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: Don Earl who wrote (16011)	9/19/2006 5:19:50 PM
From: David Howe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

<<< the pancake theory works if you demolish sections of the core ahead of the collapse progression. >>> Or, instead of demolishing sections of the core with explosives planted seceretively by federal agents (difficult to believe), maybe people should consider what actually took place; as the floors failed, the lateral bracing of the central columns was removed and they buckled. As you watch the buildings fall in the videos, you can't really see the floor slabs failing and the core columns buckling. You see the perimeter columns buckle and fail, but that is lagging what is taking place on the interior of the building. 1. The floors fail in a particular area 2. This creates an unbraced core column area and these columns buckle. 3. The entire central core of the building falls 4. The exterior columns lag slightly behind the interior collapse, and buckle and fail slightly behind, but in succession with the interior collapse. This collapse sequence seems very logical to me. Apparently some don't see it that way so they choose to believe far-fetched theories that have much larger holes in them. That's not a reflection on the collapse sequence of the building, but on the character of the people that choose to ignore the obviously logical choice.

To: Don Earl who wrote (16011)	9/19/2006 5:27:03 PM
From: David Howe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

<<< IMO, the whole concrete dust speculation is a red herring. The concrete in the floors of the buildings was not structural, but a light weight mix that basically just provided a cheap and easy way to make flat floor surfaces. It was not the 3000 psi, 5 bag mix stuff used for load bearing foundations. I've never worked with it personally, but I assume it would give you something along the lines of pumice that would be fairly light and crumbly. I doubt it'd take much to turn it to powder as it was only designed to support the weight of desks and people walking across it. Between the drywall and light weight concrete, I don't think it's too hard to account for the dust, or even the fineness of the dust. >>> Correct, correct, correct. A red herring indeed. The fact that some of the conspiracy theory crowd can't let go of this is proof to me that their thoughts on the entire topic of 9/11 should be ignored. If they can't grasp a simple explanation such as this, why trust anything else they post?

To: Don Earl who wrote (16011)	9/26/2006 4:23:51 PM
From: Cyprian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Ah, but there is one key difference. In all other controlled demolitions there is never any crime to cover-up. The goal is simply to bring the building down in nice pieces to be carted off. It would seem logical that in typical controlled demolitions you would want as little dust as possible, because of the possibility of toxic plumes. In the case of 9/11 however, there was much evidence that would be useful to destroy -- i.e. pulverize. I don't think the goal was only to bring down the two towers as with a typical controlled demolition. I think the goal was to bring down the two towers in such a manner that all the evidence would be destroyed (i.e. pulverized in to dust) so that there would be little left for investigators. If only a few well-placed explosives were used in key places the buildings certainly may have come down, but you might still have had parts of the planes, body parts from alleged terrorists or passengers on the planes, black boxes, etc. And of course if you don't completely pulverize the buildings you might leave evidence of explosive charges that for one reason or another didn't go off as planned. Try some Internet searches on controlled demolitions to pick up some background information on how they're done. The more you learn, the more obvious it becomes on exactly how the towers were brought down. The basic theory is to use as little explosive as possible and let gravity do most of the work for you. There's no need to blow every floor to kingdom come when all that's needed is to chop out a few key load bearing areas.