The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

a reply to: LaBTop

Wining side? Things like not understanding there is no seismic evidence of conventional explosives at the WTC killed the credibility of the truth movement long ago. There is a reason why AE abandoned conventional explosives long ago. There is no proof of detonations that created a pressure wave with the energy to cut steel columns.

a reply to: LaBTop

Would you like to put forth the entire Windsor Narrative?

www.carba.co.uk...

However, it is interesting to see what happened on the 9th level. The picture shows that the unprotected steel mullions buckled as they were restrained against thermal expansion. But collapse did not ensue. Why?

The answer is that the loads were taken by multiple alternative load paths – a classic robustness provision. Mullions above from level 10 to 17 and below from level 8 down were able to distribute and share the loads as the 9th level mullions failed. The fact that there were 60 mullions per floor level added to the number of alternative load paths available.
Why was it that although these
alternative load paths existed above the
17th level they did not apparently
prevent the collapses? There are two
answers to this – firstly because there was no effective fire compartmentation of the building; secondly because of the failure of two internal concrete columns. Yes, a portalised pair of 1200 x 500 concrete columns did collapse.

The fire started on the 21st floor level. As shown in the picture taken from the east after the fire, the serviced storey between 16th and 17th levels arrested all the progressive collapse that occurred to the upper superstructure. Such “strong floors” in multi-storey buildings are another classic robustness provision.

The towers did not have a traditional concrete core. Floors were only supported on the ends of the floor trusses.

WTC 7 was not as open at the towes, but had floor connections not at traditional angles.

The WTC buildings did not have “classic robustness provision“ that prevented the total collapse of the Madrid Windsor. is that false statement?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: LaBTop

LT : The atomic explosion diagram is CLEARLY characterized by a really huge spike at the onset.
Can you even try to acknowledge those two HUGE spikes in the above 911 diagram ???
It's the only honestly showing amplitudes diagram for all 4 first events, ever given by LDEO.

1. But what type of wave is that spike? P waves? S waves? Surface waves? Love waves? Rayleigh waves?

2. Is it true the detonation of explosives historically create specific types of seismic waves? And LDEO has a seismic history of previous detentions. And is it false a building collapse without the aid of explosives will not create seismic waves associated with the detention of explosives?

3. Does your seismic evidence show waves associated with the detention of explosives. It has nothing to do with the amplitude of the wave’s spike if that wave is not solely associated with the detention of explosives.

4. If there was seismic evidence of conventional CD, why did AE, Richard Gage, and Steven Jones abandon conventional CD for fizzle no flash / thermite heat based cutting? Are they false flag deniers?

5. Dr Wood has repeatedly debunked seismic evidence of CD at the WTC? Is she a false flag denier?

Now this is a fine example how you tend to post.
It is a verbatim copy of another post in another thread.
I spotted it by your 4 times use of detention instead of the first time, proper use of "detonation".
Quite simple in fact, to disrupt all serious forum flow, by doing that ad infinitum.
And constantly ignoring any contra arguments offered to you also ad infinitum.
Just keep posting like a robot, if you enjoy that. The more you will get ignored by most members.

1. Rayleigh wave (surface wave). If you just had looked at the diagrams in Dr. Rousseau's paper, you had it already known. By the way, P and S body waves are much smaller in amplitude and energy and propagate through the earth's upper crust somewhat faster than Rayleigh waves.
Page 10, Rousseau paper :

The composition of the waves is revealing both in terms of the location of the source and the magnitude of the energy transmitted to the ground. The subterranean origin of the waves emitted when WTC1 collapsed is attested by the presence of the P and S body waves along with the Rayleigh surface waves. The placement of the source of the four other explosions is sub-aerial, attested by the unique presence of only Rayleigh waves.

You saw the radio mast of WTC-1N sink first, which indicates a demolition of the inner core columns, somewhere in the building.
WTC-2S showed an initial toppling move and torque of the full body upper part, then after the demolition charges were set off the whole upper part exploded and all that pulverized debris sunk into the still erect 77 other floors.
After the initial core column explosions, the natural gravitational collapse sequence of the floor areas takes over. So that part of the collapse is really not interesting for 9/11 OS doubters. And yes, parts of the center columns kept erect a few seconds longer than the already past floors collapse fronts. Which is not contradictory to a human led, core column destruction.

2. Read at last the Rousseau paper and try to comprehend what it explains.
It's the form and kind of amplitudes (spikes) and the total energy that a pack of spikes holds during a certain time slot, compared to the following then naturally occurring smaller seismic collapse spikes their energy content, that determines its explosive origins.

3. Read my full ""WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved"" thread, it's all there in its 121 pages :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
My 121 pages long WTC-7 thread[/url] was started on Jul, 27 2015, and I fully participated in it for the first 5 pages.
Then I left the playground for some member interactions, and yes, the distraction started, after my Jul, 28 2015 post, as usual. Luckily some to be taken seriously members from both sides then flocked in, and those are the ones I respect for their more (or lesser in some cases) professionalism and solid 9/11 research capabilities.
On page 9 on Jul, 29 2015 I posted one again. The Achimspock video :
Title : WTC7 collapse sound & seismic spikes.
www.youtube.com...

Page 14 one long post by me at the page bottom :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Page 15, this post and four more :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Page 16, quite some posts by me.
Page 17, quite some posts by me.
Page 18, lots of my posts and my WTC-7 collapse seismogram Conclusion post.
Page 20, 21, one post by me.
I returned to my "WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved" thread on Jan, 11 2016, at page 113 and left lots of posts full of links, up to the recent last page 121.

4. and 5. already answered in one of my above posts.

Originally posted by: neutronflux
A reply to: LaBTop

Winning side? Things like not understanding there is no seismic evidence of conventional explosives at the WTC killed the credibility of the truth movement long ago. There is a reason why AE abandoned conventional explosives long ago. There is no proof of detonations that created a pressure wave with the energy to cut steel columns.

Just keep stubbornly neglecting all seismic evidence I and others laid before you, do you?
No proof ?
Just reread this thread and my full ""WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved"" thread, it's all there in its 121 pages :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I have nothing to do with A&E its site. I am no poster there. But I adhere to many of their proposals and evidence.
And of course there is proof of such detonations, just listen to the "cap guy" video in page 1.
Did you watch it at all? Heard him say about the pressure waves during the audible row of explosions he and all the bystanders felt, like the pressure on a sub at hundred meters deep.?
And do you even understand that a pressure wave that far up is spreading like a cone, with its smallest cone shape at the origin of the high up detonation. You will feel its full might only if you stood in the other tower at the same height.
The Hudson Pier guy (what's his name again? I have to write this all from memory, I lost all my bookmarks in the upgrade to Firefox Quantum, a major improvement btw) did record ALL these detonations, it's clearly recognizable in his recordings. Because he stood in the much wider sound cone created by those HIGH UP detonations, spreading down to that Pier, 1.2 miles further away.
Did you know the FBI raided his office and confiscated his original tapes.? Dirty critters.
Luckily he made copies before that....some of your country's power structures are crooked to the bone.

Luckily, the bulk of you are totally normal happy citizens, ...still.

a reply to: LaBTop

By the way, P and S body waves are much smaller in amplitude and energy and propagate through the earth's upper crust somewhat faster than Rayleigh wave

Amplitude in not controlled by type of wave. Amplitude is controlled by the energy during a seismic event. A magnitude 2 earth quake is going to have all associated waves with smaller amplitudes than a magnitude 6 earthquake. All seismic waves generated by a magnitude 6 earthquake will have higher amplitudes than a magnitude 2 earthquake with the same origin? Is that false.

Amplitude is just the maximum energy released by a certain event.

So what type of an event historically has smaller P and S waves with more prevalent Rayleigh waves?

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

Comparison with Signals from Earthquakes, Gas Explosion and Mine Collapse
The signals at PAL from Collapse 2 and a small felt earthquake beneath the east side of Manhattan on January 17, 2001 are of comparable amplitude and ML (Fig. 4). The character of the two seismograms, however, is quite different. Clear P and S waves are seen only for the earthquake. The 7-km depth of the earthquake suppressed the excitation of short- period Rg, which is so prominent for the collapse. The difference in the excitation of higher frequencies also can be attributed to the short time duration of slip in small earthquakes compared to the combined source time of several seconds of the complex system of the towers and foundations responding to the impacts and collapses. The waves from the WTC events resemble those recorded by regional stations from the collapse of part of a salt mine in western New York on March 12, 1994 (ML 3.6). That source also lasted longer than that of a small earthquake. A truck bomb at the WTC in 1993, in which approximately 0.5 tons of explosive were detonated, was not detected seismically, even at a station only 16 km away.
An explosion at a gasoline tank farm near Newark NJ on January 7, 1983 generated observ- able P and S waves and short-period Rg waves (ML 3) at PAL. Its Rg is comparable to that for WTC collapse 2. Similar arrivals were seen at station AMNH in Manhattan, which is no longer operating, at a distance of 15 km. AMNH also recorded a prominent seismic arrival at the time expected for an atmospheric acoustic wave. We know of no microbarograph recordings of either that explosion or the events at the WTC. Many people asked us if the arrivals at seismic stations from the WTC events propagated in the atmosphere. We find no evidence of waves arriving at such slow velocities. Instead the seismic waves excited by impacts and collapses at the WTC are short-period surface waves, i.e. seismic waves traveling within the upper few kilometers of the crust.

There is no seismic evidence of conventional CD at the WTC

Amplitude is not wave dependent. Amplitude is dependent on how much energy is released by the event that caused it.

Originally posted by: neutronflux
A reply to: LaBTop

www.carba.co.uk...
However, it is interesting to see what happened on the 9th level. The picture shows that the unprotected steel mullions buckled as they were restrained against thermal expansion. But collapse did not ensue. Why?
The answer is that the loads were taken by multiple alternative load paths – a classic robustness provision. Mullions above from level 10 to 17 and below from level 8 down were able to distribute and share the loads as the 9th level mullions failed. The fact that there were 60 mullions per floor level added to the number of alternative load paths available.
Why was it that although these alternative load paths existed above the17th level they did not apparently prevent the collapses? There are two answers to this – firstly because there was no effective fire compartmentalization of the building; secondly because of the failure of two internal concrete columns. Yes, a portaled pair of 1200 x 500 concrete columns did collapse.
The fire started on the 21st floor level. As shown in the picture taken from the east after the fire, the serviced story between 16th and 17th levels arrested all the progressive collapse that occurred to the upper superstructure. Such “strong floors” in multi-story buildings are another classic robustness provision.

1. The towers did not have a traditional concrete core. Floors were only supported on the ends of the floor trusses.
2. WTC 7 was not as open as the towers, but had floor connections not at traditional angles.
3. The WTC buildings did not have “classic robustness provision“ that prevented the total collapse of the Madrid Windsor. is that a false statement?

""Would you like to put forth the entire Windsor Narrative?""

Of course. Use the ATS Search with these terms : LaBTop Windsor Madrid
There you will find the links to my Windsor Tower Madrid texts, photos and videos. If they do not exist anymore, since a serious scrubbing of non OS material from the Internet is ongoing, just use this site :
archive.org... , and fill in the "lost" url.

1. The Twins had damn sturdy cores, with extra reinforced concrete, laid on damn thick crossbeams connected to the 47 core columns, on each floor. And they had lightweight steel bar reinforced concrete on steel plates, floors, sturdily welded to the core columns and their outer beams, and sturdily welded to the Vierendeel triplets that made up the Facade.
That welds sturdiness evidenced by the inward pulling by those floors of both the facades, at both sides of the burning WTC-1N corner, the one that streamed orange melted metal from down, at the onset of the tower collapse.

2. Have you ever taken the time to search for the construction photos of the steel reinforcements welded over the sub station in WTC-7 when the old WTC-7 was renewed to the 47 story high one?
Did you see the enormous side beams and crossbeams placed over that CONEDISON electrical substation? On which they then build the rest of the floors on. That was some damn serious thick steel. I have posted that photo a few times, so you can find it back via the ATS Search, use : LaBTop CON EDISON , or : WTC 7 construction photo
And what have non traditional angles to do with its collapse? It was a half day long demolition, not a structural failure.

3. They had the classic Tube in Tube construction, agreed on by all the Architects and all the Engineering societies.
Nothing can protect ANY building from being demolitioned, however. So, yes its a false statement, overly narrow, based on just one construction type. Just look at all these modern extravagant buildings nowadays erected everywhere. They don't collapse from structural failures. But if I place a disk shaped variety, thermobaric bomb in them at crucial positions, I can easily bring all of them down. One by one. Piece of cake.

a reply to: LaBTop

Way would it be unusual for a collapse to have a large amplitude in a Reyleigh wave when seismic historical date shows this type of seismic activity mostly creates Reyleigh waves?

a reply to: LaBTop
This addressed was was lacking for seismic evidence of conventional implosion.

911review.com...

There appears to be no basis for the claim that the large spikes preceded the "collapses", nor that the energy indicated by those spikes was more than could be accounted for by the approximately 110 megawatt-hours of gravitational energy stored in the elevated mass of each Tower. And there is strong evidence contradicting the idea that the seismic spikes indicated underground explosions including:

There is no support in the large body of photographic and video collapse evidence for the idea of powerful explosions in the Towers' basements at the onset of the collapses. Instead the evidence shows waves of destruction proceeding methodically downward from the crash zones to the ground.
Underground explosions would have produced strong P waves, but the seismic stations registered only strong S waves. P waves oscillate horizontally -- parallel to the direction of travel; whereas S waves oscillate vertically -- perpendicular to the direction of travel.
An analysis of the timeline of the North Tower collapse on the 9-11Research site corroborates the idea that the large seismic spikes were produced by rubble reaching the ground.

A reply to: neutronflux

""Amplitude is just the maximum energy released by a certain event.
Amplitude is not wave dependent. Amplitude is dependent on how much energy is released by the event that caused it.""

The amplitude of a periodic variable (LT : wave) is a measure of its change over a single period. There are various definitions of amplitude, which are all functions of the magnitude of the difference between the variable's extreme values. In older texts the phase is sometimes called the amplitude.
snip
Maximum magnitude computes the maximum value of the absolute value of the amplitudes within a timed window.
( en.wikipedia.org... )

You have peak and trough amplitude, the wave form part above the zero line and the one below that.
Amplitude is the wave form expression of energy-spread over a certain time window.
The total count of amplitude waves, count for the TOTAL energy released in that specific measured time frame on a seismogram. And the maximum amplitude is just that.

Like those two enormous spikes on the LDEO seismogram I posted earlier above. Those are the maximum peak and trough amplitudes, instantly showing the explosive nature of the two events.
Because any demolotion explosion is registered at much higher energy levels on any building collapse seismogram, than the then following gravitational debris collapses onto the surrounding soil.
Use ATS Search : LaBTop Prof Brown, or Dr. Brown

Similar arrivals were seen at station AMNH in Manhattan, which is no longer operating, at a distance of 15 km.

Ask Giuliano, now defending your president, why that station, so important to the earthquake riddled New York region, had to be closed. One year earlier.

P and S waves are body waves, they travel through the body of the earth.
P stands for primary or pressure or push-pull.
P-waves have the greatest speed and arrive as the first on seismograms.
S-waves have speeds less than P-waves, and appear on seismograms after P-waves.
S stands for secondary or shear or shake.
Rg or Eayleigh waves are guided through the upper crust layers and appear after P and S waves.

a reply to: LaBTop

Again, the amount of energy for any given wave is what raises or lowers the amplitude. Then number of times a wave cycles over a period of time is frequency.

The only way to change any give frequency generated by any given object is to speed up or slow down the vibration of that object. Is that false.

The only way to make an object increase its amplitude for any give frequency is to make it vibrate more forcefully at that frequency. Is that false.

Take the US electrical system. Industrial power is transmitted at a frequency of 60 hertz? Is that false. By changing the amplitude, you have 120 volts at 60 hertz, 220 volts at 60 hertz. For three phase power at 60 hertz, you have 480 volts then 15 kilovolts.


A wide selection of different voltages at the same frequency by changing amplitude.

You change amplitude by increasing or decreasing the amount of energy transmitted at a specific frequency.

a reply to: LaBTop

Let’s review.

The historical seismic activity shows a building collapse is expected to transmit Rayleigh waves.

Rayleigh waves would change in amplitude as items with different masses with different kinetic energy hit the ground.

“Underground explosions would have produced strong P waves” which are not present in the WTC seismic data.

I have produced evidence a building not properly prepared for an implosion by explosives would eject shrapnel. Shrapnel that would have sprayed bystanders, the street, and adjacent buildings. There is no evidence of shrapnel being ejected while the towers under went inward bowing of columns resulting in buckling leading to collapse.

The 1993 WTC bombing of 1000 pounds of explosives blow out at least one wall and caused substantial structural damage, but did not cause detectable siesmic activity 15 kilometers at a former seismic station. But you claimed LEDO recorded seismic activity from detonations at the WTC 31 kilometers away, but there is no audio or video evidence of detonations powerful enough to cut steel columns from footage of the collapse of the WTC towers? No evidence of ejected shrapnel during the buckling of the vertical columns?

To remain relevant, the biggest pusher of controlled demolition, Architects and Engineers, abandoned the narrative of kinetic detentions brought down the towers in favor of thermal cuttting devices?

You cite a seismic narrative debunked, abandoned by the biggest group pushing WTC CD, and ridiculed by other conspiracists.

There is no seismic evidence of conventional implosions at the WTC. Get over it.

originally posted by: LaBTop

originally posted by: LaBTop
""and claiming only one did"". HuH?

Yup

Two steel framed construction collapses there

Only the upper few, outer floor steel parts of the Windsor Tower in Madrid PARTIALLY collapsed, since those were the ones where the spray-on insulation wasn't attached yet. When the partial collapse reached the floor where it WAS attached everywhere, the collapse sequence immediately got halted by the still intact, unbend or weakened steel.

Hey look at that, we agree that steel framed structures collapse from fire.

For some reason though you aren't aware that the collpse of the Windor Tower stopped at the concrete reinfoced machine floor. Sloppy research I guess

9/11: THE CONVENTIONAL EXPLOSIVES HYPOTHESIS (A SUMMARY OF SCOTT CREIGHTON’S WORK)

Mr. Creighton’s hypothesis, authored over many articles, argues that the Towers were destroyed “via conventional demolition, and that during the design stages of the process, the conspirators relied too heavily on the use of detonation cord in the floor systems, which led to the vaporization of most of the double-bridged long steel trusses. This was accidentally revealed (the “iron microspheres”) when the RJ Lee Group did their Composition and Morphology study of the Ground Zero dust samples for Deutsche Bank.”

PETN/RDX is a good candidate because these are the most commonly used explosives in the industry. They have a long, studied history and are generally reliable. I think it’s sensible to start with conventional explosives first, and failing that, move onto testing more exotic hypotheses.

Background Reading if interested (Chronological Order):

Main Conventional Explosives Hypothesis

To Steven Jones…on the subject of detonator cord. This article introduces the possibility of detonation cord being used in the Tower demolition sequence. The specific role of the cord would be to break up the concrete, metal floor pans and trusses which hold the floor pans up. He also suggests that the iron-rich microspheres found in the WTC dust have a possible source other than Jones’ “nanothermite”.

Smoke and Dust This article compares an acknowledged demolition with the South Tower demolition. Notice the telltale signs of high explosives in each sequence.

Demolition Hypothesis This article explains Mr. Creighton’s idea on how the demolition sequence proceeded. The graphics mention the use of thermite, which Creighton later rejected as a viable hypothesis.

Revised Hypothesis This article reveals that there were cabling ducts located underneath the metal floorpans which could be used for simple cable installation. Creighton proposes this as a possible vector for the PETN det cord installation (under the guise of a fibre optic cable upgrade). CAT-5 fibre-optic cable is visually similar to Primaline-85 cord. Kevin Ryan documents a security upgrade for the Twin Towers in 1999-2000.

Det Cord and Concrete Slab

The 46,000 This article connects the discovery of “iron-rich microspheres” to the destruction of the floor systems.

The 6000 The same dicovery but extended to the metal floor pans of the Trade Center, which were held up by the long trusses.

Neither Gravity nor Thermite This article details the extent of the heat events in the Trade Center collapse.

This is Det Cord

Refuting “Purgatory Ironworks” Steel Beams Demonstration. This article is a great master narrative around his conventional hi-explosives hypothesis. Towards the end, it describes the similarity between the inferred composition of the iron microspheres and WTC steel trusses. It quotes from the seminal 2003 RJ Lee Report on the background of the WTC dust markers, and the NIST report on the WTC steel trusses. NIST NCSTAR 1-3D, Table 3-11, p. 58 (p. 92 in PDF). The similarity in chemical makeup between the WTC dust markers and the Trade Center trusses is unmistakable. This is a key discovery which strengthen’s Mr. Creighton’s hypothesis about the destruction of the floor systems.

Post-Collapse Logistics

BBC Piece Post Mortem: Mark Loizeaux and the Special Engineer This article offers an explanation for the acknowleged presence of demolition crews at the Trade Center site.

Proposed Tests to Detect Conventional Explosives

Dust to Dust This article proposes a test for detecting the residue of post-explosion by-products in the Trade Center dust.

Proposed Testing Procedure for Hi-Explosive Residues in Ground Zero Dust This article details possible specific procedures for testing for hi-explosives in chain of custody Trade Center samples.

There’s informative discussion in the comment threads of these articles as well!

Comment Thread #1. Mr. Creighton refutes a troll comment on difficulty of wiring upgrade

Comment Thread #2/I. Mr. Creighton refutes a troll comment on tracers as primary PETN identifier

Comment Thread #2/II. Mr. Creighton refutes a troll comment on tracers as primary PETN identifier, Part II

Comment Thread #3. Mr Creighton refutes a troll comment on the PETN residue detection process

Comment Thread #4. Mr. Creighton’s lengthy argument with reader regards Twin Towers’ factor of safety, mechanics of a progressive collapse, mechanics of controlled demolition, etc. (and continued in replies further down)

Comment Thread #5. Debunking John Cole’s “beam splitting” experiment with his thermite

Comment #6. The pyroclastic flow of Tower collapse, owing to the great volume of molten metal microspheres in the dust clouds

PETN detonation is still a strong candidate (better than thermite) for many of the apparent combustion byproducts that were discovered…

Key innovations of this hypothesis:

• The
iron-rich microspheres are byproducts of PETN det cord explosion. The source of these spheres are primarily the 6000 metal floor pans and 40,000 double-bridged long trusses, the majority of which apparently were not found in the rubble. This also reveals a key feature of how the Tower destruction was engineered (re removal of floor systems).

• This also explains the great abundance of spheres; the floor systems were a major structural element of the Towers, so their destruction, via det cord, would lead to hundreds of tons of iron-rich spheres.

• The microscopic “red-gray chips” in the dust, which were found alongside (often attached to) the iron-rich micospheres, can be explained as the primer paint which coated the trusses. The intense heat from the PETN det cord (to pulverize the floor systems) would’ve flash melted the pulverized trusses, and the resultant molten metal cooled off whilst suspended in space…which formed via surface tension into these micro-spheres. That is the RJ Lee report’s for how these spheres formed.

• Because different sorts of paint ignite at different temps., and we know Jones & Harrit only focused on the primer paint from the columns, paint from the trusses as a source for these red-gray chips cannot be ruled out. Mr. Creighton’s hypothesis provides a good accounting — as with the micro-spheres — for their presence in the WTC dust.

• The pyro-elastic collapse dust cloud can be explained as the molten iron-rich spheres generated from the det cord, traveling within the pulverized concrete cloud at rapid speed. Recall the firefighter testimony on the Tower collapses as documented (see Citation #1 in his article) by Kevin Ryan and others. The “Neither Gravity nor Thermite” article and the firefighter testimony refute the common claim that the collapse was “cold”, whereas its initiation was “hot”.

• The smoke and dust clouds are linked again to the pulverized concrete floor systems. Not unique to Mr. Creighton’s hypothesis, but still accounts for it well in terms of the demolition design.

Would PETN/RDX Detonation Be “Too Loud”?

That regular cutter charges would be “too loud”, therefore we can exclude their use, is not a supported claim. This is the same argument NIST offered for not performing the explosive residue tests. We know NIST both artificially rose the minimum decibel level required for a ‘blast scenario’, and ignored reports of very high decibel levels — using unsupported and unstated assumptions — which indicate hi-explosive charges like RDX. When use of hi-explosives is suspected, we run the appropriate tests for known probable compounds. That’s the only way to exclude compounds like PETN, RDX, TNT and HMX from consideration. Then, if those results fail, we can move on testing more exotic hypotheses, like “nanothermite”.

Stated Assumptions of NIST “Plausible Blast Scenario”:

• 9-lb block of RDX powerful enough to sever column 79 of Building 7 with a single blast.

Unstated Assumptions:

• No efforts at noise abatement
• Complete transmission of sound to outside air
• No absorption or blockage of sound along the path
• Unknown if assumed use of efficient cutter charge

The goal of a controlled demolition is to use the minimum required for the design, and this involves strategic placement in known installation vectors (floors, columns) and pre-weakening. Drilling of explosives deep within structural supports could also limit the sound level. Explosives could’ve also broken multiple important connections, rather than sever major columns outright.

Could the numerous explosions heard by several hundreds of witnesses, considering these above factors, fit the known PETN/RDX detonation sound profiles? I have sufficient confidence to (tentatively) say…yes!

Conventional Explosives Would Be Too Easy to Test For?

No major government agency has ran the standard tests for conventional hi-explosive residue on the Trade Center steel! Not NIST, FEMA, USGS, or the FBI.

Strength of Nanothermite Hypothesis

How does the latter hypothesis compare to PETN/RDX? The use of nanothermite can explain some bizzare features of post-collapse conditions (e.g. the molten Tower rubble pile).

However, criticisms and weaknesses have been pointed out:

• It wasn’t shown in the “Active Thermitic Material” paper, that “super nano-thermite” is a high-explosive. Please ignore the kook “directed energy weapons” website; the article itself is fine.
• The paper has poor experimental design, and does not demonstrate what it claims to.
• Harrit, the paper co-author, is a novice in using scanning electron measurement methods, the main method used in the paper.
• Paper was not peer reviewed, and two journal editors resigned over it.
• Dr. Jones has not performed the inert atmosphere ignition test for his alleged thermite chips. A successful test published in a credible, peer-reviewed journal — and multiple independent replications — would give a large boost to the thermite hypothesis.
• Two comprehensive comments on the 2009 paper’s problems here and here.
• It seems likely that Jones and Harrit were analysing LaClede primer paint, or even rust.

Were Conventional Explosives Combined with Thermite?

Speaking for myself, in regards to particular evidence of the Tower’s destruction…no, I don’t think so. I accept that thermite can be combined with standard high-explosives, if one wishes to manufacture a genuine explosive variant of thermite (which is traditionally an incendiary). However, in the case of the Twin Towers, one hypothesis negates the other. The evidence doesn’t support a combination of explosives in any conceivable way. This is because the evidence for thermite is better explained as the byproduct for PETN/RDX use.

Further, the conventional hypothesis explains features of the post-collapse conditions which thermite can’t, such as the missing trusses and floor pans, and ties it back to how the demolition was engineered in the design stages.
The two claimed pieces of evidence for thermite are primarily the “red-gray” chips, and the iron-rich microspheres. The iron-rich microspheres, according to the thermite hypothesis, are the partially-reacted byproduct of the thermitic red-gray chips. No strong evidence of a thermitic reaction was shown in the 2009 Bentham paper, such as a 4kJ/g energy release or an alum-redux reaction (see “Criticisms” subsection).

With the PETN hypothesis, thermite as a source for these two pieces of evidence are ruled out. The PETN/RDX provides a plausible explanation for the close relation of these two pieces of evidence: The “red-gray” chip is primer paint (either from the trusses or the columns), and the micro-spheres are the trusses post-PETN explosion. We also know that primer paint was coated on the trusses and the columns.

Further, we know that different sots of paint ignite at different temperatures, which is why Jones reported a range of ignition temps. for his alleged thermite chips.

If we assume the chips are evidence for thermite, you have to ask why so much was used. Why would demo. planners use so much of an exotic, untested material which apparently reacts so inefficiently that hundreds of tons of unreacted thermite are left in the dust? Does that make sense? Wouldn’t it also be prohibitively expensive, considering the experimental nature of the “explosive”? Even black operations have a budget.

The same result can be accomplished with 4 tons of det cord. I’ve lost the article which did the calculation, but the author stated to me it was less than 4 tons. I’ll retain this figure as a ballpark estimate.

The two holographic 'planes' were flown into the 'impact' points, which were simply explosives placed earlier, within the towers, at those exact spots.

The flaw in using holographic planes is that they cannot 'crash' as real, solid planes do, when they hit directly into a hard surface.

So that's why the planes seem to 'sink' into the buildings, and leave the exterior wall untouched, for a split second, until the explosives are detonated outward.

It also explains why a wing 'disappears' from one of the 'planes', for a moment, then re-appears - as seen during
one of the video clips.

And it answers why planes could 'randomly' hit the towers and not disrupt the CD's. It was PART of the CD's.


Living near a major airport, I know 757's can be heard for miles around, at those low altitudes. Such planes flying over Manhattan would be heard by many thousands of people on the streets below, without a doubt. They don't hear anything, and that's why very few people even looked upward. Those who did said they heard NOTHING. Which is absolutely impossible with a real 757.

They simply edited in the audio of real planes in flight, AFTER the 'silent' film was shot.


That's clear evidence of an inside job. Planes at such altitudes are very loud, especially at high speeds. No sound, no impact, proves there were NO planes.

a reply to: RUInsane

Where was the det cored place then to see the initiation of collapse as captured in this video in the link below?

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

www.metabunk.org...

Det cored is a conventional explosive that creates a pressure wave to cut steal. Det cored is made to burn fast with enough energy when knotted to be use as a blasting cap for other explosives.

So, for the det cored to cut steel, it has to be knotted, still goes boom, creates a pressure wave, created identifiable shrapnel, and leaves distinctive effects on the metallurgy.

From the collapse videos, please point to any evidence of detonations shrapnel from cutting steel, a pressure wave with the power to cut steel, the resultant sound of an explosion with the power to cut steel, any photos of the pile that shows steel worked on by explosives.

a reply to: turbonium1

The holographic plane idea cannot even be called a theory, it’s pure fantasy.

The images would have had 100s of projectors stationed to keep the seamless view of the jets sides, top, bottom, front, and back moving towards the towes. The countless speakers required for the sound. Then it’s impossible the holograms would hold up in daylight. If you could create a pressure difference in the air to use it as a “screen” the countless “force field” generators would have been stationed with the 100s of hologram projectors.

Imagines that created real time radar signatures?

Finally, holograms being projected would have had to be projected from the front of the towers and through the towers to create the illusion.

Then shape charges would have to be placed on the outside of the towers to blow into the interior with 1000s of gallons of fuel to create the fire ball.

You are supprized a jets going around 400 knotts and weighing 200,000 pounds penetrated the towers like a bullet? While there was jet wreckage ejected into the streets and other buildings?

a reply to: turbonium1

How many ponds equivalent were the jet impacts in high energy explosives? That equivalent in pounds would have had to be planted on the exterior and interior of the towers in an isolated area.

a reply to: RUInsane

Again, det cored does not explode as much as it burns fast. Even when demolishing thin concrete slabs, it seems drilling and prepping are required.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Detonating cord is also employed directly in building demolition where thin concrete slabs need be broken via channels drilled parallel to the surface, an advantage over dynamite since a lower minimum of explosive force may be used and smaller diameter holes are sufficient to contain the explosive.[2] Anything much more substantial than these uses requires the use of additional explosives.

You?

This article reveals that there were cabling ducts located underneath the metal floorpans which could be used for simple cable installation

The det cord would have blown conduit apart and that is about it. Are you saying there was conduit ran under every square foot of the towers’ floor system. The majority of conduit was probably filled to capacity already with power and data cables. The conduit would have been just large enough to accommodate the lines going to lights and outlets. How would you push det cord through to lines terminating at lights and outlets? I guess just leave the fish tape in place? The conduit would have been concentrated in certain areas, not evenly distributed.

Why would anyone spend hours and the risk of getting caught laying det cored to turn the floors to dust? The concrete and drywall broken up totally explained by the energy of collapse.

The argument of the truth movement is the vertical columns had to be cut to cause collapse, and cutting floor trusses would not result in collapse. The truth movement’s claim the vertical columns had to be cut floor to floor to achieve the witnessesed rate of collapse? Has that changed? Why bother with floor trusses and floor pans?