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: Doug R who wrote (203031)	9/15/2006 11:21:23 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I'm sorry Doug - your improbable conspiracies are much less convincing. I WATCHED the whole thing, live on TV. I saw no perimeter explosions, as I have seen in actual building demolitions that I've also seen on TV. I WATCHED the progressive collapse of both buildings. You have a belief you'll keep until you die, but it's not mine. Have fun with it. I've had the DESIGNER OF THE BUILDING and the STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS THAT PARTICIPATED in the construction explain it for me. I don't think they're "in" on the conspiracy! I'll believe THEM over YOU. The whole thing was a masterpiece of performance terrorist art, aided by luck, and entirely improbable as it is. The terrorists themselves never expected the collapse of the buildings - as confirmed by Osama himself.

To: Doug R who wrote (203031)	9/15/2006 5:47:52 PM
From: SiouxPal	Respond to of 281500

Great post.

To: Doug R who wrote (203031)	9/15/2006 10:12:17 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Alright Doug.. Since you've go to all of this effort (which is more than most conspiratorialists do), let me ask you something.. From all of your links, you seem to be squarely rejecting the "pancake" scenario. Which only leaves room for pre-planned detonation of the building, right? Just want to make sure I'm getting the proper gist to your post. Hawk

To: Doug R who wrote (203031)	9/16/2006 9:22:47 AM
From: HH	Respond to of 281500

Do you really believe this was staged by Bush ?????

To: Doug R who wrote (203031)	9/16/2006 11:10:23 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Doug R; Re: "If there was enough kinetic energy for pulverization, there will be pancaking or pulverization, but not both. For one thing, that energy can only be spent once." No, pulverizing a floor doesn't make it weigh any less. It is the weight that destroys the floor below, not the strength. I would guess that the primary destruction doesn't take place until the whole shebang hits the ground. That dust you see early on is gypsum sheet rock, glass and asbestos being pulverized. The reason it takes very little energy to pancake a floor is because you only have to induce failures in a very small amount of material. Let me put it this way. To break a 8"x10"x20' wood beam into two pieces requires that you saw it in two. That means reducing only a tiny amount of wood into sawdust. On the other hand, to pulverize the whole beam requires a lot more effort. Pancaking only requires failure, it does not require pulverization and consequently uses very little energy. But we can revisit this later, after we finish dealing with the concrete issue. -- Carl