully agree it wouldn't be an amateur project, but I doubt it would be too much for someone trained to blow up bridges and such. That would be my take on it anyhow. Since it's looking like the bad guys will win this round, we'll probably never know for sure.