No Explosives Here?

[TJM]

You should tell him to check this out of he really really does not know.

http://911physicstruth.wetpaint.com/

Now that we've established that you're disinfo, can you tell us which letter agency you're from?

 

[JohnG]

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

Wouldn't it have been simpler to just crash planes into the buildings?

 

[twinstead]

Wouldn't it have been simpler to just crash planes into the buildings?

Yea, but that's not cool and exciting in a 007ish kind of way. Where's your imagination?

 

[GlennB]

Yea, but that's not cool and exciting in a 007ish kind of way. Where's your imagination?

I picture MiB swinging, Tarzan-like, from steel wires in the great dark voids that were the WTC cores, planting magnetothermitic devices on the vast steel columns as they went. Maybe they had knee+elbow mounted suction devices too! Then getting the hell out of there on their jetpacks, barely escaping as the blast wave follows them (see "Almost Any Hollywood Action Movie" for the gist)

Or maybe I've been smoking atavisms pot ?

 

[TJM]

I picture MiB swinging, Tarzan-like, from steel wires in the great dark voids that were the WTC cores, planting magnetothermitic devices on the vast steel columns as they went. Maybe they had knee+elbow mounted suction devices too! Then getting the hell out of there on their jetpacks, barely escaping as the blast wave follows them (see "Almost Any Hollywood Action Movie" for the gist)

Or maybe I've been smoking atavisms pot ?

The elevator shafts were hermetically sealed, remember? No oxygen, no jetpack. Debunked. I rule.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

As someone who lived through the events in Manhattan, saw the streets littered with body parts and lost two good friends, I find it difficult to fathom where all this hate comes from.

Who are your friends that were lost on 9/11? What were their names?

 

[fourtoe]

for tri

Who decided to give him an eye patch?

atavisms, I would like you to take back and apologize for the statements you made about the debunkers here on JREF. I think this is justified because you haven't answered my questions, others questions and when you have responded you were only proven wrong and wrong again.

Come on...show some class.

 

[atavisms]

Nope.

what there isn't are satisfactory explanations!

Ive read the 'debunkings' (from NIST and others)
I only wish they were as compelling as the evidence.
i.e:
-The squibs are actually air from the pancaking compression of the falling floors (20-30 storeys below in one clear video clip where they shoot out on both visible sides of the tower simultaneously),

-WTC7's column 79 'new phenomenon'

-The 'evaporated' flange and 'swiss cheese' steel examined in appendix C of the FEMA BPAT is not damage from explosives because they has been 'oxidized' (aluminothermics contain a fuel and an oxidizer),

-It wasn't 'freefall speed' it was 40% slower
etc..

 

[atavisms]

Wow. What a load of nonsense.

First of all the Niels Bohr Institute is the department of Physics and Astromony, and has nothing to do with the department of chemistry.

B: He is just an assistant professor at the department of chemistry and has no doctorate, the institute leader is called Mikael Bols.

III: The dean of natural science at KU is called Nils Andersen, and he resigned after the article had been published.

How about addressing the issues? ANY OF THEM
The fact that you must focus on such a trivial thing only shows how weak your position is.

but thank you for pointing it out, I was writing from memory
I do see many PhD's involved in 911 Truth and obviously f'd up, my bad.

 

[beachnut]

...

-WTC7's column 79 'new phenomenon'

... etc..

Oops, thermal expansion, around since the big bang. Sorry, your lack of knowledge is feeding your need to believe moronic delusions about 911.

Hoffman's ideas on thermite are insane. Got to love the thermite in the ceiling tiles it ranks right up there with beam weapons and nukes. Do you think Hoffman is smoking too much dope, or just a meth addict?

 

[Scott Sommers]

How about addressing the issues? ANY OF THEM
The fact that you must focus on such a trivial thing only shows how weak your position is. but thank you for pointing it out, I was writing from memory
I do see many PhD's involved in 911 Truth and obviously f'd up, my bad.

Ya, but they're PhDs in Literature or Religious Studies. Take a look at the members of 911 Scholars for Truth. They are not an army of scientists. And many of their names would have been gathered long ago. Who knows how they feel these days about their membership.

I don't know who you are or whether comments like this come from genuine confusion or diagnosable mental illness. If there was any number of legitimate physical scientists or engineers with REAL experience who supported controlled demolition, you'd be hearing about this all the time. Instead, it's Alex Jones, Jack Blood and - as far as I can tell - TWO real scientists. And both of them have stated, even if there was thermite, the WTC was demolished using vast quantities of conventional explosives.

My question once again: why has no one from Texas Tech Combustion Lab not been involved in this? They're a leader in experimentation on thermite. If Jones had really found thermite, they would be the people to go to for validation. He wouldn't need religions studies scholar Kevin Barrett telling use that Muslims don't kill people and that Steven Jones found thermite.

 

[TJM]

what there isn't are satisfactory explanations!

Ive read the 'debunkings' (from NIST and others)
I only wish they were as compelling as the evidence.
i.e:
<snip>

Of course it's more compelling to ignore everything else and simply let your imagination run wild. That'll get at the truth.

 

[atavisms]

way to address the topic there Scott
- my point was that we dont any authority to us the obvious.
(besides, we all know what a PhD is worth, never more than the character of the person whose name is on it)
That you do not (or possibly cannot) come to the same conclusion looking at the same material and yet not be able to express why and then pick on some trivial point (Harrit's creds) and now resort to ad hominem attacks all show how weak your position is.

 

[atavisms]

I don't know who you are or whether comments like this come from genuine confusion or diagnosable mental illness.

oops there you go..


way to address the topic there Scott
- my point was that we dont any authority to us the obvious.
(besides, we all know what a PhD is worth, never more than the character of the person whose name is on it)
That you do not (or possibly cannot) come to the same conclusion looking at the same material and yet not be able to express why and then pick on some trivial point (Harrit's creds) and now resort to ad hominem attacks all show how weak your position is.

 

[WildCat]

oops there you go..


way to address the topic there Scott
- my point was that we dont any authority to us the obvious.
(besides, we all know what a PhD is worth, never more than the character of the person whose name is on it)
That you do not (or possibly cannot) come to the same conclusion looking at the same material and yet not be able to express why and then pick on some trivial point (Harrit's creds) and now resort to ad hominem attacks all show how weak your position is.

All your claims have been addressed here in great detail, you and the rest of the truthers just ignore all that.

The fact is, 8 years after 9/11 not a single truther has a single article published in an actual, real (not pay-to-publish) science or engineering journal.

It's time for you to put up or shut up. If you have science on your side, it should be no problem at all for you to get something published.

If, OTOH, all you have is speculation, hunches, "it doesn't look right", lies, spin, and cherry-picked quotes out of context then it's youtube and conspiracy sites.

So far it's 100% the latter, which leads rational people to conclude that the truth movement is full of bovine feces.

Now, when do you suppose Jones et al will stop wanking off and submit a inside jobby-job paper to a real science or engineering journal? Because only then can they hope to gain a shred of credibility.

Of course, perhaps it's not credibiity they're after but $ from books, dvds, t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc. Or maybe they just like to be heros of the ignorant. At any rate, whatever their motive, they have failed the credibility test.

Capiche?

 

[atavisms]

Who are your friends that were lost on 9/11? What were their names?

how is that any of your business?
All of you (you especially sword of confusion bc look what you grabbed onto, even sending me a message with a group of questions! Their names and where they worked is none of your business. I spent 12 years working down there and was there in '93.
You want my employment ref's?- get a life dh!)

anyway.. you are all very sad bc not one has addressed a single point so as to explain or refute it.

You will say, "because they have all been addressed already" "dont you know how to use the search button"
Not by you they haven't - the debunkings are weak and do not explain observed events. That no one can paraphrase even a single aspect is indicative of this.

here is a perfect example :

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/hand-waving-the physics-of-911-by-david-griscom.pdf

Truth is I wanna make fun of twoofers too..
but you guys are making it very difficult - thanks for trying.

 

[TokenMac]

anyway.. you are all very sad bc not one has addressed a single point so as to explain or refute it.

WOW that is one huge lie.

 

[beachnut]

... I do see many PhD's involved in 911 Truth and obviously f'd up, my bad.

You don't have a single PhD in structural engineering who has built or is qualified to build a building as tall as the WTC towers and WTC7 who supports the lies you post.

The top expert on the WTC in structural engineering says it was a gravity collapse after the impacts and fires. You have some fringe PhDs (less than 0.001 percent of all PhDs) who are paranoid conspiracy theorists making up lies about 911.

I believe the structural engineer who built the WTC, not a few fringe nut case conspiracy theorists with a PhD with no evidence.

 

[atavisms]

Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
As someone who lived through the events in Manhattan, saw the streets littered with body parts and lost two good friends, I find it difficult to fathom where all this hate comes from.

Who are your friends that were lost on 9/11? What were their names?

911 in numbers
-(Percentage of Americans who knew someone hurt or killed in the attacks: 20 )
http://www.google.com/search?q=911+...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


The question was - where does all this division come from?

This about trying to uncover what really happened. At the very least all of you can agree there were (and so, are) problems with the way it was investigated, (structural steel disposed) admin's reluctance to investigate properly, (FEMA? 600k??)
9/11 comm leaving out mineta's and jennings (and many many many others, ignored most of the victim's families questions) etc etc..
These are a few of the facts/

Whatever 'side' u'r on you should be able to concede the legitimate problems and the questions. If you cannot even do that, and you make it, 'us against them' then you have not only lost your objectivity, you're also helping to cover up for mass murder (in your blind zeal to attack the america-hating, meth smoking, twoofers)

 

[atavisms]

WOW that is one huge lie.

like?