>>936212290
You are extremely ignorant and in addition, just making up outright lies.
I have been a licensed structural engineer who has practiced both in government and the private sector for decades, and my firm is very much in demand, of which I am the VP of Operations. Reinforced concrete, at best (i.e., 99% of the time it is neither prepared nor poured correctly) under ideal laboratory controlled conditions is hard, but compared to solid rock, it is as weak as a piece of styrofoam. Solid rock is how things like diamonds are formed and not only is the material forming the vast majority of solid rock much harder than the very best concrete but in fact solid rock, especially deep within the earth is heavily compressed and formed under great pressures over tens of thousands of years. When you say "the depth supposedly drops to just 60 feet against reinforced concrete" and claim that concrete is somehow harder than solid rock, you are confirmed for an absolute imbecile.
Further, the bunker buster has repeatedly been tested and goes to 200' through SOLID ROCK. Plus, there were multiples dropped in succession, and the needle was threaded, thus penetrating hundreds more feet below, and on top of all that these were dropped into a ventilation shaft, not even solid rock. That there was minimal debris on the surface, when it is well known that there was a massive explosion deep within the earth, PROVES the destruction below was massive. It's the exact opposite of what you think (because you are dumb) . . . the less destruction on the surface means more destruction deep within the earth. We use a similar approach in fracking for decades and if we see any type of explosion or degree of debris on the surface, it is a giant fail below. You want almost no debris on the surface, which evidences the damages was done deep below and the updraft should be minimal.
