• 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.

Testing for explosives

McHrozni said:
Generally speaking, nothing of value:

TNT:
2 C7H5N3O6 → 3 N2 + 5 H2O + 7 CO + 7 C

Nitrogen, water, carbon oxide (which will go into carbon oxide in no time) and elemental carbon, aka soot. It will likely burn into carbon dioxide in the moments after explosion.
End result are three of the four main components of our atmoshphere

Nitroglycerin, a component in many military explosives, and other nitrogen based explosives isn't much better in this regard.

You might get lucky and pick some undetonated explosive in the vapors, though the high temperatures make that highly unlikely. Nitroglycerin decomposes at 60°C (~140F), before even boiling, TNT at nearly 300°C, but again, decomposes before boiling. Plus you'll need a mass spectrometer to detect them, and there is a lower limit of how much you can still detect.

Scraping surfaces might be more productive, but then again, if there was an explosion that tore apart the steel in question, the visible marks will be very hard to miss, even to a non-expert.
Click to expand...

You take life way too seriously - lighten! ;)
 
There are _several_ ways to destroy a building, not one.
Sorry, it's from french TV news, so it's all in french.
Click to expand...

Ve plaze ze bomb in ze building ands lits ze fuze like zist....
 
triforcharity said:
Anyway, here is my biggest problem with 9/11 CT. Think of the amount of people who would have known about 9/11 to cover it up. Think of the hundreds of thousands of people. How much money would it take you to cover up the biggest mass murder in US history? $100 $200....HECK NO!! I am talking MILLIONS!! (And I swear on everything that is holy, when I go to ground zero this year, if I hear ONE CT say FDNY was in on it, I am going to go batpoo crazy)

So, figure that about 500,000 people have to be in on their little conspiracy. Heck ASCE has 150,000 people just by its self. If you paid each on, say 50 mil (I would say thats about the going rate for a coverup) that woule equal something like 250,000,000,000,000

Yep, thats 250 TRILLION dollars!! Sweet baby jesus........
Click to expand...

Its depressing that I know the Truther answers to these:

1) Act condescending and say, "well I can't go on all day speculating about this kind of stuff. Instead I look at the concrete evidence."

2) Now transition into talking about how a lot of these people didn't necessarily need to know what they were doing in order to help set up the job. Only like, the people flying the jet and the people getting rid of the passengers that were supposed to be on U93...but come on.

3) Here's the best part, why is it that Donald Rumsfeld went on tv on 9-10-01 (that is the day before 9-11-01, btw) and complained about how TRILLIONS of dollars of government spending in relation to the pentagon is unaccounted for? Furthermore, isn't it a coincidence that AA77 hit the side of the pentagon where all the accountants were located? I believe 30 were killed!

4) Must finish with, I'm just asking questions or JAQ.
 
knife fight colobus said:
Its depressing that I know the Truther answers to these:


4) Must finish with, I'm just asking questions or JAQ.
Click to expand...

thats the worst one
so you (not the poster im quoting) can get all angry and spout all this nonsense about CD, flyovers, thermite, etc etc etc etc
and then when all else fails or you cant explain your position (cause its nonsensical) you say
"i dont know the answers, im just asking questions"
no youre not
you make accusations and poorly at that
 
What was left to test?

Should they have followed the ships to China to test the steel?

How many victims were never found?

Where are the black boxes?

Who tested the air and claimed it was safe to breathe?

Test for explosives?

Test what and when? Test it now?
 
McHrozni said:
Generally speaking, nothing of value:

TNT:
2 C7H5N3O6 → 3 N2 + 5 H2O + 7 CO + 7 C

Nitrogen, water, carbon oxide (which will go into carbon oxide in no time) and elemental carbon, aka soot. It will likely burn into carbon dioxide in the moments after explosion.
End result are three of the four main components of our atmoshphere.
Click to expand...

So random testing would be useless, really. You would have no target that isn't already supposed to be there.

Even the end-products of thermite are supposed to be there.

Scraping surfaces might be more productive, but then again, if there was an explosion that tore apart the steel in question, the visible marks will be very hard to miss, even to a non-expert.
Click to expand...

That is always the first thing I try to point out, but it seems to bounce off the thick skulls of the average twoofer. The first step in testing for explosives, as far as I had ever been taught, is to look for steel that appears damaged in some way that you would not expect in a progressive collapse. I am sure that all the FEMA, FDNY and NYPD people would have had occassion to look at such things and would have noticed them.

Not that that matters to some people who expect you to answer things that nobody in their right minds would have asked under the circumstances.

It has been a while since I had anything to do with inspecting a fire scene. Just wanted to be sure there wasn't some new technology that I wasn't up on.

They probably still haven't come up with anything more reliable than the Mark I eyeball since those days.
 
leftysergeant said:
So random testing would be useless, really. You would have no target that isn't already supposed to be there.

Even the end-products of thermite are supposed to be there.
Click to expand...

The funny thing about this is that NIST even stated something to that effect in it's report. Testing, even if it were done, might not be conclusive, as end products could be present from other sources.

Jones responded by "So not even try?" and left it at that, I believe.

That is always the first thing I try to point out, but it seems to bounce off the thick skulls of the average twoofer. The first step in testing for explosives, as far as I had ever been taught, is to look for steel that appears damaged in some way that you would not expect in a progressive collapse. I am sure that all the FEMA, FDNY and NYPD people would have had occassion to look at such things and would have noticed them.

Not that that matters to some people who expect you to answer things that nobody in their right minds would have asked under the circumstances.

It has been a while since I had anything to do with inspecting a fire scene. Just wanted to be sure there wasn't some new technology that I wasn't up on.

They probably still haven't come up with anything more reliable than the Mark I eyeball since those days.
Click to expand...

Another thing twoofers should but can't get into their heads: Had the towers been brought down by explosives as stated by Jones and others, we either wouldn't get any images from Ground Zero at all, or we'd see evidence of explosions on the steel all over the place.
But then again, they aren't searching for the truth, but for evidence that would support their version of events. There is a world of difference between the two.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
The funny thing about this is that NIST even stated something to that effect in it's report. Testing, even if it were done, might not be conclusive, as end products could be present from other sources.

Jones responded by "So not even try?" and left it at that, I believe.



Another thing twoofers should but can't get into their heads: Had the towers been brought down by explosives as stated by Jones and others, we either wouldn't get any images from Ground Zero at all, or we'd see evidence of explosions on the steel all over the place.
But then again, they aren't searching for the truth, but for evidence that would support their version of events. There is a world of difference between the two.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

Your last statement struck home - 9/11 'truth' is not a search for truth at all; it is a dedicated smear campaign against almost every branch of American government and law enforcement, 9/11 is simply the vehicle for the campaign.

It is an attempt to create an ideological rift where there was none ('US' vs 'THEM'), to create a mythology which justifies hatred of your own government and calls for retribution.

That's my take on it anyway.

How else would such an obvious term of demonization such as 'disinfo shill' come into play? We all know how these terms are bandied about unfairly towards those of us who express skepticism toward 9/11 'truth', so we understand fully the attempt to demonize.

Personally I've been accused of being a CIA agent and working for the gubmint. Maybe those making the accusations actually believed them, but I don't know. They were wrong of course... but it's the thought that counts ;)
 
I seem to remember they did test for just about everything. They found trace radiation from the emergency signs and plenty of gun-powder (traces) from the onsite stores and the NYPD. I personally don't think the argument is worth discussing (or my time looking back up) but, I do remember reading about it.
 
Last edited:
Given the massive stores of ammo in WTC 6, I suppose just about everything in the pile would be pretty well-contaminated at that. Don't know why I didn't think of that the last time I ran into the argument.
 
BigAl said:
The NYC bomb squad including their dogs was deployed to WTC on 9/11 and for days afterwords.
Click to expand...
Tweeter's ignorance knows no bounds.
Does he think that the bomb squad members are going to stop and wonder,"gee I wonder if saving lives is in my job description" before they help.
Dont feed the troll
 
knife fight colobus said:
Be serious. Are you saying that they were brought in to help get rid of the evidence of explosives?

Is this something you've always thought or did it just pop into your head as soon as you saw this thread?
Click to expand...

Tweeter has previously slandered the FDNY, so it's not beneath him to slander other courageous first responders. It's better just to put him on ignore.
 
"Tweeter" is a sockpuppet and troll, unworthy of discussion, frankly.
 
Actually, a cat's litterbox would probably register on some tests for explosives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom