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 (1,864 Views)
skunkrider	Aug 30 2008, 07:41 AM Post #26
Posts: 328 Group: Members Member #166 Joined: 01/21/08	thanks for the information. I cannot believe that it was pure concrete. it must've been steel-reinforced concrete at the least. my former school- and university buildings (and even the company-buildings during my draft time) were small (less than 5 floors) and were all steel-reinforced. Here we're talking about a government building, so I'd say it's improbable to have been 'simple concrete'. In case anybody forgets: there are conspiracy theories surrounding the Oklahoma bombing too, some of which claim that present military officers stated that there was more than one explosion, and that certain support colomns were taken out professionally rather than by a homemade fertilizer cocktail. So all in all, Oklahoma is really a bad pick as a comparison.
Posts: 328 Group: Members Member #166 Joined: 01/21/08


Tim Riches	Aug 30 2008, 09:45 AM Post #27
Posts: 350 Group: Members Member #193 Joined: 01/23/08	I always wondered if conventional explosives WERE used, in addition to cutter charges to take care of the steel, but they were muffled in some way, perhaps through a dense material being wrapped around them. If the muffler material had failed in only a few instances, it might explain the 'squibs' effect. Not saying this is plausible, it just nags at me from time to time. I know they put some blanket material around explosives sites in a traditional CD to reduce fragments flying around unpredictably, just wondered if there was some similar material that could do the job for shockwave or sound. I think water might even do the trick, allowing the shock to do it's job but not propagate further. Perhaps a gell substance in layers...
Posts: 350 Group: Members Member #193 Joined: 01/23/08


Headspin	Aug 30 2008, 01:35 PM Post #28
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	people seem to forget there were many reports of witnesses reporting explosions and bombs before and during the towers "collapse" - firefighters, journalists, police, first responders, workers in the buildings, people on the scene etc. Also reports of bombs in the building and at the world trade centre prior to collapse
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


hiphopopotamus	Aug 30 2008, 09:26 PM Post #29
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08	I know it was some sort of concrete, probably steel reinforced concrete. But without the concrete, the steel is weak and unable to support the structure. Most concrete gets pounded into dust as anything greater than ~4000 ppsi, much less than what bomb was putting out.
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08


albury	Sep 1 2008, 05:32 PM Post #30
Posts: 9 Group: BANNED! Member #822 Joined: 09/01/08	Are there silent explosives used in controlled demolitions that don't sever steel and don't leave a distinct signature on column ends? That must be the kind used on the WTC buildings, because no evidence of a C/D was found anywhere in the debris, and ~40,000 people worked at Ground Zero for nearly eight months. Were they all blind and stupid, or part of the conspiracy?
Posts: 9 Group: BANNED! Member #822 Joined: 09/01/08


skunkrider	Sep 2 2008, 04:02 AM Post #31
Posts: 328 Group: Members Member #166 Joined: 01/21/08	In the WTC7 section i found this: Kamala http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/blg7.008.jpg http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/blg7.007.jpg http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/blg7.006.jpg http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/blg7.004.jpg http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/blg7.003.jpg http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/blg7.002.jpg http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/blg7.001.jpg Also, both WTC1, 2 and 7 sites contained molten metal pools, which cannot be accounted for in any way by a gravitational collapse. You guys are fun to play with
Posts: 328 Group: Members Member #166 Joined: 01/21/08


albury	Sep 2 2008, 06:24 AM Post #32
Posts: 9 Group: BANNED! Member #822 Joined: 09/01/08	Also, both WTC1, 2 and 7 sites contained molten metal pools, which cannot be accounted for in any way by a gravitational collapse. You guys are fun to play with So are you. Please explain how a controlled demolition would account for molten metal in the debris piles weeks later. Explosives don't melt steel, and incendiaries cool rapidly. There are also only a few anecdotal accounts of this molten metal, and it certainly wasn't steel. And feel free to explain why no melted column ends were found, since C/Ds sever columns.
Posts: 9 Group: BANNED! Member #822 Joined: 09/01/08


DoYouEverWonder	Sep 2 2008, 09:17 AM Post #33
Posts: 434 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08	Because of the way these buildings were constructed, if you set off the explosions in the core, (ie elevator shaft) and in the sublevels. most of the sound would have been muffled. Plus there were numerous reports of explosions from numerous things. There were cars exploding above ground and below ground, there were gas and steam lines all over the place. Even if there weren't explosives, there was still lots of stuff going boom.
Posts: 434 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08


genghis6199	Sep 2 2008, 12:57 PM Post #34
Posts: 42 Group: BANNED! Member #164 Joined: 01/21/08	whatever it was it happened mostly in the basement. you all have heard about the basement distruction. you will also know there was explosions in many areas at the time of both strikes. this was for exactly this reason. when the plane hit, the basement was hit. [inmho with mini nukes to melt the core] with 10 to 20 metres of reinforced concrete before street level i'm not sure you would hear much. i personally don't think they had explosives in the building upper. no need. drop the middle 47 columns, from the basement, when this falls, it contains the majority of the buildings structural weight. it drags the shell down like turning a sock inside out. let the weight of the building do the work. if ur a little guy fighting a big guy do you punch him in the face?. or do you kick him in the goolies?. when you chop down a tree you let it bring itself down.
Posts: 42 Group: BANNED! Member #164 Joined: 01/21/08


albury	Sep 2 2008, 02:25 PM Post #35
Posts: 9 Group: BANNED! Member #822 Joined: 09/01/08	drop the middle 47 columns, from the basement, when this falls, it contains the majority of the buildings structural weight. it drags the shell down like turning a sock inside out. let the weight of the building do the work. The problem with your theory is that the basement explosions occurred long before the collapses, were nowhere near loud enough to have cut steel up to 7" thick, the cores obviously didn't collapse first or debris wouldn't have been ejected outward, and in both towers the bottom stories of the cores remained standing well after everything else had collapsed. When you add in the fact that no loud explosions immediately preceded any WTC collapse and no evidence of a C/D was found in the debris, there goes the controlled demolition theory, not that it made any sense in the first place.
Posts: 9 Group: BANNED! Member #822 Joined: 09/01/08


Grit1645	Sep 2 2008, 04:36 PM Post #36
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	hiphopopotamus Aug 30 2008, 09:26 PM I know it was some sort of concrete, probably steel reinforced concrete. But without the concrete, the steel is weak and unable to support the structure. Most concrete gets pounded into dust as anything greater than ~4000 ppsi, much less than what bomb was putting out. The Murrah building was, of course, steel reinforced concrete. The steel is used for the tension loadings, and the concrete primarily for the compression loads. It would not be necessary to sever the steel, since the steel alone would not support the compression load of the building.
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Grit1645	Sep 2 2008, 04:46 PM Post #37
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	genghis "you will also know there was explosions in many areas at the time of both strikes. this was for exactly this reason. when the plane hit, the basement was hit. [inmho with mini nukes to melt the core]": If that were true, the buildings would have collapsed immediately, not an hour later. They could not stand without the core columns. genghis "with 10 to 20 metres of reinforced concrete before street level i'm not sure you would hear much. i personally don't think they had explosives in the building upper. no need" Where do you get 10 to 20 meters? The floors were reinforced concrete on metal decking, even in the basement were probably not more than 6 or 7 inches thick, so even 6 levels down, there would be on the order of 1 meter worth of concrete slabs with plenty of air in between. genghis "drop the middle 47 columns, from the basement, when this falls, it contains the majority of the buildings structural weight. it drags the shell down like turning a sock inside out. let the weight of the building do the work." Then it would have failed from the basement upwards, as this is more along the lines of a traditional bottom-up cd.
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


karate kid x	Sep 5 2008, 12:20 PM Post #38
Posts: 27 Group: Members Member #590 Joined: 05/19/08	brinks Jul 23 2008, 03:29 PM 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. if you hit a crt computer monitor with a hammer, you'll hear a small explosion. If you drop a heavy object 10 feet and it breaks, that can sound similar to an explosion. If only silent explosives were used, than the "explosions" people reported were something other than explosives
Posts: 27 Group: Members Member #590 Joined: 05/19/08


look-up	Sep 5 2008, 01:11 PM Post #39
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	albury Sep 2 2008, 06:24 AM Also, both WTC1, 2 and 7 sites contained molten metal pools, which cannot be accounted for in any way by a gravitational collapse. You guys are fun to play with So are you. Please explain how a controlled demolition would account for molten metal in the debris piles weeks later. Explosives don't melt steel, and incendiaries cool rapidly. There are also only a few anecdotal accounts of this molten metal, and it certainly wasn't steel. And feel free to explain why no melted column ends were found, since C/Ds sever columns. do a search for one any of the 50,000,000 threads about molten metal in this forum, noob.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


Miragememories	Sep 5 2008, 02:58 PM Post #40
Posts: 757 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	I have to wonder what a melted steel 'end' looks like after it's been pulverized by the collapse, of what was the world's tallest building. MM
Posts: 757 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


scott75	Sep 5 2008, 05:02 PM Post #41
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	look-up Sep 5 2008, 01:11 PM do a search for one any of the 50,000,000 threads about molten metal in this forum, noob. I believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but I don't want to have to look through 50,000,000 threads to find out why there was molten metal. I believe it was because of the thermite used, but someone said that thermite would only make it molten for a bit. I think they may be mistaken, but I would like some solid evidence to back that up.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


JFK	Sep 5 2008, 05:29 PM Post #42
Posts: 4,211 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	scott75 Sep 5 2008, 05:02 PM look-up Sep 5 2008, 01:11 PM do a search for one any of the 50,000,000 threads about molten metal in this forum, noob. I believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but I don't want to have to look through 50,000,000 threads to find out why there was molten metal. I believe it was because of the thermite used, but someone said that thermite would only make it molten for a bit. I think they may be mistaken, but I would like some solid evidence to back that up. Look for posts by "headspin" in this search - http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/search/?c=1&f=-1&q=+thermite We would all like solid evidence.... One way or another.
Posts: 4,211 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


scott75	Sep 5 2008, 11:15 PM Post #43
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	JFK Sep 5 2008, 05:29 PM scott75 Sep 5 2008, 05:02 PM look-up Sep 5 2008, 01:11 PM do a search for one any of the 50,000,000 threads about molten metal in this forum, noob. I believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but I don't want to have to look through 50,000,000 threads to find out why there was molten metal. I believe it was because of the thermite used, but someone said that thermite would only make it molten for a bit. I think they may be mistaken, but I would like some solid evidence to back that up. Look for posts by "headspin" in this search - http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/search/?c=1&f=-1&q=+thermite We would all like solid evidence.... One way or another. Amen to that. Anyway, to the person who originally asked about this, here's what Headspin had to say: Quote: with regard to cooling of thermite residue, the largest factor is going to be the surface area in relation to the mass - small pools as demonstrated on youtube flowerpot videos will cool rather quickly. large masses will take order of magnitides in time longer to cool. imagine a large block of ice place in the summer sunshine. it will not turn to water immediately, even if you put a blowtorch to it (re- fire hoses on the rubble pile). so without knowing how much molten iron there was, it is not possible to know how quickly it should have cooled. I tend to think that shreds of nanothermite dispersed in the rubble/dust igniting over a period of time as a more credible explanation for the sustained heat/fires. He also said: Quote: Maybe unreacted nanothermite ignited in the rubble to sustain the fires. I understand it is possible to design nanothermite to different specifications, perhaps a blend with magnesium particles or some other compound was intermixed allowing for a lower ignition temperature. if it was applied in a brittle foam-like substance as Kevin Ryan has suggetsted then maybe the destruction of the towers spread this stuff throughout the dust and rubble. Any under-rubble fires or heat may then have provided the energy to ignite these clumps/dust in a self sustaining manner over a period of time.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


allbury	Sep 6 2008, 09:12 AM Post #44
Posts: 5 Group: BANNED! Member #830 Joined: 09/06/08	This pretty well sums up the honesty of the Loose Change people who have blocked me from posting here: http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
Posts: 5 Group: BANNED! Member #830 Joined: 09/06/08


allbury	Sep 6 2008, 09:21 AM Post #45
Posts: 5 Group: BANNED! Member #830 Joined: 09/06/08	look-up Sep 5 2008, 01:11 PM albury Sep 2 2008, 06:24 AM Also, both WTC1, 2 and 7 sites contained molten metal pools, which cannot be accounted for in any way by a gravitational collapse. You guys are fun to play with So are you. Please explain how a controlled demolition would account for molten metal in the debris piles weeks later. Explosives don't melt steel, and incendiaries cool rapidly. There are also only a few anecdotal accounts of this molten metal, and it certainly wasn't steel. And feel free to explain why no melted column ends were found, since C/Ds sever columns. do a search for one any of the 50,000,000 threads about molten metal in this forum, noob. I don't have to, since the number of times a claim is made has nothing to do with its validity, especially on here, where people get blocked just for disagreeing with truther nonsense. Molten metal is not molten steel, and high temperatures in the debris were lower than the maximum temperatures in the fires pre-collapse, and were obviously fueled by remaining combustibles, not thermite. None of the C/D "theories" would explain high temperatures months after 9/11, since explosives wouldn't have caused it, and incendiaries burn very hot for a few minutes and then cool. And I guess you missed my question about melted column ends, huh?
Posts: 5 Group: BANNED! Member #830 Joined: 09/06/08


scott75	Sep 7 2008, 04:47 AM Post #46
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Quote: This pretty well sums up the honesty of the Loose Change people who have blocked me from posting here: http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html Well, Albury, I don't know why you were banned before and now banned again. What I do know, however, is that the site you mentioned, which I've seen mentioned before, is confusing.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


scott75	Sep 7 2008, 05:23 AM Post #47
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Quote: I don't have to, since the number of times a claim is made has nothing to do with its validity, especially on here, where people get blocked just for disagreeing with truther nonsense. Molten metal is not molten steel... True. Not necessarily, no. But from what I've read, it was definitely not molten aluminum (can't find the source that explains why it can't be for now though). Quote: ...and high temperatures in the debris were lower than the maximum temperatures in the fires pre-collapse, and were obviously fueled by remaining combustibles, not thermite. None of the C/D "theories" would explain high temperatures months after 9/11, since explosives wouldn't have caused it, and incendiaries burn very hot for a few minutes and then cool. Since you're banned, I know you can't respond, but perhaps you can listen to my response at any rate. From infowars.net: "Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel. Diesel jet fuel does not reach these temperatures and the fires in the buildings were short lived. Firefighter tape recordings prove that only small pockets of fire were still burning in the buildings seconds before their collapse." http://www.infowars.net/articles/november2006/171106molten.htm Edited by scott75, Sep 7 2008, 05:24 AM.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


frank nada	Dec 17 2008, 06:00 AM Post #48
Posts: 28 Group: Members Member #969 Joined: 12/17/08	in blast-mining, instead of a few giant simultaneous explosions, hundreds of smaller charges can be timed to go off in (fast) sequence. seismic waves, which could otherwise cause damage (to neighbouring foundations for eg), can be minimized through destructive interference.... the out-of-phase seismic waves from a large number of smaller blasts essentially cancel each other out... i'm not sure if this kind of thing would work in practice with soundwaves and or shockwaves in air from explosions. the explosive eruption of mt. st. hellens was so big that it was not heard or felt in the immediate area of the blast, but was heard and felt some distance away. (800Km away even) there are types of 'blast-foam' which can absorb much of the sound and shock of high-explosives, leaving only water behind after the fact.
Posts: 28 Group: Members Member #969 Joined: 12/17/08


Rhymenoceros	Dec 17 2008, 11:55 AM Post #49
Posts: 17 Group: Skeptics Member #794 Joined: 08/11/08	frank nada Dec 17 2008, 06:00 AM the explosive eruption of mt. st. hellens was so big that it was not heard or felt in the immediate area of the blast, but was heard and felt some distance away. (800Km away even) that's interesting - if you watch the footage of the collapses that were filmed from across the hudson, the explosions are often much more apparent than in the films taken nearby. Edited by Rhymenoceros, Dec 17 2008, 11:57 AM.
Posts: 17 Group: Skeptics Member #794 Joined: 08/11/08


TDX	Dec 17 2008, 01:44 PM Post #50
Posts: 159 Group: Members Member #435 Joined: 03/24/08	blast inhibitors : http://www.npo-sm.ru/blast/inform.pdf http://www.npo-sm.ru/equip/fontan_e.html
Posts: 159 Group: Members Member #435 Joined: 03/24/08


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


« Previous Topic · World Trade Center · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2