Undetonated Explosive Material from 9/11 Rubble

reply to post by ANOK

What's important is the fact that the collapse wave accelerated

Collapse wave?? I thought that we had:

global failure

?

reply to post by ANOK


Star for you!

You put forth this idea in a very clear and concise manner.
Ive always had trouble trying to explain that!

reply to post by hooper


How are you not understanding this?

Its an almost simultaneous event.
All of the interconnections in the building (roughly below the impact point) are severed or weakened to the point. Then, the weight from the top section of the building initiates the total collapse of the building. And as Anok said, IF there were no explosives in the building, then the collapse of the building SHOULD have shown some resistance, in the form of a slower collapse time. The only way for something to fall at free fall speed is to have ZERO resistance, or upward force.

Originally posted by ANOK
The 'free-fall', or collapse time, is irrelevant. What's important is the fact that the collapse wave accelerated, as apposed to slow down as it should have done if there was resistance to the collapse from undamaged structure.

As usual, you've got the physics all wrong.

The collapse time and the amount of resistance are intimately linked.

The collapse wave can accelerate just fine if the resistance given by the building is less than needed to overcome the momentum of the falling debris.

Only if the resistance given by the buikding's structure is MORE than the momentum of the falling debris will it slow down, then stop.

I've explained this to you many times already. It's time you just 'fess up and admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by hooper

 

How are you not understanding this?

Its an almost simultaneous event.
All of the interconnections in the building (roughly below the impact point) are severed or weakened to the point. Then, the weight from the top section of the building initiates the total collapse of the building. And as Anok said, IF there were no explosives in the building, then the collapse of the building SHOULD have shown some resistance, in the form of a slower collapse time. The only way for something to fall at free fall speed is to have ZERO resistance, or upward force.

So - exactly, and I mean exactly, how long did the collapse take? And how long should it have taken, exactly? No adjectives, no "like" and "slower" and "some resistance". Exact. You must have this data.

I don't know where you would have gotten it, but you must have because you are making absolute statements. I know there are videos of the collapse but with them you are still guessing, still estimating. You must have had some sort of timing device affixed to the buildings that day, because otherwise you are just speculating.

reply to post by hooper


According to NIST , the times were 8 and 10 seconds.

You disagree with that now?

about that subject.....i say there should have been core left, it's a concrete box all the way up...if nothing else, it should have projected from the final pile, maybe 200 feet

I had an epiphany or what ever it is called, after reading on another thread a comment that said something about the story not being as fantastic as we think it is. I decided to use that and placing myself in a OS story believer shoes and came up with a lesser impressive theory, here it is.

If you had super secret information in some buildings that could do much damage to the nation if it ended up in the wrong hands wouldn't you have a plan ready to get rid of all this information in case of a hostile takeover,war, etcetera?
The most efficient way to do this would be by blowing up the whole place and have the explosives or what ever would be used to blow it up as part of the plan. This would also help to reduce damage to other buildings in case of a fire or if the building was falling apart and you did not want to be responsible for damages done to other buildings.
In case of a fire, the fire department would assess the situation and decide if they are going to be able to put it off and if the are not able then they can just "pull" the building.
What I believe (posing as an OS believer) is that the buildings that contain secret documents, national security information,etc. are all rigged with explosives as a precautionary measure and solution to the problems presented earlier. And the reason for the secrecy is that no one would work in those buildings if they knew that someone somewhere had a little device that would blow them up with the push of a button.
Thats all for now.

reply to post by Sean48


10:28:20 "tower began to collapse"

10:28:48 "Remaining portion of core collapsed"

10:28:20 to 10:28:48. My math says 28 seconds.

Be that as it may, their timelines are based on video recording observations, yours must be much, much better to make such absolute statements.

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by truthquest
I find it dishonest of Snopes to not publish a correction.

I find it dishonest that you post something as absurd as this Bentham journal paper and claiming it as legitimate.

Since you know everything are are just all-round better than I am, better than Bentham Journal, and better than Snopes.com, I suppose you can tell me where this team of experts go wrong. Where did they go wrong? Put up or shut up, because petty backhanded insults don't cut it. What are the flaws in the paper, oh honest one?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
The quote given in the OP suggests that they've found something that

- doesn't ignite at the same temperature as thermite

- leaves behind a different residue from thermite


Given this, does a rational thinker believe

a it's probably not thermite

b IT'S SUPER THERMITE!!!!!

Thanks for your response. I believe you may have mis-interpreted the quote from the article. While you are right that the quote says the ignition temperature does not match thermite very well, it also says that the temperature does match nano-thermite very well.

There was a match for nano-thermite in both ignition temperature characteristics of the combusted material according to the paper. Also, regardless of which explosive it matches, the paper seems pretty clear about the substance having characteristics of high explosive.

Do you disagree that the explosive substance found by the researchers was nano-thermite? If so, why?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The collapse wave can accelerate just fine if the resistance given by the building is less than needed to overcome the momentum of the falling debris.

What makes you think falling floors, that were designed to be held up by the structure with at least a 2x safety margin (it was more), could have enough kinetic energy to overcome RESISTANCE of the structure designed to hold the floor?

Your hypothesis does not explain WTC2, please go back and re-read what I said about that and put it in context with the rest of what I'm saying, otherwise you will continue to be lost in this discussion and we will keep going around in circles, which I guess you probably want.

What you are saying is correct, but it doesn't work in this context unless you believe the assumption that the buildings couldn't hold their own weight, which is ridiculous and why NIST doesn't agree with the 'pancake collapse hypothesis' either.

Again you are not understanding what you are writing and missing a lot of pertinent points.

I have been watching the dvd that came into my hands called American Truth. There are many amateur footage of how the buildings have collapsed and also report that there was one whole building across the street full of some US agents that were supposed to watch over the collapse of twins. I saw a few interviews with top scientists claiming that the twins were actually mined with explosives and the planes crashing in were just a decoy and sabotage to prevent people of seeing the big picture. And the big picture was that US needed to do that to them self to start the "oil campaign" war in middle east due to too high oil consumption in the US. That is also what I believe happened.
Many times before all over the world there were such conspiracies made by government to get the peoples support for their own dirty works paid by innocent human lives. Claiming that those were works of their enemies and terrorists. Same case as with assassination of J.F.Kennedy. Killed by US government agents that were ordered to do so for "the greater good" of US imperialism at that time.

Are we still on this pancake collapse mumble jumble theory? Once again, these buildings were designed to withstand fire, they were not designed to withstand demo explosives. Can the explanation be any easier than that?

reply to post by VonDoomen


They are placing a linear shaped charge on an I-beam. There is no thermite involved. Just a high explosive. Probably PETN. Also that beam probably has had it's web cut through with an acetelyne torch so that all the charge needs to cut are the flanges. That copper angle is used to focus the power of the explosive so that it cuts through the metal. On one of those charges, the distance from the corner of the angle to the surface of the material to be cut is usually equal to the thickness of the material that the charge can cut.

Other than some morons using thermite to burn holes in things and to set cars on fire, I haven't seen any practicle uses for thermite.

[edit on 29-1-2010 by JIMC5499]

reply to post by Sean48


I have serious reservations about this study.

The authors have outright bias. Some openly admit in the title of the article to being members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, and while I wouldn't doubt their ability to do neutral, unbiased research, on a topic like this, it immediately makes me look at it with a more critical eye.

My second reservation relates to their samples: the samples they all collected have problems in their chain of evidence and possible contamination issues. The first sample, for example, was collected and carried by hand, which immediately adds the risk of contamination. It was then stored in a plastic bag for approximately six years, both a contamination risk and a chain of evidence problem.

My third reservation also relates to the samples: they quickly claim it's thermitic. Sure, it has a similar chemical composition, but that means nothing. They admit that it ignites at a much lower temperature than thermite, but them claim that that is evidence for it being nano-thermite. But therein lies a further problem: this so-called super-themite was just barely off the drawing board by the time of 9/11. The time frame for implementing it would be very, very short.

My fourth reservation comes from one of their implications: themite pf one sort of another was used on the building. Why, then, is there so much left over to have been scattered across Manhattan? Would it not make more sense to have ignited all of it?

It feels very much like they're grasping at straws, and going immediately to the conclusions they want to go to.

Originally posted by sciemus
reply to post by Sean48

 

(snip)

My fourth reservation comes from one of their implications: themite pf one sort of another was used on the building. Why, then, is there so much left over to have been scattered across Manhattan? Would it not make more sense to have ignited all of it?

It feels very much like they're grasping at straws, and going immediately to the conclusions they want to go to.

Try this, light a little firecracker... a Black Cat or something, then find the casing ends, and then burn them with a lighter, you will find that there is unburned blackpowder still on the cardboard..as they will sparkle and fizz...now here is another one... take a US dollar bill, and carefully measure the height of it.... the short width... use a millimeter ruler.. it is 66.6 precisely..

-----------

Originally posted by truthquest

Thanks for your response. I believe you may have mis-interpreted the quote from the article. While you are right that the quote says the ignition temperature does not match thermite very well, it also says that the temperature does match nano-thermite very well.

There was a match for nano-thermite in both ignition temperature characteristics of the combusted material according to the paper. Also, regardless of which explosive it matches, the paper seems pretty clear about the substance having characteristics of high explosive.

Do you disagree that the explosive substance found by the researchers was nano-thermite? If so, why?

I think it's paint, for reasons covered at great length here before. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to rehash all those arguments again.

The fact is, if you really want to believe it's nano-thermite nothing will change your mind.

reply to post by Elieser

Just to add to your theory Elieser, It was well known that during the cold war in Germany many if not all the major bridges/river crossings were designed with prefabricated locations for placing demolition charges. In case the the russian red army decided to invade the west..

This topic is getting seriously derailed. As a reminder, we should be debating whether or not undetonated explosive material was found in the 911 rubble and dust.

You either believe that or you don't. As a former chemist, I believe there was undetonated explosive material on the dust. I also believe that there are other chemical indicators that support this theory.

I believe this because the current technology and methods for characterizing unknowns is highly advanced. There is no way paint chips could be confused for therm(ite/ate), super-therm(ite/ate), or nano-therm(ite/ate).

Another extremely important fact that supports therm(ite/ate) explosives was the discovery of tiny spheres of steel indicating that steel was vaporized, as in 'boiled'. Jet fuel cannot vaporize steel... ever.

Yet another extremely important fact was a chemical signature of a residue that only occurs after therm(ite/ate) ignition. This is like a fingerprint from a chemist's point of view. When this signature is seen and analyzed, it can only lead to the conclusion that therm(ite/ate) was indeed ignited.

This residue was characterized by Prof. Jones in his paper. If any of you are debating this topic without having read Prof. Jones' paper, then you should be ashamed of yourself.