Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[grandmastershek]

Where do you get this stuff??? Explosive did not have to eject steel. Much less so for "hundreds of feet". They just needed to cut it.

Nice job cherry picking. See Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, & David Chandler.

 

[Java Man]

Nice job cherry picking. See Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, & David Chandler.

See what I mean by you guys being your own worst challenge. With statements like that you undermine your own arguments. It is clear to all of us now that those "loud" explosives were not really needed and your "hush-a-boom" theory collapses.

 

[NoahFence]

No not really. Charges well placed would reduce the intensity required to do the job. WTC 7 was evacuated before it fell so there was nobody feet away for them to kill and no airplane crashed into WTC 7. So explosives would not have been compromised.

So that little fire that raged pretty much on every floor for 7 hours couldn't have "compromised" them?

 

[Java Man]

So that little fire that raged pretty much on every floor for 7 hours couldn't have "compromised" them?

No

 

[The Almond]

So that little fire that raged pretty much on every floor for 7 hours couldn't have "compromised" [the well placed hushaboom explosives]?

No

In your opinion, which is based on your years of experience working with explosives and demolishing tall buildings. I presume that, because only a pompous ass would provide an answer like that with nothing else to back it up.

 

[000063]

No not really. Charges well placed would reduce the intensity required to do the job.

Nope. There is literally no way to reduce it to such a degree that it would not produce a noticeable blast, just like any CD with explosives.

WTC 7 was evacuated before it fell so there was nobody feet away for them to kill

But there were people feet away in WTC 1 and 2, which had survivors. There is a reason the average CD has a fairly large safety margin, and it's not 'cause of the chance of debris falling on people. The people nearby on 9/11 would've been well within that margin, in a larger CD than any ever known, yet they did not suffer the typical effects.

and no airplane crashed into WTC 7. So explosives would not have been compromised.

But they were exposed to a piece of a building falling on them, then several hours of fire, and in WTC 1 and 2 the same or similar explosives reduced human bodies to a fine paste that was blown clear through the building, along with several beams the explosives could've been on. No way to predict which beams are or aren't damaged or randomly kicked out of the building. No way to tell the North Tower debris would hit 7.

I also note that you did not address the lack of audio evidence, are selectively interpreting my post as referring only to 7, and are only responding to the one paragraph of my post.

See what I mean by you guys being your own worst challenge. With statements like that you undermine your own arguments. It is clear to all of us now that those "loud" explosives were not really needed and your "hush-a-boom" theory collapses.

You're just asserting the same thing without evidence instead of actually addressing the content of the post you're responding to. You specifically mentioned explosives, yet you require them to not act like typical explosives or anything close to a typical CD.

Gage, Griffin, and Chandler have claimed the steel was actively ejected by explosives. It's a common Truther position.

 

[Java Man]

In your opinion, which is based on your years of experience working with explosives and demolishing tall buildings. I presume that, because only a pompous ass would provide an answer like that with nothing else to back it up.

Actually the topic has been touched here before. Even people with military experience (from the debunker camp) have stated that C4 can be burned without exploding. They claimed its usage as cooking fuel.

 

[Java Man]

But there were people feet away in WTC 1 and 2, which had survivors.

I doubt it. To have been feet away from the collapse initiating charges they would be many stories up the towers and hardly able to get out in time to survive.

 

[000063]

I doubt it. To have been feet away from the collapse initiating charges they would be many stories up the towers and hardly able to get out in time to survive.

More cherry-picking. Do you honestly think no one notices?

They didn't get out in time. The building fell on them, and a handful of people in it survived until they could be extracted.

Okay, so are you claiming the initiating charges were at or around the crash sites? The ones where, as I just pointed out, there was no way to be sure the charges would not be damaged or disabled or knocked clean out of the building by the plane impact? Because I think a beam randomly coming down somewhere in Manhattan with CD charges on it would provoke comment. Are there any reports of Men in Black rushing in to secure the debris that was knocked out the building?

And it would've been random, since there were far too many variables involved to tell what would happen to the beams with any precision. The planes' speed, their height, their angle, their load, the contents of the offices, etc. Several of those were thing it was literally impossible to know, even if someone did have a supercomputer capable of computing it. The closest thing to a decent conspiracy theory is that the USG made AQ think they were doing it themselves, without any secret explosives or nanothermite whatsoever. And even that one has a ton of holes.

 

[NoahFence]

No

 

[The Almond]

Actually the topic has been touched here before. Even people with military experience (from the debunker camp) have stated that C4 can be burned without exploding. They claimed its usage as cooking fuel.

Let me see if I have this straight. Your argument is:
1) Precision C4 explosives (i.e. just large enough to do the job) were placed in WTC 7.
2) WTC 7 was on fire
3) C4 combusts readily
4) In the presence of fire, the C4 will burn up
5) Several hours later, after being on fire, there is sufficient C4 left over to complete the demolition.

Is that really your argument?

 

[000063]

Actually the topic has been touched here before. Even people with military experience (from the debunker camp) have stated that C4 can be burned without exploding. They claimed its usage as cooking fuel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2011_season)#C4_Cook-Off

In other words, it being compromised by fire is what you're using as evidence it would not be compromised by fire? Are you claiming C4 was used? Do you listen to yourself or say the first plausible thing you think of?

 

[NoahFence]

Actually the topic has been touched here before. Even people with military experience (from the debunker camp) have stated that C4 can be burned without exploding. They claimed its usage as cooking fuel.

That would do little more than cause a mess, a major annoyance to building maintenance workers. It wouldn't contribute to any explosive event capable of what we saw on 9/11.

Next?

 

[Java Man]

Do you listen to yourself or say the first plausible thing you think of?

Actually it you who says the first plausible thing that comes to your mind. Mainly due to being exempted from the burden of proof. And no, I'm not claiming that C4 was used, just exemplifying how overgeneralised and fragile your position is. Once again typical of someone who is not required to support his claims. Clearly explosives can be designed to withstand high amounts of heat without going off.

 

[Java Man]

Let me see if I have this straight. Your argument is:
1) Precision C4 explosives (i.e. just large enough to do the job) were placed in WTC 7.
2) WTC 7 was on fire
3) C4 combusts readily
4) In the presence of fire, the C4 will burn up
5) Several hours later, after being on fire, there is sufficient C4 left over to complete the demolition.

Is that really your argument?

Yes pretty much so. Not actually saying "C4" as a brand was use, but some explosive. And the combustion of such explosive requires that a) it be combustible and b) come in contact with the fire. Now if some other explosive was used that does not burn readily, but doesn't explode in a common fire then it wouldn't be consumed. More so if the explosive is enclosed in casing it would not burn either, nor would it explode due to the heat. Thus we arrive to a situation in which enough explosive could remain to do the job.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

That would do little more than cause a mess, a major annoyance to building maintenance workers. It wouldn't contribute to any explosive event capable of what we saw on 9/11.

Next?

At least, as far as you are aware of.

 

[NoahFence]

At least, as far as you are aware of.

Incorrect. I know it for a fact. Care to prove me wrong?

 

[NoahFence]

Yes pretty much so. Not actually saying "C4" as a brand was use, but some explosive. And the combustion of such explosive requires that a) it be combustible and b) come in contact with the fire. Now if some other explosive was used that does not burn readily, but doesn't explode in a common fire then it wouldn't be consumed. More so if the explosive is enclosed in casing it would not burn either, nor would it explode due to the heat. Thus we arrive to a situation in which enough explosive could remain to do the job.

Care to take a whack as to how it got there with nobody knowing about it?

Please tell me you're not one of the idiots who think it all went down on that day.

 

[000063]

Actually it you who says the first plausible thing that comes to your mind. Mainly due to being exempted from the burden of proof. And no, I'm not claiming that C4 was used, just exemplifying how overgeneralised and fragile your position is. Once again typical of someone who is not required to support his claims. Clearly explosives can be designed to withstand high amounts of heat without going off.

I'm not the one using explosives vulnerable to fire to support my claim that explosives can be made invulnerable to fire.

If C4 is used as fuel for a fire, that means, by definition, that it is not "withstanding" fire. It means that it is burning and being consumed by the fire. Your "evidence" actually weakens your position. There is no question the explosives can be made resistant to fire, but they could not have been made resistant to the impact and fires present on 9/11.



You keep cherry-picking people's posts, and hoping no one notices. Really quite transparent. I also like how you accuse me of not providing evidence when I linked to the Mythbusters' test of the matter.

 

[000063]

More cherry-picking. Do you honestly think no one notices?

They didn't get out in time. The building fell on them, and a handful of people in it survived until they could be extracted.

Okay, so are you claiming the initiating charges were at or around the crash sites? The ones where, as I just pointed out, there was no way to be sure the charges would not be damaged or disabled or knocked clean out of the building by the plane impact? Because I think a beam randomly coming down somewhere in Manhattan with CD charges on it would provoke comment. Are there any reports of Men in Black rushing in to secure the debris that was knocked out the building?
And it would've been random, since there were far too many variables involved to tell what would happen to the beams with any precision. The planes' speed, their height, their angle, their load, the contents of the offices, etc. Several of those were thing it was literally impossible to know, even if someone did have a supercomputer capable of computing it. The closest thing to a decent conspiracy theory is that the USG made AQ think they were doing it themselves, without any secret explosives or nanothermite whatsoever. And even that one has a ton of holes.

And don't think no one notices you avoiding posts like this one, either, Starbuck.