As a qualified (by two separate commands) submarine conventional weapons handing supervisor (CWHS) I feel safe in pointing out that 1) Explosives don't react well to extreme shock and that 2) Explosives don't react well to high prolonged heat.
Both of those conditions (extreme shock and prolonged high heat) were observed by thousands of eyewitnesses, in hundreds of photographs and in at least
43 videos.
During my training I had to read through thousands of pages in at least a dozen manuals describing mishaps involving all types of conventional explosives and the results of those accidents and incidents. Every major accident involved shock and/or heat. There were a few incidents where shock and/or heat were involved but they were nowhere near 9/11 levels (weapons dropped a few feet, fires that affected the walls of bunkers/lockers and such) and no type of detonation (low order or high order) occurred.
These are the things I know for a fact. There is no wiggle room. There is absolutely nothing to contend. If any pre-planted explosives existed in any of the buildings they would've gone off long before the idiots who make that stupid claim say they did, either from the initial shock or the subsequent fires.
Before any wannabe explosive experts chime in... yes I'm aware that certain explosives can burn and not explode, the fault in that reasoning is that the burster/booster that actually makes the explosive detonate cannot survive the events seen on 9/11. They are much less stable than the compound that they are mated with.
