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 (9194)	12/9/2004 9:40:12 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

WTC Tower Collapses as HOLLYWOOD SPECTACULARS -- Re: My argument is that the force which was used to cut the steel columns, and thereby bring about the demolition, was so great that, as a side-effect if you will, it transformed everything else in the buildings into a very fine dust. To refresh everyone's memory, here once again is one of the better sets of photos of the beginning two to three seconds of the collapse of the South Tower: 911research.wtc7.net I will take a moment to speculate here. Let's say that you are an evil genius who has been finding it easy to manipulate the public for well over three decades. commondreams.org Also, that there is a willing and obliging media that can be made to be an unwitting enabler of national nightmares and what it will take to really get America's attention and create "a new Pearl Harbor". This is obviously something an order of magnitude more heinous than the Oklahoma City Bombing, 100777.com which got some air play, but soon faded from the public's consciousness. What would you create as a nightmare that would have a huge emotional impact on a credulous public. You'd start with "Flaming Inferno" and add as much pyrotechnic panache to it as possible. So, you start with flying airplanes into the towers, purposely alerting the media by means of the first attack that they need to get the cameras rolling. As soon as dozens of different media cameramen are focused on the fire in WTC 1, a spectacular fireball, equal to anything a Hollywood director would hope to create in order to stun his audience, is created. Then when over a billion pairs of eyes across the planet are watching in horror on the TV sets, a massive explosion of the towers is necessary for the full effect. No, a simple implosion solution would not have worked in this instance. There would not be nearly enough drama to a simple gravity collapse of the towers. What was really called for was the creation of huge clouds of dust and debris in order to completely terrorized the stunned audiences. So, the explosives set were not merely capable of destablizing the buildings to the extent that gravity would bring them down. No, what was essential was that they appear to simply disintegrate before the eyes of the mesmerized and now fully terrorized public. The explosive of choice? Certainly in the DRX family. With its considerable brisance, it is the most logical choice. With charges set at strategic joints throughout the core column area, the natural trajectory of the exploded material creates the telltale squibs that we have now identified. 911research.wtc7.net Particularly prone to further investigation will be the discovery by certain researchers that the sidewalls of Floor 75 of the South Tower appeared to have been blown out prior to the destabilized and leaning tower above reached that level. This is most curious because Floor 75 was a utility/mechanical area and did not have glass windows. So arguments that the force of falling debris "blew out windows" seems to be contradicted by the physical facts on that floor, i.e. that there were durable metal panels in place at that level which would have been much more resistant than glass to the sort of blow-out that we see in the photos: 911research.wtc7.net Curiouser and Curiouser.....

To: sea_urchin who wrote (9194)	12/10/2004 1:13:30 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

RE: "If, what was done in the demolition was just to "surgically" cut the steel columns, in my opinion, most of the solid material would not have turned to dust but would have fallen to the ground, certainly in bits, but still in its original identifiable form. This was not the case." I think part of our different perspectives is I don't think most people realize how little of what goes into a building is actually structural. Sheetrock, for example, will take very little punishment before turning to dust. Most of its strength comes from what it's attached to. The same goes for concrete. It's strong as long as whatever it's sitting on is solid, or if it has reinforcement added, but otherwise it's prone to cracking and crumbling. I don't know a lot about commercial construction, but I've built several houses, so I have some first hand knowledge about the limitations of many of the materials involved. The idea that several million pounds of building materials turned to dust after falling a quarter mile isn't that mysterious. On the other hand, the amount of redundant strength that goes into the frame work of a building should make it close to impossible for one to fall down. Simple rules of ballistics also apply. The faster an object moves, the more force it carries. The main problem I have with Hoffman's analysis is it ignores physical laws so basic a grammar school student could pick it apart. I don't doubt that shock waves from explosives account for much of the ejection of dust and debris from the towers. What I have a problem with is the force of gravity is virtually ignored in the Hoffman nonsense. The amount of energy involved in a building that heavy falling as little as 10 feet is enough to account for pulverizing materials at the point of impact. Take a small piece of glass and hit it with a hammer. You'll get quite fine particles as a result. Hit it again and what you'll have left is pretty darn small. The same goes for concrete, and it certainly goes for sheetrock. The problem isn't with the amount of dust that formed. The problem is how the building accelerated to a point where it was possible to create the dust in the first place. Then continued to accelerate in spite of the energy being consumed by smashing things on the way down, and in spite of the fact much of the initial weight had spilled over the sides and was no longer in contact with the buildings. With a little basic information, I don't think it would be too hard to calculate the point where the progression of the collapse would have stopped, even starting on the assumption the plane crashes weakened the structure of the buildings to the point of total failure at the levels of impact.