explosive information

there were power downs, but it would have taken weeks to plant those.
ok. and that nano thermate causes the upper floor to collapse.
would that cause a complete collapse/destruction/pulverisation from top to end in nearly freefall- speed?
it all is fishy.

reply to post by anti72
They had months, if not years, and, yes, it would. In my opinion the only thing that is fishy is why the American people havent been able or willing to do a damn thing about it. A soveriegn country was invaded and occupied and its leader(granted a real, P.O.S.) was captured and executed. If the situation were reversed it would have been Bush doing the air dance...



[edit on 13-8-2008 by spookjr]

[edit on 13-8-2008 by spookjr]

Gee willikers. Davey Crockett was my favorite hero as a child. Who'da thunk they would name an innacurate nuclear recoiless rifle after him. His own Kentucky Longrifle, Ol' Betsy, never missed (unless Davey wanted it to miss, natch.)

When I saw Davey's name I just had to look into what that scalawag, Uncle Sam, had been up to in Davey's name. Fascinating reading, particularly a link to a nuclear building demolition bomb that was an offshoot of the warhead used in the Crockett recoiless rifle.

Back in the day, Uncle Sam was thinkin' and thinkin', "Gosh darn it, how can we use one of these itty bitty nukes to knock down a building if we want to? There just has to be a way to do that without creating an undo amount of mayhem. Let's git summa them mad scientists ta work on this. See what they come up with."

en.wikipedia.org...

The Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) was a United States Navy and Marines project that was demonstrated as feasible in the mid-to-late 1960s, but was never used. The project, which involved a small nuclear weapon, was designed to allow one person to parachute from any type of aircraft carrying the weapon package and place it in a harbor or other strategic location that could be accessed from the sea.

Do you think there is any chance they might have made some progress with this concept since the sixties? Progress that might not be a nuke, but just some kind of special purpose bomb. Quite likely, I'd say.

At the very least this shows that they were working on ways of using a nuke to destroy narrowly defined targets.


[edit on 13-8-2008 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit
Absolutley, but not enough to figure out how to set off 2 nuclear weapons in downtown NYC during rush hours. The effect of the smallest nuke would look quite different that perfectly controlled, pancake type implosion. I just cant even begin to buy the story of a nuke.

Originally posted by spookjr
Absolutley, but not enough to figure out how to set off 2 nuclear weapons in downtown NYC during rush hours. The effect of the smallest nuke would look quite different that perfectly controlled, pancake type implosion. I just cant even begin to buy the story of a nuke.

The only problem is trying to figure where the radiation came from that the EPA blamed on DU from the aircraft even though the 757 and 767 do not carry DU for counterweights they use Tungsten.

reply to post by spookjr

I'm not actually arguing for a nuke. I'm just saying that it isn't stupid to suggest one, although there may be reasons to rule one out.

The main reason for thinking of a nuke is the notion that steel in the towers may have vaporized (see linked videos) and that the rubble pile is not big enough, i.e., implying that steel is missing from the rubble because it has been vaporized due to exposure to high heat.

One is left looking for a source of heat, not simply to cut through steel like thermate charges might, but to make a lot of steel disappear completly into a cloud.

This is a murky area of explosive technology not usually well publicized in the mass media. Undoubtedly some developments of this sort are top secret.

Some source of heat must be generating the pillar of smoke at the center of the collapse. It is not the initial fires, which would have been dispersed during the collapse. I find it hard to believe that core column cutter charges would generate that much dark smoke. Don't they generate light colored smoke?

Admittedly this is a technical subject, but I wonder if all the usual theories really account for this.

drjudywood.com...

figure 13



Is it possible that the core columns of the building are vaporizing within that cloud, if not all of them, significant numbers of them?

Why isn't the cloud drifting away with the wind, except at it's uppermost level, if it's only a cloud of smoke?

The central pillar of smoke has a peculiar look to it, like a bundle of ropes, as if each core column were emitting smoke separately.


[edit on 13-8-2008 by ipsedixit]

thermate was used to get it down properly additionally .thats propabably right. but nukes ? IMO , no.

it looks definetley like a destruction( not collapse), perhaps even pulverisation.
the photos on the site of Judy Wood are impressive, and support their views,
altough Mr Reynolds suit was dismissed.

reply to post by anti72


David Hawkins of the website, www.hawkscafe.com... believes that rocket fuel (burning at around 5000 deg. Fahrenheit) may have been sprayed into the interior of some of the core columns to vaporize them on ignition.

There is a lot of witness testimoney to support the idea of multiple explosions (cutter charges) being employed. This demolition probably employed several technologies, as required.

It was a work of art.





[edit on 14-8-2008 by ipsedixit]

The Swede, IMHO, has a better grasp on explosives than many other sites I have read and looked into. The thermonuclear hydrogen bomb explains to me how to turn millions of pounds of concrete into dust, and explains the high temperatures detected for three months past date of destruction. Explains the disappearance of the water on the tanks on the roof, explains the vaporization of matter, explains the forces necessary to throw thousand ton steel beams away from side of building. Yes thermate cutting charges were used, and perhaps other contact explosives as well.
The web site "CRASH COURSE ON HARD EXPLOSIVES" is very informative and enlightening. Sometimes people who are not standing in the middle of a grove of trees can see the forest better from afar. I copied the passenger lists the day after 911 and compared the list of suspects several weeks later and none of them were on the list. I have not believed the offical government story on this from day one. I am happy to learn that now millions of persons are waking up to this reality. However, since I am of the opinion that this is an inside job and appparenly so do many of the readers of this thread, your comments about me and my post seem somewhat out of line. I do not need to be chided for proposing a line of reasoning found through some of my searches and told that this is somehow why conspiracy theorists are blackballed and sidelined. I do not trust and of the alphabet soup agencies involved in testing any of or investigating any of the evidence on 911. So if you have some test or examination that was done on the debris of 911 that shows no presence of radiation I inform you that I suspect the source of this test result.
What I am saying is that ridicule and derision directed towards me and my thoughts will not benefit the position that I trust we both share...911 was an inside job.
I know a tremendous amount about a few things, a small amount about a tremensous number of other things, and am always willing to learn.
911 is an open homicide investigation being conducted outside of official government sanction and channels. Conducted by thoughtful, alarmed and concerned world citizens.
I never believed the story on OK City. Beginning on the day it happened.
Never believed Ruby Ridge, Iran-Contra, or WACO. I could go back even farther but I wont. My suspicions and independent searching for the truth preceeds 911 by forty years.
We as a nation have been offered the choice between leaders for too long that pit Atheistic Socialism against Military Industrial Complex since the 1940's.
I am very aware of land, housing, stock market, illegal drugs, savings and loans, bank, oil and gas lease, and insurance fraud perpetuated by a large number of consistent players for several decades in this country. Also the incarceration and liquidation of liabilities (persons with too much knowledge) to control the potential leaking of imformation about these same crimes. The control of the major media for this porpose as well.
Ridicule leads me to suspect that maybe it is closer to the truth that a thermonuclear hydrogen device was used on 911, than not.
So look at the insurance fraud, the stock market fraud, the the improper control of investigation into 911 and compare that to histories of people who have done this from positions of power in the past and and find these same people today and that is the beginning.

reply to post by fmcanarney


www.saunalahti.fi...
saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm

interesting site.after reading this, I think it would have been to complicated to
place thousands of those cutting charges in the whole towers plus placing those 2 hydrogen bombs and let them explode in that exact time scale we saw.plus, there would have been much more radiation, or?

the destruction looked nearly perfect.
just imagine what problems it would have caused for those terrorists, if just one bomb went of unaccurate.
the whole War on terror plans, already finished, would have been in danger.
they couldnt risc that.

my 0.2..
greets

ANTI72,
Thank you for looking at the Crash Course web site.
Several of the contact charges could have misfired and it looks like those that did are obvious. Controlled demolition contact charges were in place probably to begin the demolition, once it began to come down then the thermonuclear device gets triggered and any unexploded contact charges in the core are consumed in this shaped charges blast pattern. Those outside the blast pattern would continue to detonate. the website you viewed contains volumes of information from the perspective of a General Partin source of experience. Not you but others can take my comments as lightly or as condescendingly as you wish but the Crash Course information appears to have validity and internal consistency that a simple contact charges, controlled denolition line of thinking does not possess.
As with the magic bullet explaination of John Kennedys death were later refuted and disproved, here we are again with another "magic bullet" (airplanes and jet fuel) explaination of a catastrophic loss of innocent human life.
I humbly ask to have the possibility open that contact charges cannot eject a one thousand ton piece of steel and throw it hundred plus feet, that a gravity induced collapse can not do the same thing either.
Plus the total amount of energy necesssary to turn the mass of concrete into micron size dust, to have thousand degree molten steel for three months following the collapse with water being poured on it daily, and other unnatural occurances following this event that a x-generation explosive device possibly was employed.
I cannot see a thermobaric device doing all this, conventional petn, pdtn, thremite, thermate, a fuel/air explosive is ruled out as well.

David Hawkins of the website, www.hawkscafe.com... believes that rocket fuel (burning at around 5000 deg. Fahrenheit) may have been sprayed into the interior of some of the core columns to vaporize them on ignition.

Explain what type of rocket fuel you mean (or are you just parroting
some conpsiracy nonsense site)

The link you posted does not exist

Explain how you coat the steel in an OCCUPIED building! Consider
that the steel is behind sheet rock walls encased in several layers
of gypsum board fireprotection. Cutting into the walls would leave
all sort of dust and debris. Also all alterations or construction have to
be approved by the Port Authority engineering department and are
inspected to see if conform to code. Frank DeMartini and his colleagues
in the engineering department (Pablo Ortiz, Tonk Savas) died into
the North Tower rescuing people from the building.

Explain how you get the equipment into the building ? Considering
how would need to get by security and use the freight elevators which
are manned 24 hours and require passes....

reply to post by fmcanarney


Personally, I think it could be a cocktail of different approaches used for the demolition, each serving a purpose of it's own and I'm not saying that atomic charges of some sort should be ruled out. The secret echelon of government science in the US is just too advanced to rule anything out based on conventional understanding.

(Starred your previous post. 9/11 has started to open my eyes to what has been going on in America. People who want an eye opener in the area of finance should google Catherine Austin Fitts. America is being looted as bad as Mexico by it's own insiders.)

Originally posted by thedman

Originally posted by ipsedixit
David Hawkins of the website, www.hawkscafe.com... believes that rocket fuel (burning at around 5000 deg. Fahrenheit) may have been sprayed into the interior of some of the core columns to vaporize them on ignition.

Explain what type of rocket fuel you mean (or are you just parroting some conpsiracy nonsense site)

Just parroting. I'm not a rocket scientist. Are you?

The link you posted does not exist

There was a typo there. Click again.

Explain how you coat the steel in an OCCUPIED building!

You don't. You evacuate the building. See video at bottom.

Consider that the steel is behind sheet rock walls encased in several layersof gypsum board fireprotection. Cutting into the walls would leaveall sort of dust and debris.

I think the cuts might have to be made in a few strategic places in the building's core. The beams were hollow. The fuel, which is suspended in a rubberized medium would then be sprayed.

Also all alterations or construction have to
be approved by the Port Authority engineering department and are
inspected to see if conform to code.

Mike Myers couldn't have put it better. That's hilarious, requesting the Port Authority to approve your plans to blow up a building and murder thousands of people.

Frank DeMartini and his colleagues in the engineering department (Pablo Ortiz, Tonk Savas) died into the North Tower rescuing people from the building.

This points to sabotage and an inside job. These people knew that the building, under normal circumstances could take a plane hit. They were confident of the building's strength and didn't know the fix was in.

Explain how you get the equipment into the building ? Considering
how would need to get by security and use the freight elevators which
are manned 24 hours and require passes....

Watch the first three minutes of this video.





[edit on 14-8-2008 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit


Thats nice - your video brings up the noted fake Scott Forbes who claimed
they shut down power to the WTC the weekend before 9/11.

How come with hundres of business and thousands of people who
worked there he is the only one who knew about this!

I have been involved in power downs - everyone is warned, repeatedly

Servers and printers are shut down - I know because have had to do this

All computer users are told to shut down

Mondays are a pain and half trying to bring everything back up while
everyone whines about how long it takes

Yet we heard nothing about the supposedpower down

Why is that......?

I just wanted to make another point before "real life" drags me away from the thread.

It's a mistake to limit one's imagination when considering the difficulties of a controlled demolition at the WTC on 9/11. There were many firsts that day. We have to remember that there are scientific innovators in labs all over the world coming up with new ways to do things every day.

Here's an interesting article I found when looking into rocket fuel.

(Here is a link to the Yahoo search page containing the link. You have to click on the cached version of the page with an article entitled "Rocket Scientist Makes Candle Wax into Fuel".)

ca.search.yahoo.com...

And the potential for paraffin wax doesn't stop at launching rockets. Cantwell pointed out that the program has been contacted by producers of large airbags and by steel companies. He noted that paraffin fuels could be used in the melting of scrap steel, particularly in developing countries, where it could be much easier to obtain than the typically-used fuel of natural gas.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

Thats nice - your video brings up the noted fake Scott Forbes who claimed
they shut down power to the WTC the weekend before 9/11.

How come with hundres of business and thousands of people who
worked there he is the only one who knew about this!

Source please.

Added later, in fairness to thedman, who I am reluctant to think ill of:

Scott Forbes has been interviewed, see link, and his story is different from the information cited in the linked video. He amends his statement to be less categorical and inclusive on the subject of the power down at the WTC, now confining himself to statements about his own company's space in the Towers.

georgewashington.blogspot.com...

One thing mentioned in a note to the interview is that people he knows who can corroborate his story, "don't want to revisit 9/11". I think that is one of the main problems with this whole 9/11 investigation. Regardless of what facts people may be able to corroborate, for numerous reasons, career being the most pressing one, they just don't want to get involved.

Would you want to speak up to the authorities about the Reichstag fire if you were living in Germany at the time?



[edit on 14-8-2008 by ipsedixit]

[edit on 14-8-2008 by ipsedixit]

external link


www.youtube.com...

here is a video of an explosive device going off and it is clear that it is not a contact demolition charge.
please those with military and EOD expericence tell me of identify this item.

reply to post by thedman

Your Assesment of the Bathtub is so inaccurate I wonder if you ever looked at the DATA at all...

It is reported that more than half of this wall has failed (see ENR link below)

www.civil.columbia.edu...

Ultimately, tension cracks developed in Liberty Street immediately south of the wall, and the top of the wall moved more than 10 inches toward the site.

www.nae.edu...

Career Opportunities
Engineers are busy drawing up emergency tieback, bracing and shoring schemes so
that contractors can start mobilizing tieback rigs this week or next to anchor the south
perimeter of the 70-ft-deep slurry wall.

911digitalarchive.org...

The new determination adds another element of complexity to the monumental reconstruction of the trade center site, which already involves extensive repair of the existing wall -- called the slurry wall -- major subway and PATH projects, and debris recovery. "The slurry wall is not suitable for reuse in a permanent situation because it suffered so much random damage," said George Tamaro, who directed its original construction for the Port Authority in 1967. "It will serve adequately as a temporary measure, but after five to eight years, I would get uncomfortable about it," he said. "I just don't like some of the things I'm seeing down there."

www.hudsoncity.net...

Why would it take them a YEAR to repain something that ISN"T DAMAGED. Your claim makes no sense, since civil engineer schools societies and the goverment even states that slurry wall was damage enough to warrent 1200 ties downs to distribute loads so that repairs can begin!!

Right next to the crack, the engineers say, the falling south tower pulverized the wall, leaving a gash 10 or 15 feet deep, big enough to drive a truck through. The wound has, in fact, been converted into a ramp for trucks and other machines. The engineers say they do not know how far down the damage from this gash goes. ''When we dug it up, it was just powder,'' Mr. Pontecorvo said.

query.nytimes.com...
That article is even a main stream news source NY TIMES!!!
A gash in the wall you can drive a TRUCK THROUGH? If this doesn't constitue damage I don't know what does!!!

You can do a random search on google and find in tens seconds 26000 webapges that describe the DAMAGE DONE to the WTC BATHTUB!!

next time don't just blurt bogus jargon out, do some research!~

[edit on 15-8-2008 by theability]

next time don't just blurt bogus jargon out, do some research

Yes I did the research - in fact I live right across river from WTC site.
Often when in NYC would visit WTC so have seem "bathtub" up close
and personal. Watched as crews cleaned it out and readied it for
new Freedom Tower. Gouge taken out of one side was later
used as part of ramp to bottom. Yet remainder of bathtub was intact
Problem was the basement floors provided lateral stability - as debris
was removed, without the floors to resist the hydrostatic pressure
(it was below water table and Hudson River is nearby) the walls started
to move inward. Engineers watched it start to creep on Liberty St.
Were forced to insert extra tiebacks through the wall anchored in the
bedrock to prevent this.