Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

[Hellbound]

I could be wrong here, but I do have some knowledge on shelf-life items and it seems to me that the "useful" life of an explosive is less than the shelf life--in other words, once you pull that item from the shelf and install it, your time to use it decreases. I am not sure if that applies to C-4 type explosives, but I do know that it applies to other types of high explosives.

Well, yeah, to a degree. Think of shelf-life as something similar to MTBF on electronics or mechanical items. That's the average time at which the product will still be nominally useable.

Of course, after 10 years, it'll be at the low end of the spectrum, and that's the average shelf life. Some will be bad at 5 years, some might last 15, but it's a toss up.

Heck, MREs are a case in point. Supposed to have a 7 year shelf life, I got a rotted one that was 3 years old.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I could be wrong here, but I do have some knowledge on shelf-life items and it seems to me that the "useful" life of an explosive is less than the shelf life--in other words, once you pull that item from the shelf and install it, your time to use it decreases. I am not sure if that applies to C-4 type explosives, but I do know that it applies to other types of high explosives.

According to this site, http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/C4.htm,

Shelf life: At least 10 years under good conditions

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Hmm, interesting theory. It would explain a lot. I mean, no one can really be that stubbornly, mind-numbingly stupid, right? (Right??)

On the other hand, I'm not so sure. I suspect Christophera might indeed be the real deal. Hard to decide which is the more reprehensible form of low-life -- a spammer, or a slime merchant.

I'm still keeping my money on paranoid/delusional schizophrenia.

 

[Hellbound]

According to this site, http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/C4.htm,

Nice link.

Looked around on that site a bit though, ad found something that may work as a point fo comparison for some of us.

They list black powder, as well, and make the statement that it has a 15 year minimum shelf life.

So, if you've worked with black powder (hand loading, muzzle loaders, etc), then this gives you an idea on what shelf-life means. Personally, I don't know anyone that would use 15-year old black powder.

Heck, cased military ammunition isn't used after less time than that, because the number of split cases and "pop and no kicks" increases (pop and no kick is the pohrase to describe when a bullet fires, but there's no recoil, because the bullet jams in the barrel. This is common with older rounds, because the powder doesn't blow with enough force [it's partially oxidized] to force the bullet out. Can be very dangerous if you try to fire again after this).

 

[Apollyon]

Another issue is that C4 requires a primer, a blasting cap, to cause it to detonate. Not only must the shelf life of C4 be considered, but that of the primer as well.

Either way, to imagine that at least some of that C4 and the primers remained chemically viable while encased in concrete, which would be a pretty nasty alkaline environment to be encased in, for almost 40 years requires a complete suspension of logical thought.

 

[Belz...]

Call all you want, the explosively sheared columns match very closely the results of a lininear shaped charge and we have many, many columns sheared like that all over ground zero in locations not possible to get a shear to, and the interior box columns were 100% butt welded.

It was shown to you that the columns had been cut by people FOLLOWING the collapse. Why are you beign dishonest ?

Your images will not show concrete because the concrete was inside the steel framework. So the farmes were also. I'e said this many times but there are many that chose to ignore this fact.

How can you claim this ? If both construction images and destruction imagines show no concrete, how can you possibly know that it existed ?

Actually the sunrise photo does show the silhouette of concrete and light reflects off the inside concrete walls from the smooth steel forms.

Mirrorcrete!!

There are better battles than wars for rights. Battles to defeat deceptions that warmongers create and perpetuate qualify.

Sitting on your bottom and writing posts is fighting for rights ?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Nice link.

Looked around on that site a bit though, ad found something that may work as a point fo comparison for some of us.

They list black powder, as well, and make the statement that it has a 15 year minimum shelf life.

So, if you've worked with black powder (hand loading, muzzle loaders, etc), then this gives you an idea on what shelf-life means. Personally, I don't know anyone that would use 15-year old black powder.

Heck, cased military ammunition isn't used after less time than that, because the number of split cases and "pop and no kicks" increases (pop and no kick is the pohrase to describe when a bullet fires, but there's no recoil, because the bullet jams in the barrel. This is common with older rounds, because the powder doesn't blow with enough force [it's partially oxidized] to force the bullet out. Can be very dangerous if you try to fire again after this).

Whoa. I don't use 2-year old black powder, let alone 15 yr-old. I suppose if it was stored in a sealed container, in optimal temp/humidity conditions I might consider it, but not in everyday usage.

ETA: Does remind me though, I've got some handload 6mm rounds to go through as they're getting a tad old. Can't trust that BLC-2 smokeless they use in the 5.56 shells j/k huntsman.

 

[RandFan]

That image can only be 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS because this image of the SPIRE taken a second before from the same camera shows 14 inch thick interior box columns providing scale. NOTE: The slight curve to the fine vertical elements. There is actually nothing else it can be except rebar.

Says who? How can you make out rebar from that distance. I don't think the resolution of the photo is that high. I'm not an expert. Do you have something other than assertions?

Could you in photo-shop or an equivalent draw a scale for comparison and tell us how you arrived at that scale?

Having read some on forensic evidence I can tell you that scale must first be established. We need something empirical. Simply stating that the columns are 14 inch doesn't resolve this. Show us. What documentation do you have that these are 14 inch box columns?

 

[Belz...]

Whatta' mean? I'm kicking your ass in this intellectual battle and you DO know what you are talking about with high explosives

That. HAS to be the funniest post of the entire thread.

but you don't know the WTC and cannot explain any of what happened without the exact same logic I use. Tell rummy to send some one not afraid of the truth.

OH NO!! Huntsman is a government plant!!!!

 

[RandFan]

Okay, let us try. Suggest some other structural design element which this might be other than a cast concrete core.

No, that is not how this works. It's your job to prove your claim. I'm not an expert in any area that would give me a basis for making forming a conclusion. I have no idea what that is. I would simply be speculating as I suspect that is what you are doing. However I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. You will have to provide evidence though.

 

[kevin]

I found this 18-minute documentary on building the WTC, I believe it used to be shown at the WTC visitor center. It's at a PBS site. I haven't watched the whole thing, but did watch the beginning and searched through the transcript.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html

My favorite bit:

The exterior walls were designed to bear much of the weight of the towers, as well as all of the wind loads. The only internal supports would be in a central core of columns.

Searching the transcript for concrete all I can find is mentions when they were building the column footings and the walls used to hold the water back (which were yard thick concrete) while excavating.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I'd like to remind you, as I have before, that this seemingly favorite image of yours is a still frame of a demolition in progress. It, by itself, is inconclusive. Surely you understand as much.

We have another frame of the core lower. From another perspective, after eliminating the impossible, it is conclusive.

No. Not "conclusive" at all. Really now.

These pics of yours (realizing they're not "yours," of course, merely favorites) show nothing that couldn't be interpreted numerous ways. To claim that they represent a concrete core is silly in the extreme. Moreover, other pics and diagrams presented here reveal no such core, which, for this layman, effectively counters your claims. I suspect you're wedded to this point and will not divorce yourself of it ever, but so be it.

Now, on to my request that you state how many undamaged floors there were above the impact points in WTC 1 and WTC 2. There is a reason I'm engaging you on this matter.

 

[pgwenthold]

A quick comment. I have been impressed here, and elsewhere, at the impressive photo interpretation skills of CTers everywhere.

"impressive photo interpretation skills" is common among conspiracy theorists. See, for example, David Lifton in Best Evidence ("see this black blob? It's a blond haired shooter on the grassy knoll wearing a button-down suit with a spotted bow-tie aiming an AK-47 while on one knee." Amazingly, the people you can obviously see standing right next to him didn't seem to notice that he was there), or your random moon hoaxers.

Now if they start throwing out "shadow angles," we know they have sunk as low as possible.

 

[gumboot]

Either way, to imagine that at least some of that C4 and the primers remained chemically viable while encased in concrete, which would be a pretty nasty alkaline environment to be encased in, for almost 40 years requires a complete suspension of logical thought.

No, no, they drilled holes remember? Then during the power outage (it was only in one building but that's a minor detail) they came and poured parafin into the holes so they could detonate the C4.

Makes perfect sense.



-Andrew

 

[gumboot]

Mirrorcrete!!

*slaps head* of course. That must be where the Iraqis are hiding their WMD. In mirrorcrete bunkers! All makes sense. Iraq was invaded due to connections to the 9/11 terrorists. The 9/11 terrorists were the American government who built the WTC with mirrorcrete. Now the same mirrorcrete is being used in Iraq to hide the WMD so that opinion of the current government dropps and continues to drop so that...
um...
okay that's all I got...
anyone else wanna continue?

-Andrew

 

[Hellbound]

No, no, they drilled holes remember? Then during the power outage (it was only in one building but that's a minor detail) they came and poured parafin into the holes so they could detonate the C4.

Makes perfect sense.



-Andrew

Heh.

To be fair, you can use parrafin to make some compunds that might be able to act as detonators, but it's iffy. It's advocated as an improvised measure, but less reliable than actual detonators using primary explosives.

Of course, drilling all those holes would have been rather obvious. Becuase if, especially as Christophera has claimed, the explosion was distributed, you'd have to drill a lot of holes. If you have C-4 in a solid column ground to top, and you only put a detonator in the bottom, it isn't all going to go off at once and I'd suspect much of it wouldn't detonate at all. You'd have to place detonators at various points all along the length, at least one per floor, for that single c4 column.

Not to mention the difficulty in knowing where to drill, as well as making sure you don't drill into your explosive. C4 is pretty stable, but becomes less so as it ages, and while unlikely, you can't discount the probability fo accidentally setting it off from a hot drill bit or (if you accidentally drilled into the rebar or the steel column) sparks (combined with the pressure produced by the drilling).

 

[Hellbound]

*slaps head* of course. That must be where the Iraqis are hiding their WMD. In mirrorcrete bunkers! All makes sense. Iraq was invaded due to connections to the 9/11 terrorists. The 9/11 terrorists were the American government who built the WTC with mirrorcrete. Now the same mirrorcrete is being used in Iraq to hide the WMD so that opinion of the current government dropps and continues to drop so that...
um...
okay that's all I got...
anyone else wanna continue?

-Andrew

...so that the people who are anti-government will point out the problems, and can be identified. Then, the government will mark them for visits by MiBs, and "find" the hidden WMDs.

It all makes sense now!

 

[Christophera]

It was shown to you that the columns had been cut by people FOLLOWING the collapse. Why are you beign dishonest ?
How can you claim this ? If both construction images and destruction imagines show no concrete, how can you possibly know that it existed ?



Mirrorcrete!!

Sitting on your bottom and writing posts is fighting for rights ?

Columns not cut after demo. Prove there is a method to do this.

Plenty of Concrete shown in demolition.

 

[Christophera]

No, it is not conclusive. Stating that it is such does not make it so. You are simply engaging in rhetoric, demanding that people accept what you say the photos represent. When I ask you for explanations you ignore me. Please respond with more than rhetoric?

It is conclusive since you have no alternative.

 

[Christophera]

It's the shadow of a building behind the dust cloud.

This disproves your suggestion. The core, the
core lower