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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (164249)	6/16/2005 8:54:00 AM
From: illyia	Respond to of 281500

Odd that "Page cannot be displayed" on "Cooperative Research"... cooperativeresearch.org Nor any links. i edit: makes me wonder how far Bushco is willing to go... here is a good site to bookmark globalresearch.ca

To: stockman_scott who wrote (164249)	6/16/2005 9:24:40 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi stockman scott; I read the paper on the amount of dust produced by the collapse of the WTC. I was not impressed. For example, this link: 911research.wtc7.net is about the dust cloud that the collapse generated. It makes a whole bunch of calculations, but fails to note that the explanation for the very large dust cloud was not that this was the volume of air contained in the building, but instead that the collapse of the building, what with the acceleration of gravity being 32 feet /sec squared, was at very high speed, and these high speeds created high speed winds. And high speed winds kick up a lot of dust. All that dust you saw was squeezed out from between the floors of the building when they collided. When a concrete floor collapses, all the air below it gets pushed out. The final bits of air come out at extremely high speed. They're saying that there was more dust from this building than is usual in building demolition. This might be true. When was the last time that a building that big was accidentally demolished while it was on fire? Even controlled demolitions of buildings (that are generally emptied before demolition) produce so much dust and excitement that they are scenes that attract the public for the countdown: seattlepi.nwsource.com The same thing happens when any building is brought down deliberately with explosives. The vast majority of the dust is not caused by the explosives, but instead is caused by the collapse of the building. It takes very little explosives with very little energy to collapse a building. Similarly, it took very little energy (from burning airplanes) to collapse the WTC. I mean really! The guy claims that the concrete was heated as follows: "heating of suspended concrete (9e10 g from 300 to 1020 K)" 300K is room temperature. 1020K is 1376F (according to my error prone calculator). The article is just f'ing ridiculous. For example, after the building fell down, the whole thing caught fire, but the author neglected to include any energy sources corresponding to this. The very fact that he worked it out in "KwH" is a pretty good clue that he's clueless. He's got photographs of the collapse: 911research.wtc7.net The above pictures show that the collapse started at the points where the fires were. I would think that it would have been rather difficult to arrange for the suicide pilots to fly their planes into the same places where the explosives had been preplaced. Alternatively, I would think that it would be kind of tough to plant the explosives after the crashes. -- Carl P.S. Have you ever smelled an explosion that involved fertilizer or dynamite?