Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Let’s Agree to Put an End to the Petty 9/11 Argument’s

page: 13
9
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by ALF88
 


You see this is exactly the point I am making,

What I am trying to say hear is that we have two opposing sides both disagree we need to accept that when debate and stop with trying force our perceived truth down the others necks. I believe in the official story with just as much enthusiasm and vigour as you believe that there was something even more sinister behind it.

It has nothing to do with trying to silence you it’s about us debating rather than resorting to pettiness and forgetting that there are two sides two this argument.

Everyone is guilty of this we are all doing it. I deliberately went out of my way to make this thread as balanced as I could I am not saying OSers are wrong or Truthers are wrong what I am saying is that if both sides want to debate first they need to learn to respect the other side of the argument.
Well your approach is wrong, mediators should not give an opinion, so your whole entire post falls flat on its face.




posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
That's ONLY possible when you use EXPLOSIVES, or hydraulic jacks, which do not rumble at all...


Or fire.

These kind of baseless assertions are the foundation of your theory. It requires you to ignore the internal collapse which we know happened and we know must have removed resistance. And it requires you to close your mind to any other possibility. No integer researcher would ever say that the "ONLY" possibility is such and such. The rest of what you have to say is pretty meaningless when your foundation is already rotten.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Or fire.


That is a baseless assertion.

A 47 story building cannot collapse into it's own footprint from fire. It's impossible.

Even if the fire managed to cause a column to fail, it can not cause the outer walls to wait until the interior has collapsed in order to fold inwards on top of the rest of the collapsed building.

They developed the implosion demolition method in order to achieve that, because it's the only way it can be physically done.

In a natural uncontrolled collapse the building internals would simply push the walls outwards and would end up underneath the ruble. Also the collapse from fire would only cause partial collapses as other load bearing columns would still remain standing.

You cannot make the claim you are without some precedence to support it, and there is none.




posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
A 47 story building cannot collapse into it's own footprint from fire. It's impossible.


Why do you keep repeating that lie? WTC 7 did NOT collapse into its own footprint, as you know, but you keep repeating it as if that somehow makes it true!



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Why do you keep repeating that lie? WTC 7 did NOT collapse into its own footprint, as you know, but you keep repeating it as if that somehow makes it true!


Yes it did. It's not a lie.

You simply do not understand what 'in it's own footprint' means obviously.

If you can see the outer walls sitting on top of the rest of the collapsed building then it is 'in it's own footprint'.

Have you looked at pics post collapse? How can you claim it's not in its own footprint? The term is not literal, the majority of the building is in it's footprint. If the collapse was natural the outer walls would be buried, and there wouldn't be a nice pile of destroyed building where it stood. A natural collapse wouldn't have been complete for a start, parts of the building would still be standing.

You cannot get the outer walls to be in the footprint, on top of the rest of the rubble, from a fire induced collapse.









If you can't see what I'm talking about then you don't know what you're looking at.

edit on 12/26/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Yes it did. It's not a lie.


Yes it is...


You simply do not understand what 'in it's own footprint' means


I understand, it is truthers that have distorted its meaning to push their silly conspiracy theories.


You cannot get the outer walls to be in the footprint, on top of the rest of the rubble, from a fire induced collapse


Who says you cannot - apart from you, that is?
edit on 26-12-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
so, to return to the thread title, and try to answer it, i have to conclude (with regret) that it's unlikely.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
A 47 story building cannot collapse into it's own footprint from fire. It's impossible.


That is a baseless assertion.

Do you understand yet that gravity is an external force in a building collapse? Or that sagging trusses can exert a pull force on columns? We can move on to forces on the floor connections if you like, I have some interesting questions for you.

Anyway, to claim, as fact, that fire can't do it, is purely based on idealogical ground, not on scientific ground. In reality, many things are impossible, until either science or observation show it is. You then have to choose between accepting reality, or to invent all kind of crazy theories in order to fit your preconceived ideas into reality. Like thermobaric bombs in water tanks.

It is funny that the claim "fire can't do it" is basically the main argument from the inside job believers. It is just puzzling how people can't see that it is one of the most common fallacies: argument from ignorance (or incredulity).
edit on 26-12-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Who says you cannot - apart from you, that is?


Physics says it can not.

Why don't you support your claim with some evidence if it's possible? If you're so sure then you must know of some precedence for it happening, so where is it?

Of course WTC7 collapsed mostly into it's own footprint, you obviously do not understand the term correctly. You are probably thinking that it means 100% of the building must be in the footprint. No demolition can EVER put 100% of the building in it's footprint. Show me another 47 story building that collapsed naturally into it's own footprint, then you might have something but it ain't going to happen.

Until 911 the tallest building ever imploded was 23 stories, because the taller the building the harder it is to collapse it into it's footprint. WTC 7 was 47 stories, and you want us to think it collapsed into it's own footprint from fire? Have you put any thought into this, or do you just accept what you're told?

The only argument any of you have is to deny evidence that contradicts the OS. Denying evidence is not disproving it. You have to face up to the fact that WTC 7 collapsed vertically into it's own footprint, because the evidence for it is overwhelming.

edit on 12/26/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Physics says it can not.


It does? care to show us this "physics"


Why don't you support your claim with some evidence if it's possible?


hold on, you are the one making the silly claim so it is up to you to back that claim up.


If you're so sure then you must know of some precedence for it happening, so where is it?


Well, how many other very tall buildings have been hit by a high speed jetliner.... none, so there is no precedence!


Of course WTC7 collapsed mostly into it's own footprint, you obviously do not understand the term correctly.


You are the one who does not understand English!


and you want us to think it collapsed into it's own footprint from fire?


What are you babbling about now? I am not the one with the silly idea it collapsed into its own footprint, you are! You seem very confused.


Denying evidence is not disproving it.


Therein lies a problem, truthers have no evidence whatsoever for their silly conspiracy claims.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by ANOK
Physics says it can not.


It does? care to show us this "physics"


Why don't you support your claim with some evidence if it's possible?


hold on, you are the one making the silly claim so it is up to you to back that claim up.


If you're so sure then you must know of some precedence for it happening, so where is it?


Well, how many other very tall buildings have been hit by a high speed jetliner.... none, so there is no precedence!


Of course WTC7 collapsed mostly into it's own footprint, you obviously do not understand the term correctly.


You are the one who does not understand English!


and you want us to think it collapsed into it's own footprint from fire?


What are you babbling about now? I am not the one with the silly idea it collapsed into its own footprint, you are! You seem very confused.


Denying evidence is not disproving it.


Therein lies a problem, truthers have no evidence whatsoever for their silly conspiracy claims.



Your on line behavior is very immature. You just used three times the word "silly" in a condescending manner, and used the term "truthers" again, which the owners of this site have strictly forbidden, because they also see its use as a clear insult, and meant to try to invoke an angry reaction.
Perfect examples of petty 9/11 arguments, which you don't want to put an end to, but try to expand at.
If you go on like this, you will be banned here, thus a friendly advice : clean up your writing style.

Then you assume WTC 7 to have been hit by a "high speed jetliner." That's quite frankly showing exactly on what level you debate. You show already to understand that the subject is WTC 7, by your earlier and later remarks.
And still you use this plain lie.

I am the one who consistently show all the dishonest debaters, heaps of this "physics".
And then these members never address those solid arguments, but return to insults, which seems to be the only communication manner left for them, when they can't confront the evidence.

For starters, show David Chandler and NIST both wrong on the 2.5 secs free fall period for WTC 7. You can't.
Try to use your "physics" to prove that such a free fall period can be explained away by your kind of physics, and thus means something else than introduction of an outside force, we use to call explosives.

Then show him wrong on his acceleration measurements on the imploding top of the North Tower (with the antenna on it), which you also can't :



Which measurements graph shows indisputable, that there was no resistance met, at all, by that downward moving huge top part chunk.
If you look carefully, you see all four facades of that top part move down, but they do not pass the breakage line. While during the whole trajectory, its plotted acceleration graph stays in a constant sharp angled line. Which means no increasing resistance - which surely would occur in a truly gravitational collapse.
Otherwise the plotted line would deviate from that sharp angled line and even reach a point where the line would go upwards, since that would be the point where the top part would really have to deliver Work to crush the still standing, intact part of the lower building. It does not. The whole plotted line of one reference point on the roof rim keeps going down at a steady pace, straight as an arrow.
That's physical proof that it was being demolished while it went down, since you see no breakage of the lower portion that's still firmly standing while the whole top gets consumed by "something" we dare to call explosives. Since we do not believe in magic.
When anyone still believes the official explanation by NIST and the 911 Commission, they seem to have quite some room for magic.

Then show -BoneZ- his FOIA video wrong, with all the clearly audible and in perfect cadence, explosion sounds during the collapse of that 110 floors high North Tower, and especially halfway in the video, this man explaining precise and exactly what he heard on 9/11, namely all these cadencing explosion sounds, and stating that the next days when he listened to the TV stations their revisions, "they had removed those sounds of these explosions" !!! Just as I told you for so long already, those military editors did a thorough job :



And have a good look at these explosive rings bursting out the floors, and find the exploding charge flashes in this video :



Show David Chandler's video wrong, with those clearly to be heard, 2 and then 7 explosion-sounds in it, 2 seconds before the main roof rim of WTC 7 starts to fall.




posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



In reality, many things are impossible, until either science or observation show it is. You then have to choose between accepting reality, or to invent all kind of crazy theories in order to fit your preconceived ideas into reality. Like thermobaric bombs in water tanks.



I never said that, and you know that very well, so that's a plain lie.
I always told you, that HE cutter charges (copper lined strips) can just as well be used under water as in plain air.
And I also told you that there are TB's designed as cutter charges, and its logical that you can't use gaseous devices under water.
So your remark is an attempt to ridicule an opponent. Which is immature behavior.
Go instead prove all these videos wrong I gave to you, too, in my last post above this one, to hellobruce, that would be much better and certainly mature posting.

And I told you that cubic meter water tanks can be used as "recoil" backing for a TB, combined as its use as a muffler.
Or as hiding places for HE cutter charges inside them, with the addition of functioning as a perfect muffler. Just park them beside the huge basement columns, f.ex.
And we see lots of evidence of HUGE steam emissions at the bases of both Twin Towers, seconds before they collapse, already in the first minute of Rick Siegel's 911 EYEWITNESS video :



Why do all of you act as if I haven't provided already heaps of easily debatable and for me defensible evidence, for believers of the official stories, proving that they follow the wrong leads? When do you have the guts to confront me on those subjects?

Here is the one video, NIST gave out on FOIA request, that contained this huge UltraLowFrequency rumble, very clear to hear :



It's post-produced by Charles Ewing Smith, and he also included two audio graphs where that distinct rumble is clearly visible, one or two seconds before WTC 7's global collapse started.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Believe me, it is quite hard to extract a coherent theory from your diarrhea of posts. One post you are saying that at least 8 floors must have been blown up, and in the next you are telling that the bombs were "parked" in the basement (whatever that means). Maybe you should first construct a theory that is not internally contradicting and when you succeeded present it. Then we can see if there is any evidence for this theory.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Maybe you should first construct a theory that is not internally contradicting and when you succeeded present it. Then we can see if there is any evidence for this theory.


That is the problem with all these conspiracy theories, they dont stop and think them through, and make them up as they go along. Thus they get confused and forget what they made up earlier.
edit on 29-12-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Believe me, it is quite hard to extract a coherent theory from your diarrhea of posts. One post you are saying that at least 8 floors must have been blown up, and in the next you are telling that the bombs were "parked" in the basement (whatever that means). Maybe you should first construct a theory that is not internally contradicting and when you succeeded present it. Then we can see if there is any evidence for this theory.


The theory is crystal clear :
WTC 7 was blown up from the bottom,
WTC 1 and 2 were blown up from top to bottom.

You know very well that that one post was about WTC 7, and the other was meant for the Twin Towers, like they did it (wrong) the first time in '93. They put it in a van, not coupled to the concrete nor to a column, but on 4 tires and car springs inside a van.
And you could park/place 1 cubic meter water tanks tightly beside a column in the basement, I wrote.
You cleverly disguise it by omitting the word "column" and again introduce a dishonest taste of ridicule.
These are two psychological tricks to smear an opponent, without getting caught with it, it seems to be again allowed here in this still so utterly sensitive forum.

I also wrote that I have no idea why one should look too deep into the Twin Towers basement events, since the start of the global collapse happened far up, near the points of plane impacts. Thus, any basement explosions would play no important role in the collapses initiations, since we saw no movement of all four facades under those points, and if a basement bomb has been used, then it would be during the main collapse, to make room for all that rubble to sink in those deep cavities, 6 stories deep in the WTC 1 and 2.
And in case of WTC 7, to let the inner debris slide into its basements.
You clamp the HE cutter charges in their usual sharp angle up, first inside a tank on one side of it, with screws, then fill the tank up with water.
Much easier however, to install the charges in the bottom of the (later) water-filled elevator shafts (steam, muffle), to be sure that those columns would topple as if it were hinges. As we saw happen with that spire. Sink down first, then topple.

This is of course exactly the response I predicted, thank you for such timely evidence of your dishonest tactics.
But I assume it's the task you set for yourself, to keep me busy with unimportant side steps, until I die.


LT: I am the one who consistently show all the dishonest debaters, heaps of this "physics". And then these members never address those solid arguments, but return to insults, which seems to be the only communication manner left for them, when they can't confront the evidence.


The insult I note here is your use of the term "diarrhea", while we both know how you intend to influence the present and future readers of this thread, by again trying to ridicule me using such a term, probably since I countered all your and Exponent's arguments on David Chandler's Toronto Hearing lecture video, and I see no defense from your side against my extensive arguments. Since we both know you haven't any substantial ones, only vague insults.

I do not post to please you and the other believers in the official NIST and 9/11 Commission massive misdirection reports. It seems as if that little group that still post here are alpha majors, or have a major in psychiatry and/or psychology, or study for it, and have very little knowledge of exact beta research. And make it their goal to disrupt honest debate. No addressing of the offered hard evidence, just clever smear tactics.
You both showed again the same tactics: "do not be so stupid to address the real evidence", ever. Which behavior you repeat over and over again, and you are amazingly enough, granted this behavior, in this forum where we nearly went into the memory hole, because of this type of behavior.
I take this as the most serious offense against this board its posting rules, it disrupts any form of serious exchange of thoughts between genuine honest researchers from both sides of the fence.

I post so extensively for the fresh and "weathered" readers alike, so they can archive good and solid arguments why these reports are misdirections. The bulk of NIST's research is well done. However, their reports end-editors knew very well which very specific subjects they had to bend their way, to remove too obvious faults in their reports. And how to obstruct fast access to their online reports. And bury unwelcome third party research.

And you NIST believers all are also well aware of those six to this date now, 9/11 Commission Report board members, who have publicly admitted already that the US Government has done about all they could to frustrate their research. First by postponing their start date, then to disallow so many important interrogations.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


What? You were talking about the towers when you said they hid the bombs in the basement? Brilliant. Maybe it were mini nukes.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
This boards software surely garbled up all my time-set YouTube-links in this thread's page, since I was so stupid to insert the whole link in all the links their (yvid) brackets. Too late posting does get you there...

You have to right click on my above YT-links now to repair those links. Choose "copy link location" and paste it in a Wordpad _ And get the extra link info out.
I repaired them for you, as follows now, in the same sequence that I posted those links that show only black screens now. Click on the link to get to the intended time in the video.
I am beginning at the first video, in my answer to hellobruce :


1. LINK
Go to 172 seconds to see the normal, gravitational acceleration graph of a demo that meets resistance from the still standing portion of a building in France.
WTC North Tower's top part its acceleration graph then follows, and that shows a constant increasing acceleration !


2. LINK
Go to 93 secs : When he went to see the replays on TV, they had taken the explosions he definitely and totally clear had heard, OUT !


3. www.youtube.com...
Start


4. www.youtube.com...
Start


5. LINK
Go to 52 seconds and see the steam rising high at the bottom of the South Twin Tower ,13 seconds before collapse.


6. LINK
Go to 6 seconds to hear that clear explosion at WTC 7.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
[

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by LaBTop
 


What? You were talking about the towers when you said they hid the bombs in the basement? Brilliant. Maybe it were mini nukes.



Do for once something constructive, and tell us why all these video's and links I posted, are in errancy according to YOUR own so brilliant debating manners.

And try to bring reasonable opposition on this floor against this man's arguments that a lot of isotopes were found in lockstep at all sampling points, by the USGS within the next few days after 9/11.
Download pages 19-42 from Jeff Prager's PDF, titled : "DUST".
www.datafilehost.com...


Do not come up with the stale argument that the UltraLowFrequency sound at WTC 7 you hear clearly in video number 6 is caused by the breaking of column 79. Then we would have heard a same type of ULF sound, but tens of times stronger, when the whole building with all its columns and beams broke apart and thundered down....

What gives?
The whole following global collapse event is as good as silent in comparison with that one huge ULF sound, 2 seconds before it started to go down.

That's how it was probably done, one huge blow to remove all resistance around one, but probably two main columns, and the simultaneously blowing up of the 47th floor its roof beams and connections to the columns under it.
Making space free over 8 floors.
Then followed in the ongoing collapse by assisting explosions to cut strategic beams off their columns. That made the whole building exterior to slide down as one four side box entity. While the internal beams and columns toppled down into the basements. Leaving the four facade surfaces neatly covering the resulting debris heap. On all four sides of that heap. Leaning over that heap to its center part.
Very strong evidence of a controlled demolition. Plus, we have these explosion video's, and the free fall evidence.!
Do you have videos of gravitational collapses where this same curious box-fold-pattern is to see?

And also don't come up with the equally stale argument that someone probably has inserted that ULF sound, it was an officially FOIA released video they (NIST) kept for themselves, until pressed to give it out under a FOIA request. And you can hear it too in other video's I already posted.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Where did you get the term "ULF" from? Can you come with a source defining "ULF"? What is the frequency range of "ULF"? How did you determine that the sound heard in the video is inside this range? How did you determine that your bombs match this signature? How did you determine that nothing else matches this signature?
edit on 30-12-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Where did you get the term "ULF" from? Can you come with a source defining "ULF"? What is the frequency range of "ULF"? How did you determine that the sound heard in the video is inside this range? How did you determine that your bombs match this signature? How did you determine that nothing else matches this signature?
edit on 30-12-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)


www.abovetopsecret.com...
WTC destruction, the Leftover candidates, Pro&Contra Arguments.
Tell us why all these video's and links I posted, are in errancy. Come to the meat of the matter, no sidestepping anymore.

Possible usage of TB's is a theory, mine, and is just an effort of mine to find if it fits in, in all these other arguments which are documented facts.

When you can't argue such set-in-stone arguments, you chose to go on a nitpicking tour? Why? What's your motive? Surely not finding true evidence.
If so, you would counter all these solid facts with something more substantial.

If that bit in your last post is all you can find to counter ALL the arguments in that heap I already posted, I'm sorry to say it, but thats really a form of grotesque nitpicking.
You know very well what I mean, SOUND waves (no radio waves) so low in frequency, that you nearly can't hear them with your ears, but for sure feel them in your stomach, as I already many times wrote in my recent posts.

hypertextbook.com...
en.wikipedia.org... Wikipedia. 2004 :

Hearing or audition is the sense of sound perception and results from tiny hair fibers in the inner ear detecting the motion of atmospheric particles within (at best) a range of 20 to 20000 Hz. Sound can also be detected as vibration by tactition. Lower and higher frequencies than can be heard, are detected this way only.


en.wikipedia.org...

Tactile sound is the sensation of sound transmitted directly to the human body by contact, rather than by sound waves through the ears. For example, when you stand on a train platform you can feel the train approaching as well as hearing it. Explosions, crashes, sonic booms, and thunder are all normally felt in addition to being heard.
The human tactile frequency range is from 1 Hz, very low frequency such as earthquakes, up to 5 kHz in some hearing impaired individuals.
For most individuals 2 to 3 kHz (2000 to 3000 Hz) is the upper threshold for tactile reception.

_____________________

Back to the nitpicking-tour, out of 100,000 words, video's and photo's, you find 3 characters that could be a mistake, misunderstanding, typo, whatever.
So, let's cut one off, and instead make it Very Low Frequency Sounds and not radio wavelengths.

We are for years already, talking about explosions, with SOUND frequencies with very long wavelengths. My intention is clear, my definition disputable?
Some countries want to restrict the term ULF to radio-waves spectra effects only, some also use the term for sound-waves spectra effects and electromagnetic spectra effects.
You may also call it tactile sound, or infra sound if you like that better.


1.

Exp.: Can you come with a source defining "ULF"?
What is the frequency range of "ULF"?

en.wikipedia.org...

Ultra-low frequency (ULF) is the frequency range of electromagnetic waves between 300 Hertz and 3000 Hertz (3 kilohertz). These radio waves have a wavelength between 100 and 1000 kilometer. In magnetosphere science and in seismology, alternative definitions are usually given, including ranges from 1 MHz to 100 Hz,[1] 1 MHz to 1 Hz,[2] 10 MHz to 10 Hz.[3] Frequencies above 3 Hz in atmosphere science are usually assigned to the ELF range.


So, yes, djeez, BIG mistake...
I Should have typed Very Low Frequency SOUND waves. I Should have been more precise. Wow, excellent! Good find.!

2.

Exp.: Where did you get the term "ULF" from?

Here are two electromagnetic usages of the term, since its use in seismology is also widespread :


1. O. Molchanov, A. Schekotov, E. Fedorov, G. Belyaev, and E. Gordeev, "Preseismic ULF electromagnetic effect from observation at Kamchatka", Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Volume 3, Pages 203-209, 2003
2. Fraser-Smith, Antony C.; Bernardi, A.; McGill, P. R.; Ladd, M. E.; Helliwell, R. A.; Villard, Jr., O. G. (August 1990). "Low-Frequency Magnetic Field Measurements Near the Epicenter of the Ms 7.1 Loma Prieta Earthquake" Geophysical Research Letters (Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union) 17 (9): 1465–1468.


3.

Exp.: How did you determine that the sound heard in the video is inside this range?

My gut feeling. Me and you and everybody else with good audio equipment hear a very low rumbling SOUND a few seconds before WTC 7 fell.
If you put it out on really good external speakers instead of a very good headphones-set, you feel it in your stomach. For me, that's ultra low sound, very low sound, a low frequency effect sound, a tactile sound, or an infra sound if you like that better. Make your pick, all Nit's out there.

en.wikipedia.org...

Infrasound also can be generated by human-made processes such as sonic booms and explosions (both chemical and nuclear).



How did you determine that your bombs match this signature? How did you determine that nothing else matches this signature?


Because of this information about Thermobaric bombs and their effects :

1.secondsightresearch.tripod.com...

"We just learned about thermobaric explosives in the late '80s when the Soviet Union was disintegrating," said Stephen Murray, head of the threat assessment group at the defense agency's Suffield, Alta., laboratories. "Those weapons (later) started showing up on the open market."

Western militaries have traditionally concentrated their efforts on developing what are known as fragmentation or penetration weapons. Those use explosives to propel metal at a high velocity, either using a warhead to disable a vehicle, such as a tank, or creating shrapnel to kill or wound victims.

"It turns out that other countries, the Russians in particular, went in the other direction," Murray said. "They decided that blast was a very good way of killing things."

For security reasons, he declined to give specifics about how thermobaric warheads are designed.


2. www.angelfire.com...

3. www.globalsecurity.org...

4. www.globalsecurity.org...

The BLU-118/B bomb body can be attached to a variety of laser guidance system packages, including the GBU-15, GBU-24, GBU-27, and GBU-28 laser guided bombs, as well as the AGM-130 missiles.

BLU-118B weapon operational concepts include vertical delivery with the bomb detonated at or just outside portal, skip bomb with short fuse (1st or second contact), skip bomb with long fuse (penetrate door, max distance down adit), and vertical delivery to penetrate overburden and detonate inside the tunnel adit.


See that photo included. Its slick and slim exterior would fit the famous payload extension seen by many under the body of the second attack plane in New York. Especially when fitted with these various system packages, which extends the length of this TB bomb to twice its length, and fits that grainy video where we see that long thin "thingy" extension under the belly of Flight 175. And see perhaps a laser pointer as the flash on the facade, just right of the nose cone of the plane. Then set to detonate 10 millisecond after penetration of the outer facade, the resulting huge fireball would look damn equal to what we see in all these video's of the second impact.
Just a thought that came up. Don't go rampant on things like this, since the immediate question that comes up is : Why was such a possible weapon then still attached to the plane's belly, 10 meters from nose cone impact?

5. en.wikipedia.org...

6. defensetech.org...
You should read the 333 comments, those "smart, brutally honest observations" in the Comments section too !

7. www.ffi.no...
Read 9.4 : More effective explosives.

8. NATO-OTAN. Emerging Threats.
Read Annex J1.10 : Thermobaric (To be completed)
Also page 88 / 206 Annex B.12.f : Emerging Threats. From The 3rd Meeting of the NATO Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) Team of Experts (TOE) which was conducted in Thun, Switzerland over the period 5-8 Feb 2002.

9. pe2bz.philpem.me.uk...
Scroll to THERMOBARIC WEAPON.

10. High explosives (HE) cutting charges, set off under water, also deliver a sound pattern which would fit that rumbling sound in the WTC 7 video's I posted.
The supersonic cutting plasma stream of them will still cut the steel in a drowned elevator shaft bottom, and they will also cut the side of a m3 water tank first, which was placed tight against a central steel column in a basement or higher floor of a WTC building.


And last but not least, a TBX is of course the ultimate poor-man's bomb.
That's why the secrecy about TB's is still at such high levels, terrorists will use them, if they get their hands on them.
And there's a lot of former-well paid Russian, Ukrainian etc weapon developers now underpaid or poor, for sale on the black market, for good money they'll tell you anything what you need to know.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join