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: Doug R who wrote (13587)	8/17/2006 11:25:49 AM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

Are you perhaps illiterate? What the piece shows is aluminum is in a flowing liquid state when it is burning and that it is bright "sun" colored in that state. There is nothing in the public domain which would prove conclusively what the substance photographed pouring out of the WTC was. On the low probability side, a person could argue it was water from a busted pipe combined with photographic artifacts. In the mean time, getting back to where this diversion started, and even assuming the substance was melted steel, the presence of melted steel doesn't prove the presence of thermite - when we know for a fact there was a large quantity of aluminum in the building. Fuel fires ARE hot enough to ignite aluminum, and ignited aluminum IS hot enough to melt steel. Additionally, we know drywall contains a meaningful amount of sulfur, so there's no smoking gun for thermate on that count. The whole thermite/thermate theory, as proposed by Professor Jones, is far fetched at best, and is based on claims which are easily shown to be patently false. Neither the thermite theory nor the pancake theory account for what we know happened to the central core. For the buildings to collapse the way they did, the core had to be taken out in rapid succession just ahead of the progressing collapse. As any demolitions engineer can tell you, that's done with conventional explosives. There's no way the required split second timing required could be achieved with thermite, and there's no logical reason for why it would be used in the first place. Counterpoint and contrariwise, it is conceivable that thermite could have been used to destroy anything incriminating on the planes and/or to add to the mess by igniting the aluminum in the planes, but there isn't any way to prove it one way or the other. If you want to point to a smoking gun, start with the fact the evidence was illegally destroyed against the collective will of every structural engineer in the country. And, add to the fact that in spite of the obvious appearance of controlled demolition, there isn't a single official report that even mentions the possibility of controlled demolition, even to refute the possibility. NIST's mission statement was they were to investigate every possible reason for the way the buildings came down. There wasn't a single demolitions engineer on their staff, no research whatsoever was done to investigate the possible presence of explosives, and there is no mention of anything along those lines in any of their reports. Is it possible it didn't cross the minds of those conducting the investigation at NIST to research controlled demolitions? Not a chance. Among the many things we know for sure, NIST was bombarded by demands that such research be conducted.