Okay, I think this argument may be better approached from another angle.
What would it take to bring down a support column?
Mods, sorry for the croping, but it's nessescary for this pic
In this image, you can see three floors of the building, differentiated by the horizontal sections. The top is hard to make out, but you can see some
sort of frame around the supports beam (colored teal). One the middle floor, you can see that, again, there are frames in front of the beam. As
someone pointed out, these were likely to support drywall and electrical wiring.
Right below the disputed object is what could be concrete or drywall. I'm assuming drywall. One doesn't need two and a half feet of concrete to
support a fire extinguisher box. However, it does seem that there are two additional layers of supporting beams for the box above the object.
On the first floor, you can see the whole setup with minimal damage. The support beam is no longer visible, covered as it was by a sheet of drywall.
In the middle of the wall is an electrical outlet/thermostat/intercom which lends further weight to framing behind the walls. Electricians would need
framing to set wires up the high on the wall.
That's a photoshop I thre together, showing a theoretical support beam (center) enclosed inbetween walls. On the right side, space is needed for
electrical wiring. On the left, the wires were moved in order to make space for a fire extinguisher box. I'm no architecht, but It seems this would
be the most logical setup for walls featuring support beams. (Notice, though, to the bottom and right of the first picture is an electrical outlet)
Now, there's that. What do you need to bring down a support column?
This is a shaped charge, the type which is used for building implosions. The shape of the charge focuses the energy of the blast, acting like a super
cutting torch. The charges are placed directly on to the supports beams (not without previous arc-torch cutting) and when the time comes, they are
blown using a highly complex system of radio transmitters. What I'm getting at, is that there is no way somebody would be able to plant shaped
charges on the support beams without the work being noticed.
So what if they just REPLACED the fire extinguishers with extravagant replicas/bombs?
The shapes are still too different, and facing the wrong direction. If you are saying that the body itself is tapered ( I persoanally cannot see the
angle) than the blast will either be focused upwards or downwards. While devastating, it will not bring down a support column. If the "handle" of
the fire extinguisher is a cone-shaped explosive, then the blast will still be unfocused on the beam. It would blast to the right, down the
So, maybe it's just a big, cylindrical, bomb? Well, it may do damage to the support beam (bending) but it will not cut/snap it. My example here is
Stalingrad, circa WWII. The Germans launched an all-out air offensive against the city, bombing the bejebus out of it. The bombing was initally
incredibaly destructive, destroying whole floors and toppling walls. After that, the bombs had a lesser effect, no matter how many they dropped.
Well, The first bombs hit the ceiling and exploded in an enclosed area. Imagine a box of water..poke the middle, and it will begin to ripple outwards,
and bounce back against the sides, bounce back, hit another side, the same basic rule applies. Add some channels to the box, and the force of some
ripples will dissipate out of them. The German bombs were losing their effectiveness because all the energy was flying directly out of the buildings
without bouncing around.
The same rule applies to this setup. You have a cut inside the wall. It IS nestled up against the support beam, but there's a big rectangular box
which will immediately dissipate 1/4-1/3 of the blast from a cylindrical bomb. The rest will explode, and the force will impact the support beam,
damage it, and bounce out the other side.
Conclusion-Any bomb shaped like that, placed in the middle floor (as opposed to top or bottom, where it may knock the beam out of it's settings)
would have minimal effect. That being the case, there is ample visual evidence that it matches 95% for a fire extinguisher, the rest can be written
off as low-resolution digital photography. It looks like an extinguisher, it's where an extinguisher would be, and It is unlikely that a demolition
expert (of which I am not) would choose that shape or location to set off a bomb.
[edit on 29-3-2006 by TheGoodDoctorFunk]