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 (9214)	12/10/2004 1:27:54 PM
From: sea_urchin	Respond to of 20039

Don > 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. As I see it, the building didn't accelerate at all. In my opinion, it transformed into dust while still standing, leaving only the fragments of supporting steel to fall, which they did -- at virtually the same speed as if they fell in free space.

To: Don Earl who wrote (9214)	12/10/2004 6:12:05 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

FRIABLE MATERIALS? Hi Don, Re: Sheetrock, for example, will take very little punishment before turning to dust. I was a general contractor for 25 years. As such, I was involved in plenty of demolition as well as construction of everything from shack jobs to high rise work. That's my bona fides Having demolished probably better than half an acre of sheet rock over time, I can assure you that the pulverization of sheet rock materials witnessed at the WTC complex on 9/11 was a total outlier. It has been my experience that the percentage of GWB reduced to dust in our operations was generally less than 2% of the material by weight. My point is that gravitational forces and/or mechanical forces cannot possibly explain the pulverization of the materials on 9/11/01. However, the brisance of explosive demolition charges is perfectly compatible with the results achieved. *** Re: The idea that several million pounds of building materials turned to dust after falling a quarter mile isn't that mysterious. Don, please review the hundreds of photos of the destruction of WTC 1 and WTC 2. Please see the huge plumes of dust following metallic ejecta being thrown 200 to 500 feet horizonally from the top of the towers, while the bottoms of the towers were still intact. The material was turned to dust in the instant that it was pulverized by the explosions that knocked the towers apart. Gravity had nothing to do with the huge dust clouds created in the first two to three seconds of the collapses. Remember, the rule for gravity is 32 feet per second per second. In the first second, the material feel 32 feet. A trivial number providing not nearly the force necessary to explain the horizontal ejection that occurred in the next second. At the end of the second second of the collapse, the top of the building, were it in free fall, would have traveled 192 feet. Again, this is quite different from describing the pulverization which was occurring at the end of second two (obvious from the photos) as being an artifact of gravitational forces. *** Re: Simple rules of ballistics also apply. The faster an object moves, the more force it carries. F=MA. And after 2 seconds, the mass that we are discussing is not the 500,000 ton weight of the entire tower, but the mass of the upper stories alone. In the case of the South Tower, which collapsed first, this would have been a substantial mass. But that still does not explain the initial instability in the structure. Here's a remarkable Bill Biggart photo digitaljournalist.org What I'd say is quite apparent from this is that the dust cloud phenomenon occurred in the initial phase of the collapse, ruling out gravitational acceleration as the cause. *** Re: What I have a problem with is the force of gravity is virtually ignored in the Hoffman nonsense. I have read the Hoffman analysis and I found that he did calculate the gravitational forces involved. OTOH, here's a remarkable view of the South Tower collapse: plaguepuppy.net Also, this is worth reading: plaguepuppy.net This is one of the best views yet describing the explosion on Floor 75, which occurred prior to the upper floors collapsing to that level.