Proof of explosive devices (the media coverage they don't want you to see)

Sorry IBB, what I said to you in this thread was not related to what was said in this thread.

Moving on now.

[edit on 17-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
So following the logic of the previous posts on here....

The State Department, the FAA and the Treasury Department buildings were all bombed on 9/11....after all the media all ran reports of bombs at those buildings as well...........

The reports you cite were rumors that made it to the news. Possibly just to amp up the threat level drama.

Some of the clips used in that video could qualify as that as well, however the witnesses cannot be trumped up with your example.

Our government was not involved in bringing down the Twin Towers.

After all, more than a half ton of explosives was unable to bring down one of the Twin Towers in 1993 eventhough the buidling's support beams were sitting directly in the middle of the bomb crater.

The two buildings were brought down in 2001 when the heat annealed the steel structures to a point of failure and it wouldn't have taken that much heat to do so, and it was the same way that heat from the gasoline fire on an overpass in Oakland, CA. recently brought down a section of that overpass. A few miles away from that accident , another gasoline fire that took place in the 1980s in a tunnel, had damaged steel components to where they had to be replaced.

Secondary explosions could have resulted when gas lines failed in the buildings that resulted in pockets of gas building up in certain areas within the buildings.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
i feel like im pimping out that debate in every thread i post in of late but no one has called me out on its content yet, so either no one reads it or no one CAN call me out on it.

i dont post the link because i "won" the debate, i never really cared about that, i post it because i built what i feel is a pretty solid case for there being NO explosives used in the wtc and ive yet to be successfully refuted.

and im just too lazy to retype it all in every thread that i get into that deals with explosives lol

maybe i should just put it in my sig....

Originally posted by Damocles
i built what i feel is a pretty solid case for there being NO explosives used in the wtc

No conventional explosives.

It'll be all explosives in general when you make a list of all explosives in general, and then prove that you haven't left any out, especially from lack of knowledge. And then analyze them all.

Originally posted by bsbray11

No conventional explosives.

It'll be all explosives in general when you make a list of all explosives in general, and then prove that you haven't left any out, especially from lack of knowledge. And then analyze them all.

you are of course correct, i should have specified. my mistake.

however, now that you bring it up, would you care to speculate on the charactaristics of any substance that is able to release the energy required to destroy the buildings in the fashion we saw yet leave no traces and do so rather quietly? or would that take me back to the mininukes threads?

i mean it would of course just be speculation for the sake of speculation and wouldnt mean anything
just curious

edit to add: as to the second part of your quote, ive been pondering it a bit and in the end, yeah we could list all 'known explosives' but tbh, the calculations ive done are using the absolute most efficient charges available. sure, you could make lsc's with slightly more efficient explosives if you wanted but the RE factors wouldnt change all that much honestly, its just a matter of doing a conversion that would take all of 30 seconds with a standard calculator. and to do the math using standard charges verses lsc's bumps you from a couple hundred lbs up to in the 1000's of pounds per floor (i think i had calculated around 1150lbs/floor using sheet explosives vs lsc's)

so regardless of chemical composition, youre looking at over 100lbs/floor MINIMUM when dealing with ALL known conventional explosives.

so if you find me a conventional explosives with an RE factor over 1.4 or a linear shape charge with a yeild less than 425g/m that will cut over 40mm of steel ill recalculate and admit i was ignorant. but in all my experience and research, i just cant find one. does that mean it doesnt exist? nope not in the least, but it does mean that ive built a solid case against all known and common conventional explosives becuase i did my calculations using the most efficient means commonly available using conventional explosives. but youre more than welcome to give me examples of things i overlooked and we'll plug them in and see if it has a significant impact on my findings

you know me, i have no problem being proven wrong, i just require a pretty high standard of "proof"

[edit on 17-6-2007 by Damocles]

Originally posted by Damocles
www.abovetopsecret.com...
... i built what i feel is a pretty solid case for there being NO explosives used in the wtc and ive yet to be successfully refuted.

I agree because there is no way anyone could have taken thousands of pounds of explosives and thousands of feet of detonation wires all the way up those stairs and not be noticed, not to mention the days of preparation that it would have taken just to attach the explosives to the steel beams and hook up those wires, but the bottomline is, there was never any evidence to begin with that explosives were responsible.

just leaves way to much 'chance' that the entire plot could become public.

i soooooo agree with you on one hand but my other hand screams "THE MANHATTAN PROJECT".

that was a pretty big secret, bigger than 911.

Originally posted by Damocles
however, now that you bring it up, would you care to speculate on the charactaristics of any substance that is able to release the energy required to destroy the buildings in the fashion we saw yet leave no traces and do so rather quietly?

You say it left no traces yet we haven't even specified a device (not to mention all the things you hand-wave away without KNOWING what caused them -- ie dismissing all recorded explosions and seismic events as electrical generators or etc. is being 100% as speculative as anyone else). How do you know what you're talking about? Tell me what you're looking for when you say "no traces" and "so quietly". It seems like you're trying to back me right back into the corner of high-velocity, chemical high explosives, that, in your mind, never went off in Manhattan on 9/11.

I don't think the towers were blown because I know what did it. I think they were blown because all relevant science behind how fire affects steel and even basic physics in regards to how things accelerate and how acceleration relates to kinetic and potential energy and collisions don't seem to apply to those collapses, given the idea that they did it to themselves. I don't see the collapses resulting from fire sagging some trusses and yanking in perimeter columns. I see failure from the core and I see unrelenting explosive chaos afterwards, not a physical system in which potential energy is being spent buckling columns.

Originally posted by bsbray11

You say it left no traces yet we haven't even specified a device

well, there were no chemical traces that could be tied to explosives of any kind in the epa reports of the air samples, and if we're going to use their report for the size of the dust particles isnt it fair to use it for searching for other traces that may or may not have been in the air that day?

(not to mention all the things you hand-wave away without KNOWING what caused them -- ie dismissing all recorded explosions and seismic events as electrical generators or etc. is being 100% as speculative as anyone else). How do you know what you're talking about?

thats fair enough, i guess that one comes down to just forming an opinion based on what is available and comparing it to what i know which is all anyone can do. i wont go so far as to emulate some other members of this board and say that my experience and training makes me so much better to analyze this than everyone else, but you have to admit that as far as opinions go i may have more basis in fact for mine than someone who's never seen an explosion bigger than fireworks at the 4th of july. the real difference between me and some others is that ive ALWAYS been willing to admit i could be wrong and when shown to be wrong i WILL admit it. but to date there isnt a single piece of evidence available that gives me reason to think i missed something pretty important.

Tell me what you're looking for when you say "no traces" and "so quietly".

well, honestly...anything would be better than nothing. there were no chunks of steel that anyone reported having anything resembling blast patterns, there were no traces of anything in the air samples, any blast capable of producing a seizmic event should have been audible to everyone in manhattan, of all of the "explosions" reported, there was very little consistancy and i would think that setting off anything bigger than a 1lb block of tnt would get the attention of pretty much everyone in the vicinity and there wouldnt be any variance in the reports. if we're talking about something capable of dropping the tower...we should have heard it on the audio on every camera that was rolling that day, unless of course you think the live feeds were being edited by "them"

It seems like you're trying to back me right back into the corner of high-velocity, chemical high explosives, that, in your mind, never went off in Manhattan on 9/11.

truth be told i really wasnt trying to back you into any corners there and i think you may have misinterpreted my meanings in that last post. i was HONESTLY just asking if you had any wild fringe speculations about what it COULD have been so we'd have something to bs about in this or any other thread just for the sake of speculation. kind of an out of the box brainstorming becuase sometimes your ideas and opinions get me to think along different paths. its one of the erasons that youre among the few people i truely enjoy just throwing speculative ideas around with. sorry if it came out as wanting to back you into a corner, my apologies.

I don't think the towers were blown because I know what did it. I think they were blown because all relevant science behind how fire affects steel and even basic physics in regards to how things accelerate and how acceleration relates to kinetic and potential energy and collisions don't seem to apply to those collapses, given the idea that they did it to themselves. I don't see the collapses resulting from fire sagging some trusses and yanking in perimeter columns. I see failure from the core and I see unrelenting explosive chaos afterwards, not a physical system in which potential energy is being spent buckling columns.

now this i can respect. and this is what separates you from the typical "just saw loose change and need to spread the word cuz no one else knows about this information" person out there.

Originally posted by Damocles
well, there were no chemical traces that could be tied to explosives of any kind in the epa reports of the air samples, and if we're going to use their report for the size of the dust particles isnt it fair to use it for searching for other traces that may or may not have been in the air that day?

Sure but you have to prove to me that any device would give off something that the EPA would pick up from dust samples from the air and that nothing they detected was from any kind of explosive device, which is no mean feat. For all I know evidence could be all over those EPA findings. That's where you come in, if you can convince me of anything.

there were no chunks of steel that anyone reported having anything resembling blast patterns

Have you looked at all of the steel? I'm not even saying there were blast patterns, but have you even looked at all of it?

any blast capable of producing a seizmic event should have been audible to everyone in manhattan

Maybe so, but there were also extra seismic events anyway, unless LDEO was picking up ghost events. And there were also plenty of people in Manhattan that heard explosions. Yoiu just keep ASSUMING that they were hearing all number of things besides explosives, or ignoring the fact that so many people heard so many things, or whatever it is that you do when you read this stuff and file it away in your head.

of all of the "explosions" reported, there was very little consistancy

What was inconsistent?

and i would think that setting off anything bigger than a 1lb block of tnt would get the attention of pretty much everyone in the vicinity and there wouldnt be any variance in the reports.

Are you imagining what these guys had running through their heads, all the activity, all the sounds and noises from trucks and sirens and crowds of people, the confusion, and the massiveness of these buildings and all the places inside them? Because I bet you could set off a block of TNT in quite a few places within the buildings and it would only stand out in a handful of recollections of the events of the day, and it's hard to say how many of those people would write something that you would later read. And then when you read that account, or maybe hear the actual explosion, I would say you have a 90% chance of saying it was an electrical generator or etc. and letting even that one slip through the cracks. And that's just assuming once again that something primitive and loud was used there (TNT).

if we're talking about something capable of dropping the tower...we should have heard it on the audio on every camera that was rolling that day

How do you know you didn't? How many times have you heard the collapses in clear audio, and how in the hell do you know what you're hearing? At least half the videos I've heard just sound like static because it sounds like the sound input was being overloaded on a range of frequencies. And in the lower frequencies I've heard deep "booms" in many videos and even on TV, masses of deep "booms" so closely sequenced that they sound like rain. One such clip is on an early Discovery Channel program that claims the towers fail from faulty "tube" design (saying the core was just where the elevator supports were), so if you ever see that coming on then check it out.

I could post a number of testimonies regarding the audio during the collapses, all sorts of "boom boom boom boom boom" 's and comparisons to "bombs" going off and etc. from people that were right there running away from it (think of the firefighers in the Naudet film talking about it). The fact that you're not hearing the same things in videos is either a clue that those videos aren't the holy grail of WTC collapse audio or else that a host of first-responders are essentially lying or else completely imagining the same things. Are you hearing what they said they heard? If not then that's pretty much what the problem boils down to.

i was HONESTLY just asking if you had any wild fringe speculations about what it COULD have been so we'd have something to bs about in this or any other thread just for the sake of speculation.

Frankly I don't really even care what was used. We're both looking at the situation from completely different angles. You want me to tell you what happened, and I only want to tell what didn't happen. As long as physics is consistent, my case depends on much fewer assumptions than yours does. I could never pretend to know all the devices they could have used so confidently as to build my entire case on it.

well in the end, i do agree with one thing you kind of alluded to, its a matter of perspective.

you base your opinion on what you know and unlike many others who's posts ive read youre able to at least articulate and justify your opinions in a clear and intelligable way.

i like to think that im doing the same thing from a different point of view. i take what i know and apply it to the available evidence and come to my conclusion and try to articulate it as well as im able.

regardless of what you or anyone else may think my agenda is, all im trying to do is provide information. i feel ive built a fairly good case for there not being, and ill really emphasise this so we're not getting into any misconceptions or misunderstandigns, CONVENTIONAL HIGH EXPLOSIVES. i have based my opinions in fact, and i think ive provided enough that anyone with the desire could verify my findings should they feel like doing the research, but, they could also negate and disprove my findings should there be evidence i havnt seen.

ive never accused any of the eyewitnesses of lying, but ill stand my my statements that people tend to use metephors to describe events and its not uncommon at all for people to say something loud "sounded like a bomb". in regards to the testemonies of people there that day, my biggest emphsasis has always been that there COULD be any number of things causing loud noises in a scene like this and that just becuase something was loud does NOT mean it was automatically high explosives.

i can in no way refute your theory that rapid fire detonations could sound like one continuous roar, due to the sounds blending in with the sounds of the collapse but ill stand by my opinion you should at least hear the first one clearly

but all of that is beside the point.

im not out to PROVE the official story, nor am i out to DISPROVE the theories that the govt was responsible. ALL ive done is to try to show that in the long list of theories of what happened that day, the use of explosives in the towers is not real high on the list of probables. in doing so I would think that anyone who really did want to find the truth would take a few mins, check out my data and see if they agree or disagree. if they find something to refute what ive said then call me on it and ill discuss it, if im wrong ill admit it (something not many people on this board seem to be willing to do)

but, if im right, isnt that a good thing for the truth seekers out there who really want to know the truth? becuase if i am right, thats one area of debate or research they dont have to waste time on, time that could be spent looking into other areas of the event?

but instead i am vilified and branded a heratic. the truth movement for so many has become its own religion and anyone who disagrees is branded and shunned.

but guys or gals like you bsb, i would think would LIKE to know why conventional HE in all probablility wasnt behind the collapse of the towers jsut so you werent wasting your time. i know youve said something to the effect of you dont care what actually caused it because you know it had to be something external, but in the end isnt knowing what likely didnt do it just as important as what likely did do it?

Originally posted by bsbray11

No conventional explosives.

It'll be all explosives in general when you make a list of all explosives in general, and then prove that you haven't left any out, especially from lack of knowledge. And then analyze them all.

i wanted to revisit this quote and make a clarification.

all of the calculations ive done were based on the MOST COMMON types of MILITARY grade explosives OR calculations made using data taht was redily available from the manufacturer in the case of the lsc's

i stand by what i said about being able to recalculate in a few seconds if i had the RE factors for any exotic explosives or any experimental explosives or even any hypothetical explosives,

but

while i have claimed to be an "expert" in demolitions i have always tried to make it clear that im claiming that expertise in MILITARY GRADE ORDINANCE and that if i said, thought or even implied that i had "off the top of my head 100% expertise" in the characteristics of ALL explosives then i mistakenly misrepresented myself. if truth was to be told i still refer to my reference materials for some of the more obscure data on less common ordinance, but while some would try to say that knowing only military grade ordinance lessens my credibility i would have to say that the conversions between miltary grade and civillian or even exotic explosives is a matter of simple math and so knowing miilitary grade stuff makes for very easy conversions to pretty much any other types out there and doesnt change the way they are primed or placed. but i dont think that lessens what i know as even dr's use a PDR when deciding on a medication for patients.

i post this in an attempt to insure that im not trying to pass myself off as more than i am in reality and i apologize for the confusion.

i also wanted to make sure i cleared this up as i think it may have been the source of bsb and i butting heads a bit in the last few posts and to offer him an apology for any misunderstandings that arose as a result of my posts.

so, i HAVE done calculations based on KNOWN KNOWNS and would be willing to do them using any unknowns should someone be able to provide me with the data. i can assure you that despite my opinions, i will give unbiased answers to any specific questions regarding explosives and 911.

thank you
Damo

This really doesnt surprise some of us. There have been many situations in which the military/government has killed and or attacked,it's own American populace.
Isreal,Attacked a US navy ship and many Americans were killed. All the sapporting ships and aircraft in the area were told to stand down as Isreal attacked for 75 min.
The Bay of Pigs,is another incident where American government, killed its own, To try to get the american masses to sapport an invasion of Cuba.
Lets see.. Theres also the cuban missle crisis. I could go on and on,about American government decieving us thru out history.
Lets not forget that American government also supply's our so called enemies with military hardware and evan trains them how to use the weapons.
The kennedy assanation! Someone within the American government.
Martin Luther king,killing! Someone within the American government gave the orders.
the other kennedy's . American government from within.ETC,ETC,ETC,ETC,
I could tell you about devices and technologies that would have you cowaring at the side of your bed,that the American government has and use,against us..
Heres one for ya's, keep an ear open for PAIN causing devices issued to police.. Like i said I could tell ya things that youd swear were lies, But there not.......

The only people that need to watch this or see,hear,feel ,taste,anything more
to know that this was a contrived event. well they belong to blind deaf and the dumb.
Although it is human nature to first be in denial when something of this magnitude is first gleamed ,that Denial gives way to anger then finally acceptance of the truth.
There are those that go through this process in a matter of minutes like myself.
Others may need years to see reality
and still others will be for ever locked into Denial that the truth scares them too much to go there and still others will be for ever in anger.

911 was contrived this is factual
911 was allowed to happen this is also factual
the buildings came down at free fall and were pulverized into dust this also is factual
at least one bomb in each building is factual otherwise the buildings could not of been pulverized and fallen into their own foot prints
the commission was a white wash this is also factual

what was the result of 911 happening

a false war was under taken to secure lands and build oil pipelines from the Caspian basin
of which the Russians not only beat them to the oil but did so soundly

Today America is in a very deep mess no leadership
on the precipice of economic doomsday
and under the dictatorship of mass murderers
you have no idea how the Truth and all of the truth scares the average American.
Denial is the only safety net that keeps them from rage

Originally posted by Damocles

Originally posted by bsbray11

No conventional explosives.

It'll be all explosives in general when you make a list of all explosives in general, and then prove that you haven't left any out, especially from lack of knowledge. And then analyze them all.

you are of course correct, i should have specified. my mistake.

however, now that you bring it up, would you care to speculate on the charactaristics of any substance that is able to release the energy required to destroy the buildings in the fashion we saw yet leave no traces and do so rather quietly? or would that take me back to the mininukes threads?

i mean it would of course just be speculation for the sake of speculation and wouldnt mean anything
just curious

edit to add: as to the second part of your quote, ive been pondering it a bit and in the end, yeah we could list all 'known explosives' but tbh, the calculations ive done are using the absolute most efficient charges available. sure, you could make lsc's with slightly more efficient explosives if you wanted but the RE factors wouldnt change all that much honestly, its just a matter of doing a conversion that would take all of 30 seconds with a standard calculator. and to do the math using standard charges verses lsc's bumps you from a couple hundred lbs up to in the 1000's of pounds per floor (i think i had calculated around 1150lbs/floor using sheet explosives vs lsc's)

so regardless of chemical composition, youre looking at over 100lbs/floor MINIMUM when dealing with ALL known conventional explosives.

so if you find me a conventional explosives with an RE factor over 1.4 or a linear shape charge with a yeild less than 425g/m that will cut over 40mm of steel ill recalculate and admit i was ignorant. but in all my experience and research, i just cant find one. does that mean it doesnt exist? nope not in the least, but it does mean that ive built a solid case against all known and common conventional explosives becuase i did my calculations using the most efficient means commonly available using conventional explosives. but youre more than welcome to give me examples of things i overlooked and we'll plug them in and see if it has a significant impact on my findings

you know me, i have no problem being proven wrong, i just require a pretty high standard of "proof"

[edit on 17-6-2007 by Damocles]

does the 100's of lbs per floor include the thermite factor that PROf: Jones has proven was used to sever all of the main beams ?

Thanks Damocles

Originally posted by Agit8dChop


Leaves too many chances that someone might see hear or stumble across something..

did you watch the video? people stumbled all over every bit of it.

in fact, there are all kinds of eyewitness reports that back up the conspiracy theories but you just wont see them tonight on 20/20. search the internet, people were stumbling over stuff long before it happend too. forsight is a little muddy, and hindsight is easy to edit out of the news.

[edit on 7/27/2008 by re22666]

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Isreal,Attacked a US navy ship and many Americans were killed. All the sapporting ships and aircraft in the area were told to stand down as Isreal attacked for 75 min.

You are refering to the USS Liberty there is lots of information pointing the fact that the US either helped planned or knew about the attack.

If you like there is a lot of official documents on the USS Liberty at NSA's National Cryptologic Museum.

Go the NSA public site and check out the Museum. www.nsa.gov...