Silent Explosives

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

Silent Explosives
Topic Started: Jul 23 2008, 03:29 PM (1,876 Views)
brinks	Jul 23 2008, 03:29 PM Post #1
Posts: 14 Group: Members Member #319 Joined: 02/15/08	I was reading a debunker trying to say the WTC couldn't have been brought down by explosives for because reports of explosions do not mean explosives were used. I'm going to make a couple of points on the first point and then I'd like your feedback 1 It appears to me we have Occamas razor on our side here. We simply assert the explosion are controlled demo charges going off. 2 If the explosions were not explosives then the debunkers are going to have to tell us exactly what the explosions were, just what exactly the cause of the explosions were - for each explosion reported. Some say there were no explosions heard, period. This one is easily countered in my view. Assuming there were no reports of explosions, there is such a thing as silent explosives, for instance Dexpan, Bristarand, Betonamit and Crackamite. Each of these could be used alone or in combination with each other a long list of materials to produce a silent series of explosions. I don't know how the culprits could have used these materials to bring down the towers but that's not the point. The point is that the technology, the means, exists to use silent explosives to bring down buildings.
Posts: 14 Group: Members Member #319 Joined: 02/15/08


JackD	Jul 23 2008, 07:20 PM Post #2
Posts: 263 Group: Members Member #253 Joined: 01/31/08	There were plenty of witnesses reporting explosions, both on-scene, and afterwards. google Fire Department Oral Histories or watch this clip http://video.filestube.com/key/fdny or watch 911 mysteries first i've heard of silent explosives, since detonation often makes a shock wave, perceptible to the ear as a 'boom' end of the day, there are about 9 or 10 features of a demolition, which the towers show (symmetry, rapid onset, speed, explosiveness, pulverization, totality, etc) plus strange stuff (angle cuts, molten metal, unreacted thermate chips) -- your 'no explosions' debunker needs to merely debunk all 10 and come up with an innocous explanation. plenty of wrok
Posts: 263 Group: Members Member #253 Joined: 01/31/08


brinks	Jul 23 2008, 07:44 PM Post #3
Posts: 14 Group: Members Member #319 Joined: 02/15/08	JackD Jul 23 2008, 07:20 PM There were plenty of witnesses reporting explosions, both on-scene, and afterwards. google Fire Department Oral Histories or watch this clip http://video.filestube.com/key/fdny or watch 911 mysteries first i've heard of silent explosives, since detonation often makes a shock wave, perceptible to the ear as a 'boom' end of the day, there are about 9 or 10 features of a demolition, which the towers show (symmetry, rapid onset, speed, explosiveness, pulverization, totality, etc) plus strange stuff (angle cuts, molten metal, unreacted thermate chips) -- your 'no explosions' debunker needs to merely debunk all 10 and come up with an innocous explanation. plenty of wrok that link went to a Mr. T video Did you mean this clip http://video.filestube.com/video,1989e6a501063fba03e9.html Edited by brinks, Jul 23 2008, 07:48 PM.
Posts: 14 Group: Members Member #319 Joined: 02/15/08


Freq Band	Jul 27 2008, 02:24 AM Post #4
Posts: 85 Group: Skeptics Member #583 Joined: 05/17/08	I'm sorry. I know we're supposed to post something relevant....but I'm laughing at the "Crackamite". Is that like vegetarian crack ?? =FB= ps, I'll do some research on silent explosions and get back. (oops, there's one now...SBD.... wheeeew!!)
Posts: 85 Group: Skeptics Member #583 Joined: 05/17/08


Morganti	Aug 1 2008, 04:38 AM Post #5
Posts: 11 Group: Members Member #779 Joined: 08/01/08	The demolition of the WTC Towers was surprising quiet considering the destruction. Why this is the case I am not at all sure, however there were dozens of reports of explosives, wouldn't be surprised if you could find more than 50 reports.
Posts: 11 Group: Members Member #779 Joined: 08/01/08


hiphopopotamus	Aug 1 2008, 04:26 PM Post #6
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08	Those silent 'explosives' aren't explosives. They're compounds, that when mixed, have a very high volume of expansion. Due to the imprecise timing (and nature) of their expansions, they're next to useless for complicated demolitions. Not to mention the stuff only works with stone, and most of the wtc's structure was made of steel.
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08


JackD	Aug 1 2008, 06:19 PM Post #7
Posts: 263 Group: Members Member #253 Joined: 01/31/08	the WTC demolition was not like a conventional demolition. First, a convential CD is done to MINIMIZE external damage, with safety and insurance liability issues foremost. WTC demolition was opposite. trying to 'shoehorn' a CD onto WTC demolitions unwise. the physics of destruction, however, are similar. there are several stages of work to do in WTC demolition to get the desired visual and physical effect. Gordon Ross of Scotland does an admirable job at his website. see below http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html I intend to show cause and effect for the known phenomena and also to identify and show cause for some other, less well known phenomena of the collapse. I intend to show that the demolition was achieved by means of a process which involved four distinct phases. These were as follows; + Phase one weakened the structure by attacking the central core structure, disassociating the entire structure at a level below that of the impact [Plane 1] + Phase two initiated the collapse of the perimeter structure by attacking the four corners of the towers on two storeys. [ Plane 2 and Plane 3 ] + Phase three progressed the collapse by disassociating the floor to perimeter column connections and two vertical lines of spandrel plates at each tower corner, and by continued attacks upon the corners as in phase 2. + Phase four completed the collapse by attacking the remaining central core structure at lower levels and disassociating the horizontal bracing.
Posts: 263 Group: Members Member #253 Joined: 01/31/08


brinks	Aug 3 2008, 05:20 PM Post #8
Posts: 14 Group: Members Member #319 Joined: 02/15/08	hiphopopotamus Aug 1 2008, 04:26 PM Those silent 'explosives' aren't explosives. They're compounds, that when mixed, have a very high volume of expansion. Due to the imprecise timing (and nature) of their expansions, they're next to useless for complicated demolitions. Not to mention the stuff only works with stone, and most of the wtc's structure was made of steel. Right. But the point I was trying to make is that the technology and materials exist to produce silent, powerful explosions. I realize it's meant for stone but I'd be very surprised if these materials couldn't be reworked to make them suitable for building demolitions.
Posts: 14 Group: Members Member #319 Joined: 02/15/08


hiphopopotamus	Aug 8 2008, 05:47 PM Post #9
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08	brinks Aug 3 2008, 05:20 PM hiphopopotamus Aug 1 2008, 04:26 PM Those silent 'explosives' aren't explosives. They're compounds, that when mixed, have a very high volume of expansion. Due to the imprecise timing (and nature) of their expansions, they're next to useless for complicated demolitions. Not to mention the stuff only works with stone, and most of the wtc's structure was made of steel. Right. But the point I was trying to make is that the technology and materials exist to produce silent, powerful explosions. I realize it's meant for stone but I'd be very surprised if these materials couldn't be reworked to make them suitable for building demolitions. I don't think you understand. They aren't explosives. An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and energy creating a non-electromagnetic longitudinal shock wave. Silent 'explosives' do have a high volume of expansion like explosives, but it isn't rapid, it doesn't release much energy aside from the kinetic, and there is no shock wave. Its like putting a small firecracker in your hand and closing your fist around it. The firecracker will pop your hand open (and hopefully not burn you too much). Silent explosives are like baking soda and vinegar. Fill a Pringles can with some, put the lid on, and watch the top be forced off after a bit. The firecracker is clearly an explosive, and baking soda and vinegar clearly isn't (if the top popped off the noise was object, not the chemical reaction). But both we're able to accomplish similar ends. The reason its used on stone and not metal is that metal bends under pressure, and stone does not. The stone will crack and break; the metal will bend (and weaken slightly), but the pieces of metal are too thin and numerous for serious structural damage with crackamite. The problem with using it for complicated demolitions is that its very difficult to control the expansion, where the first breaks will happen, and when. It would be impossible to use those on buildings like the WTC towers and have them collapse in such a manner. It would be possible to use them on the foundation of a building, but even then the collapse would still not happen in the same way.
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08


brinks	Aug 8 2008, 09:55 PM Post #10
Posts: 14 Group: Members Member #319 Joined: 02/15/08	hiphopopotamus Aug 8 2008, 05:47 PM brinks Aug 3 2008, 05:20 PM hiphopopotamus Aug 1 2008, 04:26 PM Those silent 'explosives' aren't explosives. They're compounds, that when mixed, have a very high volume of expansion. Due to the imprecise timing (and nature) of their expansions, they're next to useless for complicated demolitions. Not to mention the stuff only works with stone, and most of the wtc's structure was made of steel. Right. But the point I was trying to make is that the technology and materials exist to produce silent, powerful explosions. I realize it's meant for stone but I'd be very surprised if these materials couldn't be reworked to make them suitable for building demolitions. I don't think you understand. They aren't explosives. An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and energy creating a non-electromagnetic longitudinal shock wave. Silent 'explosives' do have a high volume of expansion like explosives, but it isn't rapid, it doesn't release much energy aside from the kinetic, and there is no shock wave. Its like putting a small firecracker in your hand and closing your fist around it. The firecracker will pop your hand open (and hopefully not burn you too much). Silent explosives are like baking soda and vinegar. Fill a Pringles can with some, put the lid on, and watch the top be forced off after a bit. The firecracker is clearly an explosive, and baking soda and vinegar clearly isn't (if the top popped off the noise was object, not the chemical reaction). But both we're able to accomplish similar ends. The reason its used on stone and not metal is that metal bends under pressure, and stone does not. The stone will crack and break; the metal will bend (and weaken slightly), but the pieces of metal are too thin and numerous for serious structural damage with crackamite. The problem with using it for complicated demolitions is that its very difficult to control the expansion, where the first breaks will happen, and when. It would be impossible to use those on buildings like the WTC towers and have them collapse in such a manner. It would be possible to use them on the foundation of a building, but even then the collapse would still not happen in the same way. Yes, I know their power is expansive. I'm hypothetically expanding on their potential. These silent explosives are already good for reinforced concrete and granite. If they can be used for reinforced concrete and granite, they can be applied to steel. The rapidity of the force they generate against the object they're used on is not really important is it? The point is they break up and demolish reinforced concrete and granite and so so at a force level sufficient to smash steel. Dexpan generates 18,000 psi. for example. 18,000 psi is enough to destroy steel. At 18,000 psi steel doesn't bend. It breaks. No, I don't know how they could be reworked for application to steel. It's the principle. A material that can break up concrete and granite at 18,000 psi, should have, or be modified to have, the potential to do the same to steel. Edited by brinks, Aug 8 2008, 10:06 PM.
Posts: 14 Group: Members Member #319 Joined: 02/15/08


Rhymenoceros	Aug 11 2008, 07:32 AM Post #11
Posts: 17 Group: Skeptics Member #794 Joined: 08/11/08	Surely silent explosives are a distraction given we know that a large number of people heard very loud explosions - it's going to be very hard to prove that silent explosives were planted and debating it in the absence of any evidence is hardly in accordance with Occam's razor.
Posts: 17 Group: Skeptics Member #794 Joined: 08/11/08


Mightyqueen801	Aug 11 2008, 08:03 PM Post #12
Posts: 32 Group: Members Member #796 Joined: 08/11/08	There were many explosions, random, not in any order or pattern. My question--why does no one ever bring up all the natural gas line run into the WTC? There were 22 restaurants or cafeterias in the complex, all of which had large industrial stoves. Yet no one ever seems to mention this, if only even to rule it out.
Posts: 32 Group: Members Member #796 Joined: 08/11/08


Headspin	Aug 12 2008, 05:12 AM Post #13
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Mightyqueen801 Aug 11 2008, 08:03 PM There were many explosions, random, not in any order or pattern. My question--why does no one ever bring up all the natural gas line run into the WTC? There were 22 restaurants or cafeterias in the complex, all of which had large industrial stoves. Yet no one ever seems to mention this, if only even to rule it out. No natural gas was used in the twin towers.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Grit1645	Aug 22 2008, 12:34 AM Post #14
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	Headspin Aug 12 2008, 05:12 AM Mightyqueen801 Aug 11 2008, 08:03 PM There were many explosions, random, not in any order or pattern. My question--why does no one ever bring up all the natural gas line run into the WTC? There were 22 restaurants or cafeterias in the complex, all of which had large industrial stoves. Yet no one ever seems to mention this, if only even to rule it out. No natural gas was used in the twin towers. Are you calling MightyQueen a liar? 'Cause you might want to rethink that.
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Grit1645	Aug 22 2008, 12:42 AM Post #15
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	brinks Aug 8 2008, 09:55 PM I realize it's meant for stone but I'd be very surprised if these materials couldn't be reworked to make them suitable for building demolitions. ... These silent explosives are already good for reinforced concrete and granite. If they can be used for reinforced concrete and granite, they can be applied to steel. The point is they break up and demolish reinforced concrete and granite and so so at a force level sufficient to smash steel. No, I don't know how they could be reworked for application to steel. It's the principle. A material that can break up concrete and granite at 18,000 psi, should have, or be modified to have, the potential to do the same to steel. Steel and concrete have very different properties. Quote: "The rapidity of the force they generate against the object they're used on is not really important is it? " Of course it is. Quote: " Dexpan generates 18,000 psi. for example. 18,000 psi is enough to destroy steel. At 18,000 psi steel doesn't bend. It breaks." Link for this?
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Grit1645	Aug 22 2008, 12:50 AM Post #16
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	brinks Aug 8 2008, 09:55 PM hiphopopotamus,(time=12182 No, I don't know how they could be reworked for application to steel. It's the principle. A material that can break up concrete and granite at 18,000 psi, should have, or be modified to have the potential to do the same to steel. [/quote Most structural steel is AT LEAST 36 ksi, which means the yield strength is 36,000 psi, and the fracture strength is more like 58,000 psi. At 18 ksi, your steel isn't even near yield, let alone breaking.
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


brinks	Aug 22 2008, 12:52 AM Post #17
Posts: 14 Group: Members Member #319 Joined: 02/15/08	Quote: Most structural steel is AT LEAST 36 ksi, which means the yield strength is 36,000 psi, and the fracture strength is more like 58,000 psi. At 18 ksi, your steel isn't even near yield, let alone breaking. OK. In any case the original point I was making is that the means are available to produce a silent explosion. It seems reasonable to assume these civilian explosives could be weaponized to produce a blast capable of breaking steel. I'm sure the U.S. military has the necessary technology, for example Just as aside. If steel yield strength is 58,000 psi, how did the OKC truck bomb do the damage it did when it produced a blast of 1900 psi http://www.modernsteel.com/Uploads/Issues/October_2003/30722_qa.pdf from roughly 10-15 feet away? The steel reinforcing the concrete should have withstood that blast. Edited by brinks, Aug 22 2008, 01:44 AM.
Posts: 14 Group: Members Member #319 Joined: 02/15/08


Miragememories	Aug 22 2008, 07:02 AM Post #18
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Mightyqueen801 "There were many explosions, random, not in any order or pattern. My question--why does no one ever bring up all the natural gas line run into the WTC? There were 22 restaurants or cafeterias in the complex, all of which had large industrial stoves. Yet no one ever seems to mention this, if only even to rule it out." ?? It hasn't occurred to you that one of the first steps in an emergency response would be to turn off the gas? MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Headspin	Aug 22 2008, 07:19 AM Post #19
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Grit1645 Aug 22 2008, 12:34 AM Headspin Aug 12 2008, 05:12 AM Mightyqueen801 Aug 11 2008, 08:03 PM There were many explosions, random, not in any order or pattern. My question--why does no one ever bring up all the natural gas line run into the WTC? There were 22 restaurants or cafeterias in the complex, all of which had large industrial stoves. Yet no one ever seems to mention this, if only even to rule it out. No natural gas was used in the twin towers. Are you calling MightyQueen a liar? 'Cause you might want to rethink that. do you have official documentation, not an anonymous internet personality who puts out vague inaccurate and obfuscatory assumptive information contradicted by precise information from public figures who worked in the towers and official government documentation, not to mention common sense.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Headspin	Aug 22 2008, 07:54 AM Post #20
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	"Natural gas is supplied to the complex but is in limited use, mainly in the Vista Hotel’s kitchens but also in restaurants located on the concourse of 5 WTC and the coffee tasting room at the New York Commodities Exchange in 4 WTC. No natural gas is used in the two towers." http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-076.pdf http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=willie+rodriquez&emb=0# Edited by Headspin, Aug 22 2008, 07:58 AM.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


hiphopopotamus	Aug 23 2008, 02:45 PM Post #21
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08	brinks Aug 22 2008, 12:52 AM OK. In any case the original point I was making is that the means are available to produce a silent explosion. It seems reasonable to assume these civilian explosives could be weaponized to produce a blast capable of breaking steel. I'm sure the U.S. military has the necessary technology, for example Jesus titty fucking christ. What don't you understand about that they ARE NOT EXPLOSIVES and there IS NO BLAST. Its a fucking expanding liquid goop. It keeps growing, slowly, and in confined spaces is capable of causing structural cracks (such as in giant slabs of rock). Silent explosives is a marketing gimmick like Chevy's 'like a rock.' I mean, unless you actually think those trucks are made of rock. Then this whole conversation makes sense.
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08


brinks	Aug 23 2008, 04:28 PM Post #22
Posts: 14 Group: Members Member #319 Joined: 02/15/08	hiphopopotamus Aug 23 2008, 02:45 PM brinks Aug 22 2008, 12:52 AM OK. In any case the original point I was making is that the means are available to produce a silent explosion. It seems reasonable to assume these civilian explosives could be weaponized to produce a blast capable of breaking steel. I'm sure the U.S. military has the necessary technology, for example Jesus titty fucking christ. What don't you understand about that they ARE NOT EXPLOSIVES and there IS NO BLAST. Its a fucking expanding liquid goop. It keeps growing, slowly, and in confined spaces is capable of causing structural cracks (such as in giant slabs of rock). Silent explosives is a marketing gimmick like Chevy's 'like a rock.' I mean, unless you actually think those trucks are made of rock. Then this whole conversation makes sense. OK let's not get hung up on semantics. They're "expansives" for lack of a better term. The point is still that they could be used against steel. I'm trying to get at their potential. 18,000 psi is a lot of destructive potential. (1900 psi broke the steel at OKC Murrah building) If they can generate enough destructive force to break up reinforced concrete and granite, why not steel after proper modification? I don't care if they're a goop. Goop doesn't disqualify their use. You can put goop anywhere. It's their potential. Again, I don't know how they could be modified to for use on steel. The point, again, is that they could be modified, or weaponized to use on steel. That's all. Sorry it means so much to you.
Posts: 14 Group: Members Member #319 Joined: 02/15/08


hiphopopotamus	Aug 24 2008, 11:20 PM Post #23
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08	brinks Aug 23 2008, 04:28 PM OK let's not get hung up on semantics. They're "expansives" for lack of a better term. The point is still that they could be used against steel. I'm trying to get at their potential. 18,000 psi is a lot of destructive potential. (1900 psi broke the steel at OKC Murrah building) If they can generate enough destructive force to break up reinforced concrete and granite, why not steel after proper modification? I don't care if they're a goop. Goop doesn't disqualify their use. You can put goop anywhere. It's their potential. Again, I don't know how they could be modified to for use on steel. The point, again, is that they could be modified, or weaponized to use on steel. That's all. Sorry it means so much to you. An explosive material is a material that either is chemically or otherwise energetically unstable or produces a sudden expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash and/or loud noise) upon initiation None of those are present in 'silent explosives.' Its not technical, it fact. If you want a description for them, lets use the info provided on crackamite's website: CRACKAMITE®, a Non-Explosive Expansive Silent Cracking Agent At the rate that kind of stuff expands, metal bends, it doesn't crack. That is why it isn't used on metal. Its not too hard to understand. Its the sudden expansion of explosives that breaks steel.
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08


skunkrider	Aug 25 2008, 02:22 PM Post #24
Posts: 328 Group: Members Member #166 Joined: 01/21/08	so what makes the stuff allegedly used at the Oklahoma building so much more effective at tearing steal apart? does anybody know what exactly was used there, and how much pressure that stuff created?
Posts: 328 Group: Members Member #166 Joined: 01/21/08


hiphopopotamus	Aug 27 2008, 04:28 PM Post #25
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08	They used ammonium nitrate, a commonly used fertilizer. At the time it was easy to procure (as fertilizer), easy to detonate (soak in kerosene and charge with a piece of dynamite), and easy to transport. Under optimal conditions, the roughly 5000 pounds would cause a (roughly) 500,000 ppsi blast wave. More than enough to break down the support columns (which were concrete I believe).
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · World Trade Center · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2