WTC Detonations Finally Revealed (Video)

reply to post by remymartin


So a report is produced with the most likely situation that fits all the facts and observations, and because it doesn't agree with a conspiracy theory, it is a "must try harder" report? Have you even read how many tests and procedures they went through just to prove their hypotheses right? They eliminated every possibility they could until all they were left with was what became the OS. If that's not good enough, and childish minds surfing the internet saying "that dunnit look riiiight" is better, then sir, I respectfully disagree with your logical processes.

reply to post by remymartin


and since smoke rises with heat the lower floors would have CLEAN AIR being propelled out the window if it was caused by compressing air.

Since it was caused by explosive of course some of the debris that the brisance velocity will be carried on the jet stream of the blast wave.

reply to post by Varemia


eyewitness report squibs around the circumference of the building, to corrobate the visual evidence in taped recordings.
So since you can only "SEE' one face of the WTC towers and only SEE one squib that means there were none on the other sides right.
OKAY.

reply to post by -PLB-


PLB, apoligize.
I believe a nuke was detonated in or below the basemen, facing upwards.
this position of a nuke would cause it to behave as if it were underground.
upon ignition, since it propogates a shock wave it would have heavily disintegrated concrete and wall board.
then the temperature would elevate the heat in the steel and sublimate the majority of it.
the debris on the ground was from the top of the towers, not the bottom.
the blast wave at the height of floor 80 upward would have been enough force to project and prope the heavy steel siding 600 feet.

my demolition does not need to include thermite, thermate, cutting charges, launching charges, thermobaric bombs or any other superfulous fireworks.

See CONTROLLED DEMOLITION holds the PATENT on NUCLEAR DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS.

All the building demolitions videos on the net are of older CONCRETE supported structures, not STEEL.
cutting charges, and their ilk work on concrete because it is a CONTACT charge which is either in direct contact with the concete or placed in a hold drilled through the concrete.
Plus the majority of steel in WTC was vertically oriented, and cutting charges work fine on horizontal members.

he blast wave of a nuke would explain
1 pulverization dustification of WTC towers including the steel
2 propelling heavy steel great distances
3. sublimation of steel
4. seismic readings of 2.0-3.0 just before each collapse
5. due to the nuke being in contact with the bedrock.
6. the inexplainable heat of the rubble pile. (a lot of the trade center material if it still existed, would have been in contact with literalground zero.

reply to post by GenRadek


the brisance of an explosive is a fancy name for VOD.
velocity on detonation.
ANFO is @ 1200 meters per second.
C4 plastic is @ 3000
PDN PETN is @6000
some higher brisance can go up to 12,000 meters per second


1200 yards per second is TWELVE FOOTBALL FIELDS IN THE FIRST SECOND. (3/4 MILE)
12000 IS ONE HUNDRED TWENTY FOOTBALL FIELDS IN THE FIRST SECONS.(7.5 MILES)

So after it explodes it slows down.
How long does it take to slow down.

it is by a factor of the cube root of the radius of the bomb.

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by Varemia

 

eyewitness report squibs around the circumference of the building, to corrobate the visual evidence in taped recordings.
So since you can only "SEE' one face of the WTC towers and only SEE one squib that means there were none on the other sides right.
OKAY.

But! Were these squibs appearing all around on similar floors or only in the places where air had the least resistance escaping? Surely any blast would knock out all the windows? And if you claim that it was an underground blast with no shock wave, then you are basically pulling that claim out of thin air, because no corroborating evidence concurs with that statement, whilst the plane crash can be verified and re-verified as many times as you want, as well as fires, and smoke, and glass breakage, and noise. To say something is possible does not make it the most probable solution.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by thedman


lol, do you see the quality and quantity of smoke at WTC RISING or FALLING.
You know there are a lot of videos I could post links to that show the smoke rising thedman.
In the situaion, atmospheric, temp, ventilation, velocity of wind in NYC on 9-11 prevailed upon the smoke to rise.
Have you ever went camping and started a campfire?

Smoke go up or down. But the smoke on that day from those fires rises.

reply to post by Varemia


I am certain the air, and debris produced by the blast, escapes at the place of least resistance, where ever the explosion blew the resistance away.
That can be hypothesized by looking at the videos, do you not think?

reply to post by slugger9787


But do realize these are all fantasies. There is no evidence for a nuclear explosion at the base, there is no evidence for an enormous shock wave going up, there is no evidence that such a shock wave could pulverize or superheat steel. You are just making this stuff up.

There is very strong evidence however that the collapse started exactly at the point of impact, exactly where the plane and fire weakened the steel.

reply to post by slugger9787

.lol, do you see the quality and quantity of smoke at WTC RISING or FALLING.
You know there are a lot of videos I could post links to that show the smoke rising thedman.
In the situaion, atmospheric, temp, ventilation, velocity of wind in NYC on 9-11 prevailed upon the smoke to rise.
Have you ever went camping and started a campfire?
[/ex

Just had lecture by our Fire Chief, who is professional arson investigator, on smoke. What the color means
(backdraft, flashover), how it travels in building,

Do you know what the "neutral zone" is? The "stack effect" ? Showing a picture and making ignorant comments and conjecture about it means doesn't work......

reply to post by thedman


tedman, i am not ignorant, a theme you and others love to imply,
with those who do not sit still for the OCS.
You have orchestrated party line that has evolved by now, quite recognizable and impertinent.
I am happy you are involved in CEU's for your employment.

Show me some proof that the smoke was going downward on 911.
I have already hinted at where you can get proof that it was going up.

I wish they would get someone in here who knows about a-neutronic explosives,
instead of a flunky patsy who resorts to calling opposition ignorant at the end of his intelligence.

reply to post by remymartin

But the floor where the lower squib comes out is not compromised, its at least 10 floors below point of collapse.
There is not any fire on that floor or the one above so no falling floor there to cause a sudden change in air pressure

Good observation, however, do not forget the elevator shafts, the stairwells, the ventilation ducts, all that can channel the building air pressure from the above collapsing building. Recall my subway tunnel comparison. I do not know how many ATS members have subways in their cities, but for those that do, they can experience that great big "woosh" of air and wind, well ahead of the subway train coming through the tunnel. That is what was most likely happening in those areas of the "squib-like" action being claimed.

And to boot, not a single person has yet been able to explain why these alleged "squibs" do not behave like any explosives. Not to put you on the spot, but maybe you can explain why observing the largest "squib", we see the jet of debris rapidly increasing in velocity. As most people should be aware, any explosive detonation has the blast occur with a very high initial velocity, which immediately slows down over time and distance. (except for rocket engines). What should have been observed is a quick single blast of debris, and then a slowdown. But here we see the puff actually increase in speed and more debris is blowing out, like a jet. A jet of pressurized air being pushed out. Watch that video again, and watch closely how the jet actually increases in speed. What type of explosive detonation does that? Even nuclear detonations have the blast wave slowing down right after the detonation, not speeding up faster and faster the farther away it gets. Only rocket engines do that.

reply to post by slugger9787

Since it was caused by explosive of course some of the debris that the brisance velocity will be carried on the jet stream of the blast wave.

But how can you channelize a blast from an explosive into a jet, which causes the debris and dust to increase in speed gradually in comparison to the rapid instant high velocity blast that immediately slows down after said blast?

Since when do explosives have a blast wave that speeds up after the blast and keeps accelerating the farther away from the center of the blast?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by remymartin

 

So a report is produced with the most likely situation that fits all the facts and observations, and because it doesn't agree with a conspiracy theory, it is a "must try harder" report? Have you even read how many tests and procedures they went through just to prove their hypotheses right? They eliminated every possibility they could until all they were left with was what became the OS. If that's not good enough, and childish minds surfing the internet saying "that dunnit look riiiight" is better, then sir, I respectfully disagree with your logical processes.

They eliminated every possibility bar one, Explosives. They never considered it, why? after all it was a terrorist attack whether domestic or foreign.

reply to post by remymartin


It could be because a plane hit it, and they were able to prove that the effects of the plane were enough... I mean, would you look for a leprechaun if the pot of gold was right in front of you?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by remymartin

 

It could be because a plane hit it, and they were able to prove that the effects of the plane were enough... I mean, would you look for a leprechaun if the pot of gold was right in front of you?

No, but i would examine the gold to make sure it was not fools gold.
sl

reply to post by remymartin


Which they did, extensively, even going beyond plain theory and testing it by recreating some of the circumstances. They didn't just blow 6 million dollars on paper.

reply to post by Varemia


So hand on heart you have absolutely no problems whatsoever believing the Official story of What happened that day? If so i admire you.
But remember you may come down with a larger bump if things unravel