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: Raymond Duray who wrote (9157)	12/7/2004 10:26:53 AM
From: Don Earl	Respond to of 20039

Thanks for the link on Controlled Demolition, Inc.. I'd been meaning to try tracking something along those lines down to add to the current discussion, but hadn't gotten around to it. I don't think there was any question RDX or its various compounds are able to cut steel, but it's nice to have a source. I also noticed on a quick skim, some of the descriptions mention the amount of explosive used, 1300 pounds in one example, and the amount of time it took to set up a project, 3 days to 2 weeks in a couple others. Things like drilling 1400 holes in reinforced concrete would tend to rule out a stealth type project, but as has been discussed, the twin towers weren't made out of reinforced concrete. In general, I didn't see anything which would be inconsistent with the idea the buildings could have been set up for an implosion with relatively small amounts of explosives, in a fairly short amount of time, and without undue attention under the guise of maintenance work. It certainly ties in nicely with accounts of power downs in the towers the weekend before the 9/11. All that aside, one of the biggest holes in the official story falls apart when you look at the level of expertise in building failures a company such as Controlled Demolition, Inc. has, then look at the kind of "experts" conducting the official "investigations". Controlled Demolition, Inc. describes their ability to quickly analyze every imaginable cause of collapse, on literally thousands of projects, which makes it virtually impossible to conceive of a real investigation into a building failure on the scale of 9/11 that does not include a single expert in building failures. I don't know how non partisan such an expert could be considered, as their business is utterly dependent on government goodwill, but not to include even a pet demolitions expert in the studies is a glaring defect in the official story. At a certain point, it becomes obvious even the most morally flexible demolitions expert would have serious trouble rubber stamping some of the absurdities coming out of NIST and FEMA. RE: "Some will recall how the editor of Fire Engineering Magazine became incensed by the "half-baked" investigation by FEMA:" Yep. Some of the most credible accounts that blow the official story out of the water may be found in the Fire Engineering Magazine and other accounts by fire fighters. It's one thing to risk one's life to rescue strangers, it's quite another to be murdered in cold blood in the process.