| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:44 pm Post subject: Freefall? |
 |
|
This is freefall, (from "What we saw"). The collapse zone isn't even in sight yet.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fixuplooksharp
Moderate Poster
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| no, that piece of building is moving faster down because of the explosions, hence having more velocity, than the freefall building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andrewwatson
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 348
Location: Norfolk
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Neat post fixup.
? Job done.
AW  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the first bits to fall of are obviously gonna fall ferther than the rest of the debris that hadnt fell yet or fell after. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | the first bits to fall of are obviously gonna fall ferther than the rest of the debris that hadnt fell yet or fell after. |
No marky, the point about freefall is that everything falls at the same rate. In other words, everything reaches the ground at the same moment. You can't have bits moving faster than others - the collapsing building falls at the same rate as the bits from further up. This is the whole point about freefall, as the building collapsed, everything moves at the same rate.
The problem I have with the 'explosion creates more inertia' theory, is this would only be true if the explosion forced the circled objects directly down vertically and not out away from the building.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | No marky, the point about freefall is that everything falls at the same rate. In other words, everything reaches the ground at the same moment. You can't have bits moving faster than others - the collapsing building falls at the same rate as the bits from further up. This is the whole point about freefall, as the building collapsed, everything moves at the same rate. |
Exactly wrong!!
The dictionary definition of freefall is | Quote: | | the hypothetical fall of a body such that the only force acting upon it is that of gravity. |
Things most definitely do not fall at the same rate in our atmosphere and the concrete dust cloud will fall slower than a chunk of steel. Within a vacuum created inside a building being brought down with cd things will fall at the same rate but not outside, especially with the unique cd which was the twin towers. That huge chunk of metal, which only a troll could pretend to believe detached itself and flung iself out and down by being hit by rubble from above, is bound to offer less air resistance than the dust cloud above it.
If anyone doubts the building fell at freefall rate just refer to the official 9/11 report which says it did. They can't lie about everything, especially when it is on video and can be seen and timed!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Exactly wrong!!
etc.... |
Thanks for responding.
However, you are quoting out of context. You have quoted me, but not the point I was answering.
Marky said;
| Quote: | | the first bits to fall of are obviously gonna fall ferther than the rest of the debris that hadnt fell yet or fell after. |
It was this I was answering.
Yes of course, dust is going to be influenced and swirled by air currents which can clearly be seen on all the collapse videos. Dust is essentially airborne particles and open to other influences, hence it was not mentioned by myself.
I consider dust particles not to be ‘debris’ as in that encompassed into the parentheses of the definition of that which would fall at freefall speed. In other words, as dust is influenced by wind and 'billowed', it is excluded and thus I did not mention it. Neither did I mention bits of paper, or people descending via the use of parachutes - we know they fall at a slower rate so they were omitted too.
I was merely explaining to marky, who obviously had not grasped the concept of what freefall means, his premise being flawed. The premise/theory/idea of the controlled demolition/vacuum not withstanding.
To attempt to ‘prove’ anything by quoting ‘dust falls slower’ is the work of someone desperate to be noticed and appear intellectual.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | Things most definitely do not fall at the same rate in our atmosphere and the concrete dust cloud will fall slower than a chunk of steel. Within a vacuum created inside a building being brought down with cd things will fall at the same rate but not outside, especially with the unique cd which was the twin towers. That huge chunk of metal, which only a troll could pretend to believe detached itself and flung iself out and down by being hit by rubble from above, is bound to offer less air resistance than the dust cloud above it.
If anyone doubts the building fell at freefall rate just refer to the official 9/11 report which says it did. They can't lie about everything, especially when it is on video and can be seen and timed!! |
So in the space of one post, you claim the bulk of the building fell much slower than 'vacuum' freefall because it was just a cloud of dust, but the timings show it fell close to 'vacuum' freefall because of the CD ???
The 'freefall' timings that every CT uses are based on the progress of the collapse zone, yes? The collapse zone is nowhere near the falling debris in the photo.
With people like you arguing the case Blackcat, your movement is actually going backwards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actaually Blackcat is close to it than most responders.
It is difficult not to be drawn in by the illusion inherent in a motion picture, but when you realise that some pieces are in free fall propelled by gravity, and other pieces are being propelled by something else and in sequence (most likely by explosives), it makes more sense.
The most reliable way is to measure the tops of the buildings before they disappear into the dust clouds, which is the method I would estimate NIST most likely used.
I believe the official timings for the Twin Towers are 9 point something and 11 point something seconds. Jeff King and Jim Hoffman (ST911) reckon 14 seconds is closer, but it is difficult to determine once the dustcloud obscures evrything from sight. Nevertheless, the speed is still astonishing when the fastest 'pancake collapse' model reaches completion in about 70 seconds.
And no I can't remember where I got those last figures from. You can accept or reject them. For me, it's far too early in the day to care one way or the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | So in the space of one post, you claim the bulk of the building fell much slower than 'vacuum' freefall because it was just a cloud of dust, but the timings show it fell close to 'vacuum' freefall because of the CD ??? |
I did not claim that the bulk of the building fell much slower than "vacuum" freefall. I mentioned the dust in the air being slower than the steel chunk. I also pointed out this was a cd unlike conventional cds which it was for obvious reasons. I also did not say timings showed it to fall close to "vacuum" freefall but that the 9/11 report said it fell at freefall speed. Some dust was still in the air hours after the collapse - do you therefore argue it took hours to collapse?. It is deceitful arguments like yours that attempt to make the movement go backwards - and you fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | No marky, the point about freefall is that everything falls at the same rate. In other words, everything reaches the ground at the same moment. You can't have bits moving faster than others |
There it is in black and white! That is what you said and that is what I responded to. I corrected this as it is blatantly wrong.
| Quote: | | To attempt to ‘prove’ anything by quoting ‘dust falls slower’ is the work of someone desperate to be noticed and appear intellectual. |
No - just correcting a fallacy. Something which in your mind appears to be an attempt at being "intellectual". Yet again a troll projects his character onto me. I have no need to be noticed nor do I need to "attempt" to be intellectual, and I have a cv which perfectly describes why I do not. You on the other hand ....... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | To attempt to ‘prove’ anything by quoting ‘dust falls slower’ is the work of someone desperate to be noticed and appear intellectual. |
Thanking you once again for taking the time to respond, but you do seem like a very angry young woman. I obviously can't be sure as to why?
I do note however, that you have taken a great many hammerings in these threads, it may be that, it may be domestic abuse, I just don't know.
My best advice to you;
Join one of the many football forums. No-one ever discusses football, they all just swear at each other, name-call and threaten to beat each other up. You'll fit right in.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's only true that objects in freefall would hit the ground at the same time if there was no air resitence, and they were dropped from the same height.
That leaves three possible reasons: They were dropped from lower (false), they were dropped earlier (probably easily to show false), or they were falling with a faster average acceleration than the building (ie, at least one of them wasn't in freefall for it's full duration of flight)
One poster cleverly solves this problem by claiming it's the falling debris that is not in full freefall, having been accelerated by an explosion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Thanking you once again for taking the time to respond, but you do seem like a very angry young woman. I obviously can't be sure as to why? |
Not angry in general. Just annoyed with trolls idiotic attempts to derail the movement.
| Quote: | | I do note however, that you have taken a great many hammerings in these threads, it may be that, it may be domestic abuse, I just don't know. |
Well if you say so it must be true. When you resort to this kind of dross it shows how well you are doing in debate.
| Quote: | | My best advice to you; |
Do people seek your advice? Or is this more arrogant fantasy? I need no advice from your kind.
Oh by the way, since you disregarded the point of my post and just printed tripe about joining a football thread, domestic abuse etc I will remind you.
| Quote: | | No marky, the point about freefall is that everything falls at the same rate. In other words, everything reaches the ground at the same moment. You can't have bits moving faster than others |
Not out of context. Just plain wrong! Or is that you hammering me?!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mkpdavies
Minor Poster
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 44
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't really get the point of this argument???
So what if some bits were NEAR freefall, while others were actually freefall.
Eitherway, it's totaly unusual and has never been seen before in the histroy of steel buildings, except in with controlled demolition.
3 times on the same day just begs for detailed forensic investigation. Not just making a assumption withe experts either, all the material should have been made available and not shipped off as fast as possible.
No wonder people are as suspicious as hell. With this alone there is plenty to be concerned about.
If it reall is so easy to demolish a building, then how come there is even a demolition industry, or were they the ones conning us all along for the easy money? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mkpdavies wrote: | I don't really get the point of this argument???
So what if some bits were NEAR freefall, while others were actually freefall.
Eitherway, it's totaly unusual and has never been seen before in the histroy of steel buildings, except in with controlled demolition.
|
Can you think of anything else unusual that happened on Sept. 11, 2001? Something that had never happened before that day? Think hard...
| Quote: |
3 times on the same day just begs for detailed forensic investigation. Not just making a assumption withe experts either, all the material should have been made available and not shipped off as fast as possible.
No wonder people are as suspicious as hell. With this alone there is plenty to be concerned about.
If it reall is so easy to demolish a building, then how come there is even a demolition industry, or were they the ones conning us all along for the easy money? |
Because using trained demolition experts is more cost-effective than crashing an airliner into the building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fixuplooksharp wrote: | | no, that piece of building is moving faster down because of the explosions, hence having more velocity, than the freefall building. |
The plot thickens. That piece on the left is a corner section of exterior wall.
Are we now expected to believe that high explosives were planted throughout the floor/exterior wall areas as well as in the core ? Explosive charges massive enough to actively propel huge lumps of steel downwards? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: |
Things most definitely do not fall at the same rate in our atmosphere and the concrete dust cloud will fall slower than a chunk of steel. Within a vacuum created inside a building being brought down with cd things will fall at the same rate but not outside |
Correct - the dust will fall slower because of air resistance. Surface area/volume/density all need to be considered.
So where's all the steel equivalent to the piece shown? The steel that's less subject to air resistance? It's still up there, being seriously obstructed by a massive building that's getting in its way.
And your comment about a "vacuum created inside" damages your own argument . Any supposed "vacuum" would speed the fall of steel within the building, not slow it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaveyJ
Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I might be wrong here, but, your saying the explosives blew those bits of debri away from the building, adding force, so they are falling faster/
The only theory ive heard of for explosives is thermite
Ah, thermite. Which as a military device is an incendiary. Which means it has a very small area of effect. While it is refered to as an "explosive" it actually melts and it used for welding surfaces together, assuming the goverment is involved, and black ops, they would be using military issue, which when used in the field is for disarming artliary and such, as the fact is melts the inside of the barrel making it impossible to fire but without destorying the weapon itself. It is used in covert and stealth operations or black ops, but it is used beacuse of the properity it dosnt create a large force when detonated so it wont alert anyone.
Basically, my point is. Thermite explosives wouldnt have anywhere near a 100th of the force to send that peice of debri flying that far and fast from the building
so...........
Either no thermite explosives were used
or
That building is not falling at free fall speed.
________
Lee Iacocca
Last edited by DaveyJ on Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:25 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaveyJ wrote: | I might be wrong here, but, your saying the explosives blew those bits of debri away from the building, adding force, so they are falling faster/
The only theory ive heard of for explosives is thermite
Ah, thermite. Which as a military device is an incendiary. Which means it has a very small area of effect. While it is refered to as an "explosive" it actually melts and it used for welding surfaces together, assuming the goverment is involved, and black ops, they would be using military issue, which when used in the field is for disarming artliary and such, as the fact is melts the inside of the barrel making it impossible to fire but without destorying the weapon itself. It is used in covert and stealth operations or black ops, but it is used beacuse of the properity it dosnt create a large force when detonated so it wont alert anyone.
Basically, my point is. Thermite explosives wouldnt have anywhere near a 100th of the force to send that peice of debri flying that far and fast from the building
so...........
Either no thermite explosives were used
or
That building is not falling at free fall speed. |
Howsabout you google WTC +explosions, then come back and reconsider what you've posted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | DaveyJ wrote: | I might be wrong here, but, your saying the explosives blew those bits of debri away from the building, adding force, so they are falling faster/
The only theory ive heard of for explosives is thermite
Ah, thermite. Which as a military device is an incendiary. Which means it has a very small area of effect. While it is refered to as an "explosive" it actually melts and it used for welding surfaces together, assuming the goverment is involved, and black ops, they would be using military issue, which when used in the field is for disarming artliary and such, as the fact is melts the inside of the barrel making it impossible to fire but without destorying the weapon itself. It is used in covert and stealth operations or black ops, but it is used beacuse of the properity it dosnt create a large force when detonated so it wont alert anyone.
Basically, my point is. Thermite explosives wouldnt have anywhere near a 100th of the force to send that peice of debri flying that far and fast from the building
so...........
Either no thermite explosives were used
or
That building is not falling at free fall speed. |
Howsabout you google WTC +explosions, then come back and reconsider what you've posted. |
Now that is a telling point. If you do that you get a jillion CT sites up the top, all of which perpetrate the original - incorrect - speculation of Prof Jones
Thermite is not an explosive it's an incendiary whose commercial and military uses are welding.
Demolition experts don't use it.
Please don't tell us you've never, ever, gone off and looked up thermite on Wikipedia at least ? Do you just accept what the CT films tell you and never question those so-called facts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaveyJ
Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yeah i googled "WTC + explosions" and got noting but eyewitness tesitmonys
so if thats your argument, you might be intrested by http://www.elvissightingbulletinboard.com/
________
Ferrari 512 history
Last edited by DaveyJ on Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:25 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Did Jones, or any other truth researcher, ever say that ONLY thermite was used in the CD of the towers? I believe the theory is that thermite was used to cut the steel columns. Presumably some type of conventional explosive was used in tandem with the thermite. What is the normal procedure in CD in which thermite is used? Anyone know?
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | | DaveyJ wrote: | I might be wrong here, but, your saying the explosives blew those bits of debri away from the building, adding force, so they are falling faster/
The only theory ive heard of for explosives is thermite
Ah, thermite. Which as a military device is an incendiary. Which means it has a very small area of effect. While it is refered to as an "explosive" it actually melts and it used for welding surfaces together, assuming the goverment is involved, and black ops, they would be using military issue, which when used in the field is for disarming artliary and such, as the fact is melts the inside of the barrel making it impossible to fire but without destorying the weapon itself. It is used in covert and stealth operations or black ops, but it is used beacuse of the properity it dosnt create a large force when detonated so it wont alert anyone.
Basically, my point is. Thermite explosives wouldnt have anywhere near a 100th of the force to send that peice of debri flying that far and fast from the building
so...........
Either no thermite explosives were used
or
That building is not falling at free fall speed. |
Howsabout you google WTC +explosions, then come back and reconsider what you've posted. |
Now that is a telling point. If you do that you get a jillion CT sites up the top, all of which perpetrate the original - incorrect - speculation of Prof Jones
Thermite is not an explosive it's an incendiary whose commercial and military uses are welding.
Demolition experts don't use it.
Please don't tell us you've never, ever, gone off and looked up thermite on Wikipedia at least ? Do you just accept what the CT films tell you and never question those so-called facts? |
Well if I might in turn ask you where you got the idea that thermite was the only agent used?
The main reason it (or rather its more exotic cousin thermate - used by the military to slice through tank armour with a hi-velocity jet of molten metal) comes up in sites such as this is because Stephen Jones has detected its chemical presence. He had just published that part of his findings when he was spiked.
However videos clearly show much more energetic events with steel beams weighing tons being flung upwards and sideways for hundreds of feet, and no doubt continuing forensic examination of remaining samples will reveal the reason for those events too.
Rest assured, it's all coming out sooner or later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
The main reason it (or rather its more exotic cousin thermate - used by the military to slice through tank armour with a hi-velocity jet of molten metal) comes up in sites such as this is because Stephen Jones has detected its chemical presence. He had just published that part of his findings when he was spiked.
|
No it isn't. Armor piercing rounds use shaped charge warheads:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/bullets2-shap ed-charge.htm
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
Well if I might in turn ask you where you got the idea that thermite was the only agent used?
|
Why is it chek, that in virtually every single post you try to put words in other people's mouths?
I do not think explosives were used at all. So asking me "where you got the idea that thermite was the only agent used?" is totally inappropriate.
But, in any event, can you make a case for thermite/ate being used for building demolition? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: | | Did Jones, or any other truth researcher, ever say that ONLY thermite was used in the CD of the towers? I believe the theory is that thermite was used to cut the steel columns. Presumably some type of conventional explosive was used in tandem with the thermite. What is the normal procedure in CD in which thermite is used? Anyone know? |
Jones actually discovered a very exotic variation containing additional sulphur, manganese and potassium His results are available from the ST911 site in .pdf format.
This isn't a civilian compound, this will be a military blend as traceable as the anthrax attack DNA strain.
In anti-tank shells, they use what is called a shaped charge, which can be directed (forward through the armour, in this case, rather than deflecting off to the sides. This directs a hi-velocity jet of molten metal designed to cut through thick armoured steel in milliseconds).
It's not inconceivable that type of charge is what was used.
But however it got there, it's physical presence is now proven scientifically.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuil dingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: | | Did Jones, or any other truth researcher, ever say that ONLY thermite was used in the CD of the towers? I believe the theory is that thermite was used to cut the steel columns. Presumably some type of conventional explosive was used in tandem with the thermite. What is the normal procedure in CD in which thermite is used? Anyone know? |
It isn't used in CD, MM. Shaped-charge devices are used, usually with pre-cutting of the girders to weaken them and to reduce the area to be attacked.
Thermite is used for in-situ localised welding repairs and military sabotage. It's relatively slow-burning, quiet, diffuse and non-directional.
CD shaped-charges are directional and exceptionally fast, giving off a distinctive crack that's entirely absent from thermite burn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: |
The main reason it (or rather its more exotic cousin thermate - used by the military to slice through tank armour with a hi-velocity jet of molten metal) comes up in sites such as this is because Stephen Jones has detected its chemical presence. He had just published that part of his findings when he was spiked.
|
No it isn't. Armor piercing rounds use shaped charge warheads:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/bullets2-shap ed-charge.htm |
You're right - and what do you suppose the shaped charge is directing, huh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
