• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

No excuse for not testing for explosives

dommyboysinjapan said:
elbe,

"And I doubt bringing the towers down was their goal"

Why speculate that it was not their goal to bring down the towers? According to the mainstream beliefs the 93 bombings were an attempt to do exactly that and the same network of bad guys were involved. Why wouldn't that have been their goal? If it was just to hurt people why not fly the airplanes into a baseball stadium or other more crowdwd area?
Click to expand...

I dunno,why don't we ask the highjackers?......oh,wait they're all brown bread.
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
BigAl,

""Explosion" is just a synonym for "loud noise" and there were lots of loud noises heard on 9/11."

Yes 'explosion' could be a synonym for 'loud noises' or for electrical things popping due to the fire, etc. Could explosion also mean the noise that follows from an explosive? Of course this could be a possibility as well.

Real science vigorously explores all reasonable possibilities, not just the ones that support a pre-determined conclusion.
Click to expand...

If you knew anything at all about real science you would not be a truther.You're young,get another hobby,get out,get a life,there is no future in trutherism,it is dead and buried.
 
Quad4_72 said:
What about the firefighters who don't think 9/11 was an inside job and who predicted that WTC7 was going to collapse from extensive damage and fire? Do you think the same of their opinions?
Click to expand...

He will ignore them,like all good little truther delusionauts do.
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
Sabrina,

"THERMITE IS AN INCENDIARY DEVICE, NOT AN EXPLOSIVE."

So? What's your point? Please show me where I said that thermite was an explosive. I am aware that it is not.

I wonder if you are aware that thermite can be mixed with explosive materials to make explosives that are considerably quieter than RDX or C4.
Click to expand...

Requesting citation yet again....
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
BigAl,

""Explosion" is just a synonym for "loud noise" and there were lots of loud noises heard on 9/11."

Yes 'explosion' could be a synonym for 'loud noises' or for electrical things popping due to the fire, etc. Could explosion also mean the noise that follows from an explosive? Of course this could be a possibility as well.

Real science vigorously explores all reasonable possibilities, not just the ones that support a pre-determined conclusion.
Click to expand...

What is this? Gumbi Science Land? Ace Baker says it was a nuclear weapon. Jammi says it was a space-based energy beam something like Star Trek. Some have even suggested a role for UFOs. Personally, I think it was Ninjas breaking the beams with their barehands. Let's have a conference where we explore all the alternative 911 theories. Let's explore all the possibilities: mermaids, crocodiles, Hello Kitty. This should keep you busy for ages.
 
Seymour Butz said:
Oystein said:
There is no such thing as a "quiet explosive" that could conceivably used to crack steel.

Explosives create shockwaves, and it is the shockwave that both severs the steel beam AND creates the sound - the power of the explosive is directly correlated with the decibel level. If your explosion is quiet, it will not break your steel.
Click to expand...
Is this right?

I always understood that cutter charges used the explosive element for 2 reasons:

1- to turn the copper liner into a hot (6000F, IIRC ) plasma
2- to direct that plasma onto the target

Not saying that a simple explosive couldn't work.... but damn, it would have to be frickin' huge. IIRC, NIST estimated a charge of 7 lbs of RDX for a hypothetical charge at 7, which would result in 130-140 dB. I'd take wild stab and say that through simple explosive "weight" with no copper plasma, etc, you'd be looking at what, 10-20x the charge? And 140-145 dB?
Click to expand...
A copper liner is not necessary in a cutting charge, as explosives with high brisance (such as C4) are capable of cutting steel by itself (even without utilizing the Munroe Effect). You're right though, it is not nearly as efficient as a shaped charge, so a large amount would be required. If my calculations are correct (using basic military demolition calculations), for a plain "explosive on steel" cutting charge on a W14x730 column (which I believe Column 79 of WTC7 was), not even taking into account the welded on side cover plates, would require roughly 80 pounds of TNT, 60 pounds of C4, or about 50 pounds of RDX. Whatever type of H.E. is used, it would be extremely LOUD (I have no idea what the actual decibel level would be).

dommyboysinjapan said:
MattTheTubaGuy,



Then you heard wrong.
demolitionexpertsquestion911. blogspot .com
Click to expand...
I like how the Combat Engineer on that list pretends to be an expert on controlled demolitions. Tim Erney states:
"In the Army Reserves I was trained in demolitions so I know what it takes to bring down a building in a controlled symmetrical fashion and what it looks like when it happens."​
I too was a Combat Engineer and was also trained in demolitions, and I can confidently say that bringing down a building in a "controlled symmetrical fashion", is not part of the 12B training.

The rest of this list of "demolition experts" is highly suspect. The fact is that anyone who has ever used High Explosives should know that had a charge been detonated in any of the WTC buildings, everyone within a half-mile (at least) would have heard the unmistakable "crack" that is inevitable when something detonates at 20,000+ ft/second.

dommyboysinjapan said:
I wonder if you are aware that thermite can be mixed with explosive materials to make explosives that are considerably quieter than RDX or C4.
Click to expand...
That may be one of the dumbest claims I've ever heard from a truther. And it's great that you can confidently make such a ridiculous claim- exposing your ignorance- without a hint of doubt. Congratulations. :rolleyes:
 
twinstead said:
I never really trusted Hello Kitty. Just sayin'
Click to expand...

I once mail-ordered a Hello-Kitty "massage stick" and had it sent directly from Japan to a woman friend.

Well, this is not the place to describe what part of her body this stick is intended to massage... :blush:
I still get a weekly ad mail from "a friend in Japan".
So yeah, Hello Kitty is much more naughty than most realize! :cool:
 
Comrade Raptor said:
But to follow on the trail of leprechaun evidence, I'd bet the ruins had some level of green cloth and gold. That's two items, both of which almost certainly existed in some measurable level, and this means the leprechaun theory, despite being completely ridiculous, is still more plausible than the magic thermite dust.
Click to expand...

See? Now I only have to find a deranged British noble or an eccentric Norwegian guy who likes to spell his first name in an odd way who likes my paper, and I'll be up 2-0 (evidence and peer/Peer review) against the Truth Movement.
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
Sabrina,

"THERMITE IS AN INCENDIARY DEVICE, NOT AN EXPLOSIVE."

So? What's your point? Please show me where I said that thermite was an explosive. I am aware that it is not.

I wonder if you are aware that thermite can be mixed with explosive materials to make explosives that are considerably quieter than RDX or C4.
Click to expand...

Cite it or retract it, Dom.
 
Sabrina said:
Cite it or retract it, Dom.
Click to expand...

Now, hang on a minute. I don't think this really needs a cite. It seems to me fairly obvious that, if an explosive is mixed with an inert binder material, a given weight of the resulting mixture is quieter than an equivalent amount of the pure explosive; in fact, if you mix in enough binder, it becomes very much quieter, because it doesn't explode at all. The same is probably true of thermite; add enough thermite and the explosive doesn't explode, it simply burns. It's utterly useless for cutting steel columns, of course, but it's certainly quieter.

What few truthers seem capable of understanding is that many different properties of substances are affected by modifying those substances. It's irrelevant that explosives can be made quieter by modifying them in some randomly chosen fashion; the difficult thing is to make them quieter, but still as destructive. So all this talk of quiet explosives mixed with thermite is just a red herring. What needs to be proven is that it's possible to reduce the noise level from explosives by several orders of magnitude without reducing the blast intensity. Since that's more or less self-contradictory, it's rather tricky to prove.

Given the choice between impossible and irrelevant, which are the truthers going to choose? It's a tough one.

Dave
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
My name is Dom Shenher and I am very proud to belong to the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

This message is for all those who realize that the story we are being given is wrought with lies and contrary evidence, yet somehow dismiss completely the theory of controlled demolition concerning WTC Towers 1,2, and 7. ...
Click to expand...
Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice? They have failed for 8 years to make a rational conclusion on 911. You have Dr Thermite Jones supporting thermite "chips" in the ceiling tiles with radio fuses. Jones is insane and thinks the United States caused the earthquake in Haiti.

There was testing for explosives at the WTC. It is called observation based on reality. No body died due to explosives, no blast effects on any steel, no blast sounds all day long due to explosives, zero thermite products and the list goes on.

Your evidence to support explosives or thermite.

1.

The empty set - 8 years of insane claims = failure
 
Army of One said:
A copper liner is not necessary in a cutting charge, as explosives with high brisance (such as C4) are capable of cutting steel by itself (even without utilizing the Munroe Effect). You're right though, it is not nearly as efficient as a shaped charge, so a large amount would be required. If my calculations are correct (using basic military demolition calculations), for a plain "explosive on steel" cutting charge on a W14x730 column (which I believe Column 79 of WTC7 was), not even taking into account the welded on side cover plates, would require roughly 80 pounds of TNT, 60 pounds of C4, or about 50 pounds of RDX. Whatever type of H.E. is used, it would be extremely LOUD (I have no idea what the actual decibel level would be).
Click to expand...

Now THIS is good info.

So almost 10x the amount of RDX is needed. IIRC, a doubling of energy results in only a 3 dB increase in sound, which is about the human detection level. It takes a 10x increase in energy to result in a 10Db increase. That's how it works with speakers, anyways.

Do you have a link to that military pamphlet?

It would be interesting to show troofs what they're proposing when they say, " Just slap some explosives willy nilly against the columns. No preparation is needed."
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
Sabrina,

"THERMITE IS AN INCENDIARY DEVICE, NOT AN EXPLOSIVE."

So? What's your point? Please show me where I said that thermite was an explosive. I am aware that it is not.

I wonder if you are aware that thermite can be mixed with explosive materials to make explosives that are considerably quieter than RDX or C4.
Click to expand...

your gonna have to prove that claim sir~!
 
Seymour Butz said:
Now THIS is good info.

So almost 10x the amount of RDX is needed. IIRC, a doubling of energy results in only a 3 dB increase in sound, which is about the human detection level. It takes a 10x increase in energy to result in a 10Db increase. That's how it works with speakers, anyways.

Do you have a link to that military pamphlet?

It would be interesting to show troofs what they're proposing when they say, " Just slap some explosives willy nilly against the columns. No preparation is needed."
Click to expand...

From my notes:
  • Example A-5 plate 14 inches wide, 1 inch thick requires 3 packages of C4
  • Example A-7 7 blocks of C4 needed to cut a 7 inch dia bar. Page 165
  • Each package is 20 cubic inches
  • Table 6-1 Safe distances for blasting near radio transmitters. 50KW - 3,000 meters.
All of WTC was well within the distance that made the use of wire or radio control detonation a high-risk move for the installer. A few Megawatts radiated from the antennas on the North tower,
 
Last edited:
dommyboysinjapan said:
3bodyproblem



It is complex. The Opperation Northwoods plan was actually pretty complex too (albeit the 9/11 conspiracy theories are even more complex). A lot of progress has been made in the last 50 or so years. I have no doubt that the technical advancements and the increasing control over the media make it possible for the American government to try more bold deceptions.

People like me would speculate less if the investigators had simply followed national fire standards and tested for and ruled out the possibility of explosives or incendiary devices. The odd failure to follow this protocol is bound to spark some curiosity and fuel conspiracy theories. It was such a major (and tragic) event. Why ignore these protocols?
Click to expand...




Your gonna have to prove that one!
You know those pesky little things we like to call FACTS!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom