ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
OP response VII
I'll let others discuss this misuse of NFPA 921, but do a search in this forum for that term. In short, it's improper to cite it here.
And let's also remember that chemical testing for explosives has the strong potential to be inconclusive. How would there be any chance of distinguishing between explosives remains and naturally occuring organic materials combustoin residue from the fires themselves?
Furthermore, explosives are contradicted for other reasons. See links above, and search this forum for past threads.
Is it also characterized by extremely loud sounds that would have the effect of shattering glass for blocks around - recall, a common preparatory procedure for actual explosives demolitions is to board up or otherwise protect (or remove) glass in neighboring buildings. Look at pictures of the Winter Garden's building across the street from the WTC complex for proof that no explosions occurred; what windows were broken were from falling debris. Explosions strong enough to drop the towers would have shattered all that glass.
Furthermore, it is a practice to remove people from the area in order to prevent injury from flying debris as well as barotrauma. For the latter, I've not found any studies indicating any numbers of barotraumatic injuries consistent with an explosion of even the size of the Madrid bombings or Israeli bus bombings, let alone for something as large what would be required for collapsing the Twin Towers, or even just 7 World Trade.
On top of that, you need to study the failure modes for the recovered steel components in NCSTAR 1-3C. None of them are consistent with explosives or incendiaries use.
If you study the legitimate research on nanothermite, you'll see that it's explosive properties are on the microscopic scale. For example, to force drugs past cell membranes. Or to achieve some result in the manufacture of microchips. Stating that nanothermite has high order explosive ability on the magnitude claimed here is unsupported.
On top of that, as pointed out earlier, all evidence contradicts the presence of explosives.
I'll let others discuss this misuse of NFPA 921, but do a search in this forum for that term. In short, it's improper to cite it here.
And let's also remember that chemical testing for explosives has the strong potential to be inconclusive. How would there be any chance of distinguishing between explosives remains and naturally occuring organic materials combustoin residue from the fires themselves?
Furthermore, explosives are contradicted for other reasons. See links above, and search this forum for past threads.
Is it also characterized by extremely loud sounds that would have the effect of shattering glass for blocks around - recall, a common preparatory procedure for actual explosives demolitions is to board up or otherwise protect (or remove) glass in neighboring buildings. Look at pictures of the Winter Garden's building across the street from the WTC complex for proof that no explosions occurred; what windows were broken were from falling debris. Explosions strong enough to drop the towers would have shattered all that glass.
Furthermore, it is a practice to remove people from the area in order to prevent injury from flying debris as well as barotrauma. For the latter, I've not found any studies indicating any numbers of barotraumatic injuries consistent with an explosion of even the size of the Madrid bombings or Israeli bus bombings, let alone for something as large what would be required for collapsing the Twin Towers, or even just 7 World Trade.
On top of that, you need to study the failure modes for the recovered steel components in NCSTAR 1-3C. None of them are consistent with explosives or incendiaries use.
If you study the legitimate research on nanothermite, you'll see that it's explosive properties are on the microscopic scale. For example, to force drugs past cell membranes. Or to achieve some result in the manufacture of microchips. Stating that nanothermite has high order explosive ability on the magnitude claimed here is unsupported.
On top of that, as pointed out earlier, all evidence contradicts the presence of explosives.
Last edited:
