ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 18th January 2012, 01:32 PM   #1
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
AE911 Explains how the explosives survived!

So it seems that the intellectual juggarnauts at AE911 finally decided to get around to the actual start of the problem - how did the explosives survive?

Much hillarity ensues


Quote:
The explosive destruction of the Twin Towers actually began at floors with minimal damage from the planes.
Yes, and those had massive fires.

Quote:
If the demolition was started at the 98th floor, where there was the least amount of damage from the plane, then the plane's impact would not have had any serious effect on well-designed devices placed on this floor.
Yes. Minimal damage from the planes, maximum damage from fire.

Truthers, say it with me:

Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire.



Friggin idiots.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2012, 02:05 PM   #2
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,785
Quote:
"If anything, the molten metal flowing from the South Tower is very likely evidence of thermitic-based devices placed in the building which may have been disturbed and ignited by the plane impact itself..."

...an hour after the planes hit no less
__________________
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2012, 02:09 PM   #3
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
I believe there is literally no end to the amount of stupid that can be produced by AE911Twoof.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2012, 02:13 PM   #4
Africanus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 224
I liked the following most:

Quote:
In this experiment, “normal” thermite did not ignite when heated with a propane torch. Similarly, the “super thermite” found in the WTC dust could not have been ignited by the jet fuel and office fires in the Twin Towers.


But Mr. Taylor is right, Harrit and Jones needed an oxyacetylene flame to "ignite" the chips.
Africanus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2012, 02:15 PM   #5
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
So it seems that the intellectual juggarnauts at AE911 finally decided to get around to the actual start of the problem - how did the explosives survive?

Much hillarity ensues




Yes, and those had massive fires.



Yes. Minimal damage from the planes, maximum damage from fire.

Truthers, say it with me:

Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire. Planes AND Fire.



Friggin idiots.

It is important to note that initiating the thermite reaction requires temperatures well above those achieved by burning jet fuel or office materials -- which is an advantage of using thermite charges over conventional monomolecular explosives such as TNT, RDX and PETN. Below is a photograph of an experiment performed by the author and colleagues at BYU in which a sample of thermite was heated to orange-hot temperature (about 1700 ºF). We demonstrated that the thermite reaction would not ignite at this high temperature. Later, the thermite reaction was triggered by burning a magnesium strip in contact with the thermite. An electrical superthermite "match" could have been used and remotely triggered via radio signal


I thought thermite ignited at a much lower temperature.

So we got an electrical superthermite "match" to light the thermite and the termite ignites the explosive and the buildings come tumbling down.

Last edited by tsig; 18th January 2012 at 02:17 PM.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2012, 02:20 PM   #6
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,136
Originally Posted by Africanus View Post
I liked the following most:





But Mr. Taylor is right, Harrit and Jones needed an oxyacetylene flame to "ignite" the chips.
Hehe oh yes!
Quote:
As noted by Dr. Steven Jones:
It is important to note that initiating the thermite reaction requires temperatures well above those achieved by burning jet fuel or office materials ...
And they told us in the 2009 Bentham paper "Active Thermitic Material found..." that Jones and friends concluded
Originally Posted by SE Jones, N Harrit e.al.
7. As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.
I guess Steven Jones has just buried that paper for good
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2012, 02:22 PM   #7
Africanus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
...an hour after the planes hit no less
I didn't read the article to the end but this is ridiculous. A few paragraphs above he states that the superthermite resists the heat of fuel and office fires but now the plane impact ignites thermite. Porca miseria!
Africanus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2012, 02:38 PM   #8
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,607
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I guess Steven Jones has just buried that paper for good
Imagine the impact this would have if anyone really paid any attention to it in the first place (besides as a side to a hobby).

__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2012, 04:32 PM   #9
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,692
Originally Posted by tsig View Post

So we got an electrical superthermite "match" to light the thermite and the termite ignites the explosive and the buildings come tumbling down.
Seems logical enough, I mean after all 'they' had all the time in the world to set these multistage devices up
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2012, 04:38 PM   #10
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,447
Mythbusters tried to ignite high explosives with thermite.


Didn't work so well.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2012, 05:20 PM   #11
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by Africanus View Post
I didn't read the article to the end but this is ridiculous. A few paragraphs above he states that the superthermite resists the heat of fuel and office fires but now the plane impact ignites thermite. Porca miseria!
Superthermite is a magic substance. One of the things we are bound to find out soon is the way in which it can avoid physical detection unless a Truther looking for it. You see, superthermite knows who is looking. That's why Gandalf uses it.
__________________
I've seen it here and in several other places that there is no Illuminati. That doesn't even make sense. There's a Wikipedia entry that talks about it. I'm not saying that everything on Wikipedia is true, but if you read it, it's just really clear how the Illuminati controls the world.
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2012, 05:36 PM   #12
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,692
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
Mythbusters tried to ignite high explosives with thermite.


Didn't work so well.
got a link for that?
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2012, 05:42 PM   #13
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
how did the explosives survive?

What explosives? Surely these dimwits don't think "reports" of explosions mean actual explosives were there?
sheeplesnshills is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2012, 05:56 PM   #14
MIKILLINI
Incromulent Logic
 
MIKILLINI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,979
What we have here is a failure of AE911 to admit their lack of evidence or intelligence. They dare to be stupid once again.
__________________
Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense.-Me

The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo
MIKILLINI is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2012, 09:16 PM   #15
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-se...n-devices.html

Quote:
This would also be consistent with a thermite-based demolition, as noted by Jim Hoffman:
Wow, Gage is a moron. They are using Jom Hoffman who is insane on 911 issues. They provide a link to prove Hoffman is insane.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t...thermal_attack

Hoffman says...
Quote:
The new ceiling tiles with embedded thin-film explosives and wireless detonators are installed throughout every other floor of the Tower. In all, each Tower gets 500,000 of the large tiles and 400,000 of the small tiles.
Insanity proved.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2012, 09:59 PM   #16
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Quote:
The new ceiling tiles with embedded thin-film explosives and wireless detonators are installed throughout every other floor of the Tower. In all, each Tower gets 500,000 of the large tiles and 400,000 of the small tiles.
Yes, thousands of CIA ninjas snuck into the WTCs and installed nearly a million new ceiling tiles without anyone noticing? Magic tiles with futuristic "thin-film" explosives that don't exist today, much less a decade ago?

Let's play pretend. Imagine every other floor did have these magic tiles (why every other floor?). Imagine those 55 floors (times two buildings) have wireless detonators. Imagine unlike real wireless detonators, these detonators have no chance of accidentally being triggered by the millions of radio signals transmitting hourly in the vicinity of the WTC, for weeks or months on end.

Imagine all that. Then imagine the (non) effect a sheet of "thin-film" explosives suspended three feet below the ceiling would have on a steel framed building?
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2012, 10:21 PM   #17
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,447
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
got a link for that?
It was in the cooking with C4 episode. I don't have a link right on hand.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2012, 11:59 PM   #18
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
It was in the cooking with C4 episode. I don't have a link right on hand.
http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/myth...4-angle-3.html

Here it is, you can also look at the related videos for all different angles and Adam & Jamie's reactions.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2012, 02:43 AM   #19
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,407
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
...Imagine all that. Then imagine the (non) effect a sheet of "thin-film" explosives suspended three feet below the ceiling would have on a steel framed building?
It would completely shatter the ceiling tiles...

...and scatter a bit of dust.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2012, 06:02 AM   #20
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Same ol' appeal to magic that somehow keeps the bombs on beams that stay in the buildings, but makes the ones that get knocked clear out of the building evaporate. Either that, or the conspirators were somehow able to perfectly predict which beams would and wouldn't be knocked out of the building, which is impossible.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2012, 09:57 PM   #21
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
It would completely shatter the ceiling tiles...

...and scatter a bit of dust.
Yep, there's a reason shape charges are placed in contact with the target.

For all their pontificating about imaginary demolitions terms such as "pull it" the CT loons don't seem to know basic ones such as "tamping."
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2012, 11:18 PM   #22
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,407
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
Yep, there's a reason shape charges are placed in contact with the target....
Yup. And they make a big banging noise.....I think that has been mentioned before.
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
...For all their pontificating about imaginary demolitions terms such as "pull it" the CT loons don't seem to know basic ones such as "tamping."
...which relates to the point I have made several (?) times. How do you get explosives to throw big steel members any distance? Apart from the problem that explosives that will cut steel are not the best ones to throw things. How do you focus the blast for long enough to accelerate a large lump of steel?
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2012, 09:13 PM   #23
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
...which relates to the point I have made several (?) times. How do you get explosives to throw big steel members any distance? Apart from the problem that explosives that will cut steel are not the best ones to throw things. How do you focus the blast for long enough to accelerate a large lump of steel?
Not to "argue from authority" but I have a basic working knowledge of (military) explosives. Essentially there are fast push and slow push explosives. Slow push explosions such as TNT expand (relatively) slowly and tend to move the target with their diffuse blast. Fast push explosions such as C4 expand rapidly and tend to cut through the target with their focused blast. Think sledge hammer vs. fire axe.

A cutting charge can cut though so quickly it may not even move the target and a push charge may be required to topple it.

A classic (military) example is dropping a tree over a roadway. The fast cutting charge is at the base and wired via det cord to the slow "kicker" charge up top (positioned opposite of the intended direction of push). When initiated, the cutting charge goes first followed a split second later by the kicker "pushing" the tree toward the roadway.
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2012, 09:54 PM   #24
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
How do you get explosives to throw big steel members any distance? Apart from the problem that explosives that will cut steel are not the best ones to throw things. How do you focus the blast for long enough to accelerate a large lump of steel?
Nanothermite does all that AND will make you a cup of Earl Grey and scones (with jam) when its done.......
sheeplesnshills is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2012, 10:01 PM   #25
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,407
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
Not to "argue from authority" but I have a basic working knowledge of (military) explosives. Essentially there are fast push and slow push explosives. Slow push explosions such as TNT expand (relatively) slowly and tend to move the target with their diffuse blast. Fast push explosions such as C4 expand rapidly and tend to cut through the target with their focused blast. Think sledge hammer vs. fire axe.

A cutting charge can cut though so quickly it may not even move the target and a push charge may be required to topple it.

A classic (military) example is dropping a tree over a roadway. The fast cutting charge is at the base and wired via det cord to the slow "kicker" charge up top (positioned opposite of the intended direction of push). When initiated, the cutting charge goes first followed a split second later by the kicker "pushing" the tree toward the roadway.
Agreed. I'm ex Aussie Army (Reserve) Engineers and played demolitions a few times. I have admitted it on these threads a couple of times but you may not have seen the posts. My primary qualification is Civil Engineer and I comprehend the structural aspects of WTC collapse at least as well as most posters here.

The point I was making is in two parts and is my response to truther claims about explosives throwing large steel section several hundred feet.

The first part is what you explain. The "high" explosives used for cutting steel will not throw large heavy lumps of steel. Sure they can expel splinters which can cause lethal damage out several hundred metres. One of our Army dems training ranges was under one of the approach flight paths to Sydney Kingsford Smith airport and that range could not be used without approval and liaison with Air Traffic Control.

The second part is that the "low" explosives e.g. "ANFO" can potentially lift large lumps over some distance. So in a big quarry blast you can get quite large out-fliers. The surrounding mass of material being moved serving to constrain and guide the thrust of the blast as it accelerates the out-flier.

But (the WTC scenario) you do not get large lumps of steel projected hundreds of feet by steel cutting "high" explosives so long range throwing is not a sideline effect of steel cutting. And to deliberately cause low explosives to throw steel would need some clever pre-construction. Put bluntly it is near enough impossible to achieve in the WTC 9/11 scenario. And a total waste of time since there are perfectly feasible explanations as to how some of the outer perimeter columns peeled off and landed hundreds of feet away.

Last edited by ozeco41; 20th January 2012 at 10:17 PM. Reason: Expanded the explanatory bit.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2012, 10:04 PM   #26
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,407
Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills View Post
Nanothermite does all that AND will make you a cup of Earl Grey and scones (with jam) when its done.......
Yes, I was forgetting. BUT NOT Earl Grey....any other tea...preferably prepared in an old billy over a wood fire.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2012, 08:21 AM   #27
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,785
Originally Posted by Africanus View Post
I didn't read the article to the end but this is ridiculous. A few paragraphs above he states that the superthermite resists the heat of fuel and office fires but now the plane impact ignites thermite. Porca miseria!
They also tried to pin that on the impact event which is itself pretty retarded... They can lie all they want but if they want to do it right they need to show off their idiocy in a less obvious manner.
__________________
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2012, 11:50 AM   #28
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
They also tried to pin that on the impact event which is itself pretty retarded... They can lie all they want but if they want to do it right they need to show off their idiocy in a less obvious manner.
So apparently in twoofer-ville, planes striking a building are the explosives equivalent of a match across the striker plate?

Did Willey Cyote design their CT?
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2012, 11:54 AM   #29
Smackety
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,161
I wonder what kind of noise 900,000 ceiling tiles exploding would make?
Smackety is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2012, 12:33 PM   #30
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by Smackety View Post
I wonder what kind of noise 900,000 ceiling tiles exploding would make?
Like a skyscraper collapsing?
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2012, 12:59 PM   #31
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,407
Originally Posted by Smackety View Post
I wonder what kind of noise 900,000 ceiling tiles exploding would make?
Well nigh impossible to fire them simultaneously - even with electric initiation.

So a prolonged "b-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-aaaaap" as the fire front spread across each floor and from floor to floor.

Even then several options. Potentially you could electrically initiate 110 levels in parallel therefore in synch but the transmission across the floors would require too much current to be practical by simple electrical means. So back to det cord and therefore the fastest propagation across the floors dominated by the speed of det cord.

Whatever it would be a big job to set up. The time frame and logistic issues probably beyond reasoning normal humans.....only truthers could think it was plausible.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2012, 01:03 PM   #32
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 4,443
For me, it boils down to, how did they get the planes to hit exactly where they wanted to? With that, how did they know that the impact of a 767 hitting the towers wouldn't knock those ceiling panels down? Then, if the ceiling panels did fall out of the ceiling, as I am assuming a plane hitting the towers might cause a tish of a rumble, what effect do would these ceiling tiles have when laying on the floor?

Once you get past all that...bomb dogs
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2012, 01:24 PM   #33
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,136
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
For me, it boils down to, how did they get the planes to hit exactly where they wanted to? With that, how did they know that the impact of a 767 hitting the towers wouldn't knock those ceiling panels down? Then, if the ceiling panels did fall out of the ceiling, as I am assuming a plane hitting the towers might cause a tish of a rumble, what effect do would these ceiling tiles have when laying on the floor?

Once you get past all that...bomb dogs
How exact is "exactly"? What margin of error would be allowed?

I think you are setting up an argument here that is bound to fail. It either addresses things that you can't define, or, if you define them well enough, you might find that your assumption of "impossibility" is actually just an appeal to incredulity.

It is quite possible to fly a plane to a measure of exactness that doesn't exceed, say, the diameter of the fuselage. With the plane being so big, I don't see how you'd need to be more exact that that.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2012, 01:58 PM   #34
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
 
Mudcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
Mythbusters tried to ignite high explosives with thermite.


Didn't work so well.
Yeah, but they did blow up a block of ice with thermite, but that had more to do with the extreme differences of temperatures involved rather than any magical properties that thermite may or may not does not have.
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner.
Mudcat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2012, 02:02 PM   #35
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Even then several options. Potentially you could electrically initiate 110 levels in parallel therefore in synch but the transmission across the floors would require too much current to be practical by simple electrical means. So back to det cord and therefore the fastest propagation across the floors dominated by the speed of det cord.
There you go, bringing facts into things again.

Electrical detonation: how much current to push up 110 floors and across a square block of ceiling tiles times how many floors (IIRC, 55)? I'm no electrical engineer but I imagine that's going to take a whole lot more juice than a 12v battery!

Not to mention electrical demolition circuits are very sensitive to radio, etc... (they are essentially long wire antennas). Wonder if the WTC, much less all of downtown NYC, might have a few stray radio, cell, TV, microwave, etc... RF signals?

Originally Posted by Oystein
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
For me, it boils down to, how did they get the planes to hit exactly where they wanted to? With that, how did they know that the impact of a 767 hitting the towers wouldn't knock those ceiling panels down? Then, if the ceiling panels did fall out of the ceiling, as I am assuming a plane hitting the towers might cause a tish of a rumble, what effect do would these ceiling tiles have when laying on the floor?

Once you get past all that...bomb dogs
How exact is "exactly"? What margin of error would be allowed?

I think you are setting up an argument here that is bound to fail. It either addresses things that you can't define, or, if you define them well enough, you might find that your assumption of "impossibility" is actually just an appeal to incredulity.

It is quite possible to fly a plane to a measure of exactness that doesn't exceed, say, the diameter of the fuselage. With the plane being so big, I don't see how you'd need to be more exact that that.
I think he was being sarcastic.
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2012, 02:27 PM   #36
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 4,443
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
How exact is "exactly"? What margin of error would be allowed?

I think you are setting up an argument here that is bound to fail. It either addresses things that you can't define, or, if you define them well enough, you might find that your assumption of "impossibility" is actually just an appeal to incredulity.

It is quite possible to fly a plane to a measure of exactness that doesn't exceed, say, the diameter of the fuselage. With the plane being so big, I don't see how you'd need to be more exact that that.
On a level, there was some sarcasm, but let me explain more what I was getting at. There are several theories that attempt to explain how pre-planted explosives could be used. The one that I find would most support this theory of pre-planted explosives would have to be the "beacon" theory. This being that there were no pilots\passengers in the planes, and that it was remote controlled from the ground. A beacon having been inside the WTC that would cause the plane to hone in on and crash at the desired location. If you don't use this particular theory than it wouldn't really matter. I don't feel, and I could be wrong, that a human piloted plane could crash into a predetermined location. You could break it up into thirds. Hit the upper third, lower third, middle third, but you couldn't say, "crash it into floor 78". This seems like with the speeds and timing, it would just be extremely difficult. Even for a well trained pilot to be able to do. As I said, correct me if I'm wrong.

So if they had preset explosives, as above it stated they were planted on the 98th floor, you would still have to crash with some accuracy. You wouldn't be able to crash on floor 70, have the explosives start on 98 and make the collapse still appear to be fire related.

All that being said, I am more just bored at work trying to figure out how any form of explosive, thermite, etc could be pre-planted and used successfully. I might be totally off on the whole thing.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2012, 02:36 PM   #37
Smackety
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,161
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
Like a skyscraper collapsing?
possibly, but that came AFTER
Smackety is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2012, 03:08 PM   #38
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,407
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
There you go, bringing facts into things again. ...
It goes with the trade -- and it doesn't matter whether I am thinking "civil engineer" or "military engineer".
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
...Electrical detonation: how much current to push up 110 floors and across a square block of ceiling tiles times how many floors (IIRC, 55)? I'm no electrical engineer but I imagine that's going to take a whole lot more juice than a 12v battery! ...
Sure will.

From the time of my first involvement in WTC collapse debates I took the military engineers approach -- "How would I cause the collapse of those towers if the General tasked me to do it?" Put yourself in the enemies shoes is a good technique. At the time of the first gulf war, for a combination of military and civilian reasons, I needed to analyse the potential methods of terrorist attack against a large city water supply. Best way to get the right mental state is "put yourself in the terrorists position". Details inappropriate here because "off topic" but it can be an amusing and professionally challenging game. A key point on that one being that the objective is maximum terror NOT maximum damage.

Back with the Twin Towers the military solution is a lot simpler than what faced anyone trying CD. The CD had to disappear into the consequences of aircraft impact and unfought fires so it would not be detected. A military solution would not have that limitation. But it wouldn't look pretty. Of course post the actual event and using 20/20 hindsight it would conceivably be possible to mimic the actual collapses....again I'm drifting OT

Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
Not to mention electrical demolition circuits are very sensitive to radio, etc... (they are essentially long wire antennas). Wonder if the WTC, much less all of downtown NYC, might have a few stray radio, cell, TV, microwave, etc... RF signals?....
If "they" were using electric dets on long wires I would be in Chicago.

....Better still back here in Sydney or Moss Vale.

Last edited by ozeco41; 22nd January 2012 at 03:14 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2012, 03:10 PM   #39
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,136
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
On a level, there was some sarcasm, but let me explain more what I was getting at. There are several theories that attempt to explain how pre-planted explosives could be used. The one that I find would most support this theory of pre-planted explosives would have to be the "beacon" theory. This being that there were no pilots\passengers in the planes, and that it was remote controlled from the ground. A beacon having been inside the WTC that would cause the plane to hone in on and crash at the desired location. If you don't use this particular theory than it wouldn't really matter.
Faking passengers and hijacks and making a plane remote controlled is surely a lot less likely than a pilot manually hitting a target. So no, I am not talking about that theory. I am talking about the pilot-aims-at-spot theory.

Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
I don't feel, and I could be wrong, that a human piloted plane could crash into a predetermined location.
Exactly, you could be wrong, and that sets you up to fail. Why let a claim of impossibility hinge upon something that you don't know well enough? That is argument from incredulity, pure and unadulterated.

Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
You could break it up into thirds. Hit the upper third, lower third, middle third, but you couldn't say, "crash it into floor 78".
What "exactly" do you mean by "crash it into floor 78"? AA11 hit between the 93rd and 99th floor (7 floors), and UA175 hit between floors 77 and 85 (9 floors), that's 6.3% and 8.2% of the hight of the towers, respectively. The fuselage of a Boeing 767 is 17 feet 9", or 5.41m, high and will at least hit 2, and often 3, floors.
So what level of exactness do you need: Nose hitting floor 78, or nose hitting beween floors 77 and 79 so that the fuselage also runs into floor 78, or would it suffice to roll the plane and hit anywhere between floors 73 and 83 to also damage floor 78 with at least the wingtips?

Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
This seems like with the speeds and timing, it would just be extremely difficult. Even for a well trained pilot to be able to do. As I said, correct me if I'm wrong.
I am not a pilot, so I can't tell you with authority how difficult that would be. But remember: The Pentagon has only 5 floors above ground, and Hani Hanjour managed to one of them despite a more difficult approach path than the WTC pilots had.

Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
So if they had preset explosives, as above it stated they were planted on the 98th floor, you would still have to crash with some accuracy. You wouldn't be able to crash on floor 70, have the explosives start on 98 and make the collapse still appear to be fire related.
I am quite convinced that I, having no training at all, could aim better than that, if you give me 15 minutes of practice at the horn. At least if I managed to fly in low, level and straight the way Mohammed Atta did with AA11. UA175 came in too high and struggled with a somewhat wild dive, but that speaks of their bad skills. A slightly better pilot would have come in level and smooth and could have picked his floor quite easily within a small margin.

Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
All that being said, I am more just bored at work trying to figure out how any form of explosive, thermite, etc could be pre-planted and used successfully. I might be totally off on the whole thing.
No sweat
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2012, 03:19 PM   #40
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,407
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
How exact is "exactly"? What margin of error would be allowed?

I think you are setting up an argument here that is bound to fail. It either addresses things that you can't define, or, if you define them well enough, you might find that your assumption of "impossibility" is actually just an appeal to incredulity.

It is quite possible to fly a plane to a measure of exactness that doesn't exceed, say, the diameter of the fuselage. With the plane being so big, I don't see how you'd need to be more exact that that.
your post reminds me of how much serious fun we used to have back in 2007>8>9 when we had real truthers to debate and a lot of genuine sceptics. All these ideas were relatively new and we could explore them all.

..including the need to paint a big bulls eye target on the side of each tower.

All ridiculous of course. Aircraft impact was the objective, collapse was a bonus. CD was not needed and was not practised.

And those fundamentals haven't changed no matter how many times we discuss thermXte.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:41 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.