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 (9129)	12/4/2004 11:40:40 AM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

RE: "What is important is that the shower of metallic fragments could only have resulted from a force which was able to disrupt their original structure, in other words, an explosion." That is the part I'm currently unsure of. There are two things that make it especially difficult in reconstructing what happened; poor resolution in photos and videos, and a lack of reliable information to substantiate what appears in many of the photos and videos. Looking at the intact face of the second tower in the foreground, the "metallic fragments" appear to be the same size and color as what covers the entire exterior of the building. digitaljournalist.org My original assumption was the outside of the building was bare concrete, which is quite common on many office buildings I've seen, and the color appears to be about right for concrete. I suspect that assumption is incorrect. On hind sight, I recall aluminum siding was a popular way to finish building exteriors around the time the towers were built, at least as far as residential construction was concerned. I'm still not 100% sure what we're looking at in the photo, but from items I've run across lately, I suspect the "metallic fragments" are relatively thin sheets of aluminum, lightly attached to the outside of the building. If so, they probably aren't "fragments", but whole sections that popped off as the walls behind them broke up. If that's the case, then gravity alone would easily account for what we're seeing and it's not something that could be considered a smoking gun for a controlled demolition. To the best of my ability I try to use what the attorneys like to call "best evidence". I don't like the Truthout.org approach which from where I'm sitting appears to assume there isn't any evidence. And I also don't care for many of the conspiracy theory sites that build an entire dinosaur out of an unidentified fragment of leg bone. My view is there is enough reliable evidence in the public domain to make the case without demanding additional government sponsored investigations, and without joining the tinfoil hat brigade. The trick in my opinion is to select for "best evidence", then hammer away at it to see how bullet proof it is. With that in mind, I think I'd much rather use something like the plumes of debris being ejected from the buildings a hundred feet below the collapse progression, or the behavior of the penthouse on WTC 7, than the "metal fragments" in the above photo.