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: Don Earl who wrote (9112)	12/2/2004 9:04:20 AM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Don > I'm not quite sure the term applies to building demolitions It does, and particularly to 911. In fact, dust was found 10cm deep, 800m from the WTC which is an enormous quantity and cannot be explained by any other reason than actual pulverization of the concrete, and which was caused by means other than gravitational collapse. (Refs given in previous post) Furthermore, there was a veritable wave of heat and dust which chased those fleeing as they ran from the disaster. This is typical of a pyroclastic flow. plaguepuppy.net plaguepuppy.net The very small size of the dust particles is also typical of pyroclastic dust, whether from volcanoes or concrete destruction/dehydration by means of explosives, which is the only other way I understand the dust can be produced. Message 20438927 guardian.150m.com > I'd tend to question the so called pryoclastic effect as being overly significant, or the idea that there shouldn't have been that much dust. That's your prerogative. In my opinion, the voluminous quantity of fine dust is one of the "smoking guns" which supports the use of explosives and is thus of considerable importance.

To: Don Earl who wrote (9112)	12/2/2004 5:39:00 PM
From: sea_urchin	Respond to of 20039

Don > RE: pyroclastic dust - I'm not quite sure the term applies to building demolitions I think you are right. Perhaps a better description is "pyroclastic-like" or "quasi-pyroclastic". I originally read on the internet that the dust, which was associated with the destruction of the WTC on 9-11, was called simply "pyroclastic" but now I see few sites carry that description. So, clearly, it is not scientifically accurate to describe the dust that way. But there is no doubt that enormous amounts of dust were produced, whatever the correct name for it is, if, indeed, there is one.