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 (9113)	12/2/2004 2:48:28 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

I don't question that there was a lot of dust, or that explosives could have accounted for some of it. What I was trying to get at is concrete does produce a LOT of very fine powder when it's compressed through mechanical means, and, there would be no reason to plant enough charges to pulverize 120 acres of concrete in the floors, as the floors don't hold the building up. The whole idea of a controlled demolition is to use the least amount of explosives possible, in order to cut key points of support. Most of the job could have been done with a few hundred pounds of detcord, but I think support for a controlled demolition begins to break down once one begins to speculate about a car bomb sized device on every floor. Also, from what I understand, the concrete used in the floors was mainly cosmetic. Concrete can be finished into a nice flat surface, quickly and easily. The kind used for the floors was a lighter weight version, which probably had considerably less compression strength than that used for foundations. I don't find it unreasonable to believe it would crunch up pretty good if you dropped a few hundred thousand tons of building on it. IMO, there are smoking guns that are a lot easier to find: The free fall collapse. Squibs popping out all the way down the sides of the buildings. Concussion waves heard and felt by thousands of eye witnesses, and confirmed by seismic records and video footage. The failure of the central cores. More eye witness reports of explosions inside the buildings. Molten metal found in the basement nearly a month later. The collapse of building 7. The destruction of evidence which would prove the cause of collapse. And the complete lack of experts specializing in building collapses in any of the official studies. There's nothing wrong with adding the behavior of powdered concrete to the list, but I'd probably leave it out of any debate with a skeptic. I don't see it as being obvious to an untrained observer and it's too easy to get bogged down in discussions of a side effect that isn't necessary in proving the buildings were brought down with explosives. If we had several demolitions experts step forward to say, "Ah ha! I've blown up hundreds of buildings and that's a unique signature of controlled demolitions. Nothing else can explain it.", I'd say it's a different story. In the absence of that expert testimony, all you end up with is non experts speculating about an event in which they don't have the background needed to reach a consensus. By all rights, the collapses of the three towers should have been the subject of a very public grand jury investigation, with indictments handed out to everyone responsible for destroying evidence. What we ended up with instead is a picked hand full of pseudo experts, with backgrounds in everything except building failures.