Can anyone provide a technically viable method of performing a CD on the World Trade Center that is

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by patriots4truth
"We all know that nanothermite can be painted on

It can? Care to show us that from a valid source?

I'd rather see proof of it's existance.

Originally posted by Reality_Incognito
I think i should add if i were to guess how they actually did the demolitions that day.

Columns would be blown over a period of time so as to lower the amount of explosives/termite used at the final collapse/demolition. The floors that were impacted by the planes would be blown at time of impact or allowed to remain intact only being damage from the impact , fires and final demise of the building on collapse/demolition.
The main trick is to bring the buildings down with as few signs of conventional CD as possible.
As far as I know CD are a mix of practicality an flash as many are used for holly wood films so you cant expect the same show to be put on if it were a done to the twin towers on 9/11. Instead you would expected the majority of the big explosions to take place prior to the final fall. Just my opinion on how it many have been pulled off right under so many peoples noses.

A few things.

What would prevent the charges from sympathetically detonating upon the plane's impact?

If detcord was used to connect the charges, the plane's impact would have detonated at least one charge, which would lead to the premature detonation of the rest.

If a wireless system was used, there would be no way to guarentee against premature detonation from a stray signal or that all of the charges would recieve a signal to detonate.

reply to post by JIMC5499
Good use of technical knowledge and logic on your last post.

You are never going to be a truther using those tools.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You'd need 400 miles of cables to pull that gigantic thing down and it'd only topple over onto neighboring buildings.

Unless, of course, they used wireless. You know, kinda like Controlled Demolition, Inc. already has and uses?

I was addressing the poster who used the "Pull it" reference, which from your people's own sources (I.E. the interview with that representative from CD) shows it refers to being pulled down with steel cables, the way WTC 6 was demolished. What you're referring to is primer cables.

Even with primer cables, it'd still take 400 miles of primer cables to rig the demolitions up. Putting 5,000 wireless detonators on 5,000 charges wouldn't work becuase of issues with signal reflection. They'd set up one wireless receiver and connect the one wireless receiver to the 4,000 charges by wire to make sure all the charges got the right signal at the right time. Otherwise, they wouldn't coordinate the collapse in the way you people imagine CDs coordinated it.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Oooh, darn. Too bad there aren't any other steel-structured highrises in history that have completely collapsed due to fires causing the steel to twist and fail. Oh well, there goes that theory.

Ohhh, darn. If there was even one instance in history where anyone was able to sneak undetected into a large, heavily occupied building and secretly plant controlled demolitions without anyone noticing, I'd almost take this statement seriously. Oh well, there goes that theory.

Pot calling the kettle black, much?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Not to mention the chance of premature detonation by stray voltage from any one of the thousands of sources in both the towers and New York City. There is a reason that you see signs near blasting sites warning against radio and cell phone use. Anybody remember crystal radios? They didn't need batteries because they made use of electricity generated from the radio signal they recieved. An electric current can be generated by a wire who's length is a function of a radio signal's wavelength. Since most electrical detonaters can be tripped by a current of millivolts, you can see why their use is a impractical idea.

Nano-thermite is just plain rediculous. If it even did exist, it would have the same detonation problems as any other explosive.

reply to post by butcherguy


I'll take that as a compliment.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Not to mention the chance of premature detonation by stray voltage from any one of the thousands of sources in both the towers and New York City. There is a reason that you see signs near blasting sites warning against radio and cell phone use. Anybody remember crystal radios? They didn't need batteries because they made use of electricity generated from the radio signal they recieved. An electric current can be generated by a wire who's length is a function of a radio signal's wavelength. Since most electrical detonaters can be tripped by a current of millivolts, you can see why their use is a impractical idea.

The whole idiotic notion of "secretly planted controlled demolitions" is an impractical idea. These conspiracy people constantly pretend that the buildings were empty, or out in the middle of the desert, or something. They were *occupied* buildings and they had a full time army of maintenance, electricians, instectors, security, etc etc etc who'd notice all those thousands of demo charges planted everywhere. All they'd need to do is find ONE and the jig would be up. What cracks me us is that these people turn around and quote William Rodriguez, when he'd probably be among the first people who'd discover any such charges.

If these conspiracy people don't want to accept that it was the fires that brought it down, fine, but they need to find a better alternative than this whole Rube Goldberg controlled demolitions bit. This is real life, not a Warner Brothers cartoon.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Oooh, darn. Too bad there aren't any other steel-structured highrises in history that have completely collapsed due to fires causing the steel to twist and fail. Oh well, there goes that theory.

What's even more depressing for you is that the NIST fairytale is only a theory because they used theory, guessing and calculations to posit their reports.

So now, it's just a matter of which theory the evidence fits, and then which theory you believe has merit.

BoneZ

There haven't been any other skyscrapers hit by airliners travelling at 500 mph before either. There is no telling the amount of structural damage that was done before the fires took hold. The fires didn't cause the collapse, it was a combination of the impact and the FIRES that caused the collapse. The number of structural members that were damaged by the impact, the number of welds that broke from the impact and the number of other fasteners that were sheared or damaged by the impact, will never be known. What is known is that the remaining structural components were forced to support the loads for which they were intended, plus, loads from the damaged or severed structural components. All structural components have a property called "Yield Strength". Yield Strength is the amount of loading that the component can handle without permenantly deforming. In the case of most metals Yield Strength is reduced by heat. The fires didn't have to get hot enough to melt the steel structure, all it had to do was to heat the steel enough to lower it's Yield Strength below the load placed upon the component. As components failed, their load was distributed amongst the remaining components. This happened until too many of them failed, resulting in the collapse of structure in the area of where the aircraft impacted. This resulted in the section of the towers above the failure point falling on to the section below. Once the upper part of the towers started moving, all bets were off.

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by patriots4truth
"We all know that nanothermite can be painted on

It can? Care to show us that from a valid source?

I'd rather see proof of it's existance.

Call up Los Alamos and see if they'll send you a sample.

www.p2pays.org...

Metastable Intermolecular Composites (MICs) are one of the
first examples of a category of nanoscale energetic materials
which have been studied and evaluated to a considerable
degree. MIC formulations are mixtures of nanoscale powders of
reactants that exhibit thermite (high exothermicity) behavior.
As such, they differ fundamentally from more traditional energetics
where the reactivity is based on intramolecular (not intermolecular)
properties. The MIC formulations are based on
intimate mixing of the reactants on the nanometer length scale,
with typical particle sizes in the tens of nanometers range (e.g.
30 nm). One important characteristic of MICs is the fact that
the rate of energy release can be tailored by varying the size of
the components. T h ree specific MIC formulations have
received considerable attention to date; Al/MoO3, Al/Teflon,
and Al/CuO.

Research and development on MIC formulations is being
performed in laboratories within all military services, as well as
at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). LANL researchers
Drs. Wayne Danen and Steve Son, along with their colleagues,
have not only pioneered the dynamic gas condensation method
for the production of nanoscale aluminum powders (also
known as Ultra Fine Grain [UFG]), but they have also conducted
numerous studies on physical and chemical properties.

There's what they were comfortable sharing with the public about this line of research back in the spring of 2002.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Even with primer cables, it'd still take 400 miles of primer cables to rig the demolitions up. Putting 5,000 wireless detonators on 5,000 charges wouldn't work becuase of issues with signal reflection. They'd set up one wireless receiver and connect the one wireless receiver to the 4,000 charges by wire to make sure all the charges got the right signal at the right time.

Aw, not this crap again. Before I even address the content of your post, you are still spelling the word "because" the same wrong way you have been for weeks! What is up with that "Dave"? If you can't correct something that simple how can we ever hope to correct anything else you post to any effect?

I was wondering if you could describe the signal reflection issues that you seem to think are impossible to get around.

In this day and age of technology, anywhere a cell phone works, demonstrates conclusively that ordered electronic information exchanges can successfully take place such that would initiate a chain of electronic events. In that case, your cell phone ringing and then hooking up via satellite or whatever the case may be so that a phone call can take place.

And this is considering that cell phone companies aren't investing all of their money into making sure that the signals are successful and can penetrate whatever materials are required. No, they'll invest what is sufficient for the devices to work most of the time, and leave it at that. When you are dealing with a military covert op I don't find it unreasonable to believe they would have been more thorough and foolproof in their setup.

I am tired of hearing about how a B-25 hit the Empire State Building and the building is still standing.

It is brought up in every WTC thread, I think.

How fast was that plane moving when it hit?
Did the plane strike a direct hit on building? Or a glancing blow, as it was accidental, and not deliberate?
How much did it weigh?
How much fuel was on board?
How similar are the construction methods of the building to that of the Twin Towers?

Answer these questions and you will know the difference between apples and oranges.

reply to post by bsbray11


I don't know about you, but, I get an average of 1 wrong number or telemarketer on my cell phone per day. Hmmmmnnn. Figure 400 charges per tower, maybe 100 cell phones per tower (daisy chain 4 charges per phone). What are the chances that one of those phones won't get a wrong number and detonate the charges early.

There is still wires involved so the stray radio signal problem still exists.

Next dumb statement.

reply to post by bsbray11
It sounds experimental. In that it is being tested at Los Alamos.

Were there tons of it available nine years ago?

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I don't know about you, but, I get an average of 1 wrong number or telemarketer on my cell phone per day.

And you think that's an electronics error?

Next dumb statement.

No kidding.

Originally posted by butcherguy
It sounds experimental. In that it is being tested at Los Alamos.

Were there tons of it available nine years ago?

What do I look like, General Stubblebine?

I have no idea what the military has at its disposal. Neither do any of us, or if we do, you know it would literally be a crime to disclose it publicly.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by patriots4truth

 

Yea ram a fully fueled 767 into building at 500 + mph - watch as resulting fires cause the steel to twist and fail

How could they be fully fueled when they had travelled 300 miles or so before hitting ?

The problem with "fully fueled" is that most of the jet fuel escaped in the fireball immediately after impact. So it's really irrelevant how much fuel was in those planes. Whatever little did make it inside, was considerably insubstantial to cause steel to melt. Another problem with 9/11 OS is that most people agree that the planes were traveling well over 500 miles per hour at sea level before the impact. Remember, this wasn't a dive. They approached the towers at sea level for a while. Having listened to many engineers, I am forced to conclude that a normal Boeing 747 could not have traveled over 500 miles per hour at sea level without it beginning to disintegrate and the pilots losing virtually all of the control of the aircraft.

Not really addressing the "demolition" theory, just another anomaly that really bothers me.

It's just not possible for those 3 buildings to collapse as they did, from those two plane hits. The fire is not hot enough.

WTC7 is classic controlled demolition. There's no way fire alone brought that building down smooth as silk. WTC 1 & 2 seem to be top-down controlled demolition. The molten metal indication of extreme heat, possibly thermite.

I think it's ridiculous that people should be expected to know all the details of how they did it, when all anyone is really saying is... It could not have happened the way they said it did.

Regarding the fueling of planes. My understanding is they do not fully fuel planes in any case. They normally put in just enough to get to wherever they are going. It saves fuel if they are not carrying unnecessary weight. I don't have time right now to do the calcs but it should be possible to work out how much was in the planes when they hit. Take off what was burnt off in the fire ball (guess) and what was left is supposed to melt a building. Umm I don't think so.