Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[triforcharity]

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 is true. However, once burned, it's no longer an explosive, it's just a pile of ashes on the ground.

How's that tail taste champ?

 

[000063]

Yes

About that.

...
The charges could not be at or anywhere close to the crash sites, since there would be a good chance that they would be knocked out of the building or destroyed or damaged by the mindboggling kinetic impact or the fires. And since they could not have have been anywhere close to the impacts, and the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 both started at the impact zone, then that means any charges which were there were way, way down, and would only be useful for speeding up the collapse, which would make them useless if the place would come down on its own. It also means, by definition, they were not the cause of the collapse. And since they can't have been the cause of the collapse, why were charges set in 7?
...

Putting the charges at the impact sites would be like taking files containing evidence against you and throwing them into the air over your local mall's food court. You don't know where it's going, and you don't know if the people below are going to get anything important. There would be a better chance of the charges being "in the wind" than staying in place or being functional enough to work properly, especially after an hour or more of fire.

That's a good question since there were buildings that also got hit by debris and didn't catch fire nor fall to the ground. I figure falling stuff from the airplanes would have had the same odds at hitting other buildings and setting them on fire. Why do you think other buildings did not burn?

So you don't know, you're not admitting it, and trying to change the subject.

That, or you know it was bits from North Tower, which is impossible if it fell straight down. Heck, it went clear over WTC 6 and Vesey Street.

http://wtc7.net/location.html

And while we're at it, look at where the plane parts went. Think of the energy needed to get them that far, now imagine a demo charge attached to a beam. Remember, beams were blown out of the buildings by the plane impacts, in the exact area you say charges were.



You are wrong.

 

[000063]

Seems like logical ******* thinking to me.

I can give you RedIbis saying that be believes the first responders are liars and in on the entire plot to cover up this supposed "Inside Job".

Want it?


Yeah, bookmarked. Thanks for playing.

I love how after he said that, Red tries to both backpedal and frontpedal about what he's actually claiming. He'll say the FRs weren't fooled, but not that they are in on it. It's really quite amusing.

 

[Java Man]

That is true. However, once burned, it's no longer an explosive, it's just a pile of ashes on the ground.

How's that tail taste champ?

Good, you just solved 000063's issue with evidence. Any explosive blown out the building would burn and be a pile of ashes on the ground.

 

[000063]

Good, you just solved 000063's issue with evidence. Any explosive blown out the building would burn and be a pile of ashes on the ground.

Unless, of course, it did not burn up entirely before landing, or at all.

Several personal effects were found in the debris and area, including paper from the plane.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Personal_Effects_and_the_Crash-Proof_Passport
http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

C4's flammability relates more to it surviving the fire than the impact and getting blown out of the building. By your own logic, if it can catch fire and burn up in a few minutes, then it would also burn when exposed to fire for an even longer period.
And as you can clearly see in the evidence above, not everything knocked out of the buildings was on fire. C4, for example, is a very stable explosive, and could probably survive the trip down without detonation. And even if it or whatever explosive did burn up, you'd still have the much less flammable detonator and wiring attached.

There is no way to be sure it would be destroyed or work, or to tell where it would end up, so it wouldn't be there in the first place, unless the masterminds are insane.

 

[triforcharity]

Good, you just solved 000063's issue with evidence. Any explosive blown out the building would burn and be a pile of ashes on the ground.

That is not the topic, at all.

You make the twisted claim that c4 can burn, therefore c4 can survive fire and still be able to do any kind of work.

Which, is just stupid.

But, that's a common thread with most of your claims and comments.

 

[Java Man]

And as you can clearly see in the evidence above, not everything knocked out of the buildings was on fire. C4, for example, is a very stable explosive, and could probably survive the trip down without detonation. And even if it or whatever explosive did burn up, you'd still have the much less flammable detonator and wiring attached.

What about thermite? Would it also survive the fireball and the plunge to the ground intact?

 

[Java Man]

You make the twisted claim that c4 can burn

Actually it was beachnut and his daddy who used it in vietnam. I'm just made reference to him in my initial post about C4 when I mentioned it was a debunker who claimed the flammability of C4.

 

[000063]

Let's see some C4 detonating.




Now imagine the amount needed to cut through a steel beam.

Now imagine that amount landing in the street and, let's say, exploding, during a terrorist attack.

I think someone would notice.

 

[Java Man]

Now imagine the amount needed to cut through a steel beam.

Now imagine that amount landing in the street and, let's say, exploding, during a terrorist attack.

I think someone would notice.

So you do believe C4 was used ?

 

[Oystein]

Sorry to interrupt your kindergarden games with Java Man, but I found something really interesting: An expert speaks out on microspheres in WTC dust: None other than Jeff Farrer, TEM Lab Manager at BYU and co-author of Harrit e.al.'s paper at Bentham:

Here is an AE911T news item from last year:
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/439-jeff-farrer-phd.html

Studying

When he was able to later study samples of steel beams from the towers which had “obviously gone through some melting,” his expertise was critical in the discovery of different phases in the metal samples, including the steel, iron oxide, iron sulfide, and iron silicate phases. He explains that various techniques such as X-ray analysis and diffraction were used to determine the “…structure of the phases along with the chemistry.”

As a result of his research, Dr. Farrer “…came to the conclusion that in order to create these phases, [the metal would] have to reach a minimum of about 1100° C. ...”

Sooo we don't need 1540°C, we only need 1100°C according to this expert

 

[Java Man]

Sooo we don't need 1540°C, we only need 1100°C according to this expert

So?

 

[000063]

More quote mining.

What about thermite? Would it also survive the fireball and the plunge to the ground intact?

Heck if I know.

But since it would be in a container of some sort, either the container breaks when it hits the ground, or it remains intact. in both cases, the container is evidence. Unless the container was designed to burn up when the Thermite is triggered and caught fire as well, in which case it wouldn't be resistant to fire enough to last an hour or so.

And then there's the fact that thermite is somewhat...flashy.



So even if it did catch fire and burn up on the ground, someone would notice. If there's any risk of that happening, the bad guys can't risk it.

Are you conceding the point about explosives/C4 survival?

Actually it was beachnut and his daddy who used it in vietnam. I'm just made reference to him in my initial post about C4 when I mentioned it was a debunker who claimed the flammability of C4.

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.

So now your explosive both will and won't burn up depending on whether it's been knocked out of the towers or not.

Quote-mining sentence fragments now.

 

[Java Man]

And then there's the fact that thermite is somewhat...flashy.

That photo up there of the debris flying out. That looks pretty flashy to me. Thermite burns quite fast to be that flashy. Do you think it would last that long on the way down? I doubt it.

So now your explosive both will and won't burn up depending on whether it's been knocked out of the towers or not.

Not mine, yours. Now explosives conveniently burn inside the tower, but flame out outside or fail to ignite altogether in the fireball. How convenient for you. You're lucky the burden of proof isn't on you.

 

[000063]

So you do believe C4 was used ?

No.

I was using that as evidence that C4 couldn't have landed in the street and detonated. I have also pointed out you can't have an explosive that would not withstand one sort of fire and withstand another, longer fire.

But keep trying to distract from your Schrodinger's Explosive.

Thermite and not-thermite.
Flammable and inflammable.
C4 and not C4.

For a guy who says we don't support our positions, the only evidence you've presented over the past few pages has been introduced by debunkers and other Truthers.

 

[Java Man]

I have also pointed out you can't have an explosive that would not withstand one sort of fire and withstand another, longer fire.

And neither can you. Or are you implying that the jet fuel fireball was cooler than the office fire? Cool enough not to ignite the explosive.

 

[000063]

That photo up there of the debris flying out. That looks pretty flashy to me. Thermite burns quite fast to be that flashy. Do you think it would last that long on the way down? I doubt it.

Well, I thought about it, and I realized that the bigger question is the container it is in. If the container is capable of withstanding an hour of fire + the impact, then it probably will make it to the ground without igniting, and be found. However, if it is not capable of withstanding the impact and fire, it's pretty poor planning on the bad guys part, and makes the whole thing impossible.

Not mine, yours. Now explosives conveniently burn inside the tower, but flame out outside or fail to ignite altogether in the fireball. How convenient for you. You're lucky the burden of proof isn't on you.

What? If an charge would burn up from the impact explosion, it would burn up from the ensuing fires. If it wouldn't burn up from the impact explosion, someone would probably find it on the ground. Doesn't matter if it's thermite or an explosive.

Either someone finds it, or it can't withstand the fires. There is no Door No. 3.

I've already presented plenty of evidence.

 

[000063]

More quote mining.

And neither can you. Or are you implying that the jet fuel fireball was cooler than the office fire? Cool enough not to ignite the explosive.

Citation needed.

You did see me point out that not everything knocked out of the towers was on fire, right? Remember, I don't have to find an explosive I am claiming was not there. You are the one suggesting the explosive might just burn up and dispose of itself.

Anyone willing to calculate the energy of, oh, a 1kg brick of C4 hitting the ground if dropped from the impact area, with or without lateral motion?

 

[Java Man]

More quote mining.Citation needed.

You did see me point out that not everything knocked out of the towers was on fire, right?

Anyone willing to calculate the energy of, oh, a 1kg brick of C4 hitting the ground if dropped from the impact area, with or without lateral motion?

Yes I noticed you mentioned that not everything was on fire, that prompted my question. I guess that answers my question, you do believe the explosive would survive the fireball without igniting. How convenient for you. I guess the thermite wouldn't ignite either.

BTW the energy of the brick would be v^2/2, where v is most surely terminal velocity in m/s I'd guess around 40 m/s

 

[tsig]

Quite a contradictory statement there. I have taken the reigns on this discussion and I'm answering the posts a I see fit. If I respond to the post in question as per your demand I would be receding control of this discussion.

So that's why we're going in a circle.