Why Wait an Hour to Blow the Buildings ?

a reply to: darkstar57

the original plan was scuttled...hit boom hit boom hit boom, the demo charges triggered when the planes hit.

Nice theory but no boom boom boom.

a reply to: darkstar57

perhaps the Shanksville crashed plane was going to hit WTC7, and when it was stopped, the original plan was scuttled...hit boom hit boom hit boom, the demo charges triggered when the planes hit.... much less evidence to deal with, greater shock, (50k dead) etc.

So why did the hijackers dial in the VOR radio beacon at Reagan National in Washington DC....??

Why was United 93 heading South East toward Washington

Truthers never seem to have a logical explanation for that....

a reply to: firerescue

Truthers never seem to have a logical explanation for that....

Because that falls under the heading of FACTS.
An FACTS have no bearing in a conspiracy theory.

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430

Of course you don't believe me. It is easier to trick a man than it is to explain to him how he was tricked. I get it, human behavior is my hobby.

Once tricked, some folks just never find out they've been tricked, the mind does not like to admit it was fooled.

MRDuped2430 LOL

Can you show us any examples of any steel frame skyscrapers that have collapsed like building one, two and seven on 911? For any reason other than controlled demolition? I'm so eager to learn.

Why would that be important?

Is your argument that nothing can happen for a first time? Or that steel can't fail in fire?

Or is it that a steel framed skyscraper can't collapse from fire and/or damage because it possesses magical powers that steel bridges or steel framed lo rises don't?

I guess you failed like the rest to show me an example. Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane and looked like a perfect demolition at free fall speed. If it was damaged on one side it would fall to that side obviously if it were to collapse for the fires time in history. calculated it myself. Fell about a half a second slower than a brick would drop.

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse

Plus nano thermate found in all the dust samples.

when you use your gas stove does the steel melt on the burner?

IOW, you can't explain why your statement is important.

My counter argument is that engineers are pretty good at their job, and take the task of preventing a building from falling, whether it's from physical damage and/or fire, pretty seriously.

That's why it is a fairly rare event when any building fails, for any reason....

Yes. Your right. More than rare. In fact it has never happened. Buildings have burned for much longer and hotter than those on 911 and they didn't collapse. Building 7 was not hit by a airplane. Fell straight down in its foot print.

And they found Nano Thermate in all the dust samples. Nano Thermate can be used as an explosive.

Historically, pyrotechnic or explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited due to their relatively slow energy release rates. Because nanothermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far greater.[2] MICs or Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s.[3] Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being studied by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs several times more powerful than conventional explosives.[4] Nanoenergetic materials can store more energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy. Thermobaric weapons are one potential application of nanoenergetic materials.[5]

Nano-thermite

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
Buildings have burned for much longer and hotter than those on 911 and they didn't collapse.

Funny how you "forgot" that WTC 1 & 2 were hit by high speed jet airliners.... it must have somehow slipped your memory, or you think the planes were holograms!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
Buildings have burned for much longer and hotter than those on 911 and they didn't collapse.

Funny how you "forgot" that WTC 1 & 2 were hit by high speed jet airliners.... it must have somehow slipped your memory, or you think the planes were holograms!

Funny how you are low enough to edit out Building 7 which was not struck by a plane. Assuming that would make a difference.

Explosive Nano thermite

originally posted by: samkent
I still ask myself this:
If you were planning this conspiracy why wait about an hour before you blow the buildings?
That gave the news media time to set up cameras and catch the explosions.
That gave rescue crews time to stumble across prewired explosives.
That gave time for people to escape.
Those escaped victims may have seen something by accident.

The smart plan would be to wait 4-5 seconds after the impact then hit the button.
Who's going to question the collapse ?
Who's going to be alive to tell what they saw?
Greater loss of life.

year after year after year struggling and struggling with the same EASILY ANSWERED questions.... that's a pity.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430

Of course you don't believe me. It is easier to trick a man than it is to explain to him how he was tricked. I get it, human behavior is my hobby.

Once tricked, some folks just never find out they've been tricked, the mind does not like to admit it was fooled.

MRDuped2430 LOL

Can you show us any examples of any steel frame skyscrapers that have collapsed like building one, two and seven on 911? For any reason other than controlled demolition? I'm so eager to learn.

Why would that be important?

Is your argument that nothing can happen for a first time? Or that steel can't fail in fire?

Or is it that a steel framed skyscraper can't collapse from fire and/or damage because it possesses magical powers that steel bridges or steel framed lo rises don't?

I guess you failed like the rest to show me an example. Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane and looked like a perfect demolition at free fall speed. If it was damaged on one side it would fall to that side obviously if it were to collapse for the fires time in history. calculated it myself. Fell about a half a second slower than a brick would drop.

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse

Plus nano thermate found in all the dust samples.

when you use your gas stove does the steel melt on the burner?

IOW, you can't explain why your statement is important.

My counter argument is that engineers are pretty good at their job, and take the task of preventing a building from falling, whether it's from physical damage and/or fire, pretty seriously.

That's why it is a fairly rare event when any building fails, for any reason....

Yes. Your right. More than rare. In fact it has never happened. Buildings have burned for much longer and hotter than those on 911 and they didn't collapse. Building 7 was not hit by a airplane. Fell straight down in its foot print.

And they found Nano Thermate in all the dust samples. Nano Thermate can be used as an explosive.

Historically, pyrotechnic or explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited due to their relatively slow energy release rates. Because nanothermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far greater.[2] MICs or Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s.[3] Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being studied by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs several times more powerful than conventional explosives.[4] Nanoenergetic materials can store more energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy. Thermobaric weapons are one potential application of nanoenergetic materials.[5]

Nano-thermite

You're neglecting part of my reply.

I asked you what makes a high rise have special resistance to fires that other steel structures do not have?

Surely you're aware of steel bridges and lo rises collapsing due to fire only.

Why would a high rise steel building be special? Why would it not ever collapse?

Or do you believe that it could indeed collapse, given the right circumstances, but those circumstance were not met. And if so, how have you determined both the level of damage necessary to meet your criteria, and just how much damage was incurred?

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430

Of course you don't believe me. It is easier to trick a man than it is to explain to him how he was tricked. I get it, human behavior is my hobby.

Once tricked, some folks just never find out they've been tricked, the mind does not like to admit it was fooled.

MRDuped2430 LOL

Can you show us any examples of any steel frame skyscrapers that have collapsed like building one, two and seven on 911? For any reason other than controlled demolition? I'm so eager to learn.

Why would that be important?

Is your argument that nothing can happen for a first time? Or that steel can't fail in fire?

Or is it that a steel framed skyscraper can't collapse from fire and/or damage because it possesses magical powers that steel bridges or steel framed lo rises don't?

I guess you failed like the rest to show me an example. Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane and looked like a perfect demolition at free fall speed. If it was damaged on one side it would fall to that side obviously if it were to collapse for the fires time in history. calculated it myself. Fell about a half a second slower than a brick would drop.

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse

Plus nano thermate found in all the dust samples.

when you use your gas stove does the steel melt on the burner?

IOW, you can't explain why your statement is important.

My counter argument is that engineers are pretty good at their job, and take the task of preventing a building from falling, whether it's from physical damage and/or fire, pretty seriously.

That's why it is a fairly rare event when any building fails, for any reason....

Yes. Your right. More than rare. In fact it has never happened. Buildings have burned for much longer and hotter than those on 911 and they didn't collapse. Building 7 was not hit by a airplane. Fell straight down in its foot print.

And they found Nano Thermate in all the dust samples. Nano Thermate can be used as an explosive.

Historically, pyrotechnic or explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited due to their relatively slow energy release rates. Because nanothermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far greater.[2] MICs or Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s.[3] Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being studied by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs several times more powerful than conventional explosives.[4] Nanoenergetic materials can store more energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy. Thermobaric weapons are one potential application of nanoenergetic materials.[5]

Nano-thermite

No thermite was found at the WTC. Jones, et al., started with a desired conclusion and tried to force the data. The data in their paper is self inconsistent and henryco showed that red primer paint is just paint. Jones is a self aggrandizing fraud.
If you claim that thermite was used as a demolition material, you will have to explain timing. Thermite acts on a much longer timescale than explosive cutters and, because the effect is one of heating and melting over a large volume, large amounts of thermite are required. This also means that time to failure is difficult to predict which is why thermite is not used as a demolition material.
You will have to come up with another conspiracy that fits the data available.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430

Of course you don't believe me. It is easier to trick a man than it is to explain to him how he was tricked. I get it, human behavior is my hobby.

Once tricked, some folks just never find out they've been tricked, the mind does not like to admit it was fooled.

MRDuped2430 LOL

Can you show us any examples of any steel frame skyscrapers that have collapsed like building one, two and seven on 911? For any reason other than controlled demolition? I'm so eager to learn.

Why would that be important?

Is your argument that nothing can happen for a first time? Or that steel can't fail in fire?

Or is it that a steel framed skyscraper can't collapse from fire and/or damage because it possesses magical powers that steel bridges or steel framed lo rises don't?

I guess you failed like the rest to show me an example. Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane and looked like a perfect demolition at free fall speed. If it was damaged on one side it would fall to that side obviously if it were to collapse for the fires time in history. calculated it myself. Fell about a half a second slower than a brick would drop.

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse

Plus nano thermate found in all the dust samples.

when you use your gas stove does the steel melt on the burner?

IOW, you can't explain why your statement is important.

My counter argument is that engineers are pretty good at their job, and take the task of preventing a building from falling, whether it's from physical damage and/or fire, pretty seriously.

That's why it is a fairly rare event when any building fails, for any reason....

Yes. Your right. More than rare. In fact it has never happened. Buildings have burned for much longer and hotter than those on 911 and they didn't collapse. Building 7 was not hit by a airplane. Fell straight down in its foot print.

And they found Nano Thermate in all the dust samples. Nano Thermate can be used as an explosive.

Historically, pyrotechnic or explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited due to their relatively slow energy release rates. Because nanothermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far greater.[2] MICs or Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s.[3] Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being studied by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs several times more powerful than conventional explosives.[4] Nanoenergetic materials can store more energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy. Thermobaric weapons are one potential application of nanoenergetic materials.[5]

Nano-thermite

No thermite was found at the WTC. Jones, et al., started with a desired conclusion and tried to force the data. The data in their paper is self inconsistent and henryco showed that red primer paint is just paint. Jones is a self aggrandizing fraud.
If you claim that thermite was used as a demolition material, you will have to explain timing. Thermite acts on a much longer timescale than explosive cutters and, because the effect is one of heating and melting over a large volume, large amounts of thermite are required. This also means that time to failure is difficult to predict which is why thermite is not used as a demolition material.
You will have to come up with another conspiracy that fits the data available.

Well it's quite a complicated way to blow up a building...

All these arguments about how great nanothermite is when used as an explosive - indeed, the claim is that it's MORE energetic than a conventional explosive - just makes it more puzzling to the rational minded just why no obvious explosions are going off during the collapse.

The argument about superthermite is that it's a superior explosive. More bang equals more noise. And yet..... nothing....