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: Orcastraiter who wrote (16916)	12/17/2006 8:55:21 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

RE: "There is no way to avoid the conclusion that the molten materials under the wreckage, as well as the smoldering fires, were a residual product of whatever caused the collapse of the WTC." That statement is the kind of garbage that gives 9/11 researchers a bad name. There is NO evidence WHATSOEVER to support that conclusion. RE: "As Dr. Steven Jones, a physics professor at BYU, has pointed out, sulfidation of steel can be an indicator of the use of thermate (or other closely related compounds) developed by the military and commonly used to cut steel in demolitions work." Thermite or thermate has NEVER been used in demolitions work. NEVER! RE: "The towers did not pancake in the usual fashion of concrete buildings." Obviously. The towers were not concrete buildings. None of the concrete was structural. RE: "The fact that only three recovered steel samples showed exposure to temperatures above 250C indicates that the steel superstructure was indeed behaving as a heat sink." It shows nothing of the sort. What it shows is most of the steel was not recovered. These pseudo scientific blog productions are worse than useless. I especially liked the part where this clown freely admits he understands computer modeling as well as he understands Sanskrit, then proceeds to offer a point by point rebuttal on the topic. The end result is you end up with a rant that mixes reasonably valid points with utter hogwash. A short list of the flaws in the NIST report could be summed up as follows: 1. There wasn't a single demolitions expert on the NIST team. 2. There are no calculations of the forces needed to initiate a progressive collapse of the undamaged majority of the buildings. 3. There is no indication of how NIST constructed their computer model in the alleged absence of blueprints and engineering specifications. 4. NIST freely admits no tests were conducted to find traces of explosives on their samples. 5. Video of the first collapse shows the portion of the building below the point of impact withstood the total destruction of the 30 top floors before beginning to fail, where the lower part failed immediately in the second collapse with half the weight. That's really all a layman needs to know to discredit the NIST farce. You don't need theories about genetically engineered super termites proposed by some washed out, cow town college professor. Gee, let's all keep asking Santa for a real investigation. If we all just believe hard enough, maybe we can save Tinkerbell's life.