It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hi-tech, fool-proof CD exists, & here's the patent

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 04:25 AM
link   
On the thread Video & Evidence there was no Controlled Demo, our resident demo expert, Damocles, has done an excellent job of explaining the shortcomings of the two main types of detonators used in demolition work, and I encourage everyone to look over the end of the thread.

To summarize his explanation: by far the safest method to wire a building for CD is physically, using traditional means, either detcord or a wired circuit, but this is incredibly invasive and would leave obvious wiring running throughout the core structures.

I'll quote him at length as this is important information:


when you set up a demo shot, whether its to drop a building, a bridge, or punch a hole in a road to create an obstacle for the enemy, you create whats called a "ring main" whereby you either use all electrical blasting caps or you use non electrical caps and those are set off by either time fuse or det cord. so with electric caps you tie them all in a series circuit so that you have 100% assurity that they all go. if one fails they all fail sort of thing. thats because you want them all to go. if youre using det cord then a single strand goes from the charge to a single main piece of detcord and "tied in" there are a variety of ways to tie in but how its done doesnt matter. once the main peice is set off, they all go unless a cap is improperly placed then THAT charge doesnt go.

so you can see...theres really no way for it to be a "premature' charge UNLESS they used one of a variety of OTHER methods to prime the shots, which, COULD happen but really makes no logical sense to do it as you would need more ordinance in the form of detcord or wires or whatever. using the simplest method is the most sure method and any demo guy is going to know that. the way i described you'd have one place on each floor to set off the shot.


Now there is also another method of using a radio-controlled detonator, but as Damocles explained and as my own subsequent reading confirmed, this is fraught with danger, as microwaves, cell-phone transmissions, radio waves, and even the electrical flux of a large steel structure could set them off prematurely. Obviously this method, though the least invasive, is out of the question for the WTC complex, which was one of the most densely wired places on earth, and had a large transmission mast on the north tower to broadcast radio, TV and microwave/cell signals.

So, anything else out there tangible that could do the job, other than falling back on blind faith that our huge black ops budget generated something?

Yes. US patent 6161481, for "Optopyrotechnic demolition installation," issued on March 13, 2001 to Robert Patrick Barbiche.

In a nutshell, this is a highly secure method of initiating CD using detonators wired with fibre optic cables and a computerized laser firing unit.

From the abstract:


The purpose of the present invention is a demolition installation, the original design of which enables it to eliminate all disadvantages of existing electrically controlled installations, and in particular, eliminates all risks of accidental or mischievous firing both during work to install charges and priming operations, and during prior storage and transport of components of the installation.

According to the present invention, this result is obtained by means of a demolition installation characterized by the fact that it comprises at least two independent groups, each including:

a control unit with several outputs, each comprising at least one laser source and at least one control switch for the said laser source, in which closure will cause the laser source to emit a laser beam at one or more of the said outputs;

optically controlled pyrotechnic initiators placed at determined locations in the structure to be demolished; and

optical fibers connecting each of the pyrotechnic initiators to one of the outputs of the control unit.

In an installation designed in this way, pyrotechnic initiators are only fired optically through the optical fibers. Therefore, firing is absolutely independent of stray currents. This procures optimum safety, particularly when the construction to be demolished is located in or close to electrical substations or under catenary lines. Furthermore, stormy weather has no influence on the work progress or safety.

The characteristic mentioned above also means that constructions located in large urban centers can be demolished at no risk, despite the large amount of electronic equipment present in these centers.

Furthermore, firing triggered by mischievous persons is impossible, since these persons would need a laser and the laser will have to be compatible with the precise frequency of the laser used in the installation.

Since firing is controlled optically, ignition cannot be disturbed by any metal mass. Safety during transport and during storage of components is also guaranteed.


From a technical standpoint, this system is ideal. Guaranteed detonation on level of precision heretofore impossible. Patented in March of 2001.

The obvious drawback: you still have "wires," BUT these are fibre optic strands, indistinguishable from the masses of fibre-optics that were used throughout the WTC for communications and to service the computing needs of the various trading floors of its financial-industry tenants.

What proof do we have that such disguised work was carried out? Most obviously the several highly unusual "power downs" reported by Scott Forbes of Fudiciary Trust, which occupied 5 upper floors of the South Tower, on the weekends before the attack.

Clearly, workers laying yet another layer of fibre-optics inside the core would be a common-place occurrence in the WTC complex, easily disguised to be indistinguishable from any other such legitimate work. Much of the work, in fact, could be done as a routine installation by workers none the wiser about the real purpose of the work.

Finally, who is Robert P. Barbiche? A French demolition expert who filed the original patent with the company Cardem Demolition, SA, in Bischheim, France. Link here. Vinci Construction, which purchased Cardem in 2000, is one of the largest construction firms in France.

A final, important note: this technology was freely available from the time that the original patent was applied for--usually at least a year before issuance--and there is absolutely no reason to draw any inference of even the slightest suspicion about the inventor or his affiliated companies.



[edit on 16-7-2007 by gottago]

````````````````````
Added 'ex' tags for external quotes

[edit on 16/7/07 by masqua]




posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
Now there is also another method of using a radio-controlled detonator, but as Damocles explained and as my own subsequent reading confirmed, this is fraught with danger, as microwaves, cell-phone transmissions, radio waves, and even the electrical flux of a large steel structure could set them off prematurely.


It's possible to safely set off an explosive remotely without having to worry about any of that. I think what Damocles had in mind was simple electric detonators that could be susceptible to currents inducted from the environment or etc., prematurely triggering the detonator on an explosive. A circuit can be set up that requires a very specific signal, could be either analog or digital, that it has to receive before accepting any signal to detonate an explosive device, and this signal can be as long and hard to reproduce accidentally as needed, and the actual detonators can be hardened too.

If background flux was that bad, and really couldn't be handled, then wouldn't computers be having all kinds of junk input from the same thing happening to logical components in them?

I've heard of computers near arc-welders at a railroad office acting up because of the lines the computers were using were inducting some of the much-greater amounts of current going to the arc-welders near or from a transformer, and the inducted noise completely compromised the digital stuff on the line when the arc-welders were cut on, but this is the only time I've ever heard of this kind of thing in real life, and digital lines only normally use up to 3.3 or 5 volts when sending data, which is pretty far out of the ball-park of what arc-welders draw, I'm sure.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 05:45 AM
link   
absolutly fabulous find


this system was patented just over a year before i got out of the military and by that point demo was not my primary job anymore, so by that time i really wasnt out searching for new high tech ways to blow things up, in fact the demo work i was doing was training our team for IED's and those are decidedly lower tech (other than cell phones as detonators but even those are pretty janky)

now, while something like this is certainly a great choice for a covert op like this, it still doesnt answer most of the other problems i have with the towers as a CD. also, if it WAS a cd, and this technology was used (which would be a great choice i must say) it would almost single handedly disprove the "squibs" as premature detonations (which is by far the most common explaination of the "squibs" ive seen as a recurring theme (and i do say almost because i suppose anything is possible and they 'could' have connected them out of sequence, but thats reaching imho))

but yeah, great find overall. if they still had the WATS id give you one of my votes.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

It's possible to safely set off an explosive remotely without having to worry about any of that. I think what Damocles had in mind was simple electric detonators that could be susceptible to currents inducted from the environment or etc., prematurely triggering the detonator on an explosive. A circuit can be set up that requires a very specific signal, could be either analog or digital, that it has to receive before accepting any signal to detonate an explosive device, and this signal can be as long and hard to reproduce accidentally as needed, and the actual detonators can be hardened too.


most of the problem with anything that uses electric blasting caps is that the wire leads inside the cap iteself are close together, when a current is applied they spark and set off the cap. the wire leads on them as packaged are "shorted" so that it helps prevent stray charges from building up and setting them off. and the wires are wound around this little cardboard tube (think toilet paper only smaller) and the cap is stored inside it so that the wires act like a little faraday cage in transit.

the danger is that, while ive never seen it happen first hand its always stressed to us a LOT si that even low wattage transmitters can set these things off prematurely. static charges can also, so for the same reason you 'ground yourself' out when working on a computer and really should wear that silly wrist strap, you'd want the same precautions with electric blasting caps.

yes, the actual radio reciever/detonator can be coded to any number of analog/digital frequencies and trigger codes...the danger is in the cap/wire itself. and the problem with RC controls is that you have an open circuit within your firing wire where with just an electric ring main you can physically keep the wires twisted until youre ready to hook them to your blasting machine. now, i suppose one could argue that with a few relays and a 2nd signal you could do it by remote...but why bother when there are safer and more sure ways to do it? not to mention that lets face it, youre trying to use remote controls inside a big steel building...does anyone know, how was cell phone reception in the towers? though the reception of the recivers could be 100% signal, the risk of a premature blast (i mean like, the day before) outweighs the minimal benefit you gain by using individual remote recivers for each charge.

IF they used any remotes, it was like, 1/floor if the demo guys had half a brain.

but, that point aside, electric blasting caps dont have the safety margin or the performance that nonelectric caps do and thats why they arent used nearly as often as nonelectric caps.


so whenever you see me going on about how they likely didnt use remote control bombs, thats why. its all about the cap and has very little to do wtih the actual remote control part of it. oh sure i could give you many reasons why the remote control part is just pointless but we both know that for someone really motivated any of those reasons can be overcome. but in real life demo, you really only see remotes in hollywood. until this optical system GG found blasting cap technology hadnt changed in something like 100 or so years, because what they had was just that efficient.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
absolutly fabulous find


now, while something like this is certainly a great choice for a covert op like this, it still doesnt answer most of the other problems i have with the towers as a CD. also, if it WAS a cd, and this technology was used (which would be a great choice i must say) it would almost single handedly disprove the "squibs" as premature detonations (which is by far the most common explaination of the "squibs" ive seen as a recurring theme (and i do say almost because i suppose anything is possible and they 'could' have connected them out of sequence, but thats reaching imho))

but yeah, great find overall. if they still had the WATS id give you one of my votes.


Damocles, heartfelt thanks. As usual, you got me to thinking. Any technology that's been around so long has to at some point be advanced, and I just couldn't believe that detonators hadn't, for all the obvious reasons.

As for squibs, you know I maintain they weren't premature detonations, but a planned part of the CD process, softening up the core structure before the cascading destruction wave got down to them. They puff out at the centers of the facades, where the most reinforced area of the core was--the central cross of doubled core columns that was the real heart of the structure.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago

What proof do we have that such disguised work was carried out? Most obviously the several highly unusual "power downs" reported by Scott Forbes of Fudiciary Trust, which occupied 5 upper floors of the South Tower, on the weekends before the attack.


Good job on the post.... all but this . Scott Forbes knew of his office being shut down. Thats all. This was in one tower in HIS offices.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Not much to say on this except great find.
I dont follow all the back and forth about the logistics of CD, but I do follow a little.
Like you said, I appreciate Damocules and all he has done, but I knew there was a way to wire charges that was high tech and fool proof.
Fibreoptics. Simple and yet brilliant.

Im still guessing the 'control room' was in building seven.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
the danger is that, while ive never seen it happen first hand its always stressed to us a LOT si that even low wattage transmitters can set these things off prematurely.


I understand the concern, but like I said, if there's that much background flux or static build-up or etc., it would be affecting more than just electric theoretical detonating caps in the buildings. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I'm just saying it's very unrealistic in the given environment. Unless you're walking into an area with high flux density with a blasting cap that has nothing but two wires separated by a gap in it, then it shouldn't even be a problem. Now, that's not to say I wouldn't protect against it anyway if I were a relevant engineer to the whole thing.

And as an electrical/electronics engineering student, that setup of two wires separated by a gap kills me. It would take barely any extra effort at all just to come up with something less cave-man than that. I know they can be hardened, if not mechanically grounded or etc. until just before detonation, when the signal is first given. I remember reading somewhere of hi-Z components in nukes to prevent them from being set off prematurely. I bet they built those to work, eh? There are also materials that are semiconductors or insulators until a certain voltage is applied, and then they change and can much lower impedances or even become a conductor. You can just require a much higher input voltage to jump a larger gap of one of these materials, which wouldn't even be able to conduct electricity until just before detonation. A little transformer or Tesla coil could even be included (not saying high power, only high voltage). Put short I would try to use anything just to avoid simply putting a gap between two wires and waiting for a charge to cross if I were putting any kind of electrically-detonated devices around those buildings.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
and i cant say i disagree with you on any part.

but what could be, would be or should be is simply not what IS.

the reason that computers etc dnot run into the same problems is that they are grounded, which is why electric blasting caps are also shorted out until just before use. so like i said above, you COULD set up a system that had them shorted by a relay that would trip just before applying the detonating voltage to it...but, why? there are simpler and more sure ways of making sure your shot goes off as intended. the fewer things involved the less forensic evidence left behind because we have to assume (i normally hate assumptions but in this case its almost necessary) that they had NO idea of what would or wouldnt survive the collapse and having anything that could be found by some random worker bee who wasnt "in on it" and then identified later could be a problem. go with simple, things that will work with 100% certainty and leave little to no forensics behind. detcord is as close to 100% as you can get with almost no danger of going off until you want it to. this fibre optic system would in fact be absolutly brilliant for this application. should it survive its simply more data conduit. friggin brilliant.

so, dont shoot the messenger
all im trying to relay is whats out there and why its not the best method available in the area of electric blasting caps. and while i agree that there are all kinds of ways to reduce the risk of them popping on their own, what happens when you start adding more things to any mechanism, regardless of how benign or simple they are? simple goes to complex....simple is always best. and thats why they havnt changed in so many years, it was simple and to the point from the get go, if it aint broke dont fix it. electric blasting caps do have their place and their uses, but in a situation like the towers, they would be the least prefered.

but as always dont take my word for it, look it up. find any military demo references online and look at the charts for safe distances to transmitters of any type.

thing is not many people know or care about the dangers of radios and electric blasting caps. there was a bomb threat on campus when i went to college and the JANITORS swept the buildings...with handhelds. whereas when i got "randomly" searched moving onto post, i had a leftover "training aid" in the trunk and all radio and cell coms got shut down for a good portion of the post and one residential neighborhood until i could convince them it was inert and they called off EOD who was inbound from 30 miles out lol. (now that was an interesting night....that almost got me a job hehe)

so yes, ill concede it COULD be done with all radio controls or electric ring mains, it just makes no sense to do it that way. 11b made the point in another thread that i base my opinions on doing it the "right way" and he's spot on there. but thats because, in my own opinion, the right way is the best, safest and most covert way to do it.

lol but it is possible that im just being arrogant too so my suggestion to anyone thinking it was a cd with conventional HE is to really dig in and do some research and learn all you can then see if what you learn fits what we witnessed. as always im willing to offer unbiased info even if doing so contradicts my own opinions. my opinion is one thing but facts dont change. like i said to 11b in u2u, the more questions ya'll ask, the more i have to really challenge my own theories and opinions and in the end ill either be more convinced im right or ill see where the flaws in my opinions are and have to reevaluate.

i also want to take the time to thank a few of you out there, you know who you are, but im finally starting to feel like im debating this with intellectuals vs mudslinging crusaders (from both sides of the debate) so, gentlemen, my hat is off to you.

peace



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Like I said I havnt followed every exchange about CD, but I have a very simple question.
Dont the 'squibs' seen coming out of the towers look exactly like the 'squibs' seen in the lower left hand area of this video?
www.youtube.com...

To my untrained eye they are the exact same phenomenon.
The Stardust was brought down with a little over 400 pounds of explosives.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Like I said I havnt followed every exchange about CD, but I have a very simple question.
Dont the 'squibs' seen coming out of the towers look exactly like the 'squibs' seen in the lower left hand area of this video?
www.youtube.com...

To my untrained eye they are the exact same phenomenon.
The Stardust was brought down with a little over 400 pounds of explosives.


11b

I'll certainly agree with you, and also mention they are the coup-de-grace that comes late in the demo process, after the initial charges have gone off.

The towers were essentially 3 towers stacked upon each other with reinforced skylobbies because otherwise in such a tall building elevators and mechanical in one area would have been impossible.

You also had the cores NIST and PopMech wants us all to forget about, a dense box column grid which had to be blown to make the buildings fall. The perimeter/skin wouldn't do it--you'd have an exposed core in the end.

So charges had to be set to go off in advance of the destruction wave to take out the core below it, soften it up.

In the Startdust CD they come right at the end, but the WTC is an inverted CD, top down, so they have to come first.

And the biggest squibs appear at the most reinforced areas, the skylobbies. And are centered on the facades, where the core had a doubled row of centered columns forming a cross that was the real heart of the structure.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Someone please explain to me how the explosive squibs INCREASED in intesity after the initial explosion.

The so called "squibs" at the WTC collapses work in the opposite as any explosive device.

If you would like to state "non-conventional" please explain to me what this device is and how it reacts in the opposite manner of other explosions.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Someone please explain to me how the explosive squibs INCREASED in intesity after the initial explosion.

The so called "squibs" at the WTC collapses work in the opposite as any explosive device.

If you would like to state "non-conventional" please explain to me what this device is and how it reacts in the opposite manner of other explosions.


Since you asked...

First off, go back to one of those videos of one of the tower's collapses which on another thread you thought were nothing important, since they've been around for years, and were deeply insulting to the memories of the victims, and watch it again, if it doesn't offend your sensibilities too much. Piacenza has a whole bunch of them on a recent thread, to make it easy.


You'll see, if you peek through the cracks between your fingers, that there are indeed squibs, just as I've described in my previous post. Centered on the facades, the biggest ones at the area of the skylobbies--all in accordance with where the most critical areas of the core were located.

When you see one pop out, count "One-one-hundred, two-one-hundred..." and see how far you get before it's consumed by the destruction wave. About to "One-" at best. Less than half a second.

Again, the biggest squibs, that appear to linger the longest and project the most, are those at the skylobbies. What a surprise; this is, again, one of the most reinforced areas of the structure. Exactly what you would expect. More bang, more ejecta. More stuff to "linger" that fraction of a second.

Ok, now go back to the jolly happy destruction of the Stardust and watch the squib 11bravo pointed out. It jets out pretty darn far, and sure does look like it lingers, too.

And really, just where is the ejecta supposed to go, once the explosive force is spent? Just vanish?

So, what's the point of the question? Do you have any serious proposition about what the squibs could otherwise be? Magic jet fuel? Exploding filing cabinets?

[typos]

[edit on 16-7-2007 by gottago]



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
(and i do say almost because i suppose anything is possible and they 'could' have connected them out of sequence, but thats reaching imho))


That is actually what I believe happened. Set off under the guize of the building falling to weaken the lower structure. But, just my opinion.

Nice find gottago. Interesting what we can use fibre optics for. Word to the wise. When excavating, definately call the local utitility finder. We almost chopped a fibre optic line. It costs something like 50,000$ an hour or something rediculus like that.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I have always thought of ways to rig the building....these fiber optics could have been such a simple distraction....there had to be miles of the stuff in the towers. A crew of 10-20 guys that dress up as say a ISP or Phone company come in to work and install new lines for the buildings. No one would think differently and how many people you think would even bother them. I mean its such a huge building im sure people were used to things being renevated and stuff haahha. IDK crazy stuff tho....



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


That is actually what I believe happened. Set off under the guize of the building falling to weaken the lower structure. But, just my opinion.



no, what i meant was, and ill admit articulation is an issue today, that many people (gottago excepted of course) believe that the "squibs" were demo charges that were set off out of sequence by mistake and thats why we see them at all.

MY contention is that for this to be the case, some very serious errors were made by guys that should have been absolute pros.

and as that would be the mistake on the magnitude of a PHD in mathmatics messing up and saying 2+2=3.7 i just dont see it UNLESS they used a method to set off their charges that was overly complicated and inherently flawed.

or maybe a better analogy that 11B will see my point would be someone with an EIB putting their 16 back together and not staggering the gasgets on the bolt when they put it back into the bolt carrier or forgetting the buffer and putting it together then doing SPORTS and jamming the bolt carrier in the stock (dont laugh ive seen it done, but thats the dif between a dumb buck private 2 weeks outta highschool and someone with an EIB rofl). it "could" happen, but the chances are pretty low. some things you do enough that they become instinct. for the squibs to be premature detonations would be a mistake on those lines.

possible but very unlikely.

oh, GG and 11B, i think what captain was saying is similar to a point ive raised a few times, and im going to try desparatly to find the video that showed this really well, but if you can watch she shot of the squibs from the side angle in slow motion, waht you see is the initial jet, and then theres a continuation of the force that propagated it which is pretty much exactly opposite what i personally would have expected to see. id have expected it to fire when the overpressure wave hits it then stop, but (again i will try desparatly to find the video) in the video i keep referring to you can see that it clearly is still being pushed. but again, thats not my only problem with the squibs. though admittedly thats not what this thread is about and i do offer my apologies for going on a tangent there.

cav, ive designed a LOT of plans how i would do it, even top down like that (which if it really was a cd was, objectivly speaking (not trying to be insensative to those that died, just looking at it from the standpoint of a historian or some other such cold objective observer) it was a masterpiece of demo work, though admittedly im still in the no cd camp, just trying to be open minded about it and to share information so that those that DO think it was a CD have more to go on than wiki or hollywood) BUT the ONE problem i always run into, how do you set off that much demo covertly? ive admitted that since i wasnt standing a block away i cant really accuratly judge the decible levels of the collapse but i have been within 400m of a heavy demo shot which wasnt as large as what ive calculated would have had to happen to take out the core, and based on what ive seen and actually set off myself, and comparing to other cd's where you CAN still here the HE going off durign the collapse, i am just hard pressed as to how it could be done covertly. i mean i know guys that will say that even at a klik or two a 500lb bomb (which really doesnt have much more HE than would take to take out one floor at the core, the bomb cases are heavy) will rattle your fillings pretty good. (theres a decent video of this (the implosion with explosions heard)) in my debate thread. and in fact, 11B's video shows the same thing. explosions heard a ways away, start of fall, secondary detonations to make sure it will go where they want and still audible over the sound of debris falling. the sounds of teh explosion actually overpowered the sounds of the fall.

now, one could argue many points but its hard to dismiss even the video of the stardust and does show many of the things ive been saying all along, if looked at objectivly. (and most of the things i say i posted here yes its my debate but it really is a good place to start for those not real familiar with demo stuff and saves me a lot of typing lol (yes im lazy))

so, i still admit many things are possible, among them that i am totally just flat out wrong, but, i find most of them improbably at the very least.

ok i suppose that a really motivated person or group could find a way to make thermite cut 2" steel horizontally...but i still contend that thermite isnt consistant enough, or fast enough for it to have been what took out the core as it fell, and that to do it with HE would be nearly impossible to keep covert. because anything that can go wrong will go wrong and the last thing they wanted was some goofball cleanup crew member or overzealous firfighter to find a device that survived the fall and started screaming fora bombsquad. what happens to opsec then?


other than that, you gotta love this thread. skeptics and truthers sharing ideas and information and discussing them in a civil manner. no name calling or bashing and smiting of the heretics who dare disagree with a givin positino. damn, almost like a utopia in'it?

mods, i think we all need like...3 applauses each
hehe (did i go to far on that one?
)



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Damocles,

No problems here with diverting the thread to squibs, because one, frankly, how much is there to debate about fibre-optic CD? Pretty much case closed on the "it's impossible to wire the towers because of dogs/security/maintenance/nosy office workers/insert-your-favorite-reason here" front. The absence of even drive-by debunkers speaks volumes. And second, I was going to start a new thread on just that, but might as well debate it here.

Yeah, I do think CO had picked up on your earlier point of continuing squibs, and yes I've seen the effect of prolonged ejecta streams (how's that for a nice euphemism?), but these biggies, though they look strange at first glance, sure look an awful lot like that big squib you see in the Stardust video that 11B pointed out. It keeps going long after you think it should stop, like its coming out of a pipe.

And remember that the Stardust was stripped down to the bare skeleton too--there was little interior structure left to guide the squib stream, while at WTC you had the office corridors, etc, that would have channeled these blasts.

Finally, you're seeing a single broken window on one face, for the most part, which has to jet out pressure from the whole floor. The core is big and a number of charges are going off across a big surface area at once; that's alot of stuff to vent through one relatively small hole. It's gonna stream out.

So I don't know exactly what the mechanism is that's causing this effect, but it doesn't seem to be the smoking gun you contend.

Also, I think my point about seeing these squibs before the blast wave is because you're seeing an inverted, top-down CD is a very pertinent one. In the Stardust CD, that big squib comes at the very last moment, to take out some core structure; in the WTC they logically have to come first, since you're going the other way.

Bigger picture, I just don't buy that they're misfires or mistakes. Too much riding on this, too well-planned. Just had to happen that way, these squibs were unavoidable in a top-down CD, IMO. Play the Stardust video backwards, since that's what's going on at the WTC. Squib comes first, then charges.

As for explosives being heard or recorded during collapse, everyone talks about the enormous explosion as the first tower begins its collapse. It always goes like this: "I heard a huge explosion and turned to look and saw the tower start to explode before my eyes." And you've got so many nearby witnesses talking about "bang-bang-bang, the floors started poppin' out" and the like, as the secondary charges of the cascade wave go off. Lots of people have pointed out in the video record the rows of squibs and even sometimes flashes at the leading edge of the cascade, as the individual floors get blown out. And the whole roar of the collapse is essentially just one big blast on most videos, which don't have the sound quality to match the reports of what the collapse really sounded like--they're just overwhelmed with noise.

And once you've got one of the world's biggest buildings falling down that rapidly, about 20 floors a second (!), just how covert do you really have to be about the sound of explosions? They weren't blatant about it by any means, but there sure is enough evidence left over in the vids and eyewitness accounts caught immediately after.


[edit on 17-7-2007 by gottago]



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Great work guys, and I've learned quite a bit about CD in this thread alone.

But let me play Mr. Denier Of Ignorance for just a bit.

I see threads over and over about the technical reasons why this type of device wouldn't work, or why this one would be too hard to set up, etc.

I think we can all agree that 9/11 was "outside the box" ... in other words, something we have never seen before (no matter what the real cause was).

Why are we still going over the same mundane explanations for this event? Shouldn't we also think "outside the box" about some possible causes that aren't commonplace knowledge to the general public? For instance in this particular area (CD), what if they had some wireless charges set up over a network akin to N or wi-fi or something we haven't even seen before? Maybe at a different frequency so that 2.4/5.8 phones wouldn't interfere? The optical cables was a good point. What about something set up over the hardline computer network itself? I'm not talking about crazy holograms or alien ships cloaked as planes here, but there also has been way too little of the "logical, yet creative" thinking on this board and in the truth community as a whole.

*steps off soapbox*

At any rate I have a feeling whatever was the actual cause of 9/11 (from the base reason it happened all the way up to how it was actually carried out) is something that is way outside what we are thinking right now.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Very good thread, but may I suggest that CDI has remote CD technology advertised on their website known as DREXS that doe snot need miles of fiber optic cables...


Controlled Demolition Incorporated's (CDI's) DREXS (Directional Remote Explosives Severance) and explosives concrete sacrification and segmentation services can enhance production without sacrificing safety of operations.


www.controlled-demolition.com...


"Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s implosion capabilities and DREXS (Directional Remote Explosive Severance) System facilitate the demolition or dismantling of all types of steel and concrete facilities to provide the safe, expeditious and cost-effective removal of industrial structures." -CDI

"Our DREXS (Directional Remote Explosives Severance) systems are engineered and applied to segment steel components into pieces matching the lifting capacity of the available equipment. State of the art, proprietary underwater blasting techniquesguarantee fragmentation of concrete and masonry piers to removal limits, and maximize efficiency of debris removal." - CDI-UK

"Using its DREXS (Directional Remote Explosive Severance) System, Controlled Demolition Incorporated segmented the spans into 300 ton sections which matched the lifting capabilities of Tidewater's equipment." -CDI


Why even bother with the fiber? CDI can "expeditiously" "remotely" "segment steel components into pieces matching the lifting capacity of the available equipment."

Hell the even "guarantee fragmentation of concrete"...

[edit on 17-7-2007 by Pootie]



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   
But Pootie, what is DREX exactly? Reads like a fake SNL commercial and sounds like a James Bond villain. They say 'remote' a lot but it could be anything...

But really I don't think they were in on it, mostly because of the psychology behind Mark Loizeaux's (name off the top of my head, I mean the son's) statements about 9/11--there's this constant undercurrent of jealousy, as if he was really ticked off they were called in to clean up after someone else's party. It all comes from the whole attitude of, "But we invented CD."

The snide comments to the effect of, 'Well, we could have made the towers waltz before they came down,' on the one hand, and the "Gee, it is curious how they came straight down" musings on the other are good enough for me to show they were not involved, and show some serious--and seriously warped--egos.

[edit on 17-7-2007 by gottago]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join