CD Impossible: Facts

[dirtywick]

Hello everyone,

I've been working on this the last couple of weeks. I felt the need to write this because the CT crowd is way too selective on their knowledge and I've never seen a piece of information like it, and felt it was needed. It appears later, but I want to reiterate that I'm not a CD expert. However, like anyone else, I take what people that know more than I do and try to form conclusions based on facts and research. Everything I found I referenced at the bottom numerically if there's any dispute about the information.

Also, if anyone has any links contradicting or adding to anything here, I'd love to hear about it. There's really not that much information about a lot of explosives, especially Thermite. Using any search engine I found more of the life story of Alex Jones than I did about thermite! He did a great job of burying anything useful to anyone on that topic.

Anyway, I figure if anyone can pick it apart, it'd be you guys. Thanks for the time!

There is a lot of conjecture floating around the internet about what happened on 9/11/01 in regards to the WTC. A lot of armchair demolitions experts assert that the WTC buildings that fell on that day fell because of means other than airplanes crashing into them and causing fires. The armchair demo expert conspiracy theorists (CTers) assert that it is controlled demolitions (CD). Being a reasonable guy, I agree with the experts. Call me gullible, but show me a plane smashing into a building and that building falling down, and I’m convinced it was the plane.

Although my expertise on the topic consists of no more than the ability to read, a working computer, and an internet connection, my goal here is to show that CD simply isn’t possible given the conditions of the building. Let’s forget the sheer absurdity of the situation. Let’s assume that somehow in the months/years beforehand secret demolitions teams were able to infiltrate the towers unseen by both people and cameras and plant explosives. Let’s assume that in that time they were able to rip the walls open, plant the devices, and fix the walls and none of the thousands of people that walked the halls of those buildings every day noticed the wet paint and fresh drywall. Let’s assume that whatever shadow organization had the trillions of dollars to pay off the hundreds of thousands of people from a variety of backgrounds and allegiances to turn a blind eye. Just ignore your common sense. It’s difficult, I know, and that pain you feel in your brain is natural.

As stated earlier, in order to explain the ridiculousness of CD, I’m going to have to give that theory the best possible chance of being probable. In order to do that, I’m going to focus solely on WTC7, for reasons outlined below. For clarity’s and background’s sake, National Institute of Technology and Standards (NIST) has an ongoing, but incomplete, investigation into the building. Their basic theory is that the tower was damaged below floor 13 of the 47 story tower by thousands of tons of concrete, steel, and other debris from one or more of the other towers, and that structural damage spread first vertically, then horizontally coupled by weakened steel over seven hours, and eventually the structure was so weak the weight of the building forced it down[1]. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) agrees, but contends that the seven hours of fire contributed more significantly[2]. Both organizations claim to have spent thousands of man-hours going through thousands of documents, films, and photographs with individuals of expertise both in and out of their respective organizations, using knowledge of physics, mathematics, and chemistry I can’t possibly hope to match, understand, or verify. They’ve come up with the above theory, and found no evidence whatsoever to indicate explosives. In fact, most experts in any field agree with their conclusions. As you narrow their fields down to fields that would have any knowledge about structural failure and demolitions, the number progressively gets smaller eventually nearing zero (One man, Danny Jowenko touted as the most proficient demolitions expert in the Netherlands has said that CD is a possibility, but even the circumstances around that is questionable. There are videos of his opinion on YouTube[3].)

To conclude the introduction and background and move onto the interesting part, why I feel that WTC7 is the best candidate for CD is as follows: The building was only struck by tons of concrete, steel, and other debris and not an airplane. And yes, I know that only is a bad word choice. The reason this is important is the temperature is in debate because it wasn’t directly introduced to jet fuel (although it’s not impossible). The next reason is the structural damage is in debate, some feel it wasn’t sufficient to cause the collapse without an extra push, the push in this case being the force from many explosions. The final reason is that the building stood for seven hours.

Of course, with no evidence of a specific explosive used, to a CTer that’s an invitation to imply that any explosive was used. Given the undeniable facts from above, a demolitions team would need an explosive that can be remotely detonated that can survive a severe impact and varying degrees of extreme heat. Oh, and the detonation devices would also have to survive that. I think the best way to go about this is to outline a variety of explosives[4][5], so that’s where I will begin.

All explosives are designed to, through a chemical reaction at the molecular level, expel energy. This chemical reaction is initiated in a variety of ways depending on the explosive type, generally modern high explosives are stable, meaning they’re difficult to set off by accident, and require some type of detonator and sometimes a booster charge, a primary explosive used to trigger the secondary explosive.[6] Since I’ve mentioned it, you’re probably wondering what primary and secondary explosives are. There are two types of explosives, low and high. An example of low would be black powder, and high would be TNT. High explosives are also categorized by their sensitivity; that is their tendency to detonate when exposed to shock, friction, or heat, into two categories: Primary and secondary. Primary explosives are extremely sensitive and very dangerous to handle, and as such small amounts are often used to initiate secondary explosives as those tend to be more stable.[7]. It’s also worth noting that many explosives leave toxic residues that can remain for years in the area and effect health and the environment[8]. However, since the investigation into WTC7 is still ongoing, and again to give the best possibility of CD, I’ll assume that it’s possible the contaminants are still there, but haven’t been found yet. Lastly, many explosives suffer from hygroscopicity, which is the ability to retain water. Water is detrimental to an explosives power, and may even change the chemical composition of an explosive over time. This basic information is important because not only must the explosive survive the extreme conditions, but so must the booster charge if needed, and the detonator that often contains low or primary explosives, or both, and the means to trigger the detonator remotely.

Two more facts are necessary before we look at the types of explosives that could be used. Since explosives are typically set off by the shockwave created by the blasting cap, shock must be considered. No one really knows an exact measurement of the amount of energy transferred from WTC1 to WTC7 from the impact of the debris, I can’t present an exact number. However, 10^12 joules was the potential energy of the collapse of WTC1[9]. Some of this energy was transferred, and in the case of explosives that are sensitive to impact, much less of the possible amount would be required. The other fact is the heat of the building. Both FEMA and the NIST estimate around 1000-1200 degrees Celsius[10][11]. I’ve also found proposed temperatures as low as 257 degrees Celsius[12]. Now that I’ve defined the conditions of the building it’s time to take a look at some explosives and see how they’d fare.

First up are low explosives. These are primarily used as propellants, for bullets or rockets, but can and have been used as explosives in the past. This group includes black powder and smokeless powder.

Black powder, also known as gunpowder, is one of the oldest utilized explosives with the first recorded discovery at 1000 AD. It is still used to today mainly in fireworks. Black powder is extremely unstable. It is somewhat insensitive to shock and friction, but very sensitive to heat and open flame[13], all of which there were an abundance of. Additionally, gunpowder is expected to ignite around 232 degrees C (450 F)[15], which is well below even the most conservative estimates of WTC7. All in all, it’s a poor candidate.

Smokeless powder is the propellant replacement to black powder. As with black powder it is sensitive to impact, heat, and flame. It’s ignition temperature is even lower than that of black powder, coming in at around 160 degrees C (320 F)[16], which is again much lower than WTC7 making it an even more unlikely explosive.

The next group of explosives under the proverbial microscope is high explosives. The first sub-group of high explosives is primary. Explosives in this group are generally put here based on their relative sensitivity as compared to PETN. These explosives tend to be highly volatile under all but the most controlled conditions and tend to be very dangerous to handle. Their primary use is in small amounts put into a position to detonate more stable explosives, like being in a blasting cap. Explosives that fall into this category are Lead Azide, Lead Styphnate, Mercury Fulminate and Tetracene.

Lead Azide is a common detonating agent. It has a higher temperature of ignition than most primary explosives, and is a more effective detonating agent than mercury fulminate. However, it is highly sensitive to heat, friction, and impact. It is even more sensitive than nitro glycerine[17], dropping a 2kg weight from 5 inches away will cause it to detonate[20], and the higher temperature isn’t that high, coming in at 350 degrees C (662 F)[18] which is well within the estimates of WTC7. Lead Azide as a stand alone or in a detonator would not work because of it’s extreme impact sensitivity and it’s comparably low sensitivity to heat.

Lead Styphnate is also a common detonating agent. It is more sensitive to shock and heat than lead azide or mercury fulminate, and it is extemely sensitive to electricty, so sensitive in fact that a static charge from the human body can cause it to explode[19]. It’s detonation temperature is 282 degrees C (539 F) and it’s impact sensitivity is 3 inches with a 2kg weight[20]. This stuff is extremely sensitive, and given the conditions of WTC7, not a very good explosive possibility.

Mercury Fulminate is more sensitive in all areas, heat, shock, spark, and friction, than lead azide and lead styphnate, and it is additionally sensitive to open flame[21], and because of those sensitivities it has been almost universally replaced with either. Mercury fulminate ignites at 170 degrees C (338 F)[22] and is therefore impossible to be used in any capacity in WTC7 at even the most conservative estimates.

The final primary explosive is Tetracene. Tetracene is highly sensitive to an open flame, and is slightly more sensitive to shock than mercury fulminate[23]. Tetracene will actually melt and decompose at 160 degrees C (320 F)[24]. Again, the pattern seems that primary explosives don’t fare well in volitile conditions.

The next group of explosives falls under the high explosives category, secondary explosives. These are the ones people are most familiar with, such as TNT or C-4. These explosives can come in a variety of forms, from liquid to solid, and can be grains, crystals, or plastic.

Trinitrotoluene is the constituant for many explosives, meaning that some percent of the weight contains this chemical. It is commonly known as TNT. It is used in Amatol, Ammonal, Cyclotol, Torpex, Octol, Pentolite, Picratol, Tetrytol, Minol, and Tritonal among others in some degree. TNT is relatively insensitive to heat, shock, friction, and open flame. However, it is not immune to these effects. At 475 degrees C (887 F) it burns rapidly, and it can be detonated at 14 inches with a 2kg weight[20]. Additionally, it melts at a lower temperature than it explodes, 82 degrees C (178 F) and explodes at 240 degrees C (464 F)[25], and as such this and anything containing it is relatively ineffective for this purpose.

Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate, commonly referred to as PETN, is the borderline secondary explosive. It is the most sensitive of them, but much more powerful, and is the reference point for categorizing the others. It is also mixed with other chemicals, like TNT, to make other explosives, such as pentolite or semtex. It is more sensitive to shock or friction than TNT, with an impact sensitivity of six inches. It also burns at 225 degrees C (437 F)[20]. It’s melting point is 142 degress C (287 F) which casues it to decompose[26]. This is, again, way under the most conservative temperatures and force of impact to be considered seriously.

Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, easier to just say RDX, was invented by the British because they didn’t like the sensitivity of other high explosives. Like PETN and TNT, it is used as a part of other explosives, such as Cyclotol, HBX, C-4, Torpex, and Pentolite among others. It is amazingly resiliant to impact, and can even withstand small arms fire. However, a heavier weight seems to have a worse effect, causing detonation at 8 inches with a 2kg weight and burning at 260 degrees Celsius (536 F)[20]. It’s melting point is also 202 degrees Celsius (395 F)[27]. The temperature at which it will ignite is 234 degrees Celsius[28], which is again lower than all estimates.

Ammonium Picrate is the least sensitive to shock and friction of all military explosives. Information is pretty sparse with this explosive, however if heated to 300 degrees C (572 F) it will explode or can be set off by shock[29]. It will also melt if it is heated to more than 122.5 degrees C (252 F)[30].

Trinitrophyenylmethylnitramine (Tetryl) is an outdated and sensitive explosive. It is mainly used as a booster explosive since it is sensitive to flame, friction, shock, or sparks. Like many explosives before it, it is too sensitive to temperature to be used in WTC7. It’s melting point is 129.5 (265 F) degrees C and it’s ignition temperature is 187 (386 F) degrees Celsius[31].

Just to briefly touch on plastic explosives, I’m going to take a look at C-4 and Flex-X. C-4 is made out of RDX, a few other chemicals, and a plasticizer. This makes it a pliable material. However, because it is mostly RDX, it is subject to the same problems RDX has in this situation, listed above. It is also sensitive to shock, heat, melting, and ignition. Flex-X is similar to C-4 in that it’s made out of another explosives with an added plasticizer. In this case, it’s again RDX, and in some cases PETN, but PETN is more rare because it’s a lot more sensitive. Clearly, plasitic explosives are no different in any scenario. They’re often used because they are pliable and can be shaped, but they’re made out of the same materials as other explosives and not any more well-equipped to deal with the extreme conditions present in those seven hours.

Finally, we get to the more popular of devices of the CT world: Incendiaries. Because there has been no evidence uncovered of explosives and because welders were used to cut the debris up for removal, pictures circulated the internet that looked like the metal was cut before it fell, and incendiaries would look similar (however, like any other explosive, these leave chemical traces as well, none have been found). Basically, an incediary is a device used to cause a fire. Of course, many of these can burn very hot and melt through several feet of steel within minutes. The two most popular, and even in debate among the CTers, is thermite and thermate.

Thermite is nothing more than powdered aluminum and iron oxide (rust). In fact, it’s not so much as a substance as it is a reaction, it can happen accidentally wherever aluminium granules make contact with rust. However, that’s not to say it can’t be done on purpose, and in fact has been in use since the late 1800’s for welding, particularly railroad tracks, and recently military purposes. When ignited, it burns at temperatures in excess of 3000 degrees Celsius. It takes a tremendous heat source to start the reaction, around 1300 degrees C (2372 F)[32]. Thermate is very similar, made of mostly thermite, but with added chemicals that give it a higher burning temperature, flames, and a lower ignition temperature. Clearly, any ambient temperatures listed from any source were not even close enough to be considered, and since thermite/thermate are not sensitive to impact it could have survived in WTC7. More on that later.

Clearly, a vast majority of explosives simply are not up to the task. However, the explosives are just one part of a CD. There are still detonators/ignitors, and the means to employ them remotely. These too must survive the conditions.

Any modern explosive is initiated by a blasting cap. Blasting caps have remained nearly the same since their invention, with minor tweaks to make them more safe and efficient[33]. Most modern blasting caps are electric. Two insulated wires make near contact on the inside of the casing and when the charge is sent down the lines connecting the blasting cap to the operator a charge of current appears in the gap. That charge, depending on the type of cap, ignites the primary explosive or a time delay fuse. Sometimes there is another auxiliary secondary explosive inside the cap to give the blasting cap an extra kick if needed, however the initial explosive is always one of the primary ones listed above. In either case, the shockwave created by the blasting cap is what detonates the secondary explosive. There are many variations on the type of electrical blasting caps for a variety of circumstances, however they all operate on the same basic principle.

The other type of blasting cap, non-electric or shock tube detonators, work differently. Instead of a copper wire to transmit electricity, it made of several insulated, plasitic tubes filled with PETN at the core. The PETN is detonated at the far end and the shockwave travels along the tube, destroying it in the process, and on to the blasting cap at the end where it transfers that shockwave into another explosive. The blasting cap, in this case, doesn’t have to be filled with a primary explosive and can be filled with a more stable secondary explosive. When precision timing is necessary, it can be much more accurate because of the relatively constant travel speed of the shockwave and extrenous electricity isn’t an issue[33].

What does this mean for the conditions of WTC7? In the case of non-electric detonation, it’s simply not possible. The melting point and ignition temperature of PETN remains the same whether it’s a charge or a tube[34], so the extreme temperatures of the building are well above what’s needed to render the detonator inert or to set it off outright. The other electric blasting caps are subject to the same liability of the primary explosive found inside. Additionally, the plugs made to keep the blasting cap in working condition and hold the wires in place are typically made out of plastic or rubber and many components are soldered in place, and even made out of cardboard[35], and if those melt or burn the whole detonator could easily be inoperable. The wires that trasfer the electiricity to detonate the charges are only insulted with plastic, much like a wire you’d find in your house although probably a heavier gauge. Melting the insulation around a copper wire that happens to be near and make contact with any metal would ground the circuit. Additionally, since some sources point to the temperatures being at or over 1000 degrees Celsius, the melting point of copper is very near that at 1083 degrees Celsius[36]. If the wires that transfer the electricity to the blasting caps were to melt it would break the circuit. Of course, if we’re getting to temperatures to melt copper the primary explosive should have detonated long before that. Thermite, which would still require a blasting cap of some kind to detonate remotely, is a bit of an exception. In most cases, thermite is ignited by heating magnesium, which acts as a booster explosive without an explosion, which has a much lower ignition temperature but burns hot enough to ignite the thermite mixture. However, magnesium ignites at 473 degrees Celsius (883 F)[37], which is well within the estimated temperatures as well. So, while the thermite would survive as stated above, the magnesium wouldn’t, and neither would the detonator used to ignite the magnesium.

So, given that extensive read, what kind of conclusions can be reached from this data? First, explosives are very, very dangerous. Many of them can be set off by small movements and low weights and temperatures that you can reach in your household oven. Second, CD is designed for good conditions. The tools simply don’t exist to detonate a building upwards of 1000 degrees on fire being hit by tons of concrete. Very few explosives would survive seconds of being in that building, let alone seven hours, and even if they did the detonators are not made to. What you’d see if the explosives could survive the initial shock and fires isn’t the neat CD the CTers claim, but an extremely unpredictable blast pattern or no detonation at all. It’s my armchair demo expert opinion that it’s simply not possible.



[1] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) see section 14
[2] http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf#search=%22fema%20report%22 (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf#search=%22fema%20report%22) see section 5.5.4
[3] http://youtube.com/results?search_query=jowenko&search=Search (http://youtube.com/results?search_query=jowenko&search=Search)
[4] http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/ttpyro.html (http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/ttpyro.html) see sections 3-7
[5] http://nobombs.net/brucel/explosivefacts.html (http://nobombs.net/brucel/explosivefacts.html)
[6] http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/ttpyro.html (http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/ttpyro.html) see section 1
[7] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/explosives.htm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/explosives.htm)
[8]http://www.gr.admin.ch/internet/armasuisse/de/home/unser/sicherheitsanalysen/explosivstoffe.Par.0013.DownloadFile.tmp/C2105_Stucki.pdf#search=%22toxicity%20of%20explosi ves%22 (http://www.gr.admin.ch/internet/armasuisse/de/home/unser/sicherheitsanalysen/explosivstoffe.Par.0013.DownloadFile.tmp/C2105_Stucki.pdf#search=%22toxicity%20of%20explosi ves%22)
[9] http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B7FEB-A88C-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21&pageNumber=3&catID=4 (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B7FEB-A88C-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21&pageNumber=3&catID=4) see last paragraph.
[10] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) see 7a and 7b
[11] http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf) see 5-29 section 6
[12] http://www.911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm (http://www.911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm)
[13] http://www.digistar.mb.ca/minsci/SYSTEMS/explosives/blackp2.htm (http://www.digistar.mb.ca/minsci/SYSTEMS/explosives/blackp2.htm)
[14] http://www.americanpyro.com/fireservice/Ignition%20Temperatures.pdf (http://www.americanpyro.com/fireservice/Ignition%20Temperatures.pdf)
[15] http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/articles98/nhallen.htm (http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/articles98/nhallen.htm)
[16] http://avogadro.chem.iastate.edu/MSDS/smokeless_powder.htm (http://avogadro.chem.iastate.edu/MSDS/smokeless_powder.htm)
[17] http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/78127_13.html (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/78127_13.html)
[18] http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/lead.htm (http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/lead.htm) see Other uses of Lead
[19] http://www.ordnance.org/leadstyp.htm (http://www.ordnance.org/leadstyp.htm)
[20] http://www.teledynerisi.com/products/0products_8td_page02.asp (http://www.teledynerisi.com/products/0products_8td_page02.asp)
[21] http://www.ordnance.org/mercury.htm (http://www.ordnance.org/mercury.htm)
[22] http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/mercury.htm (http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/mercury.htm)
[23] http://www.ordnance.org/tetracen.htm (http://www.ordnance.org/tetracen.htm)
[24] http://www.tocatch.info/en/Tetrazene.htm (http://www.tocatch.info/en/Tetrazene.htm)
[25] http://www.microscopyu.com/moviegallery/chemicalcrystals/tnt/index.html (http://www.microscopyu.com/moviegallery/chemicalcrystals/tnt/index.html)
[26] http://www.qycc.com/english/eng1-7.htm (http://www.qycc.com/english/eng1-7.htm)
[27] http://www.pof.gov.pk/products/explosives.htm (http://www.pof.gov.pk/products/explosives.htm)
[28] http://c10-ss-1-lb.cnet.com/reference/RDX (http://c10-ss-1-lb.cnet.com/reference/RDX)
[29] http://www.unitednuclear.com/database.htm (http://www.unitednuclear.com/database.htm)
[30] http://www.dfs.gov.in/Manuals/Explosives%20Manual.doc (http://www.dfs.gov.in/Manuals/Explosives%20Manual.doc)
[31] http://c10-ss-1-lb.cnet.com/reference/Tetryl (http://c10-ss-1-lb.cnet.com/reference/Tetryl)
[31] http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/m0088.htm (http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/m0088.htm)
[32] http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq6.html (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq6.html) see section 6.2.1
[33]http://www.ausimm.com.au/presentations/podoliak.pdf#search=%22electrical%20detonator%22 (http://www.ausimm.com.au/presentations/podoliak.pdf#search=%22electrical%20detonator%22)
[34] http://www.iie-online.com/pdfs/Shock_Tube.pdf (http://www.iie-online.com/pdfs/Shock_Tube.pdf)
[35] http://www.digistar.mb.ca/minsci/SYSTEMS/explosives/caps.htm (http://www.digistar.mb.ca/minsci/SYSTEMS/explosives/caps.htm)
[36] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elements_by_melting_point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elements_by_melting_point)
[37] http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/m0088.htm (http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/m0088.htm)

[Loss Leader]

Excellent, detailed, well-reasoned and well-researched article. Let me know if it changes so many as one CT mind.

[chipmunk stew]

Bravo!

I will be linking to this in a thread at the British 9/11 Truth forum.

edit:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=28066#28066

[twinstead]

I agree. Well written, but as soon as most CTs would reach a point in your post where it is clear that you support the view that CD was impossible they would stop reading, because you obviously are a government shill ;)

[Josh Redstone]

I enjoyed that :)
You should post it somewhere on the web so that more people might read it.

[Z]

uh... uh...

Help! I have ADHD and cannot read it!!!

Summary, please?

[Hutch]

A couple of suggestions for clairification, if I may.

You say in Paragraph 3 (If I count correctly):

In fact, most experts in any field agree with their conclusions. As you narrow their fields down to fields that would have any knowledge about structural failure and demolitions, the number progressively gets smaller eventually nearing zero

You may wish to reword the last but there, as it looks like you are saying the number who support the structural failure is nearly zero. May I suggest saying "... ,the number of doubters in the structural failure therory continues to shrink towards zero" --or words to that effect.

Also, In Paragraph 11 you use the term PETN, but do not explain what it means until several paragraphs farther down. You might want to consider spelling it out earlier or otherwise explaining what it is.

Mere quibbles, though, for a well thought-out and written item. I wonder if Trushseeker (when he returns) would like to debate that...

[chipmunk stew]

uh... uh...

Help! I have ADHD and cannot read it!!!

Summary, please?
Given conditions in WTC7 (fires & shock):

Low explosives are too volatile to have survived 7 hours.
As are primary high explosives.
Secondary high explosives would melt or burn, making them ineffective.
Incendiaries such as thermite could survive alone, but any detonation devices used to ignite them could not.Ergo, the CD hypothesis is highly implausible (even ignoring the total lack of evidence of any preparation for CD).

[Hutch]

uh... uh...

Help! I have ADHD and cannot read it!!!

Summary, please?

Concisely and with ample footnotes, he examines the type of explosives and dentonators that might have been used at WTC7--and shows that given the heat and shock that they could never have survived to do a 'picture-perfect" Controlled Demolition that the truthers claim.

In sum, the CT'ist will have to fall back on some type of "magic" explosive that can withstand heat and shock and still be stable but voilatile enough to act in perfect synchronity (sic) to drop WTC7.

It is a powerful debunk written in understandable language and it should be posted on as many Pro- and Con- 911 boards as possible, IMHO--starting with Loose Change.

[kookbreaker]

You can bet that the CTs are gonna go running for their 'Fire wasn't that hot' misunderstanding of the NIST data when they read this.

[dirtywick]

Thanks everyone.

You may wish to reword the last but there, as it looks like you are saying the number who support the structural failure is nearly zero. May I suggest saying "... ,the number of doubters in the structural failure therory continues to shrink towards zero" --or words to that effect.

Also, In Paragraph 11 you use the term PETN, but do not explain what it means until several paragraphs farther down. You might want to consider spelling it out earlier or otherwise explaining what it is.

Mere quibbles, though, for a well thought-out and written item. I wonder if Trushseeker (when he returns) would like to debate that...

You're right, I should make that more clear.

I enjoyed that :)
You should post it somewhere on the web so that more people might read it.

If I had a website I definately would. I don't even know who'd be interested in reading it, you know what I mean? I wouldn't mind seeing it in a debunking guide or something.

[Hellbound]

Good article.

BUt, as an armchair demolition expert who actually did some of the math and used his knowledge to determine that CD was highly unlikely, I resent the disparaging remarks against armchair demolitionists.

We aren't all whacked-out nutjobs.

:D

[dirtywick]

Good article.

BUt, as an armchair demolition expert who actually did some of the math and used his knowledge to determine that CD was highly unlikely, I resent the disparaging remarks against armchair demolitionists.

We aren't all whacked-out nutjobs.

:D

haha hey, I felt a little crazy spending hours upon hours reading about bombs.

[jhunter1163]

This is nothing short of the utter destruction of the CD theory. There's just no answer to it other than saying "you're a government shill!" He didn't even misuse plurals.

Nominated.

[Muckar-duva]

A little on the marginraping side, though, one of the long links is messing up my screen an awful lot.

[aggle-rithm]

uh... uh...

Help! I have ADHD and cannot read it!!!

Summary, please?

I, too, have ADD.

And for the life of me, I can't remember why I brought it up.

[chipmunk stew]

A little on the marginraping side, though, one of the long links is messing up my screen an awful lot.
My browser word-wrapped it for me, but it's a good point. You might want to create a tinyurl (http://www.tinyurl.com) for the longer links. A lot of BBs will shorten long links (including this one--how did you bypass this feature?) and if someone does a cut and paste, the links won't work.

[CurtC]

I couldn't make it through the thing because the long lines required scrolling left and right with every line, and I just gave up.

[CurtC]

A lot of BBs will shorten long links (including this one--how did you bypass this feature?)
He quoted the links like this:

{url=http://www.longurl.com/moreandmore}http://www.longurl.com/moreandmore{/url}

Since the URL name appears as the words that are linked, the board doesn't shorten them.

[dirtywick]

My browser word-wrapped it for me, but it's a good point. You might want to create a tinyurl (http://www.tinyurl.com) for the longer links. A lot of BBs will shorten long links (including this one--how did you bypass this feature?) and if someone does a cut and paste, the links won't work.

I'll go and shorten them all, sidescrolling is annoying. I just cut and pasted from Word and that's how it showed up.

[dirtywick]

Nevermind, I can't edit it now, sorry.

[Z]

Given conditions in WTC7 (fires & shock):

Low explosives are too volatile to have survived 7 hours.
As are primary high explosives.
Secondary high explosives would melt or burn, making them ineffective.
Incendiaries such as thermite could survive alone, but any detonation devices used to ignite them could not.Ergo, the CD hypothesis is highly implausible (even ignoring the total lack of evidence of any preparation for CD).

Thank you.

The sad thing is, this has been pointed out before - in bits and pieces - and they still choose to ignore it. Assembling it thus isn't likely to produce much notice, unfortunately.

Good work!

[MG1962]

Dude have you got this posted somewhere. I would so like to stick this...oops I mean... show this to some maniacs out there, but I am hesitant to link direct onto this forum thread.

Besides I would love a way for you to get the credit for this

[einsteen]

A nice clear story, bright English and you probably have a chemical background ?

[chipmunk stew]

Dude have you got this posted somewhere. I would so like to stick this...oops I mean... show this to some maniacs out there, but I am hesitant to link direct onto this forum thread.

Besides I would love a way for you to get the credit for this
Hi, MG. I haven't had a chance to welcome you yet--welcome!

I'm curious, why are you hesitant to link to this thread? We've gotten a lot of positive traffic here by posting good threads elsewhere. Until it has a permanent home, I don't see anything wrong with it.

[dirtywick]

Dude have you got this posted somewhere. I would so like to stick this...oops I mean... show this to some maniacs out there, but I am hesitant to link direct onto this forum thread.

Besides I would love a way for you to get the credit for this

I recieved a few PMs from some folks interested in hosting it which is great and I'm thankful for that. I want to give some people who might provide further information to take a look at it here first so it's as accurate as possible, but sometime soon it should be up somewhere.

[einsteen]

Dirtywick,

I'm interested in your bright objective view concerning the next movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ

[Loss Leader]

Dirtywick,

I'm interested in your bright objective view concerning the next movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ

Considering that the name of the video is "Incriminating evidence," I'm not sure what exactly the video is supposed to show. That FDNY knew late in the day that WTC7 was going to fall? Of course they knew. They had stopped all efforts to save the building an hour or more before it collapsed. The video certainly in no way contradicts Dirtywick's excellent analysis that the collapse would be very, very difficult to attribute to a controlled demolition.

[dirtywick]

Dirtywick,

I'm interested in your bright objective view concerning the next movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ


I mean, I see how it could be confused like the infamous "pull it" quote. But I don't think the meaning of "blow up" is directly indicative of CD.

This whole issue basically boils down to some people thinking it looked like CD, correct? I think it's reasonable that a few professionals in other fields who observed what appeared to be explosions to them hours earlier in other nearby buildings using the word "blow up" to describe what may happen in a few minutes to that building in an attempt to move people out of the danger. Honestly, I don't know what that meant, or even who these people are and in what context they're saying it, but since you asked.

[stateofgrace]

Wow, thank you dirtywick. You post is precisely the reason I come to this forum. To read and learn.

Your article was well written and easy to understand. Well done.

stateofgrace.

[Hellbound]

Pfft!

I coulda written one even better...but, uh, I had to wash my cat. And the dog ate my tire. My homework was flat. And then I got abducted by aliens.

Yeah, that was it.

:D

[einsteen]

Thanks dirtywick, it seems to be a raw capture from CNN about what happened around wtc7, did you hear that bang (and the two echo's)

And nothing against your story on top,simply excellent.

[dirtywick]

Thanks einsteen.

[Gravy]

Excellent overview of things that did not go boom on 9/11, dirtywick.

I would add that, whatever explosives or incendiaries the CTs want
to claim were used, their plan would require using a vastly greater
amount than would be used in a conventional "controlled demolition,"
unless extensive pre-weakening and preparation of the structure was
done.

For example, an RDX cutter charge needs to be a precise
distance from the metal it is to cut, in order to focus its jet of liquid
metal on the target (never mind the fact that commercial "cutter charges"
aren't large enough to cut the thicker steel at the WTC). Use of cutter
charges would require removal of sheetrock and fireproofing on hundreds
or thousands of columns in the complex, work that would somehow have
to be accomplished and remain hidden in buildings that were occupied
24 hours a day.

And think about the exterior columns. When we look at a cross-section
of the exterior wall, we see that two-thirds of the column area is outside
the building, precluding access. Inside, the remaining third is covered by
fireproofing, sheetrock, and window framing. Some CTs claim that the
"squibs" are cutter charges placed on exterior columns (on just a few
columns :confused:). I have never seen any explanation of how that could
be accomplished. And, as mentioned in another thread, the velocities
of the "squibs" are not consistent with high explosives.

A primary reason that buildings to be demolished are extensively
pre-weakened is to reduce the amount of explosives used, thereby
reducing the great air overpressure that high explosives produce.
CTs find it odd that heavy material was ejected from the towers
as far as 200 meters. They seem to forget that the amount of
explosives their plan would require would surely blast lighter material
much farther than that, and would probably break windows for
many blocks, if not for miles around.

The same need for huge quantities would be true of an incendiary like
thermite. NIST calculated (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) that thousands of pounds would have to be
used to weaken the columns in the twin towers, and that's if it were kept
in direct contact with the steel. I imagine that CTs are pushing for an
incendiary explanation for the collapse of building 7, because no
descriptions of anything that sounded like explosives was reported
near the time of collapse. (Jason Bermas' assertion to Abby in the
recent video that he has "proof" of explosives on the north side of
the building is hilarious. The "explosions" are fires flaring somewhat,
and they happen long before the building collapses.) The CTs also argue
that in a CD, all the columns must be taken out simultaneously. They
are wrong, but I'd like to see them extend that argument and calculate
how much thermite in direct contact with steel that would require.

[Gravy]

Thanks dirtywick, it seems to be a raw capture from CNN about what happened around wtc7, did you hear that bang (and the two echo's)

And nothing against your story on top,simply excellent.
A cop using the term "blow up?" I am shocked! (Edit: the speaker is apparently the cameraman.)

A bang and two echos? And when did the building fall down again?

Einsteen, you do realize that things were blowing up, especially cars, all over the place after the towers came down, don't you? In addition, lots of debris was falling from WTC 7, which must have made noise.

What I'm curious about, einsteen, is why you posted a link and asked for dirtywick's opinion, rather than posting it and giving your opinion. This is a discussion board, after all.

[dirtywick]

Thanks for the input Gravy.


The same need for huge quantities would be true of an incendiary like
thermite. NIST calculated (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) that thousands of pounds would have to be
used to weaken the columns in the twin towers, and that's if it were kept
in direct contact with the steel. I imagine that CTs are pushing for an
incendiary explanation for the collapse of building 7, because no
descriptions of anything that sounded like explosives was reported
near the time of collapse. (Jason Bermas' assertion to Abby in the
recent video that he has "proof" of explosives on the north side of
the building is hilarious. The "explosions" are fires flaring somewhat,
and they happen long before the building collapses.) The CTs also argue
that in a CD, all the columns must be taken out simultaneously. They
are wrong, but I'd like to see them extend that argument and calculate
how much thermite in direct contact with steel that would require.

I've found that, by far, incendiary is the explanation they claim. However, I have seen a few others, C-4 mostly. There's even a site out there that calculates how much amatol would be necessary which I found bizarre, I didn't take note of the url however. In every case I've seen there's little explanation on the major details you listed above, and even the minor ones that I've given in the best case scenarios. It's really evident most of it isn't very well thought out and once you start to look into the facts any theory I've seen falls apart very quickly.

[Gravy]

Thanks for the input Gravy.
I've found that, by far, incendiary is the explanation they claim. However, I have seen a few others, C-4 mostly. There's even a site out there that calculates how much amatol would be necessary which I found bizarre, I didn't take note of the url however. In every case I've seen there's little explanation on the major details you listed above, and even the minor ones that I've given in the best case scenarios. It's really evident most of it isn't very well thought out and once you start to look into the facts any theory I've seen falls apart very quickly.
Amatol, yeah, the brute force theory. I think we would've noticed that. I wonder how much Anusol (http://www.pilesadvice.co.uk/), the "silent but deadly" demolitions material, would be required to shrink the columns past the point of no return?

[CurtC]

Nevermind, I can't edit it now, sorry.
May I?

Hello everyone,

I've been working on this the last couple of weeks. I felt the need to write this because the CT crowd is way too selective on their knowledge and I've never seen a piece of information like it, and felt it was needed. It appears later, but I want to reiterate that I'm not a CD expert. However, like anyone else, I take what people that know more than I do and try to form conclusions based on facts and research. Everything I found I referenced at the bottom numerically if there's any dispute about the information.

Also, if anyone has any links contradicting or adding to anything here, I'd love to hear about it. There's really not that much information about a lot of explosives, especially Thermite. Using any search engine I found more of the life story of Alex Jones than I did about thermite! He did a great job of burying anything useful to anyone on that topic.

Anyway, I figure if anyone can pick it apart, it'd be you guys. Thanks for the time!

There is a lot of conjecture floating around the internet about what happened on 9/11/01 in regards to the WTC. A lot of armchair demolitions experts assert that the WTC buildings that fell on that day fell because of means other than airplanes crashing into them and causing fires. The armchair demo expert conspiracy theorists (CTers) assert that it is controlled demolitions (CD). Being a reasonable guy, I agree with the experts. Call me gullible, but show me a plane smashing into a building and that building falling down, and I’m convinced it was the plane.

Although my expertise on the topic consists of no more than the ability to read, a working computer, and an internet connection, my goal here is to show that CD simply isn’t possible given the conditions of the building. Let’s forget the sheer absurdity of the situation. Let’s assume that somehow in the months/years beforehand secret demolitions teams were able to infiltrate the towers unseen by both people and cameras and plant explosives. Let’s assume that in that time they were able to rip the walls open, plant the devices, and fix the walls and none of the thousands of people that walked the halls of those buildings every day noticed the wet paint and fresh drywall. Let’s assume that whatever shadow organization had the trillions of dollars to pay off the hundreds of thousands of people from a variety of backgrounds and allegiances to turn a blind eye. Just ignore your common sense. It’s difficult, I know, and that pain you feel in your brain is natural.

As stated earlier, in order to explain the ridiculousness of CD, I’m going to have to give that theory the best possible chance of being probable. In order to do that, I’m going to focus solely on WTC7, for reasons outlined below. For clarity’s and background’s sake, National Institute of Technology and Standards (NIST) has an ongoing, but incomplete, investigation into the building. Their basic theory is that the tower was damaged below floor 13 of the 47 story tower by thousands of tons of concrete, steel, and other debris from one or more of the other towers, and that structural damage spread first vertically, then horizontally coupled by weakened steel over seven hours, and eventually the structure was so weak the weight of the building forced it down[1]. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) agrees, but contends that the seven hours of fire contributed more significantly[2]. Both organizations claim to have spent thousands of man-hours going through thousands of documents, films, and photographs with individuals of expertise both in and out of their respective organizations, using knowledge of physics, mathematics, and chemistry I can’t possibly hope to match, understand, or verify. They’ve come up with the above theory, and found no evidence whatsoever to indicate explosives. In fact, most experts in any field agree with their conclusions. As you narrow their fields down to fields that would have any knowledge about structural failure and demolitions, the number progressively gets smaller eventually nearing zero (One man, Danny Jowenko touted as the most proficient demolitions expert in the Netherlands has said that CD is a possibility, but even the circumstances around that is questionable. There are videos of his opinion on YouTube[3].)

To conclude the introduction and background and move onto the interesting part, why I feel that WTC7 is the best candidate for CD is as follows: The building was only struck by tons of concrete, steel, and other debris and not an airplane. And yes, I know that only is a bad word choice. The reason this is important is the temperature is in debate because it wasn’t directly introduced to jet fuel (although it’s not impossible). The next reason is the structural damage is in debate, some feel it wasn’t sufficient to cause the collapse without an extra push, the push in this case being the force from many explosions. The final reason is that the building stood for seven hours.

Of course, with no evidence of a specific explosive used, to a CTer that’s an invitation to imply that any explosive was used. Given the undeniable facts from above, a demolitions team would need an explosive that can be remotely detonated that can survive a severe impact and varying degrees of extreme heat. Oh, and the detonation devices would also have to survive that. I think the best way to go about this is to outline a variety of explosives[4][5], so that’s where I will begin.

All explosives are designed to, through a chemical reaction at the molecular level, expel energy. This chemical reaction is initiated in a variety of ways depending on the explosive type, generally modern high explosives are stable, meaning they’re difficult to set off by accident, and require some type of detonator and sometimes a booster charge, a primary explosive used to trigger the secondary explosive.[6] Since I’ve mentioned it, you’re probably wondering what primary and secondary explosives are. There are two types of explosives, low and high. An example of low would be black powder, and high would be TNT. High explosives are also categorized by their sensitivity; that is their tendency to detonate when exposed to shock, friction, or heat, into two categories: Primary and secondary. Primary explosives are extremely sensitive and very dangerous to handle, and as such small amounts are often used to initiate secondary explosives as those tend to be more stable.[7]. It’s also worth noting that many explosives leave toxic residues that can remain for years in the area and effect health and the environment[8]. However, since the investigation into WTC7 is still ongoing, and again to give the best possibility of CD, I’ll assume that it’s possible the contaminants are still there, but haven’t been found yet. Lastly, many explosives suffer from hygroscopicity, which is the ability to retain water. Water is detrimental to an explosives power, and may even change the chemical composition of an explosive over time. This basic information is important because not only must the explosive survive the extreme conditions, but so must the booster charge if needed, and the detonator that often contains low or primary explosives, or both, and the means to trigger the detonator remotely.

Two more facts are necessary before we look at the types of explosives that could be used. Since explosives are typically set off by the shockwave created by the blasting cap, shock must be considered. No one really knows an exact measurement of the amount of energy transferred from WTC1 to WTC7 from the impact of the debris, I can’t present an exact number. However, 10^12 joules was the potential energy of the collapse of WTC1[9]. Some of this energy was transferred, and in the case of explosives that are sensitive to impact, much less of the possible amount would be required. The other fact is the heat of the building. Both FEMA and the NIST estimate around 1000-1200 degrees Celsius[10][11]. I’ve also found proposed temperatures as low as 257 degrees Celsius[12]. Now that I’ve defined the conditions of the building it’s time to take a look at some explosives and see how they’d fare.

First up are low explosives. These are primarily used as propellants, for bullets or rockets, but can and have been used as explosives in the past. This group includes black powder and smokeless powder.

Black powder, also known as gunpowder, is one of the oldest utilized explosives with the first recorded discovery at 1000 AD. It is still used to today mainly in fireworks. Black powder is extremely unstable. It is somewhat insensitive to shock and friction, but very sensitive to heat and open flame[13], all of which there were an abundance of. Additionally, gunpowder is expected to ignite around 232 degrees C (450 F)[15], which is well below even the most conservative estimates of WTC7. All in all, it’s a poor candidate.

Smokeless powder is the propellant replacement to black powder. As with black powder it is sensitive to impact, heat, and flame. It’s ignition temperature is even lower than that of black powder, coming in at around 160 degrees C (320 F)[16], which is again much lower than WTC7 making it an even more unlikely explosive.

The next group of explosives under the proverbial microscope is high explosives. The first sub-group of high explosives is primary. Explosives in this group are generally put here based on their relative sensitivity as compared to PETN. These explosives tend to be highly volatile under all but the most controlled conditions and tend to be very dangerous to handle. Their primary use is in small amounts put into a position to detonate more stable explosives, like being in a blasting cap. Explosives that fall into this category are Lead Azide, Lead Styphnate, Mercury Fulminate and Tetracene.

Lead Azide is a common detonating agent. It has a higher temperature of ignition than most primary explosives, and is a more effective detonating agent than mercury fulminate. However, it is highly sensitive to heat, friction, and impact. It is even more sensitive than nitro glycerine[17], dropping a 2kg weight from 5 inches away will cause it to detonate[20], and the higher temperature isn’t that high, coming in at 350 degrees C (662 F)[18] which is well within the estimates of WTC7. Lead Azide as a stand alone or in a detonator would not work because of it’s extreme impact sensitivity and it’s comparably low sensitivity to heat.

Lead Styphnate is also a common detonating agent. It is more sensitive to shock and heat than lead azide or mercury fulminate, and it is extemely sensitive to electricty, so sensitive in fact that a static charge from the human body can cause it to explode[19]. It’s detonation temperature is 282 degrees C (539 F) and it’s impact sensitivity is 3 inches with a 2kg weight[20]. This stuff is extremely sensitive, and given the conditions of WTC7, not a very good explosive possibility.

Mercury Fulminate is more sensitive in all areas, heat, shock, spark, and friction, than lead azide and lead styphnate, and it is additionally sensitive to open flame[21], and because of those sensitivities it has been almost universally replaced with either. Mercury fulminate ignites at 170 degrees C (338 F)[22] and is therefore impossible to be used in any capacity in WTC7 at even the most conservative estimates.

The final primary explosive is Tetracene. Tetracene is highly sensitive to an open flame, and is slightly more sensitive to shock than mercury fulminate[23]. Tetracene will actually melt and decompose at 160 degrees C (320 F)[24]. Again, the pattern seems that primary explosives don’t fare well in volitile conditions.

The next group of explosives falls under the high explosives category, secondary explosives. These are the ones people are most familiar with, such as TNT or C-4. These explosives can come in a variety of forms, from liquid to solid, and can be grains, crystals, or plastic.

Trinitrotoluene is the constituant for many explosives, meaning that some percent of the weight contains this chemical. It is commonly known as TNT. It is used in Amatol, Ammonal, Cyclotol, Torpex, Octol, Pentolite, Picratol, Tetrytol, Minol, and Tritonal among others in some degree. TNT is relatively insensitive to heat, shock, friction, and open flame. However, it is not immune to these effects. At 475 degrees C (887 F) it burns rapidly, and it can be detonated at 14 inches with a 2kg weight[20]. Additionally, it melts at a lower temperature than it explodes, 82 degrees C (178 F) and explodes at 240 degrees C (464 F)[25], and as such this and anything containing it is relatively ineffective for this purpose.

Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate, commonly referred to as PETN, is the borderline secondary explosive. It is the most sensitive of them, but much more powerful, and is the reference point for categorizing the others. It is also mixed with other chemicals, like TNT, to make other explosives, such as pentolite or semtex. It is more sensitive to shock or friction than TNT, with an impact sensitivity of six inches. It also burns at 225 degrees C (437 F)[20]. It’s melting point is 142 degress C (287 F) which casues it to decompose[26]. This is, again, way under the most conservative temperatures and force of impact to be considered seriously.

Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, easier to just say RDX, was invented by the British because they didn’t like the sensitivity of other high explosives. Like PETN and TNT, it is used as a part of other explosives, such as Cyclotol, HBX, C-4, Torpex, and Pentolite among others. It is amazingly resiliant to impact, and can even withstand small arms fire. However, a heavier weight seems to have a worse effect, causing detonation at 8 inches with a 2kg weight and burning at 260 degrees Celsius (536 F)[20]. It’s melting point is also 202 degrees Celsius (395 F)[27]. The temperature at which it will ignite is 234 degrees Celsius[28], which is again lower than all estimates.

Ammonium Picrate is the least sensitive to shock and friction of all military explosives. Information is pretty sparse with this explosive, however if heated to 300 degrees C (572 F) it will explode or can be set off by shock[29]. It will also melt if it is heated to more than 122.5 degrees C (252 F)[30].

Trinitrophyenylmethylnitramine (Tetryl) is an outdated and sensitive explosive. It is mainly used as a booster explosive since it is sensitive to flame, friction, shock, or sparks. Like many explosives before it, it is too sensitive to temperature to be used in WTC7. It’s melting point is 129.5 (265 F) degrees C and it’s ignition temperature is 187 (386 F) degrees Celsius[31].

Just to briefly touch on plastic explosives, I’m going to take a look at C-4 and Flex-X. C-4 is made out of RDX, a few other chemicals, and a plasticizer. This makes it a pliable material. However, because it is mostly RDX, it is subject to the same problems RDX has in this situation, listed above. It is also sensitive to shock, heat, melting, and ignition. Flex-X is similar to C-4 in that it’s made out of another explosives with an added plasticizer. In this case, it’s again RDX, and in some cases PETN, but PETN is more rare because it’s a lot more sensitive. Clearly, plasitic explosives are no different in any scenario. They’re often used because they are pliable and can be shaped, but they’re made out of the same materials as other explosives and not any more well-equipped to deal with the extreme conditions present in those seven hours.

Finally, we get to the more popular of devices of the CT world: Incendiaries. Because there has been no evidence uncovered of explosives and because welders were used to cut the debris up for removal, pictures circulated the internet that looked like the metal was cut before it fell, and incendiaries would look similar (however, like any other explosive, these leave chemical traces as well, none have been found). Basically, an incediary is a device used to cause a fire. Of course, many of these can burn very hot and melt through several feet of steel within minutes. The two most popular, and even in debate among the CTers, is thermite and thermate.

Thermite is nothing more than powdered aluminum and iron oxide (rust). In fact, it’s not so much as a substance as it is a reaction, it can happen accidentally wherever aluminium granules make contact with rust. However, that’s not to say it can’t be done on purpose, and in fact has been in use since the late 1800’s for welding, particularly railroad tracks, and recently military purposes. When ignited, it burns at temperatures in excess of 3000 degrees Celsius. It takes a tremendous heat source to start the reaction, around 1300 degrees C (2372 F)[32]. Thermate is very similar, made of mostly thermite, but with added chemicals that give it a higher burning temperature, flames, and a lower ignition temperature. Clearly, any ambient temperatures listed from any source were not even close enough to be considered, and since thermite/thermate are not sensitive to impact it could have survived in WTC7. More on that later.

Clearly, a vast majority of explosives simply are not up to the task. However, the explosives are just one part of a CD. There are still detonators/ignitors, and the means to employ them remotely. These too must survive the conditions.

Any modern explosive is initiated by a blasting cap. Blasting caps have remained nearly the same since their invention, with minor tweaks to make them more safe and efficient[33]. Most modern blasting caps are electric. Two insulated wires make near contact on the inside of the casing and when the charge is sent down the lines connecting the blasting cap to the operator a charge of current appears in the gap. That charge, depending on the type of cap, ignites the primary explosive or a time delay fuse. Sometimes there is another auxiliary secondary explosive inside the cap to give the blasting cap an extra kick if needed, however the initial explosive is always one of the primary ones listed above. In either case, the shockwave created by the blasting cap is what detonates the secondary explosive. There are many variations on the type of electrical blasting caps for a variety of circumstances, however they all operate on the same basic principle.

The other type of blasting cap, non-electric or shock tube detonators, work differently. Instead of a copper wire to transmit electricity, it made of several insulated, plasitic tubes filled with PETN at the core. The PETN is detonated at the far end and the shockwave travels along the tube, destroying it in the process, and on to the blasting cap at the end where it transfers that shockwave into another explosive. The blasting cap, in this case, doesn’t have to be filled with a primary explosive and can be filled with a more stable secondary explosive. When precision timing is necessary, it can be much more accurate because of the relatively constant travel speed of the shockwave and extrenous electricity isn’t an issue[33].

What does this mean for the conditions of WTC7? In the case of non-electric detonation, it’s simply not possible. The melting point and ignition temperature of PETN remains the same whether it’s a charge or a tube[34], so the extreme temperatures of the building are well above what’s needed to render the detonator inert or to set it off outright. The other electric blasting caps are subject to the same liability of the primary explosive found inside. Additionally, the plugs made to keep the blasting cap in working condition and hold the wires in place are typically made out of plastic or rubber and many components are soldered in place, and even made out of cardboard[35], and if those melt or burn the whole detonator could easily be inoperable. The wires that trasfer the electiricity to detonate the charges are only insulted with plastic, much like a wire you’d find in your house although probably a heavier gauge. Melting the insulation around a copper wire that happens to be near and make contact with any metal would ground the circuit. Additionally, since some sources point to the temperatures being at or over 1000 degrees Celsius, the melting point of copper is very near that at 1083 degrees Celsius[36]. If the wires that transfer the electricity to the blasting caps were to melt it would break the circuit. Of course, if we’re getting to temperatures to melt copper the primary explosive should have detonated long before that. Thermite, which would still require a blasting cap of some kind to detonate remotely, is a bit of an exception. In most cases, thermite is ignited by heating magnesium, which acts as a booster explosive without an explosion, which has a much lower ignition temperature but burns hot enough to ignite the thermite mixture. However, magnesium ignites at 473 degrees Celsius (883 F)[37], which is well within the estimated temperatures as well. So, while the thermite would survive as stated above, the magnesium wouldn’t, and neither would the detonator used to ignite the magnesium.

So, given that extensive read, what kind of conclusions can be reached from this data? First, explosives are very, very dangerous. Many of them can be set off by small movements and low weights and temperatures that you can reach in your household oven. Second, CD is designed for good conditions. The tools simply don’t exist to detonate a building upwards of 1000 degrees on fire being hit by tons of concrete. Very few explosives would survive seconds of being in that building, let alone seven hours, and even if they did the detonators are not made to. What you’d see if the explosives could survive the initial shock and fires isn’t the neat CD the CTers claim, but an extremely unpredictable blast pattern or no detonation at all. It’s my armchair demo expert opinion that it’s simply not possible.



[1] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm see section 14
[2] http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf#search=%22fema%20report%22 see section 5.5.4
[3] http://youtube.com/results?search_query=jowenko&search=Search
[4] http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/ttpyro.html see sections 3-7
[5] http://nobombs.net/brucel/explosivefacts.html
[6] http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/ttpyro.html see section 1
[7] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/explosives.htm
[8] http://www.gr.admin.ch/internet/armasuisse/de/home/unser/sicherheitsanalysen/explosivstoffe.Par.0013.DownloadFile.tmp/C2105_Stucki.pdf#search=%22toxicity%20of%20explosi ves%22
[9] http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B7FEB-A88C-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21&pageNumber=3&catID=4 see last paragraph.
[10] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm see 7a and 7b
[11] http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf see 5-29 section 6
[12] http://www.911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
[13] http://www.digistar.mb.ca/minsci/SYSTEMS/explosives/blackp2.htm
[14] http://www.americanpyro.com/fireservice/Ignition%20Temperatures.pdf
[15] http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/articles98/nhallen.htm
[16] http://avogadro.chem.iastate.edu/MSDS/smokeless_powder.htm
[17] http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/78127_13.html
[18] http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/lead.htm see Other uses of Lead
[19] http://www.ordnance.org/leadstyp.htm
[20] http://www.teledynerisi.com/products/0products_8td_page02.asp
[21] http://www.ordnance.org/mercury.htm
[22] http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/mercury.htm
[23] http://www.ordnance.org/tetracen.htm
[24] http://www.tocatch.info/en/Tetrazene.htm
[25] http://www.microscopyu.com/moviegallery/chemicalcrystals/tnt/index.html
[26] http://www.qycc.com/english/eng1-7.htm
[27] http://www.pof.gov.pk/products/explosives.htm
[28] http://c10-ss-1-lb.cnet.com/reference/RDX
[29] http://www.unitednuclear.com/database.htm
[30] http://www.dfs.gov.in/Manuals/Explosives%20Manual.doc
[31] http://c10-ss-1-lb.cnet.com/reference/Tetryl
[31] http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/m0088.htm
[32] http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq6.html see section 6.2.1
[33] http://www.ausimm.com.au/presentations/podoliak.pdf#search=%22electrical%20detonator%22
[34] http://www.iie-online.com/pdfs/Shock_Tube.pdf
[35] http://www.digistar.mb.ca/minsci/SYSTEMS/explosives/caps.htm
[36] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elements_by_melting_point
[37] http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/m0088.htm

[Muckar-duva]

A very good, thorough piece, indeed!

[MG1962]

Hi, MG. I haven't had a chance to welcome you yet--welcome!

I'm curious, why are you hesitant to link to this thread? We've gotten a lot of positive traffic here by posting good threads elsewhere. Until it has a permanent home, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Thanks for the welcome.

Being new I am unsure of the protoco. Also I believe the terms when you sign up suggest content remains copywrited to the site, so dont want to rock the apple cart there. Finally, if this guy is this good. I would love to see what else he has done :) - And advertise it

[chipmunk stew]

Thanks for the welcome.

Being new I am unsure of the protoco. Also I believe the terms when you sign up suggest content remains copywrited to the site, so dont want to rock the apple cart there.
I think you're safe just providing a link to a thread.

Finally, if this guy is this good. I would love to see what else he has done :) - And advertise it
True that!

[dirtywick]

Actually, I think its good to link to this on CT sites. If anyone is going to point out mistakes or misinterpret something giving me the chance to correct it or clarify, it's them.

For instance, chipmunk stew linked to a site earlier in this thread (thanks for providing the link btw) and one of the guys pointed out two things s/he interpreted differently than I expected, and as it turns out were simply bad word choice and not enough information to make my point clear. The next guy that reads it won't suffer through my mistakes.

I like any criticism on it, it helps me create a more complete paper, you know?

[dirtywick]

To 1) hype the site and because 2) I'm proud of myself, the paper is up:

http://www.911myths.com/WTC_CD.pdf

I even got a criticism already! No official calling me a shill yet though.

[Arus808]

^^ just a word of note, you might want to do these guys a favor and not display their email addresses so publically, so that they end up receiving more spam.

Use Hex coding or similar (javascript) to display them.

[Human]

First of all the use of the cryptic term “CT” to label all of your antagonists is misleading and demonstrative of presupposed bias. Surely the official story is that a small team of terrorists conspired to attack the buildings. If you think there is any thing other than theory than you have forsaken science.

“Let’s assume that somehow in the months/years beforehand secret demolitions teams were able to infiltrate the towers unseen by both people and cameras and plant explosives.”

The video “911 Mysteries” goes into length on the strange goings on in the towers before 9/11/01 including the black out of power on the weekend before and the closing down of whole floors for the purpose of “construction” in the weeks before

“none of the thousands of people that walked the halls of those buildings every day noticed the wet paint and fresh drywall.”

You have not done your research.

“Let’s assume that whatever shadow organization had the trillions of dollars to pay off the hundreds of thousands of people from a variety of backgrounds and allegiances to turn a blind eye.”

Straw man, the estimate is that it would take less than 20 people “in the know” to have pulled it off and there are testimonies of people who worked in the towers concerning strange noises and construction crews.

“I’m going to focus solely on WTC7”

Not true. You didn’t and don’t.

“with no evidence of a specific explosive used, to a CTer that’s an invitation to imply that any explosive was used.”

More “straw man” creation.

“Because there has been no evidence uncovered of explosives…” “pictures circulated the internet that looked like the metal was cut before it fell, and incendiaries would look similar (however, like any other explosive, these leave chemical traces as well, none have been found)”

Not true. Two samples of the slag studied by a metallurgist/physicist showed characteristic signs of thermate. The color of melted metal pouring from windows of the towers is also characteristic of this incendiary’s result. Other evidence of sulpher deposition is cited of evidence of thermate use. The diagonal cuts at the base of support columns are just as thermate would leave as shown in the video “911 Mysteries.”

“the extreme temperatures of the building are well above what’s needed to render the detonator inert or to set it off outright.”

Look at the evidence of where and how the planes hit, neither of which penetrated the cores as far as I can tell. After the fuel burned off mainly into the atmosphere, small fires were left burning within the towers as evidenced by the reports of firemen who made it to those levels and reported what was needed to extinguish them. In WTC7, we still don't have any estimates of the temperature of the fires as far as I can tell but it is hard to assume they would have been hot enough as well as in proximity of the possible thermate plants.


“In most cases, thermite is ignited by heating magnesium, which acts as a booster explosive without an explosion, which has a much lower ignition temperature but burns hot enough to ignite the thermite mixture. However, magnesium ignites at 473 degrees Celsius (883 F)[37], which is well within the estimated temperatures as well.”

The cores were not subjected to that temperature as far as any available evidence demonstrates. The entire building was not at these temperatures as you allude earlier. As far as WTC7 goes, the fire was not throughout the building and probably not hot enough.

“What you’d see if the explosives could survive the initial shock and fires isn’t the neat CD the CTers claim, but an extremely unpredictable blast pattern or no detonation at all.”

You got me scratching my head. So, falling debris impacting one corner of the WTC7 would cause it to neatly collapse into itself? That makes it the third building, after WTC1 and WTC2 to ever collapse totally from something other than demolition (and nuclear bombs as in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, of course).

People do not want to acknowledge that the current state of human affairs is basically the same anarchic “law of the jungle” that has plagued humanity for all of its existence. It is distasteful to consider that we do not have civilization and that nobody is in control in any functional manner. This may be more predominate amongst those who cater to online forums as trustworthy when their linear and open nature subjects them to control by those who fill up empty space with straw man allusion and ad hominem slur as you have basically done. The fact that no one has responded to you to this time with any cogent criticism appears to underscore this. All it would have taken is perhaps 20 people in the know as has been estimated and then leave it to the barrier of cognitive dissonance to continue the suppression of the evidence by the masses as is evident here.

[Gravy]

Welcome to the forums, Human. Be sure to check out the other subforums: there's a ton of interesting stuff being discussed that's not CT-related.

You made a very poor start here. You know very little about the issues you raised. As for WTC 7, I encourage you to read the paper I posted this week. It will show you how terribly misinformed you are about that subject. http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc
or
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Oh, please explain, in detail, how only 20 people could have been "in the know." Thanks.

eta: And is it really your contention that no buildings have collapsed totally from something other than demolition? Please explain.

[defaultdotxbe]

First of all the use of the cryptic term “CT” to label all of your antagonists is misleading and demonstrative of presupposed bias. Surely the official story is that a small team of terrorists conspired to attack the buildings. If you think there is any thing other than theory than you have forsaken science.
ive often suggested the C shoudl stand for "coverup"

The video “911 Mysteries” goes into length on the strange goings on in the towers before 9/11/01 including the black out of power on the weekend before and the closing down of whole floors for the purpose of “construction” in the weeks before
the powerdown involved half of one tower and was reported by 1 person, who worked as a datacenter technician, and his company ahd a server cluster at the WTC, sicne i hokld a similar job i can assure you there was someone in that office throughout the powerdown procedure

could you please provide a source for "the closing down of whole floors" this si the first ive heard of it

You have not done your research.
perhaps you could provide with testimony of people (plural) who noticed strange things

Straw man, the estimate is that it would take less than 20 people “in the know” to have pulled it off and there are testimonies of people who worked in the towers concerning strange noises and construction crews.
how long would it take 20 people to rig 2 100 story towers and 1 47 story tower with enough explosives to bring them down?

how do you explain the thousands of civil and structural engineers who see nothign wrong with the official story?

Not true. Two samples of the slag studied by a metallurgist/physicist showed characteristic signs of thermate.
who might that be? please note that steven jones is not a metalurgist, and he did not find a "charisteric sign of thermate" he found sulphur, which is present in drywall

The color of melted metal pouring from windows of the towers is also characteristic of this incendiary’s result.
not quite, there are multiple more reasonable explanations, many of which have been discussed here

Other evidence of sulpher deposition is cited of evidence of thermate use.
again, sulphur is not evidence of thermate

The diagonal cuts at the base of support columns are just as thermate would leave as shown in the video “911 Mysteries.”
please enlighten us as to how thermate can cut diagonally and in a perfect straight line (youve obviously never seen the stuff in action)

Look at the evidence of where and how the planes hit, neither of which penetrated the cores as far as I can tell.
on what are you basing this assertation?

After the fuel burned off mainly into the atmosphere, small fires were left burning within the towers as evidenced by the reports of firemen who made it to those levels and reported what was needed to extinguish them.
a single firefighter resported 2 isolated fires on floor 78, the NIST computer models confirm this, the worst fires were 2-3 floors above this

In WTC7, we still don't have any estimates of the temperature of the fires as far as I can tell but it is hard to assume they would have been hot enough as well as in proximity of the possible thermate plants.
who wants to play "Name That Fallacy"

The cores were not subjected to that temperature as far as any available evidence demonstrates.
could you please provide us with this evidence?

You got me scratching my head. So, falling debris impacting one corner of the WTC7 would cause it to neatly collapse into itself?
ever wonder why they dont use explosive demolition methods for damaged buildings?

That makes it the third building, after WTC1 and WTC2 to ever collapse totally from something other than demolition (and nuclear bombs as in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, of course).
wow, even if you would have said "third steel framed building" youd still be incredibly wrong

People do not want to acknowledge that the current state of human affairs is basically the same anarchic “law of the jungle” that has plagued humanity for all of its existence.
anarchic law?

It is distasteful to consider that we do not have civilization and that nobody is in control in any functional manner.
nobody in control = anarchy

All it would have taken is perhaps 20 people in the know as has been estimated and then leave it to the barrier of cognitive dissonance to continue the suppression of the evidence by the masses as is evident here.
please describe what these 20 people would each have to do to rig to the towers, divert/hijack/control the planes, detonate, supress evidence, fool thousands of engineers, and keep everyone else quiet

[Pardalis]

The video “911 Mysteries” goes into length on the strange goings on in the towers before 9/11/01 including the black out of power on the weekend before and the closing down of whole floors for the purpose of “construction” in the weeks before

What about the black out? Do you seriously think "they" could rig up for demolition two of the tallest buildings in the world, and a third during this black out? Was this "black out" in all three buildings by the way?

You have not done your research.

Have you? Show it to me, show me any testimony of anyone saying that they saw anything suspicious about the walls within the WTC before the attacks. Show me.

Straw man, the estimate is that it would take less than 20 people “in the know” to have pulled it off and there are testimonies of people who worked in the towers concerning strange noises and construction crews.

How did you come up with that estimate?

“with no evidence of a specific explosive used, to a CTer that’s an invitation to imply that any explosive was used.”

More “straw man” creation.

How is this a "straw man" fallacy?

Not true. Two samples of the slag studied by a metallurgist/physicist showed characteristic signs of thermate. The color of melted metal pouring from windows of the towers is also characteristic of this incendiary’s result. Other evidence of sulpher deposition is cited of evidence of thermate use. The diagonal cuts at the base of support columns are just as thermate would leave as shown in the video “911 Mysteries.”

This has been debunked many times here. Read Gravy's links.

:words:

So much crap to debunk all at the same time... That's the exact modus operandi of the CTists, to jump from one topic to the next even within the same post... If you want a serious discussion, let's focus on one thing at a time.

People do not want to acknowledge that the current state of human affairs is basically the same anarchic “law of the jungle” that has plagued humanity for all of its existence.

Wow.

It is distasteful to consider that we do not have civilization and that nobody is in control in any functional manner.

What kind of theory would that be?

This may be more predominate amongst those who cater to online forums as trustworthy when their linear and open nature subjects them to control by those who fill up empty space with straw man allusion and ad hominem slur as you have basically done.

:eye-poppi

This is a public forum, you can do whatever you want, nobody is obligated to agree with anyone. That's the beauty of democracy.

The fact that no one has responded to you to this time with any cogent criticism appears to underscore this. All it would have taken is perhaps 20 people in the know as has been estimated and then leave it to the barrier of cognitive dissonance to continue the suppression of the evidence by the masses as is evident here.

:eye-poppi :eye-poppi

If this ever leads to some "frontal lobe" theory, I'm going to freak out.

[R.Mackey]

You have not done your research.
Welcome to the forums.

It might interest you to know that every single argument that you've brought here has been discussed, in depth. On that basis, I can confidently say that we have, in fact, done our research.

If you want to bring us something new, please do. We're always interested in new evidence.

Regarding your complaints about our position, let me tackle a couple:


Straw man, the estimate is that it would take less than 20 people “in the know” to have pulled it off and there are testimonies of people who worked in the towers concerning strange noises and construction crews.
Let's see this estimate. I want to see your theory about how 20 people "pulled [your alternate theory] off." So what is your theory, and how does it total to 20 people?


Not true. Two samples of the slag studied by a metallurgist/physicist showed characteristic signs of thermate. The color of melted metal pouring from windows of the towers is also characteristic of this incendiary’s result. Other evidence of sulpher deposition is cited of evidence of thermate use. The diagonal cuts at the base of support columns are just as thermate would leave as shown in the video “911 Mysteries.”
I assume, regarding the "slag," you're talking about this FEMA report (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf). It shows nothing of the kind, as I answer here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1907756).

Look at the evidence of where and how the planes hit, neither of which penetrated the cores as far as I can tell. After the fuel burned off mainly into the atmosphere, small fires were left burning within the towers as evidenced by the reports of firemen who made it to those levels and reported what was needed to extinguish them.
Small fires, huh. Pictures in the NIST report (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1920411#post1920411), something you surely must have seen since -- unlike us -- you've "done the research," show otherwise.

You got me scratching my head. So, falling debris impacting one corner of the WTC7 would cause it to neatly collapse into itself? That makes it the third building, after WTC1 and WTC2 to ever collapse totally from something other than demolition (and nuclear bombs as in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, of course).
You're scratching your head because -- surprise! -- you haven't done the research. Tell us what's wrong with the current working hypothesis (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf), not your own uneducated guesses.

The fact that no one has responded to you to this time with any cogent criticism appears to underscore this. All it would have taken is perhaps 20 people in the know as has been estimated and then leave it to the barrier of cognitive dissonance to continue the suppression of the evidence by the masses as is evident here.
Cognitive dissonance, huh. You sound familiar (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1909571&highlight=cognitive+dissonance#post1909571)...

So how about you respond to Gravy's paper? You know, like with some facts? So far all you've done is accused us of "not doing the research," while being demonstrably guilty of that yourself.

[twinstead]

Yikes

Of course it would only take 20 people or so. It HAS to have had to even give the CT a chance of being true. Of course the sulfur can only be from thermate, not from the drywall, because it HAS to have been for the conspiracy to take place.

People who start with a predisposed opinion and work backwards trying to find evidence to support it give real investigators a bad name. They have no business investigating where they left their watch last night more less a complex event like 911.

[Pardalis]

Cognitive dissonance, huh. You sound familiar (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1909571&highlight=cognitive+dissonance#post1909571)...


Damn, Mackey, why did you have to bring her up? :(

[R.Mackey]

Damn, Mackey, why did you have to bring her up? :(
I didn't (and don't) pick on her specifically. I've just seen the "cognitive dissonance" thing bandied about quite a bit. Did a search, she came up.

Although you were pretty on-target with the "frontal lobe" catch.

Not only do 9/11 Deniers recycle each others' tired arguments, they even recycle each others' verbiage. It's amazing.

[dirtywick]

Thanks for your interest and criticism.

First of all the use of the cryptic term “CT” to label all of your antagonists is misleading and demonstrative of presupposed bias. Surely the official story is that a small team of terrorists conspired to attack the buildings. If you think there is any thing other than theory than you have forsaken science.

The bias is intentional.

Just to ask, what would be a better term in your opinion?


“Let’s assume that somehow in the months/years beforehand secret demolitions teams were able to infiltrate the towers unseen by both people and cameras and plant explosives.”

The video “911 Mysteries” goes into length on the strange goings on in the towers before 9/11/01 including the black out of power on the weekend before and the closing down of whole floors for the purpose of “construction” in the weeks before

“none of the thousands of people that walked the halls of those buildings every day noticed the wet paint and fresh drywall.”

You have not done your research.

“Let’s assume that whatever shadow organization had the trillions of dollars to pay off the hundreds of thousands of people from a variety of backgrounds and allegiances to turn a blind eye.”

Straw man, the estimate is that it would take less than 20 people “in the know” to have pulled it off and there are testimonies of people who worked in the towers concerning strange noises and construction crews.

The purpose of those statements is to dismiss any of those other, common arguments against WTC7 CD and to shift the focus solely on explosives. Whether or not they're true or even possible isn't relevant; for the purpose of this paper I'm assuming they are true.


“I’m going to focus solely on WTC7”

Not true. You didn’t and don’t.

Yes I did. If you follow to the footnotes, any and all of the data gathered about the conditions of the building, such as temperature and impact, are from sources that focus directly on WTC7.

“with no evidence of a specific explosive used, to a CTer that’s an invitation to imply that any explosive was used.”

More “straw man” creation.

I've seen sites that use calculations on explosives from amatol to thermate. Look for yourself, people have been using many explosives, it's all available through google. Besides, it's not so much of a fact as a lead in into why I'm looking at multiple explosives rather than a specific one.

“Because there has been no evidence uncovered of explosives…” “pictures circulated the internet that looked like the metal was cut before it fell, and incendiaries would look similar (however, like any other explosive, these leave chemical traces as well, none have been found)”

Not true. Two samples of the slag studied by a metallurgist/physicist showed characteristic signs of thermate. The color of melted metal pouring from windows of the towers is also characteristic of this incendiary’s result. Other evidence of sulpher deposition is cited of evidence of thermate use. The diagonal cuts at the base of support columns are just as thermate would leave as shown in the video “911 Mysteries.”

According to the NIST FAQ, which is cited, there is no evidence although they are considering it as a hypothesis.

Of course, if you could site a credible source or two I'll gladly change that to something else which fits the data in any future revisions. Until then, since I have no personal experience in testing the metal found at WTC7, I'm forced to agree with what the NIST and other sources say.


“the extreme temperatures of the building are well above what’s needed to render the detonator inert or to set it off outright.”

Look at the evidence of where and how the planes hit, neither of which penetrated the cores as far as I can tell. After the fuel burned off mainly into the atmosphere, small fires were left burning within the towers as evidenced by the reports of firemen who made it to those levels and reported what was needed to extinguish them. In WTC7, we still don't have any estimates of the temperature of the fires as far as I can tell but it is hard to assume they would have been hot enough as well as in proximity of the possible thermate plants.

“In most cases, thermite is ignited by heating magnesium, which acts as a booster explosive without an explosion, which has a much lower ignition temperature but burns hot enough to ignite the thermite mixture. However, magnesium ignites at 473 degrees Celsius (883 F)[37], which is well within the estimated temperatures as well.”

The cores were not subjected to that temperature as far as any available evidence demonstrates. The entire building was not at these temperatures as you allude earlier. As far as WTC7 goes, the fire was not throughout the building and probably not hot enough.

“What you’d see if the explosives could survive the initial shock and fires isn’t the neat CD the CTers claim, but an extremely unpredictable blast pattern or no detonation at all.”

You got me scratching my head. So, falling debris impacting one corner of the WTC7 would cause it to neatly collapse into itself? That makes it the third building, after WTC1 and WTC2 to ever collapse totally from something other than demolition (and nuclear bombs as in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, of course).

I've cited several estimates of the temperature in WTC7 from different sources. The FEMA report and a CT site doing a bunch of calculations gave estimates, they're in the footnotes. You're more than welcome to follow the links and decide for yourself whether or not it's credible, but again I'm forced to agree with the sources.

It's hard to tell where the thermite plants would be placed and what the temperature near them would have been. Nothing is that specific that I could find. Do you have anything to show any of that? If so, please link it or e-mail it.

What I know from the sources I used is that parts of the building were impacted and at high temperatures, and it appears that it's a significant portion. In no way did I imply that no explosives would have survived anywhere in the building, however due to the properties of the explosives, detonators, and remote detonation systems used, my own conclusion based on this data is it would be unlikely that a large portion of them survived the initial impact, and many of what would have remained would have been damaged by the heat or fire, and that the neat CD CTers like push simply wouldn't be possible.

Come to think of it, I didn't even imply that explosives weren't in the building! Of course, that's what I believe, but still.


People do not want to acknowledge that the current state of human affairs is basically the same anarchic “law of the jungle” that has plagued humanity for all of its existence. It is distasteful to consider that we do not have civilization and that nobody is in control in any functional manner. This may be more predominate amongst those who cater to online forums as trustworthy when their linear and open nature subjects them to control by those who fill up empty space with straw man allusion and ad hominem slur as you have basically done. The fact that no one has responded to you to this time with any cogent criticism appears to underscore this. All it would have taken is perhaps 20 people in the know as has been estimated and then leave it to the barrier of cognitive dissonance to continue the suppression of the evidence by the masses as is evident here.

I've gotten criticism already through e-mail and elsewhere. I cannot control what other people do, and I'm glad you took the time to criticize it yourself. It seems you are your own hope and the counter to what you find distasteful. Good for you.

Of course it remains that I feel the information in the paper is as correct as it can be given the data we know, and with you not providing a single link or source to your counters, I don't have much of a reason to change my mind. Thanks for your time though, I'll take what you said and look for improvements that can be made in the future.

[Pardalis]

Not only do 9/11 Deniers recycle each others' tired arguments, they even recycle each others' verbiage. It's amazing.

Yeah, and I find it particularly insulting when they try to attribute logical fallacies on us. It's like a mental patient trying to diagnose his therapist.

[Crungy]

The video “911 Mysteries” goes into length on the strange goings on in the towers before 9/11/01 including the black out of power on the weekend before and the closing down of whole floors for the purpose of “construction” in the weeks before
nt here.

More idiocy exploiting the intellectual shortcomings of the quarter pounders (bad SP pun) of the population.

As I mentioned on another thread, I work in the design industry going on 13 years. I also work in a 47 story high rise. It is very common for a building to have 'construction' occuring on a floor at any given time. This is even more so in an older building such as the former WTC towers. Aesthics change and the technology in the building infrastructure quickly becomes out of date. You'd be surprised at how fast the appeal of a trophy building, such as the Sears Tower, or the John Hanncock fades. Tenants are always moving in and out of buildings. The lease is up, the company has grown or shrank, the current digs no longer meet their requirements. That, or simpley the company is looking for cheaper real estate.

Looking back at the 5 years I've spent in my current company. I orginally started on the 41st floor, where my company had half the floor. We then acquired the entire 38th floor, redesigned it, 'construction' did their dirty work, and we moved in. While I was on the 41st floor, the law company moved out and another company moved in, but not before 'construction' (accompanied by spooky theremin music) did their evil deed. While we move out of 41, more 'construction' followed in our wake. About a year after we moved into 38, we started to hear loud 'construction' on the floor below! It was the French consulate getting ready to move in. Also, each month the ride up and down the elevator reveals more 'construction' occuring on various floors. The horror! The horror!

To summarize, you're less likely to find a building without construction occuring in an urban high rise then you are with the jackhammers batterin'. But it'll still be a good half dozen years before the quarter pounders get out of high school and into an office building, where they'll be able to discover it for themselves.

[LashL]

This is nothing short of the utter destruction of the CD theory. There's just no answer to it other than saying "you're a government shill!" He didn't even misuse plurals.

Nominated.

Great work, dirtywick!

And, hey, for the record, jhunter, all of those misused plurals of which you speak have been corrected :D

[uruk]

Here's an interesting video decribing the causes for the WTC collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfe0Hbgq1HY&NR

[Mancman]

Look at the evidence of where and how the planes hit, neither of which penetrated the cores as far as I can tell. After the fuel burned off mainly into the atmosphere, small fires were left burning within the towers as evidenced by the reports of firemen who made it to those levels and reported what was needed to extinguish them.

They did penetrate the cores. Plane fragments went straight through it, embedding themselves in perimeter columns on the other side. In WTC1 a landing gear went straight through the core and out of the other side of the building:

http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-2d/7-70_tire-embedded-wtc1-panel.jpg

The NIST computer simulations found that 30% of the jet fuel was burned in the initial impact of Flight 11, and 30-40% in the impact of Flight 175. Not 'mainly'.

Oh yeah, the fires were small, sure. Tiny. Barely noticeable.
http://i7.tinypic.com/21mzp1e.jpghttp://i10.tinypic.com/4h0mkug.jpg

[Gravy]

Yes, nice, cool fires. Jeebus.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452f5ca811682.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452f5f4d0bc3a.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452f5f4d40f9f.jpg

[GlennB]

Excellent article dirtywick.

As some have said, most CT'ists out there will close their minds as soon as they get the gist of your writing. Some, however, have been swayed by the pseudo-science of CT and may be open to correction. Your article could be the one to do the trick :)

[defaultdotxbe]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452f5f4d0bc3a.jpg


OMGORZ THERMITE!!!11!!one!! :p

interesting thing to look at on that picture is where the large fires are in relation to the 78th floor

[jhunter1163]

Lash:

Glad the plurals are fixed. I hate grammatical untidiness.

[Bell]

The video here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546) very clearly shows the buckling of the outside coulms of the south tower. You can see the outside columns bending to the inside of the building all at the same time, and then the top comes down.

[twinstead]

The video here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546) very clearly shows the buckling of the outside coulms of the south tower. You can see the outside columns bending to the inside of the building all at the same time, and then the top comes down.

Wow. That video is as good a refutation of CD as you can get. And, you can even hear the rumble as the tower falls. If there had been explosions preceeding the collapse that camera would have heard them easily.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Actually thermite has a weakness, the particles can be accelerated by sound waves where the aluminum Oxide structure shielding the aluminum breaks. I can not get it to survive impacts like the one in the towers.
It is also venerable to sonochemical reactions, as the Oxide is a crystalline substance. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9802/Vives/

I have not at this time been able to test super themates, alto ugh they do seem to be more stable, they have a thicker Aluminum oxide coating, you however have to increase the number of particles, because you have more aluminum oxide and less aluminum in the mix the more you reduce the size of the particles.

I can not see anything surviving the impact of the planes, and the fires, especially when bolted on natural sound conduits.
Hollow steel beams.

[dirtywick]

Actually thermite has a weakness, the particles can be accelerated by sound waves where the aluminum Oxide structure shielding the aluminum breaks. I can not get it to survive impacts like the one in the towers.
It is also venerable to sonochemical reactions, as the Oxide is a crystalline substance. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9802/Vives/

I have not at this time been able to test super themates, alto ugh they do seem to be more stable, they have a thicker Aluminum oxide coating, you however have to increase the number of particles, because you have more aluminum oxide and less aluminum in the mix the more you reduce the size of the particles.

I can not see anything surviving the impact of the planes, and the fires, especially when bolted on natural sound conduits.
Hollow steel beams.

Good find!

ETA: Near the bottom of the paper it says electromagnetism has a similar and more uniform effect. The towers were all teeming with electrical wires, probably many has high as 220V for certain appliances. I'm not sure what magnitude of voltage you'd need to get a high enough radiant electromagnetism to produe any effect, however basic electric lines in your house do produce small electromagnetic fields through the insulation, but it is enough to interfere with phone lines or internet cables if they're nearby.

I'll have to look into this more, it seems to have a pretty big impact on the thermite theory.

[defaultdotxbe]

Good find!

ETA: Near the bottom of the paper it says electromagnetism has a similar and more uniform effect. The towers were all teeming with electrical wires, probably many has high as 220V for certain appliances. I'm not sure what magnitude of voltage you'd need to get a high enough radiant electromagnetism to produe any effect, however basic electric lines in your house do produce small electromagnetic fields through the insulation, but it is enough to interfere with phone lines or internet cables if they're nearby.

I'll have to look into this more, it seems to have a pretty big impact on the thermite theory.
the WTC had it own power grid, not only would it have 220-240v lines throughout the building, but high-voltage transformers and other power distribution equipment that woul dproduce an even larger field

[dirtywick]

the WTC had it own power grid, not only would it have 220-240v lines throughout the building, but high-voltage transformers and other power distribution equipment that woul dproduce an even larger field

I bet that stuff is so heavy it would have to be in the basement or lower levels, where the majority of the CTers presume the demolition took place.

I'm assuming that it had at least one cafetria type eatery, probably more. Although the ovens are probably gas, the flat grills might have been electric, and there's probably walk-in freezers. I wonder what the voltage is for equipment like that? In your house it's 220V usually for your fridge and electric stove, but something that big makes me wonder if it's more? That could turn out to be a pretty substantial EM field.

[Gravy]

I'm going to go on record and say I think you're well along the road to "CD Impossible," but have at it, fellows! Just be sure to leave a trail of breadcrumbs so you can find your way back.... :D

[HeyLeroy]

I miss dirtywick.

This was so excellent; I just linked to it responding to a guy who claims explosives were planted at the points of impact.

[Belz...]

Very good analysis, though I'd drop the mention of "common sense", myself. That thing's just useless when trying to understand anything properly.

[Belz...]

First of all the use of the cryptic term “CT” to label all of your antagonists is misleading and demonstrative of presupposed bias.

That's because none of the CT crowd has ever managed to prove anything, save their own delusions.

“Let’s assume that somehow in the months/years beforehand secret demolitions teams were able to infiltrate the towers unseen by both people and cameras and plant explosives.”

The video “911 Mysteries” goes into length on the strange goings on in the towers before 9/11/01 including the black out of power on the weekend before and the closing down of whole floors for the purpose of “construction” in the weeks before

It would take months to rig such a building with explosives, assuming full access and an emptied-out building. How exactly would they do it while people worked ?

Straw man, the estimate is that it would take less than 20 people “in the know” to have pulled it off and there are testimonies of people who worked in the towers concerning strange noises and construction crews.

20 people ? 20 people including the conspirators, the demolition crews, the investigators, FEMA, NIST, etc. etc. ? All of 20 people ?

Not true. Two samples of the slag studied by a metallurgist/physicist showed characteristic signs of thermate. The color of melted metal pouring from windows of the towers is also characteristic of this incendiary’s result.

And the fact that the facade was made of aluminum doesn't strike you as also important ?

Other evidence of sulpher deposition is cited of evidence of thermate use. The diagonal cuts at the base of support columns are just as thermate would leave as shown in the video “911 Mysteries.”

Thermate burns down, son.

“the extreme temperatures of the building are well above what’s needed to render the detonator inert or to set it off outright.”

Look at the evidence of where and how the planes hit, neither of which penetrated the cores as far as I can tell.

Focus. We're talking about 7 WTC.

After the fuel burned off mainly into the atmosphere, small fires were left burning within the towers as evidenced by the reports of firemen who made it to those levels and reported what was needed to extinguish them.

You have not done your research. That floor was one storey below where the largest fires were burning.

The cores were not subjected to that temperature as far as any available evidence demonstrates.

Irrelevant, since we can see that it is the perimeter columns that failed.

The entire building was not at these temperatures as you allude earlier. As far as WTC7 goes, the fire was not throughout the building and probably not hot enough.

"Probably" ?

You got me scratching my head. So, falling debris impacting one corner of the WTC7 would cause it to neatly collapse into itself?

Who's using strawmen, now ?

That makes it the third building, after WTC1 and WTC2 to ever collapse totally from something other than demolition (and nuclear bombs as in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, of course).

Really ? No building, EVER, has collapsed without a controlled demolition or a nuke ? EVER ?

People do not want to acknowledge that the current state of human affairs is basically the same anarchic “law of the jungle” that has plagued humanity for all of its existence.

Meaningless rhetoric. Provide evidence, not politics.

[Belz...]

Woah. Didn't notice how old this thread was.

[mailman]

I wonder how many hard core 9/11 cult members, like human, have come here...made one post then run off back to where ever they came from to their friends never to appear here again! :D

Mailman

[HeyLeroy]

Bump.

Homeland Insurgency appears to be trotting out the old "hidden explosives" gem again; this might help him figure out what type of explosive could've been used in the hushabombs.

[George152]

I didn't (and don't) pick on her specifically. I've just seen the "cognitive dissonance" thing bandied about quite a bit. Did a search, she came up.

Although you were pretty on-target with the "frontal lobe" catch.

Not only do 9/11 Deniers recycle each others' tired arguments, they even recycle each others' verbiage. It's amazing.

Not -really- amazing
You have gotten to the source of the 'new' 911 deniers. They are the same old same old, very few of them and they post under many 'new posters'
(Hi, I'm new here) is pretty much an admission

[R.Mackey]

You'll note that post was made almost three years ago. ;)