General 9/11 Conspiracy Discussion

Hellbound said:
Just to point out something...

You do realize, I hope, that fireballs are usually not a feature of most explosions? The "movie" style of explosion is usually not; it's a deflagration using gasoline because it's more visually appealing. Not an explosion. ...
Click to expand...

Slight correction:

Explosions are any rapid expansions of gas that go "boom".

The supersonic ones (those that are actually capable of cutting steel) are called "detonations"
The sub-sonic ones (gasoline fire balls, but also black powder) are "deflagrations"
 
MicahJava said:
...
"my ears were turned inside out"
Click to expand...

Were the ears actually turned inside out?
If not, please interprete this expression for us!

(Hint: We have no way of telling what specific injury is referenced here, only that it affected the ears. )
 
MicahJava said:
There was a bulge, but the same reasoning could be applied there. And nobody ever said how big the bulge actually was. Looking upwards on the surface of a building, any small irregularity can be noticed. That's why the reports of the top of the North Tower leaning were probably just due to the perimeter wall units that were bowing inwards.
Click to expand...


Just to let you know that the signs of bowing and bulges were clues that fire was weakening the steel structures of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 to the point of failure which eventually resulted in their collapse.
 
Oystein said:
Slight correction:

Explosions are any rapid expansions of gas that go "boom".

The supersonic ones (those that are actually capable of cutting steel) are called "detonations"
The sub-sonic ones (gasoline fire balls, but also black powder) are "deflagrations"
Click to expand...

Eh, I'll take it. We always used explosion to refer specifically to detonation, but that could well be a local usage :)

ETA: Although typically, deflagrations go "woosh" more than "boom" (them there are technical terms, mind you) ;)
 
skyeagle409 said:
Now, let's take a look at the Verinage demolition process which does not use explosives and tell us why dust plumes and debris are ejected from the buildings as they collapse.


Verinage Demolition Without Explosives

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o
Click to expand...

If you jump on Twitter now you can see several building collapsing in Mexico City today from the earthquake that results in smoke, dust and debris.
 
Hellbound said:
Eh, I'll take it. We always used explosion to refer specifically to detonation, but that could well be a local usage :)

ETA: Although typically, deflagrations go "woosh" more than "boom" (them there are technical terms, mind you) ;)
Click to expand...

I guess that these terms do not have one single definition that is consistently used across all fields of human activity where they play some role. ;)

The distinction I defined I think is relevant to all those who want to employ explosions to destroy stuff.
Deflagrations have different destructive mechanisms than detonations, and being sub- or supersonic is an important delineation: Supersonic blasts shatter material - you can't shoot a bullet with supersonic explosives, for example.
A sub-sonic bomb can be very effictive in making an enclosed buiding burst, when exploded in the middle of it - they just create a sphere of overpressure that does the work well.
Supersonic devices work best when in direct contact with the material you want to break.

Thermobaric bombs are an example of subsonic low explosives; their advantage is high energy density and a relatively long duration of the blast. Pretty nasty against living things.
And the fuel that exploded down the WTC shafts acted a lot like thermovaric bombs!
 
MicahJava said:
There is such a thing as "insignificant warping" of parts of a 47 story building. The steel perimeter and the cladding tiles could have been the only thing causing the movement noted on the transit. This fact was made into a rumor that the entire building was leaning. A firefighter named "Miller" actually thought he could see the building leaning with the naked eye. But nobody has ever provided any photographic evidence for that.
Click to expand...


Explain why WTC 7 is seen leaning toward the south during its collapse as seen at timeline 0:13 - 0:15.


WTC 7 Tilts South During Collapse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU
 
Oystein said:
I guess that these terms do not have one single definition that is consistently used across all fields of human activity where they play some role. ;)

The distinction I defined I think is relevant to all those who want to employ explosions to destroy stuff.
Deflagrations have different destructive mechanisms than detonations, and being sub- or supersonic is an important delineation: Supersonic blasts shatter material - you can't shoot a bullet with supersonic explosives, for example.
A sub-sonic bomb can be very effictive in making an enclosed buiding burst, when exploded in the middle of it - they just create a sphere of overpressure that does the work well.
Supersonic devices work best when in direct contact with the material you want to break.

Thermobaric bombs are an example of subsonic low explosives; their advantage is high energy density and a relatively long duration of the blast. Pretty nasty against living things.
And the fuel that exploded down the WTC shafts acted a lot like thermovaric bombs!
Click to expand...

Yep. And actually, for knocking down a structure, deflagrations tend to be more effective. The pressure wave from them is much smaller (lower force), but applied over a long period of time, and has been shown to be more effective in knocking down walls and similar. In layman's terms, they "push", while actual detonations tend to cut or shatter as you said. Even among high explosives, cratering charges (designed to move dirt, such as ANFO) tend to be much lower-velocity than cutting charges (designed to cut through materials, such as C-4) for precisely that reason.

I do, however, disagree with your statement about bullets; you can use high explosives to fire a bullet (technically, that's what a fragmentation grenade is), if you have a weapon system designed for such. That being said, it's typically undesirable: the slower-burning propellants work better (and are safer to use) in that application.

I spent quite a bit of time in the military as a medic assigned to Combat Engineering units (CE's make things into many smaller, high-velocity things), including several deployments to Iraq, and a lot of experience in seeing explosions of various types and treating injuries from the same. I also cross-trained as a Combat Engineer myself.
 
MicahJava said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP1HJoG-1Pg

At the 0:18 mark, you can see a fireball coming out of the base of the J.L. Hudson Department Store.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I already have hands on experience with explosive materials and devices.

You say "fireball" because you have a popular fiction pov.

The vid you linked shows a flash consistent with a high explosive detonation, and in fact is not much different from the first vid I linked in my post that shows an M18 AP mine being detonated. This makes sense because in a CD typical charges are in the 1 - 2 lb. range.

The "fireballs" you have cited from other ill-informed sources are not consistent with HE detonation, and one of your cited witnesses clearly stated they thought the fire was due to jet fuel in the building.

Posting a video of a CD does not answer my question. The observable evidence is that HE does not produce "fireballs" at detonation. What material was indisputably present at the scene that does create fireballs of the type you (in actuality the sources you choose to believe) describe?
 
Oystein said:
Were the ears actually turned inside out?
If not, please interprete this expression for us!

(Hint: We have no way of telling what specific injury is referenced here, only that it affected the ears. )
Click to expand...
The description suggests it affected the outer ear. Blast injury typically affects the tympanic membrane and other parts of the middle ear. Hence, not blast injury. At least not from high explosives. I wanted to clarify it, since it mentions the ears were somehow affected but I didn't take that as meaning the kind of ear injury caused by an explosion.
 
MicahJava said:
There is such a thing as "insignificant warping" of parts of a 47 story building. The steel perimeter and the cladding tiles could have been the only thing causing the movement noted on the transit. This fact was made into a rumor that the entire building was leaning. A firefighter named "Miller" actually thought he could see the building leaning with the naked eye. But nobody has ever provided any photographic evidence for that.
Click to expand...

Nobody has provided evidence?

If you'd bother to read through the multitude of 911 threads here you'd find those pictures showing both towers and 7 leaning as the fires did their job.

Right off the bat you base your claim on a lie that is easily debunked, and has been debunked multiple times on this board.
 
MicahJava said:
The bulge was apparently noticed a while after the engineer made his prediction, so they already had the idea planted in their minds.
Click to expand...

I can guarantee that the majority of the thousands of FDNY and first responders near WTC7 never heard what the engineer said.

We're still waiting for you to tell us how many high rise fires your engine company has fought.
 
MicahJava said:
Is anybody here suggesting that Ron was hit by a large piece of rubble? Otherwise, let's review his injuries:

Unconsciousness for 2-6 days

"Big gash in my head", fractured skull

"Broken bone in my back"

Burns on 60%-80% of body

Contacts glued to eyes

"my ears were turned inside out"
Click to expand...

How's that work? does he (or you) not know how long he was out or was he in and out for 2 to 6 days?

That counts out HE.

If a victim of an HE detonation is close enough to receive that level of burn injury, the burns would be nothing more than an injury noted when the body parts of the corpse were recovered.

Levels of burn injury in individuals surviving an explosive detonation are under 30%. - Individuals suffering burns from HE above that 30% would typically also suffer various traumatic amputations and internal injuries that would make survival highly unlikely outside of immediate trauma care.

The injuries you cite are very consistent with being inside a structure that failed.
 
MicahJava said:
There is such a thing as "insignificant warping" of parts of a 47 story building. The steel perimeter and the cladding tiles could have been the only thing causing the movement noted on the transit. This fact was made into a rumor that the entire building was leaning. A firefighter named "Miller" actually thought he could see the building leaning with the naked eye. But nobody has ever provided any photographic evidence for that.
Click to expand...

So the guy who didn't realize that Carol Marin and Carol MarTin are two different people thinks he knows better than people who were present at the time? :dl:
 
Hellbound said:
Yep. ...

I do, however, disagree with your statement about bullets; you can use high explosives to fire a bullet (technically, that's what a fragmentation grenade is), if you have a weapon system designed for such. ...
Click to expand...
Huh? In my conception, a bullet (aimed, stable trajectory) is pretty much the opposite of a fragmentation grenade :confused:

Hellbound said:
I spent quite a bit of time in the military as a medic assigned to Combat Engineering units (CE's make things into many smaller, high-velocity things), including several deployments to Iraq, and a lot of experience in seeing explosions of various types and treating injuries from the same. I also cross-trained as a Combat Engineer myself.
Click to expand...
Hehe that means I can be a bit proud I didn't make a complete fool of myself? :p
 
Hellbound said:
Yep. And actually, for knocking down a structure, deflagrations tend to be more effective. The pressure wave from them is much smaller (lower force), but applied over a long period of time, and has been shown to be more effective in knocking down walls and similar. In layman's terms, they "push", while actual detonations tend to cut or shatter as you said. Even among high explosives, cratering charges (designed to move dirt, such as ANFO) tend to be much lower-velocity than cutting charges (designed to cut through materials, such as C-4) for precisely that reason.

I do, however, disagree with your statement about bullets; you can use high explosives to fire a bullet (technically, that's what a fragmentation grenade is), if you have a weapon system designed for such. That being said, it's typically undesirable: the slower-burning propellants work better (and are safer to use) in that application.

I spent quite a bit of time in the military as a medic assigned to Combat Engineering units (CE's make things into many smaller, high-velocity things), including several deployments to Iraq, and a lot of experience in seeing explosions of various types and treating injuries from the same. I also cross-trained as a Combat Engineer myself.
Click to expand...

There was a code-word classified program during Vietnam that involved salting VC weapons caches with ammunition that would explode when used. The idea was that if Nguyen Van Nguyen got the word that his AK or SKS might explode if fired, he might call it a day.

Optimistic, yes. Successful, no.

The big brains decided that they would produce copies of typical combloc 7.62 x 39mm rounds with C4 as the propellant charge. The premise was that the rounds would explode and ruin someone's day.

Rounds in typical combloc packaging were issued to LRRP and various other sneaky-pete types with orders to insert the doctored rounds into discovered weapons caches.

It sounds like a good idea, except evidently nobody tested the theory.

Eventually there was a live-fire test conducted by the Foreign Science and Technology Center where the doctored ammo was fired through various combloc weapons, using a fixture for mounting the weapon.

None of the weapons detonated in the tests, although there were functioning issues due to total case head separations in some examples.

After these tests disproved the earlier assumptions of explosive detonation, one of the testers, Charlie Leatherwood, fired an AK from the standing position in full auto, firing the 30 rounds in one burst. Other than the split steel cases, no damage was noted to the shooter or the weapon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom