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 (203254)	9/17/2006 1:10:04 PM
From: HH	Respond to of 281500

I watched that Conspiracy Theory video and in short, it is one of the most stupid.... AND I MEAN S T U P I D displays conjecture imaginable. That people here are promoting this as some brilliant piece of detective work just shows how ignorant and stupid people here can be. the main "evidence" on this video 1. the hole in the pentagon is too small for a 757 and they cant see any plane parts in front of the pentagon. so therefore it must have been a missile. 2. The shocked and confused utterances of people on the streets of NY saying they heard a big "bang" or "explosion" So, therefore the conclusion is it was pre rigged with explosives. or witnesses describing that the WTC fell like it was a controlled demolition. So, therefore, it was a controlled demolition. The fact that we all saw the building collapse and the mechanics of the collapse resembles what we have seen on TV when buildings are brought down by demolition experts. So, therefore we all know it couldnt be anything else except a pre-arranged demolition. 3. the video of the planes hitting the towers. show something attached to the under side of the plane. (something to me looks a lot like the open covers of the wheels.) but anyway, they conclude it was a bomb. Not addressing the question of why wouldn't somebody just load the bomb on the inside. Also, the video of the impact shows a flash at impact. which they conclude occurred instantly prior to the impact of the plane. So, they conclude it was a pre rigged charge set off to ignite the jet fuel on board. (wait a minute, I thought it had been rigged with a bomb) Anyway , anybody here who promotes this is about as stupid and idiot that one can be. mostly, DOUG R is what we call a triple idiot.

To: Doug R who wrote (203254)	9/19/2006 3:06:44 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Doug R; Re: "If 2% of the dust ended up in the footprint of the buildings, it would be overstatement." Yes, that's exactly my point. Anything turned to 60 micron dust 100 feet in the air will blow away in the high winds. The amount of dust outside the footprint of the building isn't enough to justify the assumption that all concrete was turned to dust. Therefore the vast majority of the concrete had to end up in the footprint. Re: "Where is ONE photo of large chunks of concrete. There are NONE in your links." How big do you think a chunk of concrete is left when it either falls from 1100 feet or falls from a shorter height and then has something fall on it? You expect pretty small chunks. But my pictures included plenty of pieces of concrete that were several feet across. For example: time.com Here are pieces that look to be about 50 feet across: southflorida.com Page 10 of this link shows pieces a few feet across all over the ground: epa.gov Re: "You've done nothing about showing that more energy was required to create the dust than was available in a gravity only collapse." The energy calculations were wrong because (1) they assume that the concrete was FAR stronger than it was, (2) they assume that ALL the concrete was crushed to an extremely fine size (which is quite impossible even with explosives), (3) they overestimated the total amount of concrete in the buildings, and (4) they failed to subtract from their concrete budget the concrete in the substructure that was quite evidently not pulverized (see pictures above). What more can I reasonably be expected to show? -- Carl