World Trade Center + Explosives

so, i ask a question because i want to discuss issues with people that have experience with HE. you attack my credibility becuause i disagree with you, and to do so you use someone elses opinion because they agree with you.

ok, w/e.

everyone wants "experts" but apparently only if they agree with their opinions.

thick, have i attacked you? have i called your credibility into question? until my last post have i even directed anything at you?

not that im aware of, matter of fact the only thing ive done is to say that i disagree with the opinion that you seem to hold. holy cow, stop the world. god forbid i use my OWN experiences to draw my OWN opinion. what IS the world coming to?

bsb, you see why ive avoided these threads of late?

screw it, im done. spmeone u2u me when we're able to have an intelligent and informed conversation/debate.

No I attack your credibility cause I know nothing about you, your last 20 posts have most to do with aliens..

How are exsplosives related?

your top 300 posts are missing.

You want me to take your word for what you say?

Thats like me saying hey man I own this cool new 2008 flying car... It must be true cause I said it..

Get my point.

and yes I am gettin irritated.

:::EDIT:::

There is a rash of disinfo going around.. Need to be sure who is spewing what.. hell for all I know I can be spewing sh$t.. anyway sorry for slamming you.. I just wanna know what you know. so we dont have this issue later on.

[edit on 10/20/2006 by ThichHeaded]

yes, my first 300 posts are gone. nothing i can do. sucks for me.

yeah, you DONT know me, but to assume im lying about anything is...well...i dunno. you have no reason to trust what i say but you also have no reason to doubt me until i prove or even hint that im lying.

innocent until proven guilty?

for all i know you do own a flying car. who am i to call you a liar?

who are you to call me one?

anyway...my last post was going to be just that...so i guess this one is. its no point discussing a topic when the people/person you are discussing it with just assume you are lying.

but if my credibility wasnt in question id think that 5 years as a combat engineer, another 5 as an NBC NCO for a company of 180 and 2 years on a WMD response team would at least give me SOME ability to speak, if not as an "expert" than at least as someone who's not pulling random BS outta their anus.


would my credibility be in question if i agreed with you?

[edit on 20-10-2006 by Damocles]

Originally posted by Damocles

would my credibility be in question if i agreed with you?

[edit on 20-10-2006 by Damocles]

You know, that is the most honest question I have seen on this board in 2 yrs.

I would say no. But i am not one of those typical people who agree or disagree this or that.

I like to think more along the common sense type of thing. Like why didn't this happen and why did that happen. considering we all learned science in school..

But i think that is the best question I have ever seen on here. Thanks for that one.

Originally posted by Omniscient

If you think about it, there really aren't that many similarities between the WTC collapse and a controlled demolition

Not neccessarily.

WTC2 collapse:

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Another controlled demolition:

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Looks pretty similar does it not?

[edit on 10/20/2006 by Griff]

Both collapses, technically all three, were of the pancake type collapse. This type of collapse is something rarely seen in the fire service. Now the collapses of both towers and Building 7 nearly look the same except for one "small" thing. That is the top of the South Tower tilted at about a 10 - 15 angle during it's freefall to the ground. Now the collapse of both the North Tower and Building 7 did look remarkably similar in the pattern of collapse. That is the collapse started somewhere around the middle of both buildings, which in turn, brought bouth buildings down.

Originally posted by Muaddib
I was thinking about thermate which is a mixture between thermite and pyrotechnics.

Try again.

Thermate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Thermate, or Thermate-TH3, is an incendiary compound primarily used for military applications. Because of the similarity in names, thermate is sometimes confused with one of its components, thermite.

Thermate is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to standard thermite for incendiary purposes. Its composition by weight is generally thermite 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulphur 2.0% and binder 0.3%. Addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and significantly reduces the ignition temperature.

Thermate is used in incendiary hand grenades.

Since thermate has a reduced ignition temperature, I'm assumming that the same applies to thermate as thermite......that a fuse will ignite it.

I guess it does show I am not an expert in explosives but neither are you...

I never said I was an expert, but a simple search would have shown you that you were incorrect and still are I might add.

and please don't try to insult me when you have made worse mistakes and you claim to be a "civil engineer"...

I never said that I haven't made mistakes...worse, I'm not totally sure. At least I try to research a topic when I don't know what I'm talking about. As far as insulting you, if calling you ignorant on a subject (when in fact you are) is an insult, then I guess the truth hurts.

As far as the "civil engineer" comment, here are my transcripts for the whole world to see. I NEVER want to see you type that you question whether I'm a civil engineer EVER again....talk about insults.

files.abovetopsecret.com...(2).JPG
files.abovetopsecret.com...(2).JPG
files.abovetopsecret.com...(2).JPG

Obviously I got rid of personal information. I outlined the structural classes I took to show you that I have a structural background and am a structural engineer. I didn't get the best grades in college (due to too much alcohol) but that doesn't mean I'm not an intellegent person.

So, basically I take high offense to you questioning my engineering degree the way you do.

Originally posted by Elijiothere was a massive power down a few weeks prior to 9/11 during which "workmen", were seen and heard operating heavy machinery and resident's were told that internet cables were being upgraded(yeah right), etc.

Do you have any evidence for this at all?

The only person I have heard talk about the power down is Scott Forbes. Do you have other people who back up this story?

This is the first I've heard anything about heavy machinery.

Source?

Originally posted by Muaddib
But i guess you and others like you can't never understand this.

Me and others like me? I'm not the one spouting out things that are false with no reasearch. BTW, was that an insult? Go figure....if you can't debate the subject, insult the debater. Poor debate tactic if there ever was one.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Muaddib
I was thinking about thermate which is a mixture between thermite and pyrotechnics.

Try again.

Thermate

Thermate is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives

I don't get it, why does he need to try again? Your external quote and his quote are in agreement.

Maybe we all should step back and take a deep breath.

I didn't mean try again with the pyrotechnics. You are being dishonest if you can say you aren't following. I ment try again with the way thermite/mate or whatever you want to call it has to be ignited. Mauddib said that explosives are needed to ignite thermite/mate. I proved him wrong. Simple as that.

Do you know anything about thermite mate?..

To make thermite go off you need explosives, and a good amount of it which would have been heard over the noise of the collapse and would have been heard at least several blocks away, yet it wasn't, and again it would have made P waves because of the explosive devices.

That information has been proven wrong by me...not once but twice.

Either this was a blatant lie (which is against the T&C of this site) or he was ignorant on the subject. Either way, I proved him wrong.

[edit on 10/20/2006 by Griff]

[edit on 10/20/2006 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
I didn't mean try again with the pyrotechnics. You are being dishonest if you can say you aren't following. I ment try again with the way thermite/mate or whatever you want to call it has to be ignited. Mauddib said that explosives are needed to ignite thermite/mate. I proved him wrong. Simple as that.

Do you know anything about thermite mate?..

To make thermite go off you need explosives, and a good amount of it which would have been heard over the noise of the collapse and would have been heard at least several blocks away, yet it wasn't, and again it would have made P waves because of the explosive devices.

That information has been proven wrong by me...not once but twice.

Either this was a blatant lie (which is against the T&C of this site) or he was ignorant on the subject. Either way, I proved him wrong.

[edit on 10/20/2006 by Griff]

[edit on 10/20/2006 by Griff]

Thermite doesnt need an explosive...it just...explodes with heat and fire I think

Originally posted by Pepperslappy

Thermite doesnt need an explosive...it just...explodes with heat and fire I think

I'm not sure on this, but I don't think thermite nor thermate "explodes". Which goes back to my original question to Mauddib about would thermite or thermate leave a trail of "P" waves for the siezmologists to identify? I believe they would not. Of course I could be wrong.

To answer this question, I need something to back up what you say not just your own speculation. That's not ment to be directed at you pepperslappy but "you" as in everyone in general.

Thermite would not produce anything on a seismograph. People walking around would produce bigger signals, because thermite just sometimes sends out pieces of molten material within a radius of a couple feet or so, which I'm sure don't weigh much at all (check out thermite videos on Google video).

And yeah, it only takes a heat source to ignite it. Most explosives produce massive amounts of overpressures via a quick chemical reaction, but thermite's chemical reaction just produces massive amounts of heat that can melt through things.

[edit on 20-10-2006 by bsbray11]

That's what I thought BsBray. Just didn't want to get flamed by Mauddib again. Thanks....although I did ask for proof.

But, mainly I was asking for proof that it did explode if someone was going to claim that it did.

[edit on 10/20/2006 by Griff]

Right, thermite does not need explosives to ignite, I misunderstood your point griff.

IIRC the usual method is some sort of magnesium flare.

I guess the real question is what kind of device was used to ignite the thermite, and how did the detonators and the thermite survive the explosions from the plane impacts?

It wouldn't be hard to provide yourself with the most invaluable form of proof in the world: do it yourself.

You can buy thermite mixtures online for $10 to $20 easy. Then just put a magnesium strip to it, light the strip, and stand back. Like I said, tons of videos on Google video of this. You could also see first hand how these things would or would not affect seismograph readings.

Prof. Jones seems to think that very fine thermite has explosive properties. I don't know what makes him think this, he may have many sources I do not, but I know that he's trying to explain certain explosive events with it (ie the squibs), without having to explicitly allow more conventional explosives (or at least explosives that deal with overpressures) into his research.

In some videos on Google you can see thermite "explode", but it isn't that spectacular and shouldn't really qualify it as an "explosive". Just molten stuff gets launched into the air with a little more force.

A good video of a thermite reaction: video.google.com...

Originally posted by LeftBehind
I guess the real question is what kind of device was used to ignite the thermite, and how did the detonators and the thermite survive the explosions from the plane impacts?

perhaps some didn't which caused molten metal dripping out of the South Tower before collapse.

The longer version would of course be that only columns needed to be severed which were located in the massive core, well shielded against fire, for a few hours at least. did you know that there's fireproof glass which lasts an hour or even longer?

now imagine nontransparent fireproofing for your thermite and fuse, ignition cables either nonexistant (radio fuse) or well concealed and proetected within the core edit: don't forget that impact location was certainly know beforehand, allowing the demo team to leave gaps in their setup to avoid permature thermite ignition.. just speculation, of course.


Glass:

www.mglobal.com...

www.freepatentsonline.com...

[edit on 20-10-2006 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Griff
Looks pretty similar does it not?
[edit on 10/20/2006 by Griff]

Yes, they do look similar.

I have a few questions though. Do you happen to know what building this and when the CD took place, and if it was similar to regularly conducted CD. Because from what I understand, the main purpose of demolition with explosives is to make it fall in its footprint so as not to damage nearby objects, and CD are planned out beforehand and the explosives are strategically placed so the building will NOT fall at an angle like that.

However, there is a still a difference in the pictures. You can tell that the building is already at an angle in the CD picture you posted, which makes me think that the main supports of the building were destroyed by explosives. In the WTC picture, yes the top of the building is falling at an angle, but the bottom is still standing up straight, indicating that its structural support is still intact. The CD picture; not so much.

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
But we have scientists and Santa Claus backing us, who does FEMA and NIST backing them, a bunch of morons.

And you did say that thermite needed explosives to work. Don't back out of this...

So I am saying this in a nice way.. if you aren't 100% sure, don't say it.. cause things will blow up in your face sooner or later..

New poster who made this thread, take that advice also.. it will help you later on.

First of all you can stick your insults up where the sun don't shine. You are insulting people who disagree with you and "your experts" just because there are people who disagree with you?.......

Second of all, please don't try to tell me, or anyone else around here, "if you aren't certain of something 100% don't say it"...because honestly, a lot of the topics posted around here cannot be backed by anyone with half a brain...