If it was a controlled demolition then . . .

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
3
…
10

If it was a controlled demolition then . . .
Topic Started: Feb 19 2008, 09:16 PM (3,380 Views)
Headspin	Feb 20 2008, 07:33 PM Post #26
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Trajan Octavian Titus Feb 20 2008, 07:24 PM Headspin Feb 20 2008, 07:16 PM Trajan Octavian Titus Feb 20 2008, 07:06 PM Headspin Feb 20 2008, 07:00 PM Trajan Octavian Titus Feb 20 2008, 06:52 PM Headspin Feb 20 2008, 06:47 PM Trajan Octavian Titus Feb 20 2008, 04:34 PM "How did they get the explosives in there without anyone noticing?" through the doors and by removing the "DANGER - EXPLOSIVES" labels. I do hope your joking. Tell me how they would have gotten them past the dog sniffing dogs, tell me how not one person, security guard, or video camera captured them loading these tons and tons of explosives and setting them into the building. The idea that they could have been loading the building for 72 days straight in three of the most secure buildings in the world just doesn't stand up to rationality. Did they have thermite sniffing dogs? I'm sure they had dogs that could detect any type of explosive but since there is no conclusive evidence of thermate to begin with the point is moot. Furthermore; thermate probably couldn't have done the job anyway for this kind of demo one would need to used shape charges using C-4. But hay let's say they did use thermate and they didn't have thermate sniffing dogs perhaps you can explain how they were able to plant this thermate all over the towers for 72 days without anyone noticing? so you don't know whether the dogs were capable of detecting thermite, so your argument about "how did they get it past the bomb sniffing dogs" has no merit if thermate was used, therefore this strengthens the thermate hypothesis because the dogs would not have detected it. you just admitted that there was some evidence for thermate - "no conclusive evidence" - you are implying there is some evidence? or are you claiming there is NO evidence? "thermate probably couldn't have done the job" - how do you support this speculation, do you have a statistcal model? or are you saying it could not have been done? There is no evidence of thermate period, Jones has not found the key ingredient for thermate IE Barium Nitrate but this is a nonsense, barium nitrate is used for a specific type of thermate- TH3, it is not a required ingredient of an aluminothermic reaction. do you think barium helps a superthermite reaction using nano-particles? Quote: What do you think that bomb sniffing dogs are only able to detect certain type of explosives Yes. Quote: The reason why I don't think thermate couldn't do the job is because demo-expert Ron Craig from the NIST has stated that it wouldn't have made sense to use thermate, that if he had demolished the building he would have used shaped C-4 cutting charges. ...but how would he have got C4 past the bomb sniffing dogs? Quote: And once again let's assume your scenario is correct that they used thermate OK - so you agree that "bomb sniffing dogs would have detected" is not an argument against thermate. Edited by Headspin, Feb 20 2008, 08:02 PM.
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Trajan Octavian Titus	Feb 20 2008, 11:45 PM Post #27
Posts: 67 Group: Members Member #335 Joined: 02/19/08	Headspin but this is a nonsense, barium nitrate is used for a specific type of thermate- TH3, it is not a required ingredient of an aluminothermic reaction. do you think barium helps a superthermite reaction using nano-particles? No what is nonsense is what you just posted, Barium Nitrate is the key ingredient in Thermate, while in Thermite analogs of Thermate you can use Potassium Permanganate, Jones has found neither. Quote: Yes. Well then why don't you drive down to your local airport and try to get past the bomb sniffiing dogs with a pocket full of thermate, like I said I'll see you in 30 years when you get out of club fed. And regardless what sense would it make to only teach a dog how to sniff out one type of explosive? Quote: ...but how would he have got C4 past the bomb sniffing dogs? [SARCASM]Were the dogs able to detect C4? Really they were? Well prove it[/SARCASM] Quote: OK - so you agree that "bomb sniffing dogs would have detected" is not an argument against thermate. No I said "let's assume" as in a hypothetical situation. Furthermore; your thermate argument has been blown out of the water, there is 0 evidence for thermate, none, zip, zero, and what's more it would have taken tons of thermate to get the job done: Quote: Thermite in general makes an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs. It doesn't make clean cuts. It's a powder that undergoes a violent chemical reaction as seen in the video below. http://www.guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that? Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3 2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe 2 moles of Al weigh 54 g 1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g density of Al=2.64 g/cc density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc 54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al. 160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3 Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g. A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)214 = 4.2 kg For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh: 0.54.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we're going. You'd need tons. Here's a Debunking911 Fun Fact! How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window: A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed. 2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g. Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe. That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced. Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron: Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al. To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 23 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets. Example: Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 63000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass. Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft. Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum. http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magconda.htm The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds. Debunking 9-11 Thermite and Sulfer I'm not going to let you just gloss over these facts, the use of thermate is damning to your argument, and in fact only serves to bolster my argument that it would have been impossible to set the charges without anyone noticing in that it would have taken far far far FAR FAR more thermate to get the job done then conventional C4 shaped charges. So once again back to the question of the OP which you have been trying to duck since the freaking beginning: How in the hell did they get the tons of thermate that would have been needed per every single structural beam, past the video cameras, office workers, and security workers and plant it all over the building? Edited by Trajan Octavian Titus*, Feb 21 2008, 12:13 AM.
Posts: 67 Group: Members Member #335 Joined: 02/19/08


Stundie	Feb 21 2008, 11:09 AM Post #28
Posts: 888 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	sevon I'm not sure you understand this, but you're arguing both sides of the same issue. If a few floors collapsing could cause a global collapse, we can conclude that only a few floors would need to be damaged/destroyed with explosives. I'm not arguing both sides at the same time, I'm pointing out the flaw in the OP in which he compares the JL Hudson building to that of WTC. If you believe the towers can collapse from localised damage within the WTC, then you have to believe it can be done by placing explosives sevon On the contrary, you have stated that you believe that damage to only a few floors couldn't cause a global collapse. This would mean a much larger amount of explosives, and raises the questions asked in the OP. The problem with the opening question is..... WTC Building design is different to that of the JL Hudson building, therefore demolition it could be easier or harder..... Any answer I or anyone else gives is based on speculation.... I'm not going to argue how long I think it would take because I do not know and neither does anyone else other than the perpetrators!! So it's a pointless question which is designed to create an argument based on nothing but speculation.... Stundie p.s. You still manage to dodge the question?? How do you manage to ignore it!! lol Please answer it as it is important to understand your logic??
Posts: 888 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


sevon	Feb 21 2008, 11:56 AM Post #29
Posts: 408 Group: BANNED! Member #256 Joined: 02/01/08	Stundie Feb 21 2008, 11:09 AM sevon I'm not sure you understand this, but you're arguing both sides of the same issue. If a few floors collapsing could cause a global collapse, we can conclude that only a few floors would need to be damaged/destroyed with explosives. I'm not arguing both sides at the same time, I'm pointing out the flaw in the OP in which he compares the JL Hudson building to that of WTC. sevon On the contrary, you have stated that you believe that damage to only a few floors couldn't cause a global collapse. This would mean a much larger amount of explosives, and raises the questions asked in the OP. The problem with the opening question is..... WTC Building design is different to that of the JL Hudson building, therefore demolition it could be easier or harder..... Any answer I or anyone else gives is based on speculation.... I'm not going to argue how long I think it would take because I do not know and neither does anyone else other than the perpetrators!! So it's a pointless question which is designed to create an argument based on nothing but speculation.... Stundie p.s. You still manage to dodge the question?? How do you manage to ignore it!! lol Please answer it as it is important to understand your logic?? My answer to that question is not relevant to the OP. Yours is, because since you believe that localized damage could not cause a collapse, it would require a LARGE amount of explosives, which then leads to the questions asked in the OP...namely, how could this large amount of explosives have been placed without ANYONE noticing!? You were arguing both sides of the issue, because when the above question was asked, you went with the argument that per the OT, only a small area of the tower would have had to had explosives...but since we're talking CT, not OT, that's irrelevant. stundie If you believe the towers can collapse from localised damage within the WTC, then you have to believe it can be done by placing explosives Sure, that would be one way to do it. You'd just have to explain how it could be done without anyone noticing. Also bear in mind it would take a large amount of explosives.....Jet fuel has approximately 15x the energy of TNT per pound...I'll let you do the math on that one.
Posts: 408 Group: BANNED! Member #256 Joined: 02/01/08


Headspin	Feb 21 2008, 12:11 PM Post #30
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	I'm not ducking any issue, i am trying to respond to the issues you have raised one at a time, but you are adding more and more issues all the time, and inserting mountains of irrelevant information. bomb sniffing dogs are trained to respond to specific chemicals - this is an obvious statement of fact, they do not know what chemicals are dangerous, toxic, explosive, incendary, all they know is they get a biscuit when they detect a certain smell. since traditional thermites are technically incendaries and not explosives, and the fact that the ingredients are ordinary materials such as iron-oxide (rust) and aluminium, it is a pretty safe bet no bomb sniffing dogs would be trained to sniff out rust and aluminium. Whereas i think you would be hard pressed to convince even the most retarded idiot that a bomb sniffing unit was unable to detect C4. you state the reason for thinking thermate was not used was: "The reason why I don't think thermate couldn't do the job is because demo-expert Ron Craig from the NIST has stated that it wouldn't have made sense to use thermate, that if he had demolished the building he would have used shaped C-4 cutting charges." yet you yourself have already given one good reason why using C4 would not have been a good idea - the bomb sniffing dogs. (I think you are inaccurate about Ron Craig being from NIST, but whatever). Another reason for not using C4 would possibly be the chemical traces left by C4, another reason fro not using C4 would be the explosive noise of C4 (several thousand feet per second gas expansion), whereas even a high tech mix of thermite ingredients using nano-particluate ingredients would produce much lower gas expansion rates and thus lower audible explosive sounds. Another reason for not using C4 would be that it would have burned in the wtc fires, whereas thermate doesn't react until the ignition tempterature is reached (2500C - a tempertaure much higher than the wtc fires would have reached), so it would be possible to plant thermite charges in the area of the plane hit without the resultant fire destroying the charges, whereas the C4 would have been destroyed by the fires. you state "Barium Nitrate is the key ingredient in Thermate" - well this is just playing with words. I am using the term thermite/thermate to indicate a general aluminothermic reaction not a specific type of compound. The key ingredients to thermate are metal-oxide, aluminium and sulfur. Barium Nitrate is used in a specifically developed type of thermate called TH3, but Barium Nitrate is not a required ingredient of an alumino-thermic reaction, Barium Nitrate is used to enhance certain effects of the reaction, the reaction would still work without it. Edited by Headspin, Feb 21 2008, 12:19 PM.
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


sevon	Feb 21 2008, 12:17 PM Post #31
Posts: 408 Group: BANNED! Member #256 Joined: 02/01/08	Headspin Feb 21 2008, 12:11 PM Another reason for not using C4 would be that it would have burned in the wtc fires, whereas thermate doesn't react until the ignition tempterature is reached (2500C - a tempertaure much higher than the wtc fires would have reached), so it would be possible to plant thermite charges in the area of the plane hit without the resultant fire destroying the charges, whereas the C4 would have been destroyed by the fires. The problem is, if you're going to somehow remotely initiate those thermite reactions, you'd have to have some materials there which can initiate the reaction, and those materials could themselves be vulnerable to the fire & flame temperatures present in the WTC fires. So it's not only a question of whether the thermite would have survived the fires, but whether their ignition chemicals/devices would have. Thermite is usually ignited by a lit strip of magnesium, but this has to be lit by a blowtorch, which wouldn't be very easy to do remotely, and the blowtorch wouldn't fare well in the fire. Another option would be a chemical reaction, but the reactants which would start the thermite reaction wouldn't be able to withstand much heat before breaking down. Just something else to consider.
Posts: 408 Group: BANNED! Member #256 Joined: 02/01/08


Headspin	Feb 21 2008, 12:24 PM Post #32
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	sevon Feb 21 2008, 12:17 PM Headspin Feb 21 2008, 12:11 PM Another reason for not using C4 would be that it would have burned in the wtc fires, whereas thermate doesn't react until the ignition tempterature is reached (2500C - a tempertaure much higher than the wtc fires would have reached), so it would be possible to plant thermite charges in the area of the plane hit without the resultant fire destroying the charges, whereas the C4 would have been destroyed by the fires. The problem is, if you're going to somehow remotely initiate those thermite reactions, you'd have to have some materials there which can initiate the reaction, and those materials could themselves be vulnerable to the fire & flame temperatures present in the WTC fires. So it's not only a question of whether the thermite would have survived the fires, but whether their ignition chemicals/devices would have. Thermite is usually ignited by a lit strip of magnesium, but this has to be lit by a blowtorch, which wouldn't be very easy to do remotely, and the blowtorch wouldn't fare well in the fire. Another option would be a chemical reaction, but the reactants which would start the thermite reaction wouldn't be able to withstand much heat before breaking down. Just something else to consider. how do you think a thermite grenade is ignited? one doesn't strike a match and light a piece of exposed fuse or magnesium strip. one doesn't use an exposed electrical detonation cord. one uses a mechanical spring load action to start ignition inside the grenade. Edited by Headspin, Feb 21 2008, 12:25 PM.
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


sevon	Feb 21 2008, 12:33 PM Post #33
Posts: 408 Group: BANNED! Member #256 Joined: 02/01/08	Headspin Feb 21 2008, 12:24 PM how do you think a thermite grenade is ignited? one doesn't strike a match and light a piece of exposed fuse or magnesium strip. one doesn't use an exposed electrical detonation cord. one uses a mechanical spring load action to start ignition inside the grenade. Thermite isn't started from a simple mechanical force. From the soldier's POV, they're pulling a spring, but inside the grenade, a reaction occurs which generates the heat necessary to ignite the thermite. Doing this remotely would also require some type of radio receiver or timing device that would survive intense heat or fire.
Posts: 408 Group: BANNED! Member #256 Joined: 02/01/08


Headspin	Feb 21 2008, 12:50 PM Post #34
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	sevon Feb 21 2008, 12:33 PM Headspin Feb 21 2008, 12:24 PM how do you think a thermite grenade is ignited? one doesn't strike a match and light a piece of exposed fuse or magnesium strip. one doesn't use an exposed electrical detonation cord. one uses a mechanical spring load action to start ignition inside the grenade. Thermite isn't started from a simple mechanical force. From the soldier's POV, they're pulling a spring, but inside the grenade, a reaction occurs which generates the heat necessary to ignite the thermite. Doing this remotely would also require some type of radio receiver or timing device that would survive intense heat or fire. i didn't say thermite is started with mechnical force, i said a thermite grenade is started with simple mechanical force. maybe it was done remotely, maybe it wasn't. Does it matter if some charges were destroyed in the area hit by the plane. the ones above and below would still work.
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


JFK	Feb 21 2008, 01:06 PM Post #35
Posts: 4,168 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	And what would happen if, for instance, there were 94 thermite devices ( with a ceramic "concentrator funnel" ) placed on each of the 47 core column at floors 30 and 33 ? - Just asking.
Posts: 4,168 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 21 2008, 01:13 PM Post #36
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Trajan Octavian Titus Feb 20 2008, 06:00 PM Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 20 2008, 05:56 PM Trajan Octavian Titus Feb 20 2008, 05:21 PM Regardless you don't understand the NIST report, it wasn't just the localized structural damage from the fire which caused the collapse, the heat would have gone down through more than just the structural columns between those 6 floors, Oh please do show me the portion of the NIST report that details this. Right here: Quote: Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower. NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon. NIST Report Q&A Hi, back guys! First before I address this, can you point out the page in the NIST report where this came from. After all you said this came from the NIST report. Then can you point out in that quote you posted where they note that "the heat would have gone down through more than just the structural columns between those 6 floors"?
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Stundie	Feb 21 2008, 09:53 PM Post #37
Posts: 888 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	sevon My answer to that question is not relevant to the OP. It was a simple question which again you have failed to answer, because it puts you in an uncomfortable position and you do not like it. Hence you ignore it!! My question is very relevant to the OP. The person in the OP is stating his case from the belief in the official story, so if that is the case...Unless I'm mistaken and he doesn't support the official story, then it makes his argument to plug the figures of the JL hudson into that of the WTC, because to cause a global collapse, he would have to believe that 6 floors worth of damage would cause failure too. So how can you even present this as an argument? You are creating your own mooted point. sevon Yours is, because since you believe that localized damage could not cause a collapse, it would require a LARGE amount of explosives, which then leads to the questions asked in the OP...namely, how could this large amount of explosives have been placed without ANYONE noticing!? I never said a large amount or a larger amount of explosives! So please stop asserting claims to me I have never made...You are creating arguments that I have never made...You know why? Because I haven't got a clue who, how much explosives or how they did it and neither as anyone else. And guess what?? Neither has you or the opening poster. It may have took these guys 24 days, but this does not equate because to the WTC because the designs are different and the methods for demolition could be too and many other factors. You are asking people to speculate, so you can create an argument of how silly the controlled demolition theory is, because it would have took 12 men 76.8 days or something. Its pointless...like the opening post...other than pointing out the contradiction in his claims, which he can't answer. To address my question which I know is putting you and the opener of the thread in an uncomfortable position...of having to support a theory that a demolition to a 110 story building can be done by wiring explosive in the 6 floors... Is this what you are claiming, or are you not going to answer again?? So to clarify, nobody as a clue how long it would have taken, besides even if it took a year or 10 minutes what does this prove? How long it took? The evidence for a CD goes far beyond thinking it's logistically impossible, when you consider how its almost physically impossible of how it officially collapses. (Have you guys got a unified theory on the official story for how the towers collapsed yet?) The logistics seem impossible because you want and need them to be impossible to hold on to your fairy tale.....because god forbid if it was possible, that means you might have to change your thinking...but I doubt it. sevon Sure, that would be one way to do it. You'd just have to explain how it could be done without anyone noticing. Also bear in mind it would take a large amount of explosives.....Jet fuel has approximately 15x the energy of TNT per pound...I'll let you do the math on that one. There could be thousands of possible ways of them doing it without anyone noticing it, but again we are speculating. So there is no point...Hence I support an investigation! Again you are telling me to "bear in mind it would take a large amount of explosives!"....lol Hilarious! You are proving my point exactly as I thought for all to see. You believe that 6 floors plane and heat damage can cause the WTC collapse, but yet you believe that it would take a large amount of explosives to make it collapse? WTF! lol This is total contradiction in your beliefs and the amount you think would be needed is nothing but speculation. Plane damage and the heat can cause but explosives can't....Which is odd, because before 9/11...all demo experts thought explosives were the perfect tool for bring down towers, but we have since discovered that planes and jet fuel is much more quicker and effective! Are you a demo expert that can state it would take a large amount to bring down the WTC...?? You are telling us shit we already know, I understand that Jet Fuel as more energy than TNT, but I'll let you do the math as to why people in demolitions used explosives over jet fuel! <-----Unless you think demolition experts should be using jet fuel now to demolish buildings....lol A very funny post! Cheers Stundie
Posts: 888 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


sevon	Feb 22 2008, 10:07 AM Post #38
Posts: 408 Group: BANNED! Member #256 Joined: 02/01/08	Stundie Feb 21 2008, 09:53 PM I never said a large amount or a larger amount of explosives! So please stop asserting claims to me I have never made...You are creating arguments that I have never made...You know why? Because I haven't got a clue who, how much explosives or how they did it and neither as anyone else. And guess what?? Neither has you or the opening poster. It may have took these guys 24 days, but this does not equate because to the WTC because the designs are different and the methods for demolition could be too and many other factors. Your CD theory requires LOTS of explosives. You've already stated that you don't believe damage to a few floors would be enough to bring the towers down. Based on this, how do you answer the questions of the OP?
Posts: 408 Group: BANNED! Member #256 Joined: 02/01/08


Trajan Octavian Titus	Feb 23 2008, 08:43 PM Post #39
Posts: 67 Group: Members Member #335 Joined: 02/19/08	JFK Feb 21 2008, 01:06 PM And what would happen if, for instance, there were 94 thermite devices ( with a ceramic "concentrator funnel" ) placed on each of the 47 core column at floors 30 and 33 ? - Just asking. It would take tons of thermate just to go through one structural beam, for this type of demo you would have to use shaped charges. Regardless there is no evidence of thermate/thermite in the first place IE two chemicals are conspicuously missing in Jones analysis IE Barium Nitrate and Potassium Permanganate.
Posts: 67 Group: Members Member #335 Joined: 02/19/08


Trajan Octavian Titus	Feb 23 2008, 08:44 PM Post #40
Posts: 67 Group: Members Member #335 Joined: 02/19/08	self delete Edited by Trajan Octavian Titus, Feb 23 2008, 08:45 PM.
Posts: 67 Group: Members Member #335 Joined: 02/19/08


Trajan Octavian Titus	Feb 23 2008, 08:46 PM Post #41
Posts: 67 Group: Members Member #335 Joined: 02/19/08	Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 21 2008, 01:13 PM Trajan Octavian Titus Feb 20 2008, 06:00 PM Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 20 2008, 05:56 PM Trajan Octavian Titus Feb 20 2008, 05:21 PM <br />Regardless you don't understand the NIST report, it wasn't just the localized structural damage from the fire which caused the collapse, the heat would have gone down through more than just the structural columns between those 6 floors, <br /><br /> Oh please do show me the portion of the NIST report that details this.<br /><br /><br /><br /> Right here:<br /><br /> Quote: <br />Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.<br /><br />NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.<br /><br />NIST Report Q&A<br /> <br /><br /> Hi, back guys!<br /><br />First before I address this, can you point out the page in the NIST report where this came from. After all you said this came from the NIST report.<br /><br />Then can you point out in that quote you posted where they note that "the heat would have gone down through more than just the structural columns between those 6 floors"? I gave a link bub that is straight from nist.gov Q&A. Go to the link it's under question 2 paragraph 4&5. Quote: Then can you point out in that quote you posted where they note that "the heat would have gone down through more than just the structural columns between those 6 floors"? That was a clear and concise explanation of the collapse initiation it clearly stated "perimeter columns" it did not say "perimeter columns through floors 93 to 99. You did read that they don't agree with the progressive collapse right? What do you think that means? It means that it was a simultaneous collapse of the entire structure due to the outward bowing of the perimeter columns. Edited by Trajan Octavian Titus, Feb 23 2008, 08:51 PM.
Posts: 67 Group: Members Member #335 Joined: 02/19/08


Trajan Octavian Titus	Feb 23 2008, 08:52 PM Post #42
Posts: 67 Group: Members Member #335 Joined: 02/19/08	Stundie Feb 21 2008, 09:53 PM There could be thousands of possible ways of them doing it without anyone noticing it, Well since there are thousands perhaps you can answer the OP and name ONE. Just one, I don't need thousands of ways I just want ONE! Edited by Trajan Octavian Titus, Feb 23 2008, 08:53 PM.
Posts: 67 Group: Members Member #335 Joined: 02/19/08


Trajan Octavian Titus	Feb 23 2008, 08:56 PM Post #43
Posts: 67 Group: Members Member #335 Joined: 02/19/08	Headspin Feb 21 2008, 12:11 PM I'm not ducking any issue, i am trying to respond to the issues you have raised one at a time, No sir you clearly are not or you would have answered the question in the OP IE how did they get these explosives into the building without anyone noticing? Edited by Trajan Octavian Titus, Feb 23 2008, 08:57 PM.
Posts: 67 Group: Members Member #335 Joined: 02/19/08


William Rea	Feb 23 2008, 09:42 PM Post #44
Posts: 319 Group: Members Member #149 Joined: 01/20/08	Trajan Octavian Titus Feb 23 2008, 08:56 PM Headspin Feb 21 2008, 12:11 PM I'm not ducking any issue, i am trying to respond to the issues you have raised one at a time, No sir you clearly are not or you would have answered the question in the OP IE how did they get these explosives into the building without anyone noticing? Since you have now decided to use berating people as well as using speculation and personal incredulity as the basis of your debating technique perhaps you'd like to put some rigour into your OP. Maybe you can start by telling us how you are qualified to carry out the OP analysis and then you can show us the calculations that you used to validate that comparative analysis. At this stage I will accept your work without it having been peer reviewed first.
Posts: 319 Group: Members Member #149 Joined: 01/20/08


Headspin	Feb 23 2008, 10:34 PM Post #45
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Trajan Octavian Titus Feb 23 2008, 08:56 PM Headspin Feb 21 2008, 12:11 PM I'm not ducking any issue, i am trying to respond to the issues you have raised one at a time, No sir you clearly are not or you would have answered the question in the OP IE how did they get these explosives into the building without anyone noticing? I did address your question - you asked "how this could be done...without the bomb sniffing dogs noticing". I'll take your silence as accepting of my response. In terms of security not noticing, the work could have been disguised as some form of maintenance upgrade. The towers were falling apart, there was a lot of work being carried out, elevators were being modernised, there was rewiring work, there was fireproofing maintenance. If security was informed of the maintenance upgrade, then why would anyone suspect anything? High level security may have even instructed the security guards to let the maintenance workers through unhindered. In terms of office workers not noticing, there is no reason to believe any work would have to have been carried out in view of office workers, work could have been kept to elevator shafts, roof spaces, mechanical floors, empty office/floor space - same argument for secrioty cameras, if you know where the security systems are you can avoid them. The figures you mention for amount of explosives and man hours required to "wire" the building are the upper limits. Clearly the amount of man hours required is going to be less than you have stated. you base your figures on jobs which had certain considerations that would not apply such as safety of surrounding buildings, economy of clearup, cost of explosives. There is no reason to think that there were time constraints on "wiring" the building, but if the requirements for the job were speed and there was no limit to funding then you would plan the job according to your requirements. The answers are pretty obvious, i'm surprised you haven't considered them as a possibilty. Edited by Headspin, Feb 23 2008, 10:53 PM.
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Headspin	Feb 23 2008, 10:49 PM Post #46
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Trajan Octavian Titus Feb 23 2008, 08:43 PM JFK Feb 21 2008, 01:06 PM And what would happen if, for instance, there were 94 thermite devices ( with a ceramic "concentrator funnel" ) placed on each of the 47 core column at floors 30 and 33 ? - Just asking. It would take tons of thermate just to go through one structural beam what do you base this statement on? Quote: for this type of demo you would have to use shaped charges. Why? Quote: Regardless there is no evidence of thermate/thermite in the first place IE two chemicals are conspicuously missing in Jones analysis IE Barium Nitrate and Potassium Permanganate. This is just incorrect. Potassium and manganese (elemental atoms of potassium permanganate) were found in the spectra done in Jones initial work in 2005, and were also found in the iron spheres recently. Barium Nitrate is not a requirement for therm?te, its just an additive, what you are saying is like saying a cake is not a cake unless it has icing on it. Edited by Headspin, Feb 23 2008, 10:58 PM.
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Stundie	Feb 24 2008, 07:53 PM Post #47
Posts: 888 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	sevon Feb 22 2008, 10:07 AM Your CD theory requires LOTS of explosives. You've already stated that you don't believe damage to a few floors would be enough to bring the towers down. Based on this, how do you answer the questions of the OP? How many times have I answered the OP........ I DO NOT KNOW AND NOBODY DOES because it = SPECULATION! Where did I EVER say it needed LOTS of explosives to make the WTC collapse?? Talk about a strawman! ...even after I have pointed this out too in my previous thread, you created this argument inside your head. Go back and see if I ever made this argument?? I just can't believe you have the CHEEK TO TRY IT AGAIN! You type this shit on the screen in a piss poor attempt to make this look my position when I have NEVER ONCE stated how much explosives....Let alone LOTS! lol And in ALL of that, you avoided and dodged the question I asked, better than any gold winning Olympic fencer I've seen...lol I'm not shocked or surprised to be honest. Please answer the question......or just admit you can't answer it because it compromises your belief in the official story! Is it your belief that it would require LOTS of explosives?? Now back to the point of this pointless thread. I'll even answer the questions for you, seeing as you hate answering tricky questions... Q:If it took 10 mins or 10 years to plant the explosives, what does this prove? A: How long it took. Q: If it took 1 man or 100 men to plant the explosives, what does this prove? A: How many men did it. Q: If it took 1lb or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000lbs of explosives, what does this prove? A: How much explosives was used! Q: Does this disprove the CD theory? A: No. We can speculate about how it was done, in order to give you the ammo you need to create more speculation about how impossible it is! All you are doing is creating an argument of speculation in order to try and prove how crazy/woo/dipshit/batshit/crackpot/tinhat wearing the CD theory is. Based on nothing but your speculation, which would be based on our speculation.....lol The thing is, you obviously want to try and use this as evidence to disprove the CD theory, how it's impossible, but your questions do not do that.... I'm betting you really wish they would though! lol Laters! Stundie Edited by Stundie, Feb 24 2008, 07:58 PM.
Posts: 888 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


Trajan Octavian Titus	Mar 3 2008, 06:20 AM Post #48
Posts: 67 Group: Members Member #335 Joined: 02/19/08	Headspin Feb 23 2008, 10:49 PM Why? Because it would have taken tons of thermate just to cut a single beam: Quote: Thermite in general makes an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs. It doesn't make clean cuts. It's a powder that undergoes a violent chemical reaction as seen in the video below. http://www.guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that? Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3 2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe 2 moles of Al weigh 54 g 1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g density of Al=2.64 g/cc density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc 54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al. 160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3 Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g. A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)214 = 4.2 kg For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh: 0.54.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we're going. You'd need tons. Here's a Debunking911 Fun Fact! How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window: A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed. 2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g. Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe. That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced. Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron: Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al. To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 23 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets. Example: Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 63000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass. Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft. Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum. http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magconda.htm The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds. Debunking 9-11 Thermite and Sulfer Quote: Potassium and manganese (elemental atoms of potassium permanganate) were found in the spectra done in Jones initial work in 2005, and were also found in the iron spheres recently. A) My mistake. B) Jones claims to have found evidence for thermate not thermite, thermate is made with BN not PP. C) Manganese is added to structural steel as a sulfur reducing agent. D) Then how did these tons of thermate make it into the building? Edited by Trajan Octavian Titus*, Mar 3 2008, 06:27 AM.
Posts: 67 Group: Members Member #335 Joined: 02/19/08


Trajan Octavian Titus	Mar 3 2008, 06:28 AM Post #49
Posts: 67 Group: Members Member #335 Joined: 02/19/08	Headspin Feb 23 2008, 10:34 PM I did address your question - you asked "how this could be done...without the bomb sniffing dogs noticing". I'll take your silence as accepting of my response. Well you'd be wrong. First of all I didn't just say bomb sniffing dogs I also mentioned office workers, security personnel, and video cameras. Quote: In terms of security not noticing, the work could have been disguised as some form of maintenance upgrade. Was there a maintenance or upgrade taking place for 72 days in WTC's one, two, and seven? Gee why have none of the evacuees mentioned seeing a 72 day maintenance upgrade. Quote: The towers were falling apart, there was a lot of work being carried out, elevators were being modernised, there was rewiring work, there was fireproofing maintenance. There was rewiring in one of the towers, it lasted a week or so IIRC, show me evidence of an upgrade which took 72 days in all three the bloody buildings. Quote: If security was informed of the maintenance upgrade, then why would anyone suspect anything? High level security may have even instructed the security guards to let the maintenance workers through unhindered. You mean like the highest level of security named John O'Neil? Gee I wonder why he stayed in the building if he knew it was set to explode. Quote: In terms of office workers not noticing, there is no reason to believe any work would have to have been carried out in view of office workers, work could have been kept to elevator shafts, roof spaces, mechanical floors, empty office/floor space - same argument for secrioty cameras, if you know where the security systems are you can avoid them. You can reach all the support columns from these areas? I don't think so. Regardless show me the evidence for this 72 day upgrade which occurred not in one, not in two, but in all three buildings. Quote: The figures you mention for amount of explosives and man hours required to "wire" the building are the upper limits. Try again: "doing nothing but loading explosives," it doesn't mention wiring. Quote: Clearly the amount of man hours required is going to be less than you have stated. you base your figures on jobs which had certain considerations that would not apply such as safety of surrounding buildings, economy of clearup, cost of explosives. There is no reason to think that there were time constraints on "wiring" the building, but if the requirements for the job were speed and there was no limit to funding then you would plan the job according to your requirements. Which is why I cut the time necessary in half even though they were far bigger buildings and had columns to cut as a result, so show me this evidence of a 36 day upgrade in all three of the towers. Furthermore; if they set the charges for all three buildings at the same time that would require 36 more people involved in the conspiracy. Quote: The answers are pretty obvious, i'm surprised you haven't considered them as a possibilty. Really if they're so obvious then please by all means show me the evidence of a 36 upgrade in all three buildings. Furthermore; as I have demonstrated in this demo the use of thermate/ite would have been out of the question meaning that they would have had to use shaped C4 charges, meaning they could not have gotten past the bomb sniffing dogs. Edited by Trajan Octavian Titus, Mar 3 2008, 06:41 AM.
Posts: 67 Group: Members Member #335 Joined: 02/19/08


Headspin	Mar 3 2008, 08:56 AM Post #50
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	1. You state any pre-planting of incendaries/explosives would have taken no fewer than 72 days which would have been too long a time. You state it took 12 men 72 days =12x72 = 864 man-days to just load the explosives into the Hudson building. Demolition Dave says it took 4 men 1 week =4x7= 28 man-days to load the explosives - you are off by a factor of 30 according to Demolition Dave. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2316524&postcount=20 so if we presume dave is correct (who has been in the demolition business for 30 years), and we you use your own chalk-and-cheese calculations we get 2.4 days not 72 days using 12 men which is a long weekend, using 20 men it might be done in a long shift. 2. therm?te would have been too heavy. have you considered nano alumino-thermic explosives technology manufactured as "frozen smoke"? http://edition.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/05/09/record.gel/ this technology has been around since at least the 1990s. page 19-20 Nanoscale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives https://www.llnl.gov/str/pdfs/10_00.2.pdf ....or maybe you think the perps used a few dozen flower pots? Aerogels/frozen-smoke is an amazing insulator too, excellent for fireproofing. fireproofing work carried out in the towers seemed to match the exact floors where the planes impacted: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272 Edited by Headspin, Mar 3 2008, 09:47 AM.
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


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


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
…
10