Controlled demolition could have been achieved without the use of 'conventional explosives'......

Disclaimer: This is not in any way intended to be any sort of accusation at the compamy or products mentioned herin, merely a thread to discuss this and / or similar technology involved.



Controlled demolition could have been achieved without the use of 'conventional explosives' as we understand them......

It has been my belief for several years now that the OS has as many holes as a collander, I work closely with the demolition industry and so many things just don't ring true.

Anyway I've been meaning to pose this theory / question for a while since I came accross this new technology that claims it can also be used in the demolition sector......:


www.greenbreaktechnology.com...


The explosion issue, squibs, noise, flashes has been discussed ad-infinitum over and over again here before. But, what if only a small ammount of 'conventional explosives' (cutting charges etc) were needed and the rest of the charges were made up from technology like this?

Yes the building would have had to have been wired up, but not in the same way that a controlled demo needs to be done today.

This technonogy would have got past sniffer dogs easily because they wouldn't be trained to sniff for it.

Everyone is looking for evidence of 'conventional explosives', again, perhaps this is why no trace was found?

This is being posed as new technology now and is certainly 'ground breaking' (no pun intended). But we all know military technology is years ahead of civilian technology, is it too far fetched to suppose that this could have been available 10 years ago.....?


Anyway, I'd like people to take a look at the linked website and would be interested to hear everyones thoughts.


MR

That would still take quite a bit of work.

If I'm reaching the correct conclusions, feel free to let me know if I'm wrong, this is just a derivative of ammonium nitrate.

Forgive me, but there's not a lot of information on the chemical compound, and a google search revealed nothing.

However, this quote "Powder instantly absorbs moisture from air, becoming inert
(useful as fertiliser)", and the way it's used leads me to believe that this is a low grade demolition mechanism. Also, I'm concerned when a demolition supplier doesn't spell check their web page.

Demo comes in two common forms. High explosives, of which I've had a bit of first hand experience, and low explosives, of which I have no experience other than purely academic.

The low shock wave that they describe as ideal for underwater ops further reinforces my opinion that this is a low grade explosive.

Now, to bring down a building in such a way as the WTC, you would need massive kinetic force, coupled with a structural weakening such as heat. As you see with a plane filled with a long trip's supply of jet fuel.

Or, and I'm meeting you half way here, you would need something to burn and weaken the steel, and then a shock to topple the thing.

Either way, such a charge as this would be redundant.

Originally posted by Marlborough Red
Anyway, I'd like people to take a look at the linked website and would be interested to hear everyones thoughts.

You dont think anyone would have noticed the hundreds of holes being drilled into the concrete?

Nor is it used for demolishing steel framed structures....

there was no controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2 or 7

Ok, I'm an idiot. I just whipped out some of my old notes from when I was in the army, and low grade explosives are commonly called propellants.

In which case, sniffer dogs would have picked it up, and the chemical residue would have given it away.

Yes the building would have had to have been wired up, but not in the same way that a controlled demo needs to be done today.

You still have to wire it up. The way they wire it is to assure certain columns fail before others. So yes it would have to be wired up the same way as normal controlled demo.

The website states.

The revolutionary design of the Green Break Non-Detonating Safety Power Cartridge™ focus on safety and adaptability to suit any low and high risk task with confidence and safety.

Using the word ‘revolutionary’ hint to me that it has recently designed. Not 10 years ago.

You still have to ask yourself what happens to the wiring and det cord when a plane comes crashing through the area you just wired up?

It would have taken weeks to uncover, drill, stuff, and hide all the holes needed to blast the building. Someone would have noticed the activity. Someone would have heard the drilling.

reply to post by 43mike


I would suspect this material is a potassium composition, rather than nitrogen based as ammonium nitrate.

It would not have the same aerosol signatures and would be harder for dogs to smell.

Rather than drilling holes into the concrete columns, packets could have been strapped onto selected stress points, primarily around the central core (elevator shafts). Which should have been massive enough to remain standing if the "pan caking of the floors pans" had happened as designed.

As the mass of the building would have supplied much of the energy needed to start the collapes from above. The materials in the lower floors were rindered weak enough as to offer no resistance to them.

This is why only those very close to, or inside, the buildings detected the "explosions".

Originally posted by hdutton
Rather than drilling holes into the concrete columns, packets could have been strapped onto selected stress points, primarily around the central core (elevator shafts).

Try reading what the stuff actually does.... it is just a gas generator, so has zero effect on steel, and holes have to be drilled into concrete, watch the video to see what happens when it is set off in open air.

The 9/11 Commission nor NIST bothered to check for explosives.
Bomb - sniffing dogs were taken OUT of the WTC weeks before 9/11.

It plainly says this stuff can be used in building construction/demolition.
When was the patent applied for?

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Bomb - sniffing dogs were taken OUT of the WTC weeks before 9/11.

Just a truther lie - how do you explain this?
www.911myths.com...

Why do truthers keep posting already debunked lies about 911?

It plainly says this stuff can be used in building construction/demolition.

not for steel framed buildings - again, read what the stuff actually is!

reply to post by hdutton


Like I said, my grasp on the chemical composition is spotty at best.

However, explosives of any grade don't really work the way you described. On a demo range, some buddies and I strapped some C-4 onto an old discarded telephone pole that had been left out there. We barely even made a dent in it. Our instructor made us look like morons by ballasting the charge and cutting the thing in half with the explosives.

If you put it in an elevator shaft, it would have simply blown the doors off to allow the gas to escape. That's with high or low grade explosives.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Those were extra dogs

Read up on Sirius - he was assigned to the building with his handler Port Authority office David Lim

Police K9 Sirius... ...was an Explosive Detection Dog with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department. Sirius, along with his partner, Police Officer David Lim, were assigned to the World Trade Center in New York, where their primary duty was to check vehicles entering the Complex, clear unattended bags and sweep areas for VIP safety...

Sirius was used to search packages and vehicles arriving at the WTC

www.alllabs.com...

Again a "truther" gets it wrong Why am I not surpised ........

Originally posted by 43mike
reply to post by hdutton

 

Like I said, my grasp on the chemical composition is spotty at best.

However, explosives of any grade don't really work the way you described. On a demo range, some buddies and I strapped some C-4 onto an old discarded telephone pole that had been left out there. We barely even made a dent in it. Our instructor made us look like morons by ballasting the charge and cutting the thing in half with the explosives.

If you put it in an elevator shaft, it would have simply blown the doors off to allow the gas to escape. That's with high or low grade explosives.

edit on 1-4-2011 by 43mike because: grammar

The next time you plan a trip to the demo range, try this.

Fill a balloon with water, wrap it and a small amount of your explosive into a piece of cloth to make a package.

Find you pole and, placing the explosive next to the pole, tie the package into place. It may be
interesting if there is a slight "cupping" of the charge with the open side toward the pole.

Stand clear on the same side as the package and set it off.

You may notice a difference in the effect of proper preparation compared to "hey guys watch this"!

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
The 9/11 Commission nor NIST bothered to check for explosives.
Bomb - sniffing dogs were taken OUT of the WTC weeks before 9/11.

It plainly says this stuff can be used in building construction/demolition.
When was the patent applied for?

But if you read here you will see that steel is never mentioned at all.

Secondly, please explain Sirius, a black lab with the PANYNJ Police, that was killed in the WTC.

Guess what he was?

Yepo, you guessed it. A bomb detection dog.

Pre-911, there were EXTRA bomb sniffing dogs. The EXTRA dogs were removed.

It still left the original dogs there.

It looks like it was invented/patented 4 years ago.
www.aggregateresearch.com...

I have emailed the company to ask about the patent.

Originally posted by dereks
Why do truthers keep posting already debunked lies about 911?

Why do trusters keep posting already-debunked lies about 9/11?

Here's what I'm talking about:

Originally posted by dereks
there was no controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2 or 7

Even though they exhibited every aspect of a controlled demolition? How can you be so close-minded? Or is it the denial? Or is it that you're deliberately trying to perpetuate false claims?

If what you say is true, then could you please show the world a fire-induced collapse that exhibits flashes going up, down and around the building with popping or exploding sounds, isolated ejections of dust/material, and timed/synchronous BOOM sounds. The last time I checked, these were all found in controlled demolition collapses and not fire-induced collapses.

If you cannot produce a fire-induced collapsed building exhibiting the above, then what you say is untrue which allows people to see that there is an agenda going on whether deliberate, or self-induced (on your part).

Is there any chance we can discuss the potential for this type of technology to have been used rather than get side tracked?

I fully understand that there is no way that this sort of technology could have brought any buildings down solely by itself.

However what if it was used in strategic points throughout the building/s?

NOT to cut steel but to weaken the concrete enough surrounding the steel as to cause systematic failure?

Watch the video on the website, these cartridges are small look at the 40g one (20g being smallest):

"A short video of a person putting his foot on a 40g cartridge which is initiated with no more noise and effect than a party cracker.

However, that same 40g cartridge inserted and compacted into a 4 cubic metre rock, weighing over 5 tons, in a confined space, will break the rock into pieces in seconds."

Plenty of people think 911 was a controlled demo, it sure looked like a controlled demo especially WTC7, maybe just maybe technology like this could have been deployed at the time........


MR

Originally posted by Marlborough Red
NOT to cut steel but to weaken the concrete enough surrounding the steel as to cause systematic failure?

There was no concrete around any steel in the towers. The only concrete used was at the base of both towers, and there was four-inches of a light concrete mix (aggregate) used on top of the floor trusses. That's it. Breaking up the concrete on top of the floor trusses would not cause any weakening of the steel structure.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


And all the stuff that coated Manhatten was "pixie dust"!

Or was it, like the dust found in most homes, dead human skin cells?

Originally posted by Marlborough Red
NOT to cut steel but to weaken the concrete enough surrounding the steel as to cause systematic failure?

What concrete surrounding the steel are you talking about? You do not know anything about the WTC!

maybe just maybe technology like this could have been deployed at the time

How about reading up on what the stuff actually does, and how it works, not what you wrongly think it does!

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Even though they exhibited every aspect of a controlled demolition?

They did not actually, but you have shown your ignorance of what is involved in a controlled demolition here many times!

Just how could no one notice all the work involved in setting up the buildings for a controlled demolition?

reply to post by Marlborough Red

There obviously were conventional explosives, or the bomb sniffing dogs wouldn't have been pulled out, which is what allegedly happened. I believe conventional explosives were used to sever the key columns, along with mini nukes as well as exotic energy weapons to destroy the rest.