Building demolished from the top down.

[Java Man]

Correct. They would have been destroyed. Explosives are not like road flares. They don't like heat. You cannot light them with a bic lighter.

C4 can be burned without causing detonation. It's on record being used as heat source to warm rations.

C4 requires a detonation in the order of 4500-5000 m/s to detonate. Aviation jet fuel-air mixtures detonate at around 1800 m/s. No way it can set off C4.

You can shoot the explosive it will not go off. Unless you shoot it with a HEAT round, but I don't think the aircraft carried M1A2 main battle tanks in the luggage compartment.

So all this going on about the terrible effects of heat and smoke and what not is just making you look bad. I know that the burden of proof is on mean, but that doesn't mean you can claim anything you please without looking it up first.

 

[alienentity]

Another in a long, relentless line of satire that is often so effectively carried out it's difficult for regulars to see through it. You sir have earned my seal of approval for an art form.

Carry on now

I thought Telltale Tom was serious....hehe.

 

[Java Man]

Please present your evidence that there was something to find.

In the video of the start of the collapse you can see squibs forming in the floors above the collapse zone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz6VxxVdXuA

It is clear that something is moving inside causing the pressure that pushes that smoke out suddenly.

 

[triforcharity]

C4 can be burned without causing detonation. It's on record being used as heat source to warm rations.

C4 requires a detonation in the order of 4500-5000 m/s to detonate. Aviation jet fuel-air mixtures detonate at around 1800 m/s. No way it can set off C4.

You can shoot the explosive it will not go off. Unless you shoot it with a HEAT round, but I don't think the aircraft carried M1A2 main battle tanks in the luggage compartment.

So all this going on about the terrible effects of heat and smoke and what not is just making you look bad. I know that the burden of proof is on mean, but that doesn't mean you can claim anything you please without looking it up first.

Which is what I was saying. They would not detonate. I am fully aware of that.

BTW, I have hilited the most ironic part of your ENTIRE post. I laughed.

 

[triforcharity]

In the video of the start of the collapse you can see squibs forming in the floors above the collapse zone.

[qimg]http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/4584/wtc1startsquibs.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz6VxxVdXuA

It is clear that something is moving inside causing the pressure that pushes that smoke out suddenly.

You think that TINY little plume was the result of an explosive/floor collapse?

LOL!! Someone get me one of those dogs we see all the time around here.

Two things. Notice it is only shown in ONE spot, not over the entire floor?

Also, notice that this occurs about 1/2 of one second after the roof begins to fall?

You're grasping at straws, but I keep taking them away and burning them.

Keep trying though.

How long before we get a complete theory from you?

 

[LightningTeg]

C4 can be burned without causing detonation. It's on record being used as heat source to warm rations.

C4 requires a detonation in the order of 4500-5000 m/s to detonate. Aviation jet fuel-air mixtures detonate at around 1800 m/s. No way it can set off C4.

You can shoot the explosive it will not go off. Unless you shoot it with a HEAT round, but I don't think the aircraft carried M1A2 main battle tanks in the luggage compartment.

So all this going on about the terrible effects of heat and smoke and what not is just making you look bad. I know that the burden of proof is on mean, but that doesn't mean you can claim anything you please without looking it up first.

So now its C4 that brought buildings down? C4 that makes no sound?

 

[Java Man]

You think that TINY little plume was the result of an explosive/floor collapse?

Not an explosive, but clearly somehow pressure is raised there quickly.

Two things. Notice it is only shown in ONE spot, not over the entire floor?

I'm not sure how many windows are out, but no more than one is needed to clearly see the phenomenon. In other words one spot is good enough.

Also, notice that this occurs about 1/2 of one second after the roof begins to fall?

Yes, it wouldn't be too helpful for my case if it happened before right? The squib occurring at the visible collapse zone is also happening many stories up. That's the whole point. The push out you see shortly after the collapse starts (as you say half a second) is also being seen many stories up. Same thing happening many stories up.

 

[Java Man]

So now its C4 that brought buildings down? C4 that makes no sound?

Could be could be not. But certainly it puts doubt on the half baked arguments brought here to counter the explosives. C4 is just an example. But you can put look up secondary explosives and choose one as a replacement for C4. Secondary explosives are very stable and totally debunk the claims here that explosives would just pop with the fire or the initial impact.

 

[LightningTeg]

Could be could be not. But certainly it puts doubt on the half baked arguments brought here to counter the explosives. C4 is just an example. But you can put look up secondary explosives and choose one as a replacement for C4. Secondary explosives are very stable and totally debunk the claims here that explosives would just pop with the fire or the initial impact.

Well I assuming you, like most truthers, think that theres no way the weight of the building above the crash could possibly just crush the mass below it. In this case, explosives would be needed on all floors to allow it to collapse "controlled". There is nothing to be seen or heard of that nature during their decent.

 

[beachnut]

Could be could be not. But certainly it puts doubt on the half baked arguments brought here to counter the explosives. C4 is just an example. But you can put look up secondary explosives and choose one as a replacement for C4. Secondary explosives are very stable and totally debunk the claims here that explosives would just pop with the fire or the initial impact.

What happens with explosives in fire, please present references with your dissertation? Guess what happens when those explosives are in your mind, in your fantasy?

There were no explosives used on 911, so there are no half baked claims made, since the explosives claims are delusional. Bring on your evidence for explosives. No noise. No blast effects. No fused iron from thermite. zip, for 911 truth.

There were no explosives, to prove otherwise is your problem. Without evidence, and there is none, you fail. Go ahead, fail some more. Squibs, do those have blood, or what? Serious, squibs were debunked on 911. Do you go more nonsense you think is evidence?

 

[deeper]

....

 

[Dave Rogers]

C4 can be burned without causing detonation. It's on record being used as heat source to warm rations.

Yes, which is what would have happened to any C4 charges in the zone where fires burned for about an hour and then collapse initiated.

C4 requires a detonation in the order of 4500-5000 m/s to detonate. Aviation jet fuel-air mixtures detonate at around 1800 m/s. No way it can set off C4.

Heat is not velocity. How hot does C4 need to get before it'll burn?

I know that the burden of proof is on mean, but that doesn't mean you can claim anything you please without looking it up first.

True, apparently according to union rules that's your job.

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

Could be could be not. But certainly it puts doubt on the half baked arguments brought here to counter the explosives. C4 is just an example. But you can put look up secondary explosives and choose one as a replacement for C4. Secondary explosives are very stable and totally debunk the claims here that explosives would just pop with the fire or the initial impact.

strawman argument.

it isn't the explosives cooking off... it is the detonators failing at 300C. (you know what truther EXPERT Danny Jowenko says).

And
it is the idea that somehow the explosives would survive the impact of jets moving at 500mph.

Or that the explosives wouldn't just burn off (like heating rations as c4) on their own.

And
they were positioned in a way that was super sekret.
that was unobserved by the people on the floors
and was never reported to anyone.

 

[aggle-rithm]

In the video of the start of the collapse you can see squibs forming in the floors above the collapse zone.

[qimg]http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/4584/wtc1startsquibs.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz6VxxVdXuA

It is clear that something is moving inside causing the pressure that pushes that smoke out suddenly.

Something is MOVING inside a heavily damaged, burning building? Shocking!

Please present your evidence that explosives caused the movement.

 

[A W Smith]

the explosive in C4 is RDX

C4 can be burned without causing detonation. It's on record being used as heat source to warm rations.

C4 requires a detonation in the order of 4500-5000 m/s to detonate. Aviation jet fuel-air mixtures detonate at around 1800 m/s. No way it can set off C4.

You can shoot the explosive it will not go off. Unless you shoot it with a HEAT round, but I don't think the aircraft carried M1A2 main battle tanks in the luggage compartment.

So all this going on about the terrible effects of heat and smoke and what not is just making you look bad. I know that the burden of proof is on mean, but that doesn't mean you can claim anything you please without looking it up first.

well then you better tell these folks

http://www.petroexplo.com/catalog/RDX-MSDS.pdf

SECTION V REACTIVITY DATA
STABILITY: RDX is a military high explosive. RDX has been assigned the United Nations Organization
Classification of Class 1, Division 1 (mass detonating) based on the Department of Defense Explosives
Hazard Classification Procedures, Army Technical Bulletin 700-2.
CONDITIONS TO AVOID: Avoid shock, heat, electrostatic discharge, impact, impingement and friction.
High explosive will detonate when exposed to sufficient energy level.
MATERIALS TO AVOID: Avoid alkalis, particularly at elevated temperatures, strong acids and physical
sensitizers such as glass, sand, and metal fragments..

 

[aggle-rithm]

Could be could be not. But certainly it puts doubt on the half baked arguments brought here to counter the explosives. C4 is just an example. But you can put look up secondary explosives and choose one as a replacement for C4. Secondary explosives are very stable and totally debunk the claims here that explosives would just pop with the fire or the initial impact.

What evidence led you to believe that explosives were used?

I'm not talking about something you dredged up in an attempt to justify what you already believed. I'm talking about what led you to that belief in the first place.

Personally, I think you started with the belief and only then began to look for evidence to support it, in true truther fashion.

 

[triforcharity]

Not an explosive, but clearly somehow pressure is raised there quickly.

A multi-ton hat truss collapsing most certainly is going to displace alot of air.

I'm not sure how many windows are out, but no more than one is needed to clearly see the phenomenon. In other words one spot is good enough.

Sure

Yes, it wouldn't be too helpful for my case if it happened before right?

The squib occurring at the visible collapse zone is also happening many stories up.

So, you say there are TWO squibs? Where? I seem to have missed it.

That's the whole point. The push out you see shortly after the collapse starts (as you say half a second) is also being seen many stories up. Same thing happening many stories up.

That is the one that I am talking about. And it's not many stories, it's maybe 3-4 from what I can see in your grainy YouTube Video.

 

[aggle-rithm]

In the video of the start of the collapse you can see squibs forming in the floors above the collapse zone.

[qimg]http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/4584/wtc1startsquibs.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz6VxxVdXuA

It is clear that something is moving inside causing the pressure that pushes that smoke out suddenly.

Actually, it is clear that something is moving OUTSIDE.

The roof of the tower has clearly started to come down when the so-called "squibs" appear. In fact, that is evident in the side-by-side pictures you showed here...the roofline is lower in the second one, as the puffs of smoke appear.

 

[Java Man]

Well I assuming you, like most truthers, think that theres no way the weight of the building above the crash could possibly just crush the mass below it. In this case, explosives would be needed on all floors to allow it to collapse "controlled". There is nothing to be seen or heard of that nature during their decent.

You assume wrong and you clearly show that you are not following the conversation. I think that there is clearly a way that the weight above could crush the mass below once the collapse is initiated. In other words continued collapse does not require explosives. As show in the video at the start of the thread.

 

[Java Man]

well then you better tell these folks

http://www.petroexplo.com/catalog/RDX-MSDS.pdf

And you're trying to counter what with that? My statement still stands. Let me clarify that C4 burning is toxic. So it is best kept from heat and fire for toxicity reasons not because it will explode. Shock etc well that's your standard security practices. Once again we see folks like you from the debunker camp bring arguments without any numbers. It's a nice piece of information, but as you say "no hard facts". Just some recommendations being overused in a desperate attempt to counter my numbers.