_THIS_ is what a skyscraper CD (controlled demo) looks like

They were in a helicopter and the explosions were still that LOUD? Wow.
 
Taarkin said:
They were in a helicopter and the explosions were still that LOUD? Wow.
Click to expand...

That was my biggest impression as well. One would think that the explosions needed to fell the WTCs would be even more substantial. I'll bet everybody in Lower Manhattan would have heard them.
 
CTers still try to have me believe that the seismograph readings from the LDEO did not show the plane impact, they showed the demolition charges going off. I asked this, and still await a reply:

Johnny Pixels said:
Ok, I realise some people here don't like my explanation of the lack of time discrepancies, and claim the LDEO data and analysis is 100% correct, right? They also say the spikes show explosives, right?

And the LDEO anaylsis is correct, right?

The LDEO seismologists state categorically that the spikes show that there were no explosives involved. And you guys trust the LDEO data, so that shows no explosives were used.

Secondly, this photo shows one of the plane impacts, but this didn't cause a spike on the readings, or there would also be another spike to represent this event:
crashjc3.jpg


So that means this explosion was too small to register above the background noise, so how big was the explosion that did register? Why wasn't it felt by the firefighters who were carrying out the manhole inspection? There is no record of them on the video making a comment about a massive explosion, other than the impact of the aircraft. This massive explosion should've occured 12 seconds before the impact, but none of the firefighters mention it.

Or look at this video:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-235300116118000688&q=wtc+boom

There is about a 5 second delay between the impact and the boom, speed of sound approx 330m/s, so that puts the distance at about 1600m away from the tower. Except that 17 second before that, there is no sound that matches up with this alledged explosion that must be bigger than the one shown, because this fuel explosion does not allegedly show up on the seismic reading, so this other explosion must be bigger to show up.

And it's not there.
Click to expand...

From this lengthy debate:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2974&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
 
I wonder if the WTC explosives came from Boris Batinov and Natasha. You know, the silent explosives.

As I understand it, explosions, contrary to what Hollywood shows, are mostly about concussive force: How how hard and how fast can the bomb move the air around it?

Moving air makes noise. A lot of noise, in the case of demolitions.
 
Pardalis said:
Nah, from my very laymen point of view, this looks nothing like the WTC collapses. These CTers will see whatever they want to see. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


This was actually addressed all the way back in the FIRST Loose Change thread (before it was called Loose Change I). After hearing so much about how the towers falling resembled a CD, I called the bluff. Does it actually look like a controlled demolition? In response, a different poster (forgive me for forgetting the name, but it is the dude with the Snape avatar) posted a great link to a website that had about 2 dozen videos of controlled demolitions, and not a single one looked anything like the falling of the towers.

It was so stinkingly obvious that the resident CT troll at the time (there have been so many, so I can't remember who) admitted that it DIDN'T look like CD, but that was because they used a different CD approach to make it not look like a CD. Of course, this flies in the face of the initial claims that it looked like a CD, but contradictions never stop the CT.

The initial responses that it looked like a CD were simple impressions based on little information. The only similarity between the falling of the towers and a CD is that buildings fell down. Moreover, the initial impressions of eyewitnesses are not all that important, since we actually have the video of the towers falling, and can compare it to those for CD. If you do that, anyone can see that they are nothing alike.
 
twinstead said:
That was my biggest impression as well. One would think that the explosions needed to fell the WTCs would be even more substantial. I'll bet everybody in Lower Manhattan would have heard them.
Click to expand...

Especially considering the fact that they couldn't possibly have pre-cut the tower supports beforehand (since people had to still work there). I wonder if anyone's done a calculation of the minimum amount dynamite that would have to have been used in order to bring the towers down, assuming the supports were not pre-cut.

I'd wager it would be on a Hoover Dam scale (of course I have no idea). From there, I'd think it would be relatively simple to see if there was a sufficient spike in the purchase of dynamite, thermite, or even gunpowder prior to 9/11.
 
TK0001 said:
Especially considering the fact that they couldn't possibly have pre-cut the tower supports beforehand (since people had to still work there). I wonder if anyone's done a calculation of the minimum amount dynamite that would have to have been used in order to bring the towers down, assuming the supports were not pre-cut.

I'd wager it would be on a Hoover Dam scale (of course I have no idea). From there, I'd think it would be relatively simple to see if there was a sufficient spike in the purchase of dynamite, thermite, or even gunpowder prior to 9/11.
Click to expand...

Huntsman did the calculations for the amount of C4 that would be needed to pulverize the concrete; it was literally tons iirc.
 
Yep.

You'd need about 64 to 80 lbs. of C-4 per column, and there were 47 colums. And that's for a single cut. If you wanted to cut it in multiple locations, you'd need more.

Now, you could shape a charge, but that's going to require you open the walls and gain direct access to the columns, something that's not likely to go unnoticed. But, you could then drop the charge amounts to possibly even a quarter of the above figure. Still a sizeable amount, though.
 
Huntsman said:
Yep.

You'd need about 64 to 80 lbs. of C-4 per column, and there were 47 colums. And that's for a single cut. If you wanted to cut it in multiple locations, you'd need more.

Now, you could shape a charge, but that's going to require you open the walls and gain direct access to the columns, something that's not likely to go unnoticed. But, you could then drop the charge amounts to possibly even a quarter of the above figure. Still a sizeable amount, though.
Click to expand...

So, that's (conservatively) 64 * 47 = 3008 pounds of C4, for one floor.

Given the fact that most CTers point out multiple "squibs", I'd say you can conservatively multiply that amount by at least 9 per tower.

18 * 3008 = 54,144 lbs of C4. I wonder if that's an unusually high amount, in the grand scheme of C4 buying/trading.

Is there a study from anyone in the CD field which states exactly how much C4 they'd use per column, and where they'd put it?
 
Actually, just to correct myself, those 64-80 lb figures would also require direct access to the columns (they are numbers for unshaped charges simply placed on the columns).

If the explosives were hidden, then they'd have to be placed outside the various fireproofing and wall structures, and you're easily looking at doubling that number...not to mention that shaping the charges will be much less effective with greater distance (explosive force drops as the square of the distance, so double distance=4 times as much explosive required).

No matter how you figure it, the best possible scenario (assumin they stripped the columns and placed shaped charges directly on them) is looking at 5 tons or more, and this does not produced a controlled collapse (only cuts the core in a few places). This amount of C-4 turning up missing (or being purchased) would be noted. That's a highly significant amount of ordinance. With an engineering company deployed to an active warzone for a year, we didn't go through that much. And a large part of our mission (about 6 months, with blasts at least thrice daily) was Ammo Point Reduction (setting charges to blow captured munitions, genenrally 2000 lbs.+ at a time).
 
TK0001 said:
I just read all of that. Absolutely fascinating to watch them all play the part of the monkeys who see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil as you break down their arguments one by one. Great, great read.

I also registered to tell them what I thought (in that thread).
Click to expand...

Thanks. Sometimes I get worried I am talking complete rubbish and making a fool of myself because it is so one sided there, so it is nice to hear that I'm not.
 
That says a number of internal supports at the lower level were replaced with wood, to make the demolition easier, and required less explosives, but I might be mistaken. I haven't found it again yet, but I think it was posted near the demolition date, March 18th.
Click to expand...

This is also utterly ridiculous, as the towers did not collapse as a whole. The bottom floors DID NOT MOVE until the top floors fell onto them! In an actual CD the entire building begins to fall at one time. (Nothing you all don't already know.)

But, of course, this is where the experimental CD techniques come in to play. The CD methods that only those gub'ment guys know about.

I wonder how thick the wooden columns were that held up the entire WTC during the experimental CD in which the bottom floors remained standing until the very end? :rolleyes:
 
Johnny Pixels said:
Thanks. Sometimes I get worried I am talking complete rubbish and making a fool of myself because it is so one sided there, so it is nice to hear that I'm not.
Click to expand...
Okay, I just waded through the entire exchange as well. Wow.

Johnny, you deserve a medal, or a moon pie, or something for that. The comments from the moderator, Andrew Johnson, were very...uhm.....interesting (and provided an illuminating look into the mind of a CT'er). I did a spit take when he said he was "90% sure" you weren't a robot. I think he backed off his earlier accusation when he realized even his fellow moonbats weren't touching that one.

I also thought his insistence on you providing your personal contact information to be very curious. All in all, the thread makes for a very interesting psychological case study.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
source: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...of+demolition+charge&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
Click to expand...

Perhaps a more telling example from that list:

130 dB (threshold of pain) surface detonation, 30 lbs of TNT at 1,000ft.

The first time LC claimed the "explosions" logic, I knew it to be BS, because LC shows footage recorded right under the towers as they collapsed. There is not a single explosion blast.

Judging by the size of charges needed to drop something like the WTC, I would expect people in the vicinity to have blown ear drums, etc.

-Andrew
 
Bronze Dog said:
As I understand it, explosions, contrary to what Hollywood shows,
Click to expand...

Another crime we have to answer for... :o

We do actually use explosives, but they're used to create material damage to replicate an explosion, and they are very small charges. If we want to show a car blow apart by an explosion, we'll disassemble the car according to how we want it to "explode", then put it back together with small strategically placed charges positioned to ensure the various "chunks" go where we want them to.

But usually this looks a bit boring. So you add a rather large fuel-bomb to represent the "explosion" itself.

This is done for two main reasons. Firstly, the big roiling fireball looks far more impressive.

But more importantly, it's a lot safer.

If you actually set of an explosive charge big enough to blow a car apart you'd have shrapnel flying in all directions, into both crew and VERY expensive equipment (a 35mm film camera can cost in excess of several million dollars). The concussion from a big explosive blast can damage the glass of a lens.

And most importantly, you have no control over how it will actually look, and afterall, that's the most important thing in film.

By using fuel as the primary visual "explosion" you get a very graphic but very safe "explosion" that you can get right up close to (relatively speaking). Of course, a fuel fireball big enough to engulf a car is not likely to blow the car apart, thus the small explosive charges, placed (usually in a pre-broken structure) to ensure the various pieces fly out just as desired.

The problem with all this is silly CTers then thing this is what an explosion looks like. NEG.

-Andrew
 
gumboot said:
Judging by the size of charges needed to drop something like the WTC, I would expect people in the vicinity to have blown ear drums, etc.
Click to expand...

Yup. It seems to me that if the WTC were really brought down with explosives or super-duper-thermite or whatever, nobody would be having this conversation; with the amount of video trained on those buildings as they fell and the sheer number of eye witnesses, it would be absolutely unmistakable.
 
twinstead said:
Yup. It seems to me that if the WTC were really brought down with explosives or super-duper-thermite or whatever, nobody would be having this conversation; with the amount of video trained on those buildings as they fell and the sheer number of eye witnesses, it would absolutely unmistakable.
Click to expand...

What makes it so sad is the CTers so clearly KNOW this. That's why they parade this video footage taken a mile away in which there's a slight shake of the camera or some vague distant "bang" noises as "proof" of an explosion.

-Andrew
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom