No Explosives Here?

atavisms said:
In the paper he calculates the energy sinks required, based on the size and expansion rates of the massive dust clouds (which are so well documented) When he calculated the gravitational potential of the building and compared it to the sink required expand the clouds, it was off by a factor of like 10. (I believe)
Click to expand...

So you're another one of those guys who believe at least 1000 tons of explosives went off in each Tower, eh?

Can't you find the slightest teeny little problem with that argument on your own?
 
atavisms said:
actually I think that was Jim Hoffman's own early research which he abandoned for more compelling lines of inquiry.

In the paper he calculates the energy sinks required, based on the size and expansion rates of the massive dust clouds (which are so well documented) When he calculated the gravitational potential of the building and compared it to the sink required expand the clouds, it was off by a factor of like 10. (I believe)

I am not sure why you would think a highly redundant structure would turn it self to dust in midair, but there you are/
Click to expand...


Structures damaged by fire cannot collapse and generate large clouds of dust?

 
atavisms said:
Fact is, (as much as I hate saying it) if you believe no explosives were used to accomplish this destruction, then it is clear that you are the one being fooled. The facts are what they are. You can choose to ignore them; many people do. Believe me, I understand this impetus for this.
Click to expand...

Why would I ignore facts ?

So how did the explosives survive the plane impacts? Facts please.
 
orphia nay said:
How does the sputter of nanothermite burning cause debris to be thrown hundreds of feet?

I don't expect a sensible answer. I'm just asking for them:
Click to expand...

I dont think anyone in their right mind can argue the destruction of Towers 1&2 were not highly explosive events. So that is our starting point and something we can be absolutely certain of. Whatever thermite does!
Besides, no one is saying it was regular thermite/

pls read below. tx


How Could Thermite, an Incendiary, Demolish the Towers, When Buildings Are Normally Demolished Using High-Explosive Cutter Charges?
As is obvious from a review of the literature on energetic materials, thermite-based pyrotechnics can be engineered to have explosive power similar to conventional high-explosives while providing greater energy density and much greater stability. Thus, aluminothermic cutter charges similar to the shaped charges used in commercial demolitions are entirely feasible. However, a variety of forms of thermite might be used to demolish a steel-framed skyscraper in a way that uses no cutter charges at all, as in this Hypothetical Blasting Scenario, (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html) which posits three types of aluminothermic pyrotechnics: a thermate incendiary coating sprayed onto steelwork, nano-thermite kicker charges placed near steelwork, and thin-film nano-composite high-explosives distributed throughout the building. The strategically applied incendiary coatings, ignited several minutes before the building's take-down, weaken the structure; but obvious failures start only when the kicker charges break key supports, and the thin-film high-explosives begin pulverizing the building from the initial failure zone outward

Why Weren't Demolition Charges Triggered by the Plane Crashes or the Subsequent Fires?
Perhaps the plane crashes did trigger some of the charges. If so, their blasts were lost in the jet-crash fireballs, and their damage was insufficient to budge the Towers' tops. Thermite incendiaries in the core ignited by the crash would not be visible over the fires, unless dislodged to the building's exterior, as apparently happened in the South Tower. However, this probably wasn't an issue because, in contrast to conventional explosives, thermite has a very high ignition temperature -- above 2200ºC. Thus, thermitic incendiaries used around the crash zones could have been designed to survive the fires. As for thermitic explosives, they could have been designed to detonate only on exposure to the very extreme conditions of temperature and pressure provided by specialized detonators, and to deflagrate (merely burn) in response to the kinds of pressures and temperatures produced by the plane crashes and fires. As a fail-safe, the demolition sequence could have been programmed to be triggered by premature ignitions of pyrotechnics.

How Could the Demolition Equipment Have Been Installed in the Twin Towers Without Tenants Noticing?
The simple answer is by disguising the equipment as normal building components, so that not even the workers installing the components are aware of the concealed pyrotechnics. Three aspects of the Hypothetical Blasting Scenario that facilitate this are: the stability and specificity of ignition conditions achievable with aluminothermic pyrotechnics, minimization of the required access to steelwork, and the use of a completely wireless ignition control system.

*from - http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
 
facepalm.gif
 
johnny karate said:
Please provide a list of witnesses and on-site investigators who believe explosives were used to bring down any of the WTC buidlings on 9/11.
Click to expand...


He has skipped over this now three time since its been reposted, and responded to several posts after this request has been made.

I suggest that no one engage this fraud until he answers the question above.
 
Bolded some parts of that for you.You might want to look for "were" and "was",they tend to be more reliable.

atavisms said:
I dont think anyone in their right mind can argue the destruction of Towers 1&2 were not highly explosive events. So that is our starting point and something we can be absolutely certain of. Whatever thermite does!
Besides, no one is saying it was regular thermite/

pls read below. tx


How Could Thermite, an Incendiary, Demolish the Towers, When Buildings Are Normally Demolished Using High-Explosive Cutter Charges?
As is obvious from a review of the literature on energetic materials, thermite-based pyrotechnics can be engineered to have explosive power similar to conventional high-explosives while providing greater energy density and much greater stability. Thus, aluminothermic cutter charges similar to the shaped charges used in commercial demolitions are entirely feasible. However, a variety of forms of thermite might be used to demolish a steel-framed skyscraper in a way that uses no cutter charges at all, as in this Hypothetical Blasting Scenario, (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html) which posits three types of aluminothermic pyrotechnics: a thermate incendiary coating sprayed onto steelwork, nano-thermite kicker charges placed near steelwork, and thin-film nano-composite high-explosives distributed throughout the building. The strategically applied incendiary coatings, ignited several minutes before the building's take-down, weaken the structure; but obvious failures start only when the kicker charges break key supports, and the thin-film high-explosives begin pulverizing the building from the initial failure zone outward

Why Weren't Demolition Charges Triggered by the Plane Crashes or the Subsequent Fires?
Perhaps the plane crashes did trigger some of the charges. If so, their blasts were lost in the jet-crash fireballs, and their damage was insufficient to budge the Towers' tops. Thermite incendiaries in the core ignited by the crash would not be visible over the fires, unless dislodged to the building's exterior, as apparently happened in the South Tower. However, this probably wasn't an issue because, in contrast to conventional explosives, thermite has a very high ignition temperature -- above 2200ºC. Thus, thermitic incendiaries used around the crash zones could have been designed to survive the fires. As for thermitic explosives, they could have been designed to detonate only on exposure to the very extreme conditions of temperature and pressure provided by specialized detonators, and to deflagrate (merely burn) in response to the kinds of pressures and temperatures produced by the plane crashes and fires. As a fail-safe, the demolition sequence could have been programmed to be triggered by premature ignitions of pyrotechnics.

How Could the Demolition Equipment Have Been Installed in the Twin Towers Without Tenants Noticing?
The simple answer is by disguising the equipment as normal building components, so that not even the workers installing the components are aware of the concealed pyrotechnics. Three aspects of the Hypothetical Blasting Scenario that facilitate this are: the stability and specificity of ignition conditions achievable with aluminothermic pyrotechnics, minimization of the required access to steelwork, and the use of a completely wireless ignition control system.

*from - http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
Structures damaged by fire cannot collapse and generate large clouds of dust?

Click to expand...

Im sure they can.

But that highly redundant 110 steel reinforced office towers hit 15 storeys from the roof (N Tower) cannot pulverize themselves in 16 seconds, evaporating almost 40% of it's occupants and strewing it's pulverized and steel remains in a 800 foot radial pattern is, I believe,, the issue at hand.
(the towers 'burned' for roughly 60 and 100 minutes) and then exploded...
boom boom boom boom boom.. all the way down (basements intact!)

WTC 7's textbook implosion in 7 seconds (free fall speed = explosives)
(who cares if its slightly faster of slower) It the speed and symmetry that can only mean explosives.

Griffin, making perfect sense, writes of WTC 7:

""When we combine the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 immediately appears to be a controlled demolition, (http://wtc7.net/videos.html) with the twofold fact that all prior collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have been produced by explosives, and that the collapse of WTC 7 has many features in common with planned implosions, the view that it was a planned implosion should be the natural assumption. The burden of proof should be placed on any claim that WTC7 was brought down by something other than explosives, because this is the wild, empirically baseless hypothesis devoid of any historical precedent, which is just the kind of hypothesis that one expects to hear from irrational conspiracy theorists.

However the fact that the conspiracy theory being supported by this wild, scientifically and historically baseless speculation is the government's own is, for some reason, thought to justify turning things upside down. In this topsy-turvy framework, those whose theory is consistent with science, the empirical facts, and all historical precedent are ridiculed as nutty conspiracy theorists while those who articulate wildly speculative theory, which contradicts all prior experience, several laws of science, and numerous empirical facts, are considered the sober, sensible thinkers, whose pronouncements can be trusted without examination.""
(Debunking 9/11 Debunking 120p)
 
I swear to God we'll be back at 4,000 jews didn't go to work and the planes had pods next. The twoof carousel never stops.

Round and round and round and round and round and round
 
atavisms said:
Im sure they can.

But that highly redundant 110 steel reinforced office towers hit 15 storeys from the roof (N Tower) cannot pulverize themselves in 16 seconds, evaporating almost 40% of it's occupants and strewing it's pulverized and steel remains in a 800 foot radial pattern is, I believe,, the issue at hand.
Click to expand...


Why not?
 
Reactor drone said:
Bolded some parts of that for you.You might want to look for "were" and "was",they tend to be more reliable.



Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
I dont think anyone in their right mind can argue the destruction of Towers 1&2 were not highly explosive events. So that is our starting point and something we can be absolutely certain of. Whatever thermite does!
Besides, no one is saying it was regular thermite/

pls read below. tx


How Could Thermite, an Incendiary, Demolish the Towers, When Buildings Are Normally Demolished Using High-Explosive Cutter Charges?
As is obvious from a review of the literature on energetic materials, thermite-based pyrotechnics can be engineered to have explosive power similar to conventional high-explosives while providing greater energy density and much greater stability. Thus, aluminothermic cutter charges similar to the shaped charges used in commercial demolitions are entirely feasible. However, a variety of forms of thermite might be used to demolish a steel-framed skyscraper in a way that uses no cutter charges at all, as in this Hypothetical Blasting Scenario, (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t..._scenario.html) which posits three types of aluminothermic pyrotechnics: a thermate incendiary coating sprayed onto steelwork, nano-thermite kicker charges placed near steelwork, and thin-film nano-composite high-explosives distributed throughout the building. The strategically applied incendiary coatings, ignited several minutes before the building's take-down, weaken the structure; but obvious failures start only when the kicker charges break key supports, and the thin-film high-explosives begin pulverizing the building from the initial failure zone outward

Why Weren't Demolition Charges Triggered by the Plane Crashes or the Subsequent Fires?
Perhaps the plane crashes did trigger some of the charges. If so, their blasts were lost in the jet-crash fireballs, and their damage was insufficient to budge the Towers' tops. Thermite incendiaries in the core ignited by the crash would not be visible over the fires, unless dislodged to the building's exterior, as apparently happened in the South Tower. However, this probably wasn't an issue because, in contrast to conventional explosives, thermite has a very high ignition temperature -- above 2200ºC. Thus, thermitic incendiaries used around the crash zones could have been designed to survive the fires. As for thermitic explosives, they could have been designed to detonate only on exposure to the very extreme conditions of temperature and pressure provided by specialized detonators, and to deflagrate (merely burn) in response to the kinds of pressures and temperatures produced by the plane crashes and fires. As a fail-safe, the demolition sequence could have been programmed to be triggered by premature ignitions of pyrotechnics.

How Could the Demolition Equipment Have Been Installed in the Twin Towers Without Tenants Noticing?
The simple answer is by disguising the equipment as normal building components, so that not even the workers installing the components are aware of the concealed pyrotechnics. Three aspects of the Hypothetical Blasting Scenario that facilitate this are: the stability and specificity of ignition conditions achievable with aluminothermic pyrotechnics, minimization of the required access to steelwork, and the use of a completely wireless ignition control system.

*from - http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t..._residues.html
Click to expand...

Yes, Thanks for that.
Unfortunately, that is what we are stuck with (the postulating of theoretical hypotheses in an effort to explain observed events) until we have a actual investigation.
What's a 'real' investigation?
One that is independent, with subpoena power.
One that takes into account actual events and testimony is a good place to begin.
 
atavisms said:
Im sure they can.

WTC 7's textbook implosion in 7 seconds (free fall speed = explosives)
(who cares if its slightly faster of slower) It the speed and symmetry that can only mean explosives.
Click to expand...

Almost stundie worthy.

So you think the speed of collapse indicates explosives but the speed(distance over time) isn't important?
 
atavisms said:
Yes, Thanks for that.
Unfortunately, that is what we are stuck with (the postulating of theoretical hypotheses in an effort to explain observed events) until we have a actual investigation.
What's a 'real' investigation?
One that is independent, with subpoena power.
One that takes into account actual events and testimony is a good place to begin.
Click to expand...

That or you could make the hypothetical aluminothermic cutter charges yourselves, offer to demo a building with them, then study the remains of the structure for comparable evidence to the WTC.
 
There were no explosions from bombs on 9/11. I should know, I've been near several hundred of them. I was approximately 3 miles away when the bombs started detonating. My mother, be the cautious woman she was, got us the hell out of dodge. We went to my Aunt's home in West Sacramento, about 20 miles away, where we sat listening to bombs cook off all day long. Yes, we heard the explosions 20 miles away. You read that right.

Then in June 2008, I was about 100 feet from this. The shockwave from this blast was especially strong. It actually shoved me backwards and I nearly lost my balance. I'm not exactly a small person either. The sound of the blast made my ears ring for about thirty seconds afterward.

The commom thread is I have never heard an audio of the attacks that have the distinct, unmistakable sound of an explosion. Even the videos with sound effects added can't duplicate the sound, not even closely. Anyone else whose been near explosions a lot will concur.

Why bring this up? Just to expedite the conversation so we can get to the heart of the matter:

Hush-a-Booms.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
atavisms said:
Yes, Thanks for that.
Unfortunately, that is what we are stuck with (the postulating of theoretical hypotheses in an effort to explain observed events) until we have a actual investigation.
What's a 'real' investigation?
One that is independent, with subpoena power.
One that takes into account actual events and testimony is a good place to begin.
Click to expand...
Independent of what? Who's going to serve the subpoenas? You really haven't thought this through have you?
 
Hokulele said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

bc of how they were designed. And how they were damaged and destroyed.
The cores could hold up several times the weight of the buildings and they were just shredded! Where do you reckon all that energy came from?

The lightest part of the building, the tops?
You see a pile driver in the videos?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html

Just because a thing seems highly unlikely to us does not mean it is not so.
Belief should be base don one thing, available evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom