Study concludes explosives used on 911

a reply to: neutronflux


That's actually a pretty good question. I'll start with the first part for the lulz, correct me when I'm wrong.

... nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons

The AMPTIAC Newsletter, Volume 6, Number 1(P. 5/10)

My money is on that aluminium-molybdenum oxide type, also found in the Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

What is your proof it was used and the number of charges used to bring down WTC 1.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

aluminium-molybdenum oxide is widely used in industry. No proof it came from other sources than building materials.

a reply to: neutronflux

Now to the second part, would we need devices on each floor?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: neutronflux

Now to the second part, would we need devices on each floor?

Thermal demolitions by melting cannot be timed because heat transfer is too slow. Clearing each floor with thermobaric explosives would be noisy and obvious.

Try again.

Odd how fire induced collapse is the only explanation that fits all the evidence.

a reply to: PublicOpinion


I think the main demolition argument is the collapse speed couldn't be reached unless the resistance of each floor was removed. Each floor was weakened by demolitions before being hit by the floor above. Gage conspiracists narrative.

Gage kinda boxed himself in by my opinion. He has stated if each floor was broken by the above floor crashing into with only gravity at work, the building collapse would have been slower. In his narrative, cutting one floor to start a gravity collapse would resulted in a slower collapse.

The in its own footprint arguments was another miss calculation. The usual figure is the debris field was 20 times the actual base of the building's.

This is the context. The towers debris field is large and damage many buildings. Why argue a murderous government trying to work up a nation into a war frenzy would neatly collapse the buildings in their own footprints. If you were a murderous government, with no regard to property and life, pushing a nation into a war frenzy, wouldn't you want the towers to fall like a tree? In the false flag argument, why would you want a nice neat collapse? And in reality it was not a nice neat collapse.

Then as pointed out, thermite burns slow and at varied speeds. To rig a whole building floor by floor with thermite and time the charges so it falls into its own footprint would be impossible in the best of conditions. Not a fire deranged building.

Also, Gage said the thermite charges were created to fizzle and set off with no flash. I don't know what that does with the backers of controlled demolition stating witnesses heard explosions and seen flashes.

a reply to: neutronflux

Also, Gage said the thermite charges were created to fizzle and set off with no flash. I don't know what that does with the backers of controlled demolition stating witnesses heard explosions and seen flashes.

That highlights the fact that the conspiracy crown is all over the place with their speculations.
Maybe we need a pole to see which method is the most believed.

a reply to: samkent

Or Richard Gage's assertion adequately insulated WTC structural steel makes a good heat sink. Never seen insulation on the fins of air cooled engines to help heat dissipation.

Or Richard Gage's assertion the resultant improved building codes from the lessons learned from the WTC will waste money during high rise building construction.

That highlights the fact that the conspiracy crowd is all over the place with their speculations

good, atleast theres that in common

we need a pole to see which method is the most believed

are you suggesting a new NIST investigation for light poles

a reply to: AttitudeProblem

are you suggesting a new NIST investigation for light poles

No one that asks which demolition method the conspiracy crowd believes was used.
Space beams, thermite, nukes etc.

a reply to: AttitudeProblem
There are many problems with what happened, there was only ONE engine fan recovered in the pentagon , had to be from cruise missile or single engine jet. if you look closely as one of the airliners that hit towers starts to bank ,you can clearly see a large electronics bubble under the plane, this was a remote plane not a standard airliner.
IT makes me so sad that our government thinks they are so smart (not) and we are so dumb that they are willing to kill us for there agenda to be completed and herding us like cattle to the slaughter.

a reply to: supergravity

There are many problems with what happened, there was only ONE engine fan recovered in the pentagon , had to be from cruise missile or single engine jet. if you look closely as one of the airliners that hit towers starts to bank ,you can clearly see a large electronics bubble under the plane, this was a remote plane not a standard airliner.

You are so far behind the 911 conspiracy curve.

Look Here for your so called missing engine.
Look Here for you 'electronics bubble' on every UPS plane.

If you only get information from conspiracy sites you will always be given a skewed viewpoint.
Want to help me look for BigFoot this weekend ?

a reply to: samkent

So now your saying a u.p.s freighter hit the towers and not a airliner full of people? look a the hole in the pentagon , a small plane or missle made that LITTLE hole. where are the wings ,they would have made much more damage, hundreds of feet wide.but thanks posting, always want to look a other opinions.

a reply to: supergravity

clearly see a large electronics bubble under the plane, this was a remote plane not a standard airliner.

So called "electronics bubble" is the compartment holding the landing gear - found on Boeing models 757/767

When gear is stowed following takeoff the compartment is covered by fairings

If you look closely at underside of Boeing aircraft will the bulges containing the landing gear

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Tardacus

Oh, like the lies of the EPA on the WTC dust was safe. Wait, I think that was proven in a court of law in our lifetime?

like i said the truth can`t be disclosed until all those involved are dead.

originally posted by: supergravity
a reply to: samkent

So now your saying a u.p.s freighter hit the towers and not a airliner full of people? look a the hole in the pentagon , a small plane or missle made that LITTLE hole. where are the wings ,they would have made much more damage, hundreds of feet wide.but thanks posting, always want to look a other opinions.

The little hole as YOU put it was not impact hole created by the aircraft but from COMPONENTS pf the aircraft ,when will people learn to think for themselves.

The C-ring punch-out hole is frequently cited as evidence that a dense "warhead", from a missile or cruise missile, was used in the attack. According to the argument, the object that produced the hole had to travel through five masonry walls: The facade and inward-facing wall of the E-ring, two walls of the D-ring, and two walls of the C-ring. That would seem to be too much material for any component from a passenger jet to penetrate. This argument is based on a misunderstanding of the Pentagon's design. In fact, the light wells between the C- and D-ring and D- and E-ring are only three stories deep. The first and second stories span the distance between the Pentagon's facade and the punctured C-ring wall, which faces a ground-level courtyard. There are no masonry walls in this space, only load-bearing columns. Thus it would be possible for an aircraft part that breached the facade to travel through this area on the ground floor, miss the columns, and puncture the C-ring wall without having encountering anything more than unsubstantial gypsum walls and furniture in-between.

a reply to: wmd_2008
we would not even have to argue over none of this if the government had put an air marshal on every plane when they got the MEMORANDUM "ben laden determined to take over airliners" . The government knows isreal has had almost no hijackings since they started using air marshals. it would have saved thousands of lives and money.They sat on there hands and allowed this to happen to put fear in the people and allow them to make money on weaponry ,take away constitutional rights,and start new wars.

a reply to: supergravity

Just one problem ......

EL AL has to cover only a few dozens flights each day, all arriving from oversea

In US has THOUSANDS OF FLIGHTS every day - both domestic and overseas

So explain how to cover all these flights...?

Especially true on oversea flights - getting air marshals to foreign airports and issues with them be armed

Air marshals are placed only on certain flights to major cities or on those where intelligence has determined
may ne a problem

a reply to: firerescue

good point but seems like small problems to just change rules, compared to letting thousands be burned at the stake for a sacrifice on 911.they could have armed the attendants with crossbows ( non fire arm) and it would have kept all of this from happening.