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 (203219)	9/17/2006 12:14:29 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Doug R; Re: "If your anecdotal accounts show that, maybe, 20% of the concrete was in large pieces...so what." You have no reason to pick out "20%". It could be 90%. What it does prove is that not ALL the concrete was pulverized. Re: " The AVERAGE size of all concrete sampled was 60 microns in diameter." First of all, their was no sampling of "concrete". What was sampled was "dust", only a portion of which came from concrete. What percentage of that dust was 60 microns would depend on how far away from the WTC you sampled it. Bigger grains fall faster so the farther away you take your sample, the smaller the particles of which it is made. To judge this, we have to go back and review where it was that the dust samples were taken. Ah, here it is: A 2-person USGS crew collected samples of dusts and airfall debris from more than 35 localities within a 1-km radius of the World trade Center site on the evenings of September 17 and 18, 2001. pubs.usgs.gov pubs.usgs.gov In short, they didn't collect dust from the WTC site, but instead were collecting it from as far away as 1 km. Of course they didn't get anything coarse. They were looking for dust. They found dust. Big surprise. Second, I haven't found a reliable source for your claim that the average size of the dust, or more particularly, the concrete part of the dust, is 60 microns. And I just showed you that the lightweight concrete is made out of stuff that can hardly be called "solid rock" and is much much easier to pulverize. Re: "The physics professors that worked on this were being generous to the "official" fable." You really can't expect physics professors to be experts on concrete. The simple fact is that the rescue people at the WTC had to punch through slabs of concrete to look for survivors. For example, see: Fleeing from these flare-ups was often as dangerous as facing the fire. The wreckage was very unstable, like a gigantic set of pickup sticks. Disturbing one steel beam or slab of concrete could easily touch off a collapse. For this reason, the rescue teams that searched through the pile worked in pairs. While one team would go down into the caverns under the pile, the other team would stand by up top just in case the first team had to be rescued. crimelibrary.com Also see: dogsinthenews.com -- Carl By the way, the above USGS link says "The aggregate material in WTC concrete sample appears to be expanded shale".