WTC 7 Serious Proof of Controlled Demoltions

Originally posted by Griff
How about this?

I thought we were talking about C-4? This guy was making fireworks.

How's this?

Abstract : A major problem of explosives is their accidental thermally initiated catastrophic decomposition. Most bulk military explosives, such as RDX, HMX, and TNT have such hazards. Even somewhat safe explosive materials, such as ammonium nitrate, when combined with fuels, such as wax or other hydrocarbons can overheat with catastrophic results. Additives can make explosives resistant to burning or catastrophic decomposition. Cure-castable, melt-castable, and pressable compositions were made with additives. Several types of flame retardants and other inhibitors were incorporated into these compositions to inhibit the thermal initiatory reactions and yet retain energetic potential when initiated by a strong shock. Explosive compositions were tested by DSC, Flame Test, Hot Wire Test, Cook Off Test, Plate Dent Test, Drop Weight Impact, as well as compatibility tests. The results indicate that these explosives should be safer in accidents or combat-induced thermal events. Keywords: Explosives, RDX, HMX, Cookoff tests, Polymers, Thermal decomposition, Flame retardants, Binders, Inhibitors.

stinet.dtic.mil...

Ok, this is better. However, I have questions that this doesn't answer. How high of a temp do the additives allow the material to handle? How long of a duration before failure begins to occur? Are there any examples of these tests where we can see the actual results?

Granted this was in the 80's , so maybe there's some newer information or tests?

Originally posted by Soloist
Ok, this is better. However, I have questions that this doesn't answer. How high of a temp do the additives allow the material to handle?

You can throw C4 directly into a fire and it will not detonate if enough plasticizers have been added. (Actually C4 needs both heat AND pressure to detonate.)

You can still set it off using a primary, which detonates a secondary, which detonates the actual C4, etc. Usually internal wires are placed on two sides of the primary, and a voltage that can be amplified is placed across the gap. With a sufficient voltage, the electricity will arc across the primary and set it off. Then the primary sets of a compound that is a little harder to set off, but gives off more energy. Then this energy sets off the actual C4.


Edit to add, I'm posting this just for the sake of argument. I don't think C4 was actually used, but this method of setting explosive devices off probably isn't too far removed from whatever was used. Even nukes are set off using a somewhat similar mechanism.

[edit on 29-5-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Now you're just moving the goal posts. There would be no wires to burn (unless a total idiot was employed to engineer the event). Explosives can effectively be insulated (and these sorts of precautions would be taken, again, unless we are dealing with a total idiot engineer).

Oh geez, here is the OP's original question :

"With all the sensitive information in wtc7, would it not be prudent to prewire for demoltions incase of a major fire or attack?"

Got it now????
My question was in response to his. Since he (NOT me) claims it was pre-wired, I want to know how he (NOT you) thinks those wires would have survived the fire.

Make sense yet?

So, since you have such a huge issue with the wires, kindly explain to the OP, not me, that his question cannot be correct.

Originally posted by bsbray11

You can throw C4 directly into a fire and it will not detonate if enough plasticizers have been added.

We were not discussing detonation. We were discussing ignition.

Originally posted by Soloist
We were not discussing detonation. We were discussing ignition.

How many goal posts can you move? I don't really like this game.

Take a deep breath, sit and think for a minute, and tell me what exactly it is that you do not understand regarding how an explosive device could withstand heat. What specifically is so problematic here? Because every time I respond, you try to tell me you were talking about something else. Please, clarify for once and all.

Originally posted by Griff
Why would they do this?

Perhaps to test the theory that it could be done. Maybe building wasn't the proper object to use, a bridge perhaps, or anything really. Seems to me that this wouldn't be the trial run , if they really did CD Building 7 , they would have had to known it would work beforehand. It's not exactly small stuff they would be knocking down, yaknow?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Soloist
We were not discussing detonation. We were discussing ignition.

How many goal posts can you move? I don't really like this game.

Take a deep breath, sit and think for a minute, and tell me what exactly it is that you do not understand regarding how an explosive device could withstand heat. What specifically is so problematic here? Because every time I respond, you try to tell me you were talking about something else.

You seem to be the only one having trouble following along here, either that or you are just not fully reading what is posted.

Please, clarify for once and all.

My exact quote, please go back and re-read if you have doubts :

"Also, isn't C-4 extremely flammable? I seem to remember stories of our troops in Vietnam using chunks of it to heat their canned rations, etc. Throwing it into a fire doesn't sound like a good idea, do you have any kind of evidence of C-4 thrown into a fire and still detonating?"


I should have added "hours later" , looking back now, but the gist is still the same. The assumption is that the C-4 would not be effective after having been subjected to a rather large fire.

Originally posted by Soloist
"Also, isn't C-4 extremely flammable? I seem to remember stories of our troops in Vietnam using chunks of it to heat their canned rations, etc.

This is just proof that fire does not set it off. High explosives going off will not cook your beans, they will destroy them and kill you if you're even sitting within a few feet.

In other words it would have to be pretty damned stable for people to light it and actually use it as a heat source without worrying about it being set off (which is different than catching it on fire, completely different chemical reaction).

[edit on 29-5-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Soloist
"Also, isn't C-4 extremely flammable? I seem to remember stories of our troops in Vietnam using chunks of it to heat their canned rations, etc.

This is just proof that fire does not set it off. High explosives going off will not cook your beans, they will destroy them and kill you if you're even sitting within a few feet.

In other words it would have to be pretty damned stable for people to light it and actually use it as a heat source without worrying about it being set off (which is different than catching it on fire, completely different chemical reaction).

[edit on 29-5-2008 by bsbray11]

Riiiight, now you're starting to understand. But but but, does setting it on fire (ignition), especially for hours ruin it? It has to burn away eventually...and is there any evidence of that (either way)?

I'd like to point out what I've come to believe.

Anyone who watches the several good quality videos of WTC7 falling (oopsies, gov't) with a mind so open as to accept the fact that everything you know is a lie... and even those who just see things for what they are.... can see that WTC7 was deliberately taken down. There's no question in my mind about that. If you look at the collapse of the twin towers and you see where some of the debris did indeed hit the WTC7 building, and then you compare it with the course of the collapse later on.... it just doesn't match up. Why would the building fall straight down, if the debris from the towers only damaged a portion of one face of the building?

However... the question of explosives weighs heavily on my mind. Was it the use of explosives alone that brought the building down? I think lately that there just wasn't enough signs of a controlled demolition using conventional high explosives. The simple fact is that explosions are loud and are visible from the outside of the building.

C4.... there's no way c4 could've been used without it being obvious to everyone.

Thermite, possibly? That's what I've been hearing, but even that gives of massive amounts of heat and sparks, and it takes a few seconds to completely burn through even a lightweight car frame. We're talking heavy duty steel colums here.

Sometimes, the most extraordinary angle is the one to look at.

Lately, I've been seriously considering the DEW theory.

look at this webpage here:

Manfred Zysk: Star Wars Defense Initiative

I also realized that these space based laser satellite systems could also be used directly as weapons to destroy military facilities and major operations centers on the Earth’s surface, and automatic laser beam adjustments would be made to compensate for any atmospheric diffusion of the laser beam. It seemed that laser beams of 4-inch thickness were possible.

These weapons exist. If you read the rest of that page, you'll realize that Manfred knew about this in the Early 60's. What do you think they have now?

If one building was destroyed with directe3d energy weapons, then ALL of them were destroyed with directed energy weapons.

It is possible that it was a combination of exotic incendiary devices AND DEW... but I'm not so sure I'd bet my money on incendiary devices alone to do the job to perfection. There's too much room for error, and we're talking about furthering an agenda that has been in planning for 40 or so years. If that didn't go according to plan, the factions within the government would have been exposed. All the dirty laundry and the 60 odd years of lies, secrecy, and hidden agendas within the alphabet agencies would have been spilled out onto the street. Billions and billions of dollars in laundered civilian tax money would have been brought to light... and you might as well have started the Second Civil War on that day....

but almost everything seems to have gone directly according to plan... and I still can't explain how they did it so well.

All I know is just look at the videos of the buildings falling, watch them over and over and over, and you KNOW there's just no way it could've fallen like that. The human mind... don't underestimate it's inherent ability be able to understand the physics of motion (just think of how well some people can shoot baskets. You don't need to be a physicist to make the perfect shot.).

Anyway... I'm almost reluctantly starting to look at some of the information John Lear has presented about the destruction of WTC7 and the twin towers.

If you seriously think about it, he can't be too far off base... at least about the DEWs. These are space based energy weapons that leave no trace and no physical evidence at the scene of the crime. What a perfect backup plan, at least.

reply to post by Soloist


Why would you even ask me this after I already said I don't even think C4 specifically was used? And again, unless the engineer was a total idiot, no C4 would be placed where it would catch fire anyway. They put high explosive charges, especially shaped charges, in metal containers. Those would be easy to insulate on the inside if fire would be considered a problem.

What do you think happened to WTC7? Because no matter what you think, you have just as much evidence as I do. Who does that make right or wrong?

[edit on 29-5-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Why would you even ask me this after I already said I don't even think C4 specifically was used?

The whole subject of C-4 came about from this :

Originally posted by Griff
And it would be easy to place some C-4 (which BTW can be thrown directly into a fire and not explode) on ONE column.

And at some point you got involved in the conversation.

What do you think happened to WTC7? Because no matter what you think, you have just as much evidence as I do. Who does that make right or wrong?

I guess the evidence is the same for the most part, it's all in the interpretation, although I do believe there is a lack of evidence for a CD, no explosions at the time of collapse recorded or heard by the people on scene that I happen to know very well and would never doubt their sincerity about the events of that horrible day.

I believe WTC7 suffered massive structural damage and had a very severe fire burning for hours which led to it's eventual collapse.

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
Anyway... I'm almost reluctantly starting to look at some of the information John Lear has presented about the destruction of WTC7 and the twin towers.

If you seriously think about it, he can't be too far off base... at least about the DEWs. These are space based energy weapons that leave no trace and no physical evidence at the scene of the crime. What a perfect backup plan, at least.

I can't see how a particle beam from a source external to the building could fail the interior structure without visibly penetrating the exterior. All such beams produce violent explosive forces as they superheat and vaporise the target. Those are the very characteristics that are notably absent.

firefighters SUPPORTING the CD theory...

now, have you seen the video when BBC announced WTC7 collapsed 20 minutes before it actually has?








[

reply to post by Seymour Butz


there was what appeared to be a "CIA operative" (although my informant was not sure; he/she knows it was not FBI) near the base of the building telling the firefighters at WTC7 not to bother going in and that the building was cleared. There were also threats made to anyone who questioned the orders. I honestly don't remember the exact conversations that took place. But from the account, the overall feeling was suspicious to say the least.

I don't understand why there's so much discussion on WTC7. I remember them discussing bringing it down on television because it was damaged and a hazard. I remember them on television telling reporters to move back more. I remember telling a 12 year old I was "Internet sitting" (long story) to not be afraid when he heard the next boom because they were going to bring the building down on purpose.

Gee, did anybody ever say WTC was NOT demolished on purpose? If so, who would have said that and when?

Even Silverstein agreed it should be pulled. (I can't get Internet movies, but, there's one on this page with his quote ... that I remember hearing on television.) www.archive.org...

edit typo

[edit on 30-5-2008 by Trexter Ziam]

It seems quite cleat that WTC 7 suffered far less damage, than those buildings closer to the footprint of Towers 1 and 2.

This picture clearly debunks both the progressive collapse and the fire triggered demolition of wtc7.

I am glad we all agree the WTC 7 was brought down with engineers and explosives.



Here is some pictures to show you how small the rubble pile was and how little damage to surrounding buildings





IN this next picture. Government coverup and disnformationalists will say that the builiding was heavily damaged and also had a raging fire.

ALL LIES.

You should all be suspicious of these new users coming on regurgitating government disinformation about 911.

DOnt ever let anyone convince you otherwise that WTC 7 was anything but a controlled demolition.

Tell all your friends and family about No plane in Shanksville (flight 93) and WTC 7 was controlled demoltions.