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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (12570)	3/20/2006 7:24:05 PM
From: sea_urchin	Respond to of 20039

Lazarus > That contradicts what was cited as evidence in the past - the "puffs" along the side of the buildings. No, it supports it. The basis of classical controlled demolition is to remove the supports to a building and then to let gravity do the rest. Since the 47, quarter mile high, central steel columns were the main supports to the WTC towers, it stands to reason that they should be removed/broken first. There are two additional pieces of evidence that support the idea of mini-nukes having been used (or else some other explosive device which produces a high temperature): 1. The seismographic records of 2.1 -2.3 on the Richter Scale from the Palisades observatory show an explosive incident which preceded the visible collapse of the buildings 2. The presence of molten steel for weeks afterwards in the basements and at temperatures which cannot be explained by the mere burning of aviation kerosene or anything else. Indeed, the use of thermite has been suggested as a possible reason for this but I do not find this explanation plausible -- A) thermite does not explode, and there was clear evidence that explosion(s) preceded the fall of the buildings, and B) I believe it is not possible to use thermite to cut four inch thick, vertical steel columns if only for the reason that the molten metal produced by the reaction will flow away from the cutting point. > Find me a previous controlled demolition of a skyscraper that ONLY had explosives in the basement. No, the basement explosives are ancillarly to whatever else was used. There is absolutely unambiguous evidence, if only from the profusion of dust produced and the hurling of large steel fragments hundreds of feet, that explosives were also used in the towers themselves. You mentioned the squibs. These are evidence of explosions which occurred in step-wise fashion going downwards as the building "collapsed" but preceding the "collapse" itself. > Depends on how large an explosion was needed. I presume we are talking about fractions of a kiloton of TNT, in other words, a very small explosion by nuclear explosion standards. > it doesn't mean nukes were used either. It means a Mexican stand-off at this point. Only in so far as my ignorance of explosives is concerned. Maybe someone with more knowledge of explosives would be able to suggest a non-nuclear substitute which could account for the obliteration of a considerable length of the basement columns, the molten metal in the basements and the seismic records.