Explosive Theory

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
And people laughed at us and called us truthers. They don't even know the facts... we've been looking at this thing from like the last few years. I know that other people have different views on us than we do... but it's about time that people stop name-calling us as truthers and stop stereotyping our beliefs and we have a real investigation of 9-11. I'm not about to hold my breath either but it's about time people woke up to this.

anybody who generalizes somebody as a truther or any kind of anything is not the most wise person on this planet and their opinion should be taken with caution....

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by menjo2000
So, COME ON!! If ol' Uncle George had something to do with 9/11, he would have been tarred, feathered, drawn and quartered. Seriously!!

...hate to bust your little pro-republican / anti-democrat bubble but 911 and the state of our country ever since has nothing at all to do with political parties because they mean nothing at all - nothing - nada - zilch...

Sorry to bust your bubble Wyn, but I am A-political... I call'em as I see'em. I might sound rep/con, but the facts are the facts.

Fact... The news media is almost 100% dem/lib

Fact.. a rep/con can't sneeze without fear of being politically destroyed

I just think it's odd that one party is trying so hard to destroy the other... that last time that happened Hitler started killing jew... hey Obama's a jew hater...

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45

Originally posted by menjo2000
I've always been curious... the people that say 9/11 was a cover up by our own government, seem to think that Ol' Bush was to blame.

I don't know of any truther who thinks that. I certainly don't. I've always been puzzled how bushie sat in that school room and did nothing after he was told of the attacks. He didn't know what to do because he wasn't in on it.

Mind you, Bush deserves to hang for his involvement in the coverup but i doubt very much if he was in on the planning for 911.

LOL!! Seriously, if you heard a plane crashed into a building, would you immediately think of terrorist attack?? Yeah, NOW you would, but before 9/11?? I don't think so. Hindsight is so 20/20.

Wait... a plane crashed into the Empire State building several decades ago, you didn't hear of people running around thinking it was a terror attack, did you?

One plane is an accident, 2 planes, obviously something is going on, that's when the pres. left... use some basic common sense. Sorry but most "truthers" don't.

Like I said before, With the media the way it is, do you really think, if Bush REALLY had something to do with 9/11, that it wouldn't be in the news??

The fact that this "cover up" isn't being reported by the new media, tells me that the dem/libs are the ones that are covering it up, if there is one.

reply to post by menjo2000


this sounds like a serious derail if I ever heard of one!!! the Topic is, jet fuel not being responsible for the collapse.. NOT THE DAMM BLAME GAME!!

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45

Originally posted by poet1b

If it is shown that the jet fuel could not have taken down the buildings, how big will the resulting media explosion be?

They're not gonna ever prove that. There are just too many variables....And even if they did prove it, the media would just bury the story like they have buried the smoking gun story of Building 7.

hmmmm..So your stating that 839 architectural and engineering professionals don't know what they are talking about?? !!

Show us and the 839 architectural and engineering professionals the variables that WILL cause JET fuel to MELT Structural I-beams....I perused an AA degree in Welding and got within 23 credits of having the degree and HAVE welded and cut IRON/Steel and if anyone else has, IT TAKES A HELL OF ALOT OF HEAT TO MELT it over a period of time..

So, please present the data to us and the 839 architectural and engineering professionals just in case we might have missed something..

IF you can't, PLEASE DON'T MAKE STATEMENTS YOU CAN'T BACK UP WITH DATA!

and yes.. I've been a US Citizen which upholds the laws of Physics (truther) since 9/11/2001 !

Originally posted by poet1b

Honestly I think the only way they could prove all, beyond reasonable doubt, would be a miniature mock up of the towers.

I have to wonder how much it would cost to create a realistic mock up, good enough to prove what so many see. I think it could be possible.

you DO NOT NEED a mock up! Just stand back, read what the 839 architectural and engineering professionals have ALREADY done and decide for yourself..

the truth is IN the data!!

Originally posted by liveandlearn
reply to post by poet1b

 

From your quoted article.

Munyak and his fellow AE911 supporters recently received acknowledgement from the FBI's counterterrorism division, which concluded that the organization's core evidence deserves—and will get—FBI scrutiny. In a letter, Deputy Director Michael J. Heimbach assessed AE911's presentation as "backed by thorough research and analysis."

I won't hold my breath for the FBI to investigate but I am wondering, why now?

This has been out there for a long time.

yes..it's been out there for .. ohhh.. about 8 YEARS .. and the FBI.. ?? hmmm.. and where were they when this all happened.. 8 years ago .. exactally......... why is the FBI NOW just coming around.. they're COPS... NOT STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS what could they possibly do NOW they should have done 8 years ago ! ..

reply to post by Atlantican


AMEN and AMEN brother !!!!! however, here's the issue, a&E guys have been trying to do the very thing your suggesting for the last 8 years....

I'm still praying that those responsible for this crime, will be brought to justice in my life time.. cuz' in the next life..

they WILL get the justice they deserve...

Zero investigation into 9/11

Originally posted by Komodo
hmmmm..So your stating that 839 architectural and engineering professionals don't know what they are talking about?? !!

Show us and the 839 architectural and engineering professionals the variables that WILL cause JET fuel to MELT Structural I-beams....I perused an AA degree in Welding and got within 23 credits of having the degree and HAVE welded and cut IRON/Steel and if anyone else has, IT TAKES A HELL OF ALOT OF HEAT TO MELT it over a period of time..

So, please present the data to us and the 839 architectural and engineering professionals just in case we might have missed something..

IF you can't, PLEASE DON'T MAKE STATEMENTS YOU CAN'T BACK UP WITH DATA!

and yes.. I've been a US Citizen which upholds the laws of Physics (truther) since 9/11/2001 !

THE BEAMS DON'T HAVE TO MELT!!! Heat lowers the yield strength of steel. All that had to happen is for the fire to heat the beams enough to reduce their yield strength below the load that was placed on them. You had a large airplane moving at high speed impact the buildings. You could see from the pictures the damage to the tower's structures. This increased the load on the remaining structure.

As far as thermite is concerned, think about this. What is the chemical composition of thermite? Thermite

Aluminum and iron oxide are the most common chemicals in thermite. You have an aluminum airplane exploding on impact with a steel building. I would be concerned if these two chemicals were NOT in the dust.

As far as these 839 professionals are concerned, there are over 20,000 mechanical engineers alone in the US. That number doesn't impress me.

reply to post by JIMC5499


There wasn't enough heat to soften up the beams nearly enough to take down the towers. Even the original Popular Mechanics study agreed with this. The fire was oxygen starved, it wasn't even burning at its hottest.

The evidence is there for anyone who bothers to open their eyes to see the truth.

reply to post by JIMC5499


Thermite has a great many more ingredients in it than aluminum and iron oxide, and if the scientist claim it has a special chemical signature, I would tend to believe the experts.

When you apply an extremely high temperature to a complicated compound like thermite, it definitely does create a unique chemical signature.

That the thermite signature is in 9-11 dust certainly proves that thermite was used, and apparently in large quantities.

They just need sample that they can clearly trace to the 9-11 disaster, that is what they are missing for proof that would stand up in court. All they need is a better paper trail of documentation.





[edit on 12-9-2009 by poet1b]

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JIMC5499

 

Thermite has a great many more ingredients in it than aluminum and iron oxide, and if the scientist claim it has a special chemical signature, I would tend to believe the experts.

When you apply an extremely high temperature to a complicated compound like thermite, it definitely does create a unique chemical signature.

That the thermite signature is in 9-11 dust certainly proves that thermite was used, and apparently in large quantities.

They just need sample that they can clearly trace to the 9-11 disaster, that is what they are missing for proof that would stand up in court. All they need is a better paper trail of documentation.
[edit on 12-9-2009 by poet1b]

I thought that the dust was their sample. The main ingredients of thermite are so common that you could find evidence of it by sweeping the floor of the shop I work in.

There is no proof of thermite being used. If there was definative proof we wouldn't be having this discussion.

reply to post by JIMC5499


Got any evidence to back up this claim?

Got any knowledge of chemistry at all to back up this claim?

I guess the engineers and scientists who stated that they found the signatures of thermite in the dust don't know as much about chemistry as you do, or they are just putting out a bunch of nonsense to claim credibility?

Or you are just spouting off nonsense out of pure ignorance?

Which is most likely?

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JIMC5499

 

Got any evidence to back up this claim?

Got any knowledge of chemistry at all to back up this claim?

I guess the engineers and scientists who stated that they found the signatures of thermite in the dust don't know as much about chemistry as you do, or they are just putting out a bunch of nonsense to claim credibility?

Or you are just spouting off nonsense out of pure ignorance?

Which is most likely?

I have as much evidence backing up my claim as the people claiming that thermite was used have to back up theirs.

Chemistry was required when I went to school for engineering.

You had aluminum (the aircraft) and iron (the building) present in large quantities at a high temperature event (the crashes) so I would be suprised if you didn't find evidence of a thermetic reaction. I just haven't seen any proof that thermite was used to cut any beams.

National Geographic tried to cut a W-6 I-beam using over 40 lbs. of thermite. They couldn"t keep it close enough to the beam for it to cut it. It melted through the container that they used.

When the truthers come up with something plausable let me know. This isn't it.

reply to post by JIMC5499


Once again, materials used to make a specific compound have to be combined in a specific way, through a specific process.

Didn't they teach you that in chemistry?

The more sophisticated the compound, the more sophisticated the process to create the desired compound.

Once created, this compound has its own unique properties.

Such a compound leaves particular traces of that compound.

You can't scatter the materials needed to make gunpowder on the floor, sweep em into a pile, and presto, you have gunpowder.

What they did on National Geographic was a disgrace as an experiment. They used very low grade thermites, like what is used to make sparklers.

Some people just see what they want to see.

No, but, if I throw the ingredients of gunpowder into a fire, some of the resulting ash will have the same chemical characteristics as burned gunpowder.

reply to post by JIMC5499


NO, it wouldn't show signature traces of gun powder, that is not how it works, the molecules have to be bonded together in a particular matter. Chemicals can bond together in many different ways, and how they bond makes a huge difference.

What you are claiming is nonsense.

If what you claimed was the case, then testing for compounds would never stand as evidence in any court trial.

Ok, you don't HAVE to take my word for it but I really do not care. Here it goes.

Let's say that the few individuals that could have feasibly accomplished putting explosives inside the building. Now you can't just leave an explosive out or you risk certain accidents, depending on the explosive used. Although most modern (1998-2009) explosives are not very sensitive to touch, they absolutely CANNOT stand up to a plane crash; nor could the electrical systems and enormous detonation bus that would have to run through the building.

Any modern explosive, unless they could only afford older tnt or cyclonite, has to have what is called a percussion detonation, where as each explosive must have a high amount to input force before it will detonate the primer, and therefore the explosive.
This means NO RADIO DETONATION.

Ok, lets say they used the invincible magic bus lines that they use in heaven and they could still control the detonation sequence.
Seeing that explosives tend to...explode....ANY explosive would detonate upon impact with the omission of binary explosives, or an explosive consisting of 2 separate-until-activated chemicals that are only explosive when mixed; even these would be inoperable after impact.

Also, coordination for a typical 25 story building takes my firm months, this would have taken years of undercover work, planning, and precisely timed events such as placing the explosives inside the building only weeks prior to 9/11. No odd logs of anyone or any people placing these ghost charges, most likely because they were not there.

Unfortunately I cannot say exactly what or how, but I was curious about the same and proceed with research. To bring down the several dozen support columns there is a minimum of 98 explosive charges that have to be set. And these must be properly anchored or drilled into the structer or they simply will not function.


I'm getting tired and about to pass out, ill leave on a firm note.

The explosives needed to bring down world trade center 1 would be so enormous that I had to half the sum of total explosives. With only HALF of what is needed that would be 119 trillion dollars in RDX (commercial Demolition Explosive) along with 3.9 miles of detonator bus and would have to be installed no later than 3 years prior.

If a plane were to hit a building in the same fashion as the WTC's, and they had enough demolition explosive to bring the building down, the explosives would cause a chain reaction and all detonate within around 2-3 seconds. The explosion would be so monumental that God himself would #.

NO EXPLOSIVES WERE INSIDE OF ANY AIRCRAFT NORBUILDING ON 9/11.

Oh my, almost forgot the Thermite.

Thermite, most commonly Fe2O3, is a powder mixture (not solid) of Iron oxide and aluminum powder. Although easy to make and extremely hot, the thermite required for a burn cycle enough to weaken steel to