Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    A computer model that showed how explosives could have been used would be useless without an explanation of how they were planted and protected and set off to coincide with the fires. Without those questions answered anything else is just science fiction.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It would be a start though. You would establish how much would be needed. Then you could figure out how it might have been installed and detonated without anyone noticing.
     
  3. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    That is a good question. Firstly I'd just be happy for them to start the debate in a more rational way by actually producing some demolition calculations and cutting charge types. I would then like to see the proposal of an actual explosives engineer, which they do not have, so simply the quantities and techniques would be a great start. It is not necessary for me to agree on every detail with them, after all if you asked all of my colleagues to do the same calculation problem, we would all have differing answers.

    This would rapidly eliminate the conventional explosive theories, which is my suspicion why they do not ever want to talk in specifics on this detail and remain in the 'Its obviously a controlled demolition' vagueness of their claim.

    I would then really like to see their thermite theory in quantities and techniques. They often say things like "no steel frame building has ever collapsed by fire", but then in the same breath say things like "It was nano thermite", which of course has never been used for demolition.

    The data necessary is already in the public domain, and demolitions calculations are not secret or dangerous to know. If they gave instructions on how to make CLC at home, then I might be concerned.

    I have no strong opinion on the NIST models, but from what I have seen I have no reason to doubt that steel is weakened by 60% at 600 degrees, and if 15% of your columns have already been destroyed, Sir Isaac Newton will eventually cause the building to fail. I do not know the reasoning for NIST to withhold data.
     
  4. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    I agree, which is why I would want the quantities and techniques first - the tactics of getting them there would be a separate debate...
     
  5. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    If one of your explosive engineer colleagues told you they'd found a way to completely destroy a building by fire and showed you a video of WTC 7 collapsing to prove it, would you believe them more if they'd also mocked up a computer model?
     
  6. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    If one of my colleagues told me that he had developed such a theory, then I'd listen as my colleagues tend to be rational and professional people. But explosive engineers are not 'fire destruction engineers' and personally, I don't claim authority on things I am not qualified to do so, which is why the lack of explosive engineers amongst truthers causes me to approach their claims with caution, and sometimes derision. WTC7 would be a poor example though as fire was not the only thing that attacked that building, a skyscraper also crashed into it. This could drift off the point of the forum though, as it is about how the investigation would look, but I feel it is a waste of time, as truthers cannot change their minds on anything.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    Explosive engineer: Hey BombDr, I've found out a way to destroy steel-framed buildings completely just using office fire. You don't need explosives and they fall straight down really symmetrically.
    BombDr: O Rly?
    EE: Sure, I've done a computer sim to prove it. Look at this.
    BombDr: Hmm OK, but that's not a whole collapse there and it doesn't look symmetrical
    EE: OK well have a look at this video of a steel-framed high rise falling down. Fire did that, nothing but fire. It was damaged on one side but it still fell straight down. Crazy huh?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    This is hardly scientific, and off topic from the thread, but I would like a complete list of everything burning in there for a start. Im not sure which direction do you imagine it would fall?

    CTer: Hey BombDr, Iv found a way to destroy a burning building with explosives.
    BD: OK, How much explosive would you need?
    CTer: I don't know
    BD: How much detcord would you need?
    CTer: I don't know..
    BD: How will you get it into the building covertly and strip off the facade, lay the charges, fix the ring main firing cables and defeat the RF Hazard?
    CTer: I don't know
    BD: How will you insulate the explosives, which are flammable, from the fire for 6+ hours?
    CTer: I don't know
    BD: How will you initiate the charges and make sure that not a single scrap of firing cable, detcord, uninitiated electric detonators, cutting charge copper residue and undetonated charges are ever found?
    CTer: I don't know
    BD: How will you make it a silent detonation?
    CTer: I don't know...
    BD: I don't f*****g know either...
     
    • Like Like x 9
  9. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    An argument from incredulity, my dear sir. The question should be if there was any evidence that suggests the building was brought down deliberately, given that this appears to be the case from the video record (there was no partial chaotic collapse, but symmetry and free fall). Which brings us full circle: a new investigation would obviously examine residue for the chemical signatures of accelerants. Given that this is specifically required by the "gold standard" of fire investigation codes, I'm sure you'd have no objection to that.

    But this would not change the necessity of examining exactly what NIST is hiding in its computer model to determine if (more) drylabbing occurred, and holding those responsible for it to account if so.
     
  10. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    Just for kicks, try this instead......

    CTer: Hey BombDr, Iv found a way to destroy a burning building with explosives.
    BD: OK, How much explosive would you need?
    CTer: I don't know About 2 - 4 lbs of incendiaries every 6th or 8th floor per core column for pre-weakening cuts. and around some similar quantity, maybe less, of something a bit more concussive to actually drop it. So all in all about 1200lbs for the columns, we'll need to do a fair bit of weakening around staircases too, so let's say 2000lbs to be safe.
    BD: How much detcord would you need?
    CTer: I don't know.. None. Look here's a paper as an example of how we could do it, it's called "Microchip Ignition of Nanothermite Materials". We can use UHF and ICs to do this and these charges would be self consuming. There might be a bit of molten iron left over afterwards, but it's not like we need to hide anything, so we can just be totally open as to why it's there. It's not like we won't have to deny its existence or anything if people see it.
    BD: How will you get it into the building covertly and strip off the facade, lay the charges, fix the ring main firing cables and defeat the RF Hazard?
    CTer: I don't know What we will do is this. We will put the alarm on test, 8 hours a day for a week or so before the main event so that any hot work we do doesn't show up specific to any zone in the building and no-one has a record on or off site. There's plenty fire cupboards and the like for us to get access from and we can manufacture the material containers to bolt straight on to save time. It's not rocket science, and if we do it over a space of a few weeks, we need only lay 30 or so max per night, less in fact. Tell you what, after we have the alarm on test, we can use that as an excuse for access at strange hours.
    BD: How will you insulate the explosives, which are flammable, from the fire for 6+ hours?
    CTer: I don't know It's ok, these won't go off under 430C and the columns won't get to that temp, look, even NIST say that in some random report I happen to have read. Even if a few go off and people report explosions going off, it's not like we have anything to hide is it. We can just be honest and tell them that some charges exploded a bit early. Just so long as there aren't any people near the main stairwells around floor 5 or 6 early on, cos we really need to hit that hard, if we don't, the centre of gravity in the building will shift as it descends and it will tip too much. So we need to make sure nobody gets blown back upstairs and stuck in the building. Especially that lawyer Hess and the other guy, what's his name..... Jennings. They're always wandering about that area around about 10AM, possible slightly later.
    BD: How will you initiate the charges and make sure that not a single scrap of firing cable, detcord, uninitiated electric detonators, cutting charge copper residue and undetonated charges are ever found?
    CTer: I don't know Do you have some kind of goldfishlike memory or something, we talked about this not 5 minutes ago. We use self consuming charges and UHF to initiate via ICs. No detcord, the ICs will melt once initiation has happened, no copper and if any don't go off, we just need to make sure that no-one tests the dust for residue, Oh, one thing though, the dust might contain tiny pear shaped iron rich residues because of surface tension and the concussive nature of this whole thing. They could get carried all over in the dust, so we need to call USGS to make sure they don't go publishing their finding 5.8% of the dust is made up of them or anything daft like that ok. You can do that, cos you have a great memory.
    BD: How will you make it a silent detonation?
    CTer: I don't know... There might be a bit of noise involved, but we can clear the building area, and if anyone reports hearing explosions we can just say they must be imagining it and ignore their testimony if it doesn't suit us. It's pretty quiet really so it won't be a problem. In fact, I got one of my pals to make this video for you to reassure you re the noise. In the scheme of things it's not that loud. Maybe if we had 2 massive diversions maybe 300ft or so away, it's not like anybody will notice. Anyhow the video is here
    watch it around the 8-9 minute mark, it should be enough to reassure you.
    BD: I don't f*****g know either... Let's get it on.....
     
    • Like Like x 6
  11. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Why are you refusing to accept that before you can conclude it was demolished by explosives, you have to be able to explain how they got there. If there had not been any evidence of fire in the building, that would not have been considered.

    And the folks that demo buildings for a living don't agree with you. They did not see controlled demolition collapse.

    Sort of like asking an AKC all breed judge what breed of dog is walking down the street and when they say it is a Spinoni Italiani, you decide to ask a dog walker instead and they tell you that is is mixed breed pointing/terrier cross. And you decide that they have it right. Even when the owner of the dog provides you with the dog's papers and registration and a DNA test.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    What you mean is the foremost expert in controlled demolition who did see that the building was deliberately brought down has been killed.

    You do love your folksy metaphors. So if your house was burgled, would you deny it had happened if you can't work out how the thieves got in?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    The expert that was only given half the story, you mean? You know that he was denied information on WTC 7 and the question was asked to make him believe it came down later.

    Sorry, that story is BUSTED.

    BTW, if there was no sign of a break in, I would not think a stranger did it. I would look to see who had a key. The evidence would not say that it was a stranger break in. In fact I think you made my point for me
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    Danny Jowenko, controlled demolition expert asked AGAIN in a phone call if he sticks by what he said in his interview re controlled demolition of WTC7.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    Nonsense. Jowenko reconfirmed his opinion of WTC 7 in a telephone interview I posted for rep in the critical errors thread when he was coming out with the same bunk you are.

    And who had the keys for WTC 7, I wonder.
     
  16. Brainiachick

    Brainiachick Active Member

    In my humble opinion, I think the extraordinary claims are the theories without foundation or proof. The onus is on them to provide their proof not the other way round. I think the major issue with the conspiracy theory of explosive demolition - and I am no explosives expert - is the difficulties in explaining how such explosives would have found its way into these buildings that are constantly accessed and in use by the public and no one noticed and they pulled it off! If these super smart people planted these explosives and then had good reason to invade Iraq and Afghanistan on allegations of WMD, why did they not nicely tidy up their story by planting WMD in Iraq and Afghanistan to save their face and their version of events? You are well aware that WMD were not found in Iraq, so why was that so when these could easily have been planted?

    It just doesn't make sense and like I said before, a new investigation will be a waste of time, money and human resources.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2013
    • Like Like x 2
  17. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    You mean it would be convenient for you if i did? You said that
    but in this case the science says that it does. This would be an unprecedented event if fire did indeed collapse a steel highrise, so any explanation would by definition have to be extraordinary.
    As for access to buildings and such matters, that is merely a non sequitur. It is an area which was not investigated and researched by the investigation, so the first step toward getting that investigated is to invalidate the official report into the building collapse.
     
  18. Brainiachick

    Brainiachick Active Member


    It would be helpful if you could offer some explanation to the specific question that I asked - that is what I asked. 'Convenient' is a far cry from 'helpful'. Do read my post again if that would assist in staying on point please.

    Access to the building, rigging the building with explosives, and executing such a plan covertly and completely undetected [and to what intent and purposes] is crucial in CTers proving their point. You cannot demand evidence in support of one version over the other. It goes both ways. And from the information publicly available, the official version stacks up better than the explosives hypotheses. It just does not stack up.

    But to not digress too much, what would you require that a new investigation should include and should seek to establish?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Brainiachick

    Brainiachick Active Member


    But doesn't your video weaken your argument? The thermite is ineffective if peripherally strapped to the columns, but more effective if inserted into the columns [and I am really struggling to understand how this could have been done covertly in a busy building]; and as for knocking off the bolts piece by piece, bolt by bolt just to weaken the building for the 'D-Day event' how long do you think that would have taken to achieve and how much manpower would have been required and how did they keep this all quiet? Can you explain how this systematic weakening of the building as they worked their way around the building floor by floor did not present any structural problems whilst they were at it but before the D-Day? Tell me how long this operation would have taken to accompanish please.
     
  20. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    I am sorry, are you referring to the video about thermitic material or the video about the stiffener plates? The one about the plates is mine, unfortunately my back garden/neighbours do not allow for explosive experiments.
     
  21. Brainiachick

    Brainiachick Active Member

    Gerrycan, there's only one video in your post that I quoted - that is the one I am referring to. I completely agree with your neighbours "do not try this at home" comes to mind.

    But you have not answered the questions that I've asked:

    "But doesn't your video weaken your argument? The thermite is ineffective if peripherally strapped to the columns, but more effective if inserted into the columns [and I am really struggling to understand how this could have been done covertly in a busy building]; and as for knocking off the bolts piece by piece, bolt by bolt just to weaken the building for the 'D-Day event' how long do you think that would have taken to achieve and how much manpower would have been required and how did they keep this all quiet? Can you explain how this systematic weakening of the building as they worked their way around the building floor by floor did not present any structural problems whilst they were at it but before the D-Day? Tell me how long this operation would have taken to accompanish please."
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2013
  22. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Im not sure how it is an argument from incredulity if it is based upon 20 years of blowing stuff up. Are these questions irrelevant?

    Secondly, could we at least agree that whilst the videos are relevant, they are very unhelpful in determining what is occurring inside the building? I would not have any objection to testing of anything.
     
  23. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    You're a controlled demolition expert?
     
  24. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    "Big Bang Theory" style dialogue aside...

    1. What kind of incendiary do you wish to use?
    2. Are you placing it directly on the steel, or would you need to burn through the facade, plaster and fire protection first?
    3. How many columns are you wanting to burn through and how much per column?
    4. Do you have an example of a demolition (non covert) occurring in this way, and if not, why do you thing that is?
    5. These "Microchip Ignition of Nanothermite Materials" initiation devices: Who makes them and could you please give an example of their previous use, and if I am unfamiliar with them (I'm an EOD Operator) what do you think the reason for that would be?
    6. Is there any evidence of any thermal cutting on the steel?
    7. Why is it absolutely necessary to go to all the risk of being caught with some elaborate ninja/watergate style black-op, in which a million things can go wrong, when if the building just burns and does not collapse, the effect would be the same? Prior to the collapse, was it likely that the building would have been restorable? Seeing as one side bulged out 3 hours before it fell, why go to all the risk of getting caught with super-secret incendiary charges, which have never been used in a demolition like this before, using some novel initiation device hitherto unseen in the world of demotions?
    8. How are you managing the RF, what with all those cell phones, emergency services and Im led to believe from truther sites that WTC7 was the headquarters of the CIA, FBI, Illuminati, Bilderbergers, Hogwarts, the gateway to middle earth, and some jewish related cabal of some sort, who no doubt would have wanted to communicate a lot during this event? How are you managing the RF of all this?
    9. Finally, if 1200lbs of some material can easy-squeezy placed in buildings with no ripping away walls to get to the columns, and secret initiation devices which all independent and work with 100% reliability and are impervious to RF, all giving immense advantage of cost, time on site and volume of materials, why am I and every other explosive engineer wasting our time laboriously doing calculations, cutting, reeling out miles of detcord and firing cables, going to immense lengths to manage the RF and even when it is done with as much precision as humanly possible, still cannot achieve 100% reliability of either detcord or electric detonators, not to mention the charges firing with perfection...?
     
  25. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Danny Jowenko watched a video whilst sat in the Netherlands. Would you call that a thorough investigation? He is indeed dead, and your point is?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  26. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Yes, hence the username...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    You are obviously aware that the use of det cord and a central signal generator is the chosen method for commercial demo events. But that is for economy reasons, and also to avoid RF complications using available frequencies.

    Det cord and dozens of dets are far cheaper than dozens of radio devices, and easier to manage. ( Your Q #4 aabove )

    Technically, there is no other reason not to use remote initiation methods apart from cost and RF.

    And you are being a tad disingenous saying that you are unaware of devices capable of detonating remotely when in your own input you refer to problems over managing the RF issues involved with them.

    What if frequencies far outside the range normally available to people were involved ? What if cellphone tech was used to send that signal. Does your cellphone ring when its allocated number is connected or do you have to take extreme measures to prevent it constantly going off due to millions of other phones in your area ? You really arn't thinking this through from the other side are you ?

    Co-incidentally, I worked very closely with EOD teams in the UK for some years in the RLC. My experience is that they are very open to getting inside the terrorists brain and spent a lot of time devising initiation devices that didn't so far exist, to test their fellow ATs.

    For that reason I find your own comments at great odds with what I have observed with other EOD guys.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  28. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    Did you listen to the later telephone interview he gave, posted by Gerry upthread? Are you suggesting he doesn't realise the implications of what he's saying?
     
  29. qed

    qed Senior Member

    I never knew about Danny Jowenko until this moment.



    Please can @BombDr (or any one else) explain what I am to do with this information. Obviously I must reject it, but why?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Because if you were to accept it, you would also have to accept that he thought that bringing down WTC1&2 with explosives on 9/11 was impossible.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  31. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    This thread here is about the plausibility of using explosives to demolish WTC7, not the towers.
     
  32. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    Mixed Metal Oxide Nanocomposite Energetic Material
    Direct obviously, your 2nd option is not a viable one.
    24 columns, 3lbs, maybe less per cut, variation dependant on the wall thickness. Every 5-8 floors, less up top. Also obviously stairwells would require substantial pre-weakening to maintain COG.
    There are 2 particular famous examples of steel structures being brought down with thermitic material, though not as advanced as anything cited in the kamatsu dresser patented device. Obviously being an industry insider you will be aware of them no doubt. To be clear, I am not referring to anything near the WTC site.
    Applied Ordnance Technology
    In researching such devices that AOT will have tried them no doubt, I am not aware of a previous use though
    Presumably you haven't researched the issue, and I gather you are in commercial industry and would have no need to use or have knowledge of such devices. There are a few patents out there for initiation devices, and kumatsu dresser would be a good place to begin that research.
    There are certainly indications of high temperatures, and the New York Times called the sulfidation of some steel elements 'the biggest mystery yet' re 911. And i am sure you know what sulfor does to steel.
    Of course thermitic devives have been used to demolish structures before. You should know this.
    UHF can detonate from 5km away without even line of site (as i am sure you know, after all your industry uses it daily)
    Apart from the 'ifs' at the start, i agree with you here. It takes a long time and a lot of expertise to get a steel highrise to drop straight, and a lot of preperation, and calculations and pouring over structural drawings, getting the right shapes in the right place and getting them sync'd.......etc etc..... Then again, you could just set alight to some office furniture and stand back and wait....
     
    • Like Like x 1
  33. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Using explosives to drop a building is a precise operation, not one just anyone could set up. I would like to know what company you feel was hired to rig the building. (And why none of the multiple techs needed has ever come forward).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  34. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    Could you provide a link to these examples?
     
  35. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    The biggest hurdle to overcome when pondering the hows and whys is imagination. And that applies most to professionals in the field who are so close to their normal method of operation that they find it hard to imagine any other way of achieving what they do every day.

    Just because a commercial contract to demolish a building leads to the use of standard explosive and det cord etc does not mean that a covert op needs to be tied to that format. There is no reason why some kind of thermetic device could not be placed to severely soften a piece of steel fairly rapidly and than a small conventional charge used to throw that compromised steel aside. That wouldn't produce the massive explosion that Sunder was remarking on but the end result would still be that the steel was thrown aside.

    Earlier here I replied to BombDr ( My post #27 ) which discussed a prime example of this.
     
  36. qed

    qed Senior Member

    And what is wrong with accepting that bringing down WTC1&2 with explosives on 9/11 was impossible.?
     
  37. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    This is completely off topic.
    Say, hypothetically, some piece of evidence came forward that absolutely proved it was done by demolition. Would we all know which company did it suddenly? Your question is entirely irrelevant.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  38. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

  39. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    It is not off topic, it goes to HOW it could be done.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  40. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    Sorry. This site doesnt like to play with that URL. If you google 'steel structures demolished using thermite' - and open the first lionk there it shows both.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.