9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Freefall?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:57 pm Post subject:

stateofgrace wrote:

Quote:

The other big fallacy is that it is unlike a civilian demolition.
We already know that thermate isn't a civilian explosive... so that leaves the military. More powerful explosives probably use different techniques.

Scot Forbes reported the sounds of heavy building activity on the unoccupied floor above the data centre where he worked in the week before 911, and William Rodriguez heard heavy work going on in the locked Floor 34 as he was evacuating people from the building.

Just so I can get you right here.

They planted military type explosives on floor 34.

Which tower? North or South?
What type of explosives?
Has anybody made a statement that explosives where planted on these floors?
Any witnesses at all?
Where else did they plant them military explosives?
Any idea that did it?

Just so I can research fully your answers will you be very specific and not vague.

Cheers stateofgrace.

It tells me either that you don't know as much about what happened as you seem to think. Maybe you should find out more.
Cute questions!
Has anyone made a statement about planting explosives??
Are you nuts???
But I'm sure your research of Rodriguez both on the day and afterwards will prove interesting.
Oh, and Scott Forbes too.
Google is your friend.

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:42 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Occupancy was far from capacity at the WTC buildings, so the photo you use to illustrate a building prepared for CD is in no way incongruous with the known information.

This is going in my scrapbook of stupidest CT utterances ever. That is, it would if I had one.

I'm sorry, mate, but the more you post the more I realize how daft you really are.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:31 pm Post subject:

chipmunk stew wrote:

chek wrote:

Occupancy was far from capacity at the WTC buildings, so the photo you use to illustrate a building prepared for CD is in no way incongruous with the known information.

This is going in my scrapbook of stupidest CT utterances ever. That is, it would if I had one.

I'm sorry, mate, but the more you post the more I realize how daft you really are.

I see. Well let's take a closer look.
Twin towers: 110 floors
WTC7: 49 floors
According to this tenant list:
http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/wtc_tenants_list. htm

There are approx 20 untenanted floors in the North Tower
and 30 in the South, with additional available areas on the occupied floors.
http://www.unblinking.com/arc/2001-09c.htm.

Building 7 had approx 5 empty floors. Figures are approximate due to some govt. agencies not being included on the tenants list. The same could br true of the main towers.

From that, it appears to me there's ample choices of entire floors for similar setups to the one you kindly illustrated.
I guess that information can be filed under 'opportunity'.
Or is it 'means' ?

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:42 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Frank De Martini was the construction manager of the WTC. By all accounts, he knew every floor of the complex like the back of his hand. He was the first to warn of a possible collapse when he saw sagging in the elevator shafts, and urged authorities to send a structural engineer in to evaluate the situation. He died saving the lives of other building occupants.

He would have to have been aware of your hypothetical demolition setup. Are you telling me he was in on it?

Also, since you know which floors were wired for explosives, it should be a simple matter to show from the video evidence that THESE were the floors at which the collapses began. Without this corroboration, all you have is idle speculation.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

chek wrote:

The other big fallacy is that it is unlike a civilian demolition.
We already know that thermate isn't a civilian explosive... so that leaves the military.

It isn't an explosive at all. Neither civilian nor military

Thermite may be classed as an incendiary, but there are thermate variations that wil behave explosively.

"Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos.

"The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out," Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly. "Superthermites can increase the (chemical) reaction time by a thousand times," Son says, resulting in a very rapid reactive wave.

Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices, primers for igniting firearms, and as fuel propellants for rockets."
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14105&ch=nanotech

Also the fires continued to burn despite a 'lake' of water was firehosed onto it.
One indication of the presence of thermate is the use of PyroCool which was later tried and it succeeded in reducing the fires.

The main buyer of pyrocool is the military, which use it to extinguish incendiary fires caused by napalm and thermite-based tank-busting grenades/rockets. It then seems a little too coincidental that the underground fires resisted all previous fire-fighting efforts at GZ until Pyrocool was applied.

http://www.pyrocool.org/news.htm"

And let's not forget, Jones' work has also detected it.
[/b]

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:24 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Ignatz wrote:

chek wrote:

The other big fallacy is that it is unlike a civilian demolition.
We already know that thermate isn't a civilian explosive... so that leaves the military.

It isn't an explosive at all. Neither civilian nor military

Why do the properties of the magic substance that brought the towers down keep changing? First it was thermite, then thermate, now it's superthermite with nanometals. Why is it so open to change? How can there be evidence which suggested all three? It seems more like the goalposts move everythime someone spots a flaw.
_________________

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

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:35 pm Post subject:

aggle-rithm wrote:

chek wrote:

I am all too aware that people died thank you, and I don't nor would I suggest Mr. De Martini was "in on it" as you put it.
Neither would he have to be.
The claim that setting up demolition was the 'stupidest CT utterances ever' is not terribly consistent with the information.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

chek wrote:

Ignatz wrote:

chek wrote:

The other big fallacy is that it is unlike a civilian demolition.
We already know that thermate isn't a civilian explosive... so that leaves the military.

It isn't an explosive at all. Neither civilian nor military

Probably because to most non-explosive technician people, the terms aren't used as accurately as they should be - and chemically they are relatives. Also most of us have ;ittle idea about the technical aspects of demolition - but we know what we saw.

Jones reports the presence of thermate in his paper (page 47-53) and this gives a clue to its plasticised form:
“One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": • “1,3-diphenylpropane.
"We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said.”
• http://www.newsday.com/news/health/nyhsair0911,0,471193.
story?coll=ny-homepage-rightarea
• http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/xmlreport.display?deid=
62021&z_chk=65088
• Large amounts of 1,3 diphenylpropane suggest that high-tech sol-gel thermite arson used on the WTC buildings. Other explanations are sought."

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:26 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

chek wrote:

Ignatz wrote:

chek wrote:

The other big fallacy is that it is unlike a civilian demolition.
We already know that thermate isn't a civilian explosive... so that leaves the military.

It isn't an explosive at all. Neither civilian nor military

PVC

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject:

chipmunk stew wrote:

chek wrote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

chek wrote:

Ignatz wrote:

chek wrote:

The other big fallacy is that it is unlike a civilian demolition.
We already know that thermate isn't a civilian explosive... so that leaves the military.

It isn't an explosive at all. Neither civilian nor military

PVC

Or indeed polystyrene. Which begs the question of why that would be new to the EPA, at 'a level that dwarfed all others'.
I'm sure there have been toxic fires at plastic factories previously.

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:50 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Or indeed polystyrene. Which begs the question of why that would be new to the EPA, at 'a level that dwarfed all others'.
I'm sure there have been toxic fires at plastic factories previously.

It doesn't prove thermite though.
_________________

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

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:15 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

I am all too aware that people died thank you, and I don't nor would I suggest Mr. De Martini was "in on it" as you put it.
Neither would he have to be.

Then how did he and his staff fail to notice that entire floors of the WTC were wired for demolition?

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:22 pm Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

chek wrote:

Or indeed polystyrene. Which begs the question of why that would be new to the EPA, at 'a level that dwarfed all others'.
I'm sure there have been toxic fires at plastic factories previously.

It doesn't prove thermite though.

That item doesn't - it's related to the carrier medium, but page 27-54 of Jones' paper shows how he did prove it.
AND as a special bonus just for you, he also relates on page 35 he did the experiment you've been waiting for!
I'd never noticed that before.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:32 pm Post subject:

aggle-rithm wrote:

chek wrote:

I am all too aware that people died thank you, and I don't nor would I suggest Mr. De Martini was "in on it" as you put it.
Neither would he have to be.

Then how did he and his staff fail to notice that entire floors of the WTC were wired for demolition?

We don't know and we can't know, until a new investigation questions people under oath. Maybe Larry the Investor told them to keep quiet about a little weekend work he was arranging, but who knows?

In any case, the presence of thermate is proved, opportunity of the necessary access is now shown to be easily possible, and then we had the results which we all saw with our own eyes.

The OCT is dying on it's feet.
All that's necessary now is the political will, and at the rate the 911 truth movement is growing, that will materialise.

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:34 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Thermite may be classed as an incendiary, but there are thermate variations that wil behave explosively.

Wikipedia
Thermate, or Thermate-TH3, is an incendiary compound primarily used for military applications. Because of the similarity in names, thermate is sometimes confused with one of its components, thermite.

Thermate is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to standard thermite for incendiary purposes. Its composition by weight is generally thermite 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulphur 2.0% and binder 0.3%. Addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and significantly reduces the ignition temperature

So, now you admit only several floors were "available" for wiring in order to blow nearly all the concrete to 60micron powder and achieve CD.

You've moved away from that nice safe thermite which won't ignite in a kerosene fireball, to thermate + nanostuff which will ignite at 600c. Oops. Which way do you prefer?

You admit to heavy fires in WTC7. Too much smoke to see structural damage, but neighbouring buildings copped it bigtime by vast steel skewers from WTC1.

Hoffman has withdrawn his essay on pulverisation energy owing to concerns about the physics of it.

Your case is falling apart bit by bit, chek
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

stateofgrace
Moderate Poster

Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:25 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Your case is falling apart bit by bit, chek

And it simply gets demolished here (excuse the pun)

I am not in the habit of copying and pasting entire articles but these guy deserves something you do not chek. That being respect for the ability to do some genuine research and apply it in a critical manner to a problem.

Read and comment here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65247

Quote:

Hello everyone,

I've been working on this the last couple of weeks. I felt the need to write this because the CT crowd is way too selective on their knowledge and I've never seen a piece of information like it, and felt it was needed. It appears later, but I want to reiterate that I'm not a CD expert. However, like anyone else, I take what people that know more than I do and try to form conclusions based on facts and research. Everything I found I referenced at the bottom numerically if there's any dispute about the information.

Also, if anyone has any links contradicting or adding to anything here, I'd love to hear about it. There's really not that much information about a lot of explosives, especially Thermite. Using any search engine I found more of the life story of Alex Jones than I did about thermite! He did a great job of burying anything useful to anyone on that topic.

Anyway, I figure if anyone can pick it apart, it'd be you guys. Thanks for the time!

There is a lot of conjecture floating around the internet about what happened on 9/11/01 in regards to the WTC. A lot of armchair demolitions experts assert that the WTC buildings that fell on that day fell because of means other than airplanes crashing into them and causing fires. The armchair demo expert conspiracy theorists (CTers) assert that it is controlled demolitions (CD). Being a reasonable guy, I agree with the experts. Call me gullible, but show me a plane smashing into a building and that building falling down, and I’m convinced it was the plane.

Although my expertise on the topic consists of no more than the ability to read, a working computer, and an internet connection, my goal here is to show that CD simply isn’t possible given the conditions of the building. Let’s forget the sheer absurdity of the situation. Let’s assume that somehow in the months/years beforehand secret demolitions teams were able to infiltrate the towers unseen by both people and cameras and plant explosives. Let’s assume that in that time they were able to rip the walls open, plant the devices, and fix the walls and none of the thousands of people that walked the halls of those buildings every day noticed the wet paint and fresh drywall. Let’s assume that whatever shadow organization had the trillions of dollars to pay off the hundreds of thousands of people from a variety of backgrounds and allegiances to turn a blind eye. Just ignore your common sense. It’s difficult, I know, and that pain you feel in your brain is natural.

As stated earlier, in order to explain the ridiculousness of CD, I’m going to have to give that theory the best possible chance of being probable. In order to do that, I’m going to focus solely on WTC7, for reasons outlined below. For clarity’s and background’s sake, National Institute of Technology and Standards (NIST) has an ongoing, but incomplete, investigation into the building. Their basic theory is that the tower was damaged below floor 13 of the 47 story tower by thousands of tons of concrete, steel, and other debris from one or more of the other towers, and that structural damage spread first vertically, then horizontally coupled by weakened steel over seven hours, and eventually the structure was so weak the weight of the building forced it down[1]. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) agrees, but contends that the seven hours of fire contributed more significantly[2]. Both organizations claim to have spent thousands of man-hours going through thousands of documents, films, and photographs with individuals of expertise both in and out of their respective organizations, using knowledge of physics, mathematics, and chemistry I can’t possibly hope to match, understand, or verify. They’ve come up with the above theory, and found no evidence whatsoever to indicate explosives. In fact, most experts in any field agree with their conclusions. As you narrow their fields down to fields that would have any knowledge about structural failure and demolitions, the number progressively gets smaller eventually nearing zero (One man, Danny Jowenko touted as the most proficient demolitions expert in the Netherlands has said that CD is a possibility, but even the circumstances around that is questionable. There are videos of his opinion on YouTube[3].)

To conclude the introduction and background and move onto the interesting part, why I feel that WTC7 is the best candidate for CD is as follows: The building was only struck by tons of concrete, steel, and other debris and not an airplane. And yes, I know that only is a bad word choice. The reason this is important is the temperature is in debate because it wasn’t directly introduced to jet fuel (although it’s not impossible). The next reason is the structural damage is in debate, some feel it wasn’t sufficient to cause the collapse without an extra push, the push in this case being the force from many explosions. The final reason is that the building stood for seven hours.

Of course, with no evidence of a specific explosive used, to a CTer that’s an invitation to imply that any explosive was used. Given the undeniable facts from above, a demolitions team would need an explosive that can be remotely detonated that can survive a severe impact and varying degrees of extreme heat. Oh, and the detonation devices would also have to survive that. I think the best way to go about this is to outline a variety of explosives[4][5], so that’s where I will begin.

All explosives are designed to, through a chemical reaction at the molecular level, expel energy. This chemical reaction is initiated in a variety of ways depending on the explosive type, generally modern high explosives are stable, meaning they’re difficult to set off by accident, and require some type of detonator and sometimes a booster charge, a primary explosive used to trigger the secondary explosive.[6] Since I’ve mentioned it, you’re probably wondering what primary and secondary explosives are. There are two types of explosives, low and high. An example of low would be black powder, and high would be TNT. High explosives are also categorized by their sensitivity; that is their tendency to detonate when exposed to shock, friction, or heat, into two categories: Primary and secondary. Primary explosives are extremely sensitive and very dangerous to handle, and as such small amounts are often used to initiate secondary explosives as those tend to be more stable.[7]. It’s also worth noting that many explosives leave toxic residues that can remain for years in the area and effect health and the environment[8]. However, since the investigation into WTC7 is still ongoing, and again to give the best possibility of CD, I’ll assume that it’s possible the contaminants are still there, but haven’t been found yet. Lastly, many explosives suffer from hygroscopicity, which is the ability to retain water. Water is detrimental to an explosives power, and may even change the chemical composition of an explosive over time. This basic information is important because not only must the explosive survive the extreme conditions, but so must the booster charge if needed, and the detonator that often contains low or primary explosives, or both, and the means to trigger the detonator remotely.

Two more facts are necessary before we look at the types of explosives that could be used. Since explosives are typically set off by the shockwave created by the blasting cap, shock must be considered. No one really knows an exact measurement of the amount of energy transferred from WTC1 to WTC7 from the impact of the debris, I can’t present an exact number. However, 10^12 joules was the potential energy of the collapse of WTC1[9]. Some of this energy was transferred, and in the case of explosives that are sensitive to impact, much less of the possible amount would be required. The other fact is the heat of the building. Both FEMA and the NIST estimate around 1000-1200 degrees Celsius[10][11]. I’ve also found proposed temperatures as low as 257 degrees Celsius[12]. Now that I’ve defined the conditions of the building it’s time to take a look at some explosives and see how they’d fare.

First up are low explosives. These are primarily used as propellants, for bullets or rockets, but can and have been used as explosives in the past. This group includes black powder and smokeless powder.

Black powder, also known as gunpowder, is one of the oldest utilized explosives with the first recorded discovery at 1000 AD. It is still used to today mainly in fireworks. Black powder is extremely unstable. It is somewhat insensitive to shock and friction, but very sensitive to heat and open flame[13], all of which there were an abundance of. Additionally, gunpowder is expected to ignite around 232 degrees C (450 F)[15], which is well below even the most conservative estimates of WTC7. All in all, it’s a poor candidate.

Smokeless powder is the propellant replacement to black powder. As with black powder it is sensitive to impact, heat, and flame. It’s ignition temperature is even lower than that of black powder, coming in at around 160 degrees C (320 F)[16], which is again much lower than WTC7 making it an even more unlikely explosive.

The next group of explosives under the proverbial microscope is high explosives. The first sub-group of high explosives is primary. Explosives in this group are generally put here based on their relative sensitivity as compared to PETN. These explosives tend to be highly volatile under all but the most controlled conditions and tend to be very dangerous to handle. Their primary use is in small amounts put into a position to detonate more stable explosives, like being in a blasting cap. Explosives that fall into this category are Lead Azide, Lead Styphnate, Mercury Fulminate and Tetracene.

Lead Azide is a common detonating agent. It has a higher temperature of ignition than most primary explosives, and is a more effective detonating agent than mercury fulminate. However, it is highly sensitive to heat, friction, and impact. It is even more sensitive than nitro glycerine[17], dropping a 2kg weight from 5 inches away will cause it to detonate[20], and the higher temperature isn’t that high, coming in at 350 degrees C (662 F)[18] which is well within the estimates of WTC7. Lead Azide as a stand alone or in a detonator would not work because of it’s extreme impact sensitivity and it’s comparably low sensitivity to heat.

Lead Styphnate is also a common detonating agent. It is more sensitive to shock and heat than lead azide or mercury fulminate, and it is extemely sensitive to electricty, so sensitive in fact that a static charge from the human body can cause it to explode[19]. It’s detonation temperature is 282 degrees C (539 F) and it’s impact sensitivity is 3 inches with a 2kg weight[20]. This stuff is extremely sensitive, and given the conditions of WTC7, not a very good explosive possibility.

Mercury Fulminate is more sensitive in all areas, heat, shock, spark, and friction, than lead azide and lead styphnate, and it is additionally sensitive to open flame[21], and because of those sensitivities it has been almost universally replaced with either. Mercury fulminate ignites at 170 degrees C (338 F)[22] and is therefore impossible to be used in any capacity in WTC7 at even the most conservative estimates.

The final primary explosive is Tetracene. Tetracene is highly sensitive to an open flame, and is slightly more sensitive to shock than mercury fulminate[23]. Tetracene will actually melt and decompose at 160 degrees C (320 F)[24]. Again, the pattern seems that primary explosives don’t fare well in volitile conditions.

The next group of explosives falls under the high explosives category, secondary explosives. These are the ones people are most familiar with, such as TNT or C-4. These explosives can come in a variety of forms, from liquid to solid, and can be grains, crystals, or plastic.

Trinitrotoluene is the constituant for many explosives, meaning that some percent of the weight contains this chemical. It is commonly known as TNT. It is used in Amatol, Ammonal, Cyclotol, Torpex, Octol, Pentolite, Picratol, Tetrytol, Minol, and Tritonal among others in some degree. TNT is relatively insensitive to heat, shock, friction, and open flame. However, it is not immune to these effects. At 475 degrees C (887 F) it burns rapidly, and it can be detonated at 14 inches with a 2kg weight[20]. Additionally, it melts at a lower temperature than it explodes, 82 degrees C (178 F) and explodes at 240 degrees C (464 F)[25], and as such this and anything containing it is relatively ineffective for this purpose.

Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate, commonly referred to as PETN, is the borderline secondary explosive. It is the most sensitive of them, but much more powerful, and is the reference point for categorizing the others. It is also mixed with other chemicals, like TNT, to make other explosives, such as pentolite or semtex. It is more sensitive to shock or friction than TNT, with an impact sensitivity of six inches. It also burns at 225 degrees C (437 F)[20]. It’s melting point is 142 degress C (287 F) which casues it to decompose[26]. This is, again, way under the most conservative temperatures and force of impact to be considered seriously.

Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, easier to just say RDX, was invented by the British because they didn’t like the sensitivity of other high explosives. Like PETN and TNT, it is used as a part of other explosives, such as Cyclotol, HBX, C-4, Torpex, and Pentolite among others. It is amazingly resiliant to impact, and can even withstand small arms fire. However, a heavier weight seems to have a worse effect, causing detonation at 8 inches with a 2kg weight and burning at 260 degrees Celsius (536 F)[20]. It’s melting point is also 202 degrees Celsius (395 F)[27]. The temperature at which it will ignite is 234 degrees Celsius[28], which is again lower than all estimates.

Ammonium Picrate is the least sensitive to shock and friction of all military explosives. Information is pretty sparse with this explosive, however if heated to 300 degrees C (572 F) it will explode or can be set off by shock[29]. It will also melt if it is heated to more than 122.5 degrees C (252 F)[30].

Trinitrophyenylmethylnitramine (Tetryl) is an outdated and sensitive explosive. It is mainly used as a booster explosive since it is sensitive to flame, friction, shock, or sparks. Like many explosives before it, it is too sensitive to temperature to be used in WTC7. It’s melting point is 129.5 (265 F) degrees C and it’s ignition temperature is 187 (386 F) degrees Celsius[31].

Just to briefly touch on plastic explosives, I’m going to take a look at C-4 and Flex-X. C-4 is made out of RDX, a few other chemicals, and a plasticizer. This makes it a pliable material. However, because it is mostly RDX, it is subject to the same problems RDX has in this situation, listed above. It is also sensitive to shock, heat, melting, and ignition. Flex-X is similar to C-4 in that it’s made out of another explosives with an added plasticizer. In this case, it’s again RDX, and in some cases PETN, but PETN is more rare because it’s a lot more sensitive. Clearly, plasitic explosives are no different in any scenario. They’re often used because they are pliable and can be shaped, but they’re made out of the same materials as other explosives and not any more well-equipped to deal with the extreme conditions present in those seven hours.

Finally, we get to the more popular of devices of the CT world: Incendiaries. Because there has been no evidence uncovered of explosives and because welders were used to cut the debris up for removal, pictures circulated the internet that looked like the metal was cut before it fell, and incendiaries would look similar (however, like any other explosive, these leave chemical traces as well, none have been found). Basically, an incediary is a device used to cause a fire. Of course, many of these can burn very hot and melt through several feet of steel within minutes. The two most popular, and even in debate among the CTers, is thermite and thermate.

Thermite is nothing more than powdered aluminum and iron oxide (rust). In fact, it’s not so much as a substance as it is a reaction, it can happen accidentally wherever aluminium granules make contact with rust. However, that’s not to say it can’t be done on purpose, and in fact has been in use since the late 1800’s for welding, particularly railroad tracks, and recently military purposes. When ignited, it burns at temperatures in excess of 3000 degrees Celsius. It takes a tremendous heat source to start the reaction, around 1300 degrees C (2372 F)[32]. Thermate is very similar, made of mostly thermite, but with added chemicals that give it a higher burning temperature, flames, and a lower ignition temperature. Clearly, any ambient temperatures listed from any source were not even close enough to be considered, and since thermite/thermate are not sensitive to impact it could have survived in WTC7. More on that later.

Clearly, a vast majority of explosives simply are not up to the task. However, the explosives are just one part of a CD. There are still detonators/ignitors, and the means to employ them remotely. These too must survive the conditions.

Any modern explosive is initiated by a blasting cap. Blasting caps have remained nearly the same since their invention, with minor tweaks to make them more safe and efficient[33]. Most modern blasting caps are electric. Two insulated wires make near contact on the inside of the casing and when the charge is sent down the lines connecting the blasting cap to the operator a charge of current appears in the gap. That charge, depending on the type of cap, ignites the primary explosive or a time delay fuse. Sometimes there is another auxiliary secondary explosive inside the cap to give the blasting cap an extra kick if needed, however the initial explosive is always one of the primary ones listed above. In either case, the shockwave created by the blasting cap is what detonates the secondary explosive. There are many variations on the type of electrical blasting caps for a variety of circumstances, however they all operate on the same basic principle.

The other type of blasting cap, non-electric or shock tube detonators, work differently. Instead of a copper wire to transmit electricity, it made of several insulated, plasitic tubes filled with PETN at the core. The PETN is detonated at the far end and the shockwave travels along the tube, destroying it in the process, and on to the blasting cap at the end where it transfers that shockwave into another explosive. The blasting cap, in this case, doesn’t have to be filled with a primary explosive and can be filled with a more stable secondary explosive. When precision timing is necessary, it can be much more accurate because of the relatively constant travel speed of the shockwave and extrenous electricity isn’t an issue[33].

What does this mean for the conditions of WTC7? In the case of non-electric detonation, it’s simply not possible. The melting point and ignition temperature of PETN remains the same whether it’s a charge or a tube[34], so the extreme temperatures of the building are well above what’s needed to render the detonator inert or to set it off outright. The other electric blasting caps are subject to the same liability of the primary explosive found inside. Additionally, the plugs made to keep the blasting cap in working condition and hold the wires in place are typically made out of plastic or rubber and many components are soldered in place, and even made out of cardboard[35], and if those melt or burn the whole detonator could easily be inoperable. The wires that trasfer the electiricity to detonate the charges are only insulted with plastic, much like a wire you’d find in your house although probably a heavier gauge. Melting the insulation around a copper wire that happens to be near and make contact with any metal would ground the circuit. Additionally, since some sources point to the temperatures being at or over 1000 degrees Celsius, the melting point of copper is very near that at 1083 degrees Celsius[36]. If the wires that transfer the electricity to the blasting caps were to melt it would break the circuit. Of course, if we’re getting to temperatures to melt copper the primary explosive should have detonated long before that. Thermite, which would still require a blasting cap of some kind to detonate remotely, is a bit of an exception. In most cases, thermite is ignited by heating magnesium, which acts as a booster explosive without an explosion, which has a much lower ignition temperature but burns hot enough to ignite the thermite mixture. However, magnesium ignites at 473 degrees Celsius (883 F)[37], which is well within the estimated temperatures as well. So, while the thermite would survive as stated above, the magnesium wouldn’t, and neither would the detonator used to ignite the magnesium.

So, given that extensive read, what kind of conclusions can be reached from this data? First, explosives are very, very dangerous. Many of them can be set off by small movements and low weights and temperatures that you can reach in your household oven. Second, CD is designed for good conditions. The tools simply don’t exist to detonate a building upwards of 1000 degrees on fire being hit by tons of concrete. Very few explosives would survive seconds of being in that building, let alone seven hours, and even if they did the detonators are not made to. What you’d see if the explosives could survive the initial shock and fires isn’t the neat CD the CTers claim, but an extremely unpredictable blast pattern or no detonation at all. It’s my armchair demo expert opinion that it’s simply not possible.

[1] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm see section 14
[2] http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema...ma%20report%22 see section 5.5.4
[3] http://youtube.com/results?search_qu...&search=Search
[4] http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/ttpyro.html see sections 3-7
[5] http://nobombs.net/brucel/explosivefacts.html
[6] http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/ttpyro.html see section 1
[7] http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...explosives.htm
[8] http://www.gr.admin.ch/internet/arma...xplosi ves%22
[9] http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...mber=3&catID=4 see last paragraph.
[10] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm see 7a and 7b
[11] http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf see 5-29 section 6
[12] http://www.911research.wtc7.net/mirr...tc/how-hot.htm
[13] http://www.digistar.mb.ca/minsci/SYS...es/blackp2.htm
[14] http://www.americanpyro.com/fireserv...mperatures.pdf
[15] http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/articles98/nhallen.htm
[16] http://avogadro.chem.iastate.edu/MSD...ess_powder.htm
[17] http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/78127_13.html
[18] http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/lead.htm see Other uses of Lead
[19] http://www.ordnance.org/leadstyp.htm
[20] http://www.teledynerisi.com/products...8td_page02.asp
[21] http://www.ordnance.org/mercury.htm
[22] http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/mercury.htm
[23] http://www.ordnance.org/tetracen.htm
[24] http://www.tocatch.info/en/Tetrazene.htm
[25] http://www.microscopyu.com/moviegall...tnt/index.html
[26] http://www.qycc.com/english/eng1-7.htm
[27] http://www.pof.gov.pk/products/explosives.htm
[28] http://c10-ss-1-lb.cnet.com/reference/RDX
[29] http://www.unitednuclear.com/database.htm
[30] http://www.dfs.gov.in/Manuals/Explosives%20Manual.doc
[31] http://c10-ss-1-lb.cnet.com/reference/Tetryl
[31] http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/m0088.htm
[32] http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq6.html see section 6.2.1
[33] http://www.ausimm.com.au/presentatio...20detonator%22
[34] http://www.iie-online.com/pdfs/Shock_Tube.pdf
[35] http://www.digistar.mb.ca/minsci/SYS...sives/caps.htm
[36] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._melting_point
[37] http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/m0088.htm

Ever get that slightly deflating feeling Chek, you know that wind coming out off your sail feeling? You know where to comment. Apply your knowledge, this guy appears to be looking forward to comments, so on you go.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:34 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

chek wrote:

Thermite may be classed as an incendiary, but there are thermate variations that wil behave explosively.

Luckily, most of the recovered steel samples indicated less than 500 degree heat. But even so, I fail to see why insulation couldn't be used to address that possibility. It could even be in a form to help disguise the charges when applied. But as to the question of how much is needed, and where it should be placed I have no idea.

One demolition interview I read a while back suggested two locations were all that was necessary, but to me it looks like far more than that. In the South Tower collapse, a line of pre-collapse explosions approximately the width of the core structure blows out the windows of what appear to be (from video) 2 floors in the 70 storey range, and then the top starts to rotate.

The demolition wave then races down the building, and the previously rotating top floor section then straightens and falls into the area of the building's perimeter. How much explosive would that take? To me it looks like every other floor, but that's only an uninformed impression.

Ignatz wrote:

You admit to heavy fires in WTC7. Too much smoke to see structural damage, but neighbouring buildings copped it bigtime by vast steel skewers from WTC1.

They didn't collapse though, despite heavier fires and heavier damage. They had to be 'pulled' later.

Ignatz wrote:

Hoffman has withdrawn his essay on pulverisation energy owing to concerns about the physics of it.

Where did you get that information? I know he has version 4 in development, but the previous versions are still online and available.
HGi spapers aren't set in stone, he updates them as new information becomes available
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html

Your case is falling apart bit by bit, chek[/quote]

Oh really?

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:17 pm Post subject:

stateofgrace wrote:

Quote:

Your case is falling apart bit by bit, chek

Thanks for the thought SoG.
Interesting read (if you're interested in explosives), I guess.
I have barely enough time to handle the lame theories and diversionary tactics of the 'critics' here.

Although ... why do you think the concept of insulated and radio detonated thermate charges seem so hard for him to grasp?

stateofgrace
Moderate Poster

Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:40 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

stateofgrace wrote:

Quote:

Your case is falling apart bit by bit, chek

No problem, why don't you just ask him yourself?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65247

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:25 am Post subject:

stateofgrace wrote:

chek wrote:

stateofgrace wrote:

Quote:

Your case is falling apart bit by bit, chek

No problem, why don't you just ask him yourself?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65247

Two reasons mainly - I already have enough to do, and the Towers are merely a diversion to frighten the punters, not the real point about what happened. I haven't really got time to waste on somebody who waffles for half a page about gunpowder. Jeez.
2

jsut_peopel
Minor Poster

Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:45 am Post subject:

chek wrote:

The ongoing attempt to discredit Jones is noted.
Your argument seems to be if Jones discovers hydrogen peaks and carbon peaks he can't tell if he's discovered traces of bread or fuel? That's an ... interesting opinion.

Explain to me what you mean by hydrogen and carbon peaks and we can have a discussion.

Quote:

I find it odd that you know purport to know what thermate supposedly can and can't do.
Is that because you imagine it to be only in powder form (hence the incessant references to vertical columns) ?

I think if you read back, I am asking you what you think thermate can do. That is because I don't know. You seem to think it could be used in the way suggested, so I am asking you how that might be. So far you havn't come up with an answer other than "I don't know." which although commendable was slightly soured by you then going on about "various mediums" that it might be mixed with,which you still haven't clarified.

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:08 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Perhaps if you hadn't been waffling for twelve pages, you'd have more time.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:14 pm Post subject:

jsut_peopel wrote:

chek wrote:

Explain to me what you mean by hydrogen and carbon peaks and we can have a discussion.

Quote:

I find it odd that you know purport to know what thermate supposedly can and can't do.
Is that because you imagine it to be only in powder form (hence the incessant references to vertical columns) ?

As I understand it your implication is that according to your expressed notion a materials study couldn't tell the difference between carbohydrates and hydrocarbons.

Ok thermate. Is your attention deficited or similar?
This is from a page back in this very thread, but I'll' save you the click.

"Thermite may be classed as an incendiary, but there are thermate variations that wil behave explosively.

"Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos.

"The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out," Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly. "Superthermites can increase the (chemical) reaction time by a thousand times," Son says, resulting in a very rapid reactive wave.

Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices, primers for igniting firearms, and as fuel propellants for rockets."
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14105&ch=nanotech

Also the fires continued to burn despite a 'lake' of water was firehosed onto it.
One indication of the presence of thermate is the use of PyroCool which was later tried and it succeeded in reducing the fires.

The main buyer of pyrocool is the military, which use it to extinguish incendiary fires caused by napalm and thermite-based tank-busting grenades/rockets. It then seems a little too coincidental that the underground fires resisted all previous fire-fighting efforts at GZ until Pyrocool was applied.
http://www.pyrocool.org/news.htm"

There now, you should be up to speed, if such a thing is possible.
If not, refer to pages 35-50 of Jones'paper and you will find out also about sol-gel mediums enabling thermate to be produced in shaped and moulded form.
Now no more silly questions.
If you have a point, make it.

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:48 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Also the fires continued to burn despite a 'lake' of water was firehosed onto it.
One indication of the presence of thermate is the use of PyroCool which was later tried and it succeeded in reducing the fires.

The main buyer of pyrocool is the military, which use it to extinguish incendiary fires caused by napalm and thermite-based tank-busting grenades/rockets. It then seems a little too coincidental that the underground fires resisted all previous fire-fighting efforts at GZ until Pyrocool was applied.
http://www.pyrocool.org/news.htm"

There now, you should be up to speed, if such a thing is possible.
If not, refer to pages 35-50 of Jones'paper and you will find out also about sol-gel mediums enabling thermate to be produced in shaped and moulded form.
Now no more silly questions.
If you have a point, make it.

So, does this super-thermate burn for weeks without consuming itself? Remember, the faster it burns, the faster it burns OUT.

You don't seem to understand that if there is a single weak link in your chain of reasoning, then the entire chain is invalidated. You can't say they used regular thermite, which is resistant to fire, but they used super-thermate, which burns fast enough to get the job done. And, somehow this thermite-thermate composite managed to keep burning for weeks under the rubble?

I suspect that huge amount of volatile material needed to keep burning for so long would melt a hole to the Earth's core.

jsut_peopel
Minor Poster

Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:34 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

As I understand it your implication is that according to your expressed notion a materials study couldn't tell the difference between carbohydrates and hydrocarbons.

No. That is your strawman.

Quote:

Ok thermate. Is your attention deficited or similar?

Why you feel the need to try and personalise the discussion is beyond me.

Quote:

There now, you should be up to speed, if such a thing is possible.
If not, refer to pages 35-50 of Jones'paper and you will find out also about sol-gel mediums enabling thermate to be produced in shaped and moulded form.
Now no more silly questions.
If you have a point, make it.

Delivery system that enables it to be used to cut through vertical steel columns? You have shown me no evidence of such a thing. You just waffle on about this and that and avoid the subject. It is quite a crucial point of the argument. If there is such a system then your argument is bolstered. If there isn't such a system then your "thermate used to demolish WTC" falls to pieces.

If you don't have the evidence of such a sytem then you are guessing about the cause of the WTC falling. Why you then feel the need to promote your guesses as facts leaves me somewhat confused. The two things are clearly not the same thing. You will not be able to convince anyone of anything if when pushed on a point, your evidence boils down to a guess.

Arkan_Wolfshade
Minor Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 31

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:55 pm Post subject:

This paper http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm addresses Jones' claims of nano-thermite.

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:53 pm Post subject:

Arkan_Wolfshade wrote:

This paper http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm addresses Jones' claims of nano-thermite.

Wow.

And it pretty much rips Jones a new one in the process.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:19 pm Post subject:

jsut_peopel wrote:

chek wrote:

As I understand it your implication is that according to your expressed notion a materials study couldn't tell the difference between carbohydrates and hydrocarbons.

No. That is your strawman.

Quote:

Ok thermate. Is your attention deficited or similar?

Why you feel the need to try and personalise the discussion is beyond me.

Quote:

Of course it's a guess - what are you expecting to find on an internet discussion board?
However as its use as an anti-armour munition shows, it is perfectly capable of cutting through vertical armoured steel surfaces (at a speed you wouldn't believe kid).
Now I've had enough of your time wasting diversions so in the absence of
any further of your desperate contortions, hand waving and faulty logic, that aspect is now closed.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:22 pm Post subject:

aggle-rithm wrote:

Arkan_Wolfshade wrote:

This paper http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm addresses Jones' claims of nano-thermite.

Wow.

And it pretty much rips Jones a new one in the process.

You actually believe that?
Wow, things must be getting desperate down there in the bunker.

Rather than a huge slab of waffle like your new hero King, let's tie it into your newly fashionable 'WTC7 ablaze theory' and classify it as 'lots of smoke but little fire'.
If you have anything specific to raise, as ever I'm all ears.

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:57 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

jsut_peopel wrote:

chek wrote:

As I understand it your implication is that according to your expressed notion a materials study couldn't tell the difference between carbohydrates and hydrocarbons.

No. That is your strawman.

Quote:

Ok thermate. Is your attention deficited or similar?

Why you feel the need to try and personalise the discussion is beyond me.

Quote:

Actually no, anti-armour ammunition does not cut through vertical surfaces, it injects molten matter or a high speed projectile though a small hole it cuts in the armour. This is way way different from cutting a steel box section column. And its not thermite either. I think you've lost on this one. Thermite is not used in anti-tank weapons, so if you claim the HEAT ammunition method, then your claim that Dr Jones is right falls to pieces. If you claim thermite and Dr Jones are right, then you have no delivery system, because HEAT ammo uses explosives to force a metal projectile, not a thermite one.
_________________

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

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
Page 6 of 9

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum