If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

Please explain how any explosive outside of the impact zone would be affected.

The explosive charges would have been hard-wired to their detonators. The detonators would have all been hard-wired to a central control panel (nothing fancy if you've ever seen one, and it would have had to have been custom made, and large).

I know you'll ask why not radio controlled or cell phone controlled detonators. The answer is that radios are unreliable a lot of the time when used with explosives, mostly when you need them not to be unreliable. Once armed they can go off prematurely due to cross signal interference which can be caused by a ton of different things in a busy office building. If it was CD, those planning the demo would have had to plan for THOUSANDS of NYPD and FDNY radios crowding into a narrow geographic location and jamming their radio controlled detonators.

We know that radio communication at the WTC was crippled from the half-dozen reports made after the attacks, and at least to reports made after the 1993 bombing where the city was criticized for a crappy radio system.

So, you have 3 extremely tall buildings hard-wired with at least 3 miles of copper wire, hundreds of blasting caps, and a couple thousand pounds of a very specific explosive. Flying a 767 into the middle of that wrecks most of your wiring. On the upper floors above the impact, and immediately below the blasting caps would have been yanked out of the charges. In the case of WTC2 you've lost a third of your boom boom. All of those unexploded charges would have been recovered after the fact.

None were. And had all of the charges survived the plane strike, the wiring would have been recovered. No such wiring was recovered.

Check & mate.
 
The explosive charges would have been hard-wired to their detonators. The detonators would have all been hard-wired to a central control panel (nothing fancy if you've ever seen one, and it would have had to have been custom made, and large).

I know you'll ask why not radio controlled or cell phone controlled detonators. The answer is that radios are unreliable a lot of the time when used with explosives, mostly when you need them not to be unreliable. Once armed they can go off prematurely due to cross signal interference which can be caused by a ton of different things in a busy office building. If it was CD, those planning the demo would have had to plan for THOUSANDS of NYPD and FDNY radios crowding into a narrow geographic location and jamming their radio controlled detonators.

We know that radio communication at the WTC was crippled from the half-dozen reports made after the attacks, and at least to reports made after the 1993 bombing where the city was criticized for a crappy radio system.

So, you have 3 extremely tall buildings hard-wired with at least 3 miles of copper wire, hundreds of blasting caps, and a couple thousand pounds of a very specific explosive. Flying a 767 into the middle of that wrecks most of your wiring. On the upper floors above the impact, and immediately below the blasting caps would have been yanked out of the charges. In the case of WTC2 you've lost a third of your boom boom. All of those unexploded charges would have been recovered after the fact.

None were. And had all of the charges survived the plane strike, the wiring would have been recovered. No such wiring was recovered.

Check & mate.

Check & mate? Is that your version of Netflix and chill?

You assume a CD has to be done a certain way. Your assumption is wrong. Only a real investigation could show how it was done. Your arguments are based on a false assumption and are therefore invalid.
 
Why are they idiots? Is it because you can't stand having your skewed world view be confronted with the truth?

Do they think explosives took down the towers? If so, they're idiots.
As I've said, it is most likely the single most asinine idea any human has ever come up with.

Ever. Period.
 
Do they think explosives took down the towers? If so, they're idiots.
As I've said, it is most likely the single most asinine idea any human has ever come up with.

Ever. Period.
Why would any human come up with this idea? What do these humans see, with their own eyes, to make them think this? Perhaps, if you opened your eyes you could see it, too.
 
Why would any human come up with this idea? What do these humans see, with their own eyes, to make them think this? Perhaps, if you opened your eyes you could see it, too.

Gage came up with the idea so he can make money off of idiots.

Not one shred of evidence was found. Did you do your research like I asked? No, you didn't.

Do it.
 
Gage came up with the idea so he can make money off of idiots.

Not one shred of evidence was found. Did you do your research like I asked? No, you didn't.

Do it.
What research do you want me to do? Let's make a deal, you read all of the articles on this page, and then tell me what you think they are saying. Once you do that, I will read the articles you want.

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/evidence.html
 
What research do you want me to do? Let's make a deal, you read all of the articles on this page, and then tell me what you think they are saying. Once you do that, I will read the articles you want.

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/evidence.html

I've read it all, and it's seriously lacking. And don't take me for a fool. You don't have the integrity to read anything I ask.

I didn't even ask you to read an article. I asked you to find out what the largest controlled demo in the world was, and then extrapolate to come up with what the numbers would be for the WTC site.

But you won't. That would require education on your part. A strict no go for you people.
 
I've read it all, and it's seriously lacking. And don't take me for a fool. You don't have the integrity to read anything I ask.
That's clearly not true. I just read an article posted in the "28 pages" thread and quoted a part of it.

I guess you want to ignore that evidence that proves your statement is wrong.
 
You assume a CD has to be done a certain way. Your assumption is wrong. Only a real investigation could show how it was done. Your arguments are based on a false assumption and are therefore invalid.

No, they're based on not blowing up stuff accidentally.

In Iraq, the bad guys used cellphones to set off IEDs until we found a way to jam them, and they had to go to command detonation (that means hard-wired to a controller).

There are plenty of documentaries online that will walk you through CD. There is only one way to do CD, the safe way. There is a method and a science behind CD, and none of this was evident on 9/11 nor in the wreckage later.
 
Do you see a PayPal or "donate" button on this site? http://www.journalof911studies.com/

Yes, some 9/11 sites do have buttons to accept donations. This is because it costs money to pay for website hosting, and it costs money to do research. Your refusal to accept this does not mean it is not true.

Have you found a second job to help pay for this?

Why are you here trolling for hours everyday when you could be out working to help fund your new investigation?
 
No.

I have already given the reason why I won't do it. You assume that every CD has to be done in the same way. That assumption is 100 percent wrong.

Let's see what the experts say:

Brett Blanchard- Operations Manager for Protec Documentation Services, a world leader in engineering and vibration consulting for explosive demolition projects. He's also a senior writer and editor at the website Implosionworld.com.

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.ca/2014/10/an-interview-with-explosive-expert.html

OOPS, another expert, another truther fail.
 
Let's see what the experts say:

Brett Blanchard- Operations Manager for Protec Documentation Services, a world leader in engineering and vibration consulting for explosive demolition projects. He's also a senior writer and editor at the website Implosionworld.com.

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.ca/2014/10/an-interview-with-explosive-expert.html

OOPS, another expert, another truther fail.

You must not be reading all of the posts in this thread. I already provided a link to a document that calls all of his "claims" into question.
 

Back
Top Bottom