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: David Howe who wrote (15343)	9/10/2006 12:39:15 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

(all of us except those that believe " the planes were a hologram" and the "moon landing was fake"). You always feel the need to throw in a few strawman arguments don't you? Lets stick to the facts. Ross starts his analysis with the wave of a magic wand. He says neglect the energy absorbed in the first floor collapse. That's a huge give away of energy right there. He said neglect the energy needed to pulverize the concrete. Another huge energy give away. But he still shows that the building would have been arrested by the lower part of the structure. Further he investigates the time it would take for a pancake collapse to occur, assuming enough energy was present to precipitate a progressive, or pancake collapse. He estimates the time needed for that to happen, assuming that the energy deficit he calculated was magically present, was over twice the time of the collapse. Since the time of collapse was the same as free fall for a falling object, it takes little imagination or calculation to see that when a mass has to fall through 47 laced box columns and 200 plus exterior columns and all those spandrels and floor connections to boot, that it's going to be slower than free fall time. Elementary my Dear Howe.