IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Thermobaric Material Used????

bobcat46
post Feb 14 2010, 12:53 PM
Post #1





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 27-December 06
From: Hobe Sound, FL
Member No.: 382



Look at this picture:



Physics just doesn't account for all the energy required to collapse the building while turning each story into dust while falling, plus the upward momentum and outward momentum of the debris, making it look like a fountain. I believe that a newly developed thermobaric explosive developed by the DoD prior to 9/11 (and put into offical use in a weapon on 21 Dec 2001) was used by having insensitive polymer bonded explosives planted in the core section of each floor. They would have been very small packages of the explosive and easily placed during the work on the towers over the months previous to 9/11. Since this material is "insensitive" it was very safe to use and would not explode by shock, normal fire, or other normal influences.

Thermobaric Explosives


The explosives in the WTC towers were controlled from a control center in WTC-7. Then, after that was sucessful, the control center (WTC-7) had to be destroyed to destroy the evidence. As far as WTC 7 goes, more conventional explosives were used for it's demolition.

This post has been edited by bobcat46: Feb 14 2010, 12:56 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Feb 14 2010, 01:09 PM
Post #2





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



Were Thermobaric Weapons used at the WTC Towers on 9/11

I believed they used thermobaric weapons that were loaded into the elevators and were exploded inside of the elevator shafts, to blow the building apart from the inside - out.

It would certainly cut down on the need to 'wire' the entire building. Even though I do believe cutter charges were used to control the sequence and timing, to get the building to fall down the way they wanted it to.

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Feb 14 2010, 01:10 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bobcat46
post Feb 14 2010, 03:13 PM
Post #3





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 27-December 06
From: Hobe Sound, FL
Member No.: 382



DoYouEverWonder:

Do you think if they placed a smaller charge on every floor, it would generate enough heat to melt the beams or at least weaken them enough to cause collapse? They wouldn't even have to "wire" the building....just place the packages in the core at the elevator shafts and detonate from the control center in WTC-7.

BTW, that is an excellent picture you have on your site of the Pentagon taken before collapse of the building. Best I have seen yet.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 14 2010, 04:52 PM
Post #4





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



You don't have to melt beams, to make a building collapse. All the structural steel is bolted and some of it is welded. If you can attack the bolts so that the connections are weakened the joints will fail and if you do this to enough of the connections the building will begin to fall apart.

Columns are sitting atop one another and held together by splice plate and beams and girders which support them laterally. You don't have to blow the entire building apart, you can dismantle enough of the beam and girder connections and apply a relatively small force to the column and it goes "out of column" and it no longer transfers the loads from above to the column below it and the top crashes down.

The joints can be destroyed with heat and explosives and in the case of the twins you only have to destroy the girder and beam connections to the 24 columns of the perimeter of the core and this will completely destroy the structural integrity of the entire building.

Once those beams are no longer connected to 24 columns the floor system has no support on the inside at the core. This would lead to a kind of implosion very much like the explanation PBS tried to describe. But fire would not cause that type of failure. It's more likely that there were some explosive at those perimeter core columns which created a shock wave in the slabs as well as dislodging them from the beams and girder connection to the core columns. This had the effect of pulverizing the slabs as well as pushing out against the perimeter columns.

The perimeter columns made up a large membrane "mesh" of steel. It was severed at several places so the slabs were able to push large sections of the perimeter over. Some of them sprung free as their connections were over stressed, but most of the perimeter fell over and broke apart as a truss radio tower would if the guy wires were severed. It would not fall over like a flag pole... it would break apart on the way down and gravity would take over.

The actual corners of the twins had to be separated from the facades. If they were not destroyed the corners and some of the facade connected to them would have remained standing as they would have been self supporting like huge right angles. Once the corner were "unzipped" from the facades they were connect to, those facades fell away like the center portion of the facade.

The central core was destroyed in the twins using conventional techniques by cutter charges and explosive in the lower section of the building so that the core columns went out of column and came crashing down... all hidden by the progressive explosions releasing the floors.

There was a main explosive event as the tops were set free by the first bit of explosives starting the destruction which was intended to appear... and it did appear as a top down collapse. The nano thermites and thermites were probably planted at the level of the plane crashes.

break more to follow...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Feb 14 2010, 06:13 PM
Post #5





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



Here's my version - Ditto most of what SanderO posted. I do think that key places in the buildings were set with timed explosives to cause them to fail in a certain sequence.

However, there was one major feature that was the most important to the structural integrity of the building and that was the hat trusses, which held the buildings together at the top. The buildings could stand with them, but if there was any stress put on the Towers, like high winds, they would easily fail with out them. I think the perps took advantage of this feature. That's why we see the antenna and the top floors of WTC 1 compress before anything else starts to move. Once the hat trusses are set in motion, then I would turn the elevator shafts into fuel/air bombs and use the force to push out on the core columns. The outer curtain walls were not welded, only bolted. Break the rest of the building at the mechanical floors, which is where the columns were set at the same height, instead of staggered and this building has nowhere to go but down.

It would be easy to deliver fuel/air bombs on the day of the attack. A few converted vans would probably do the trick. Drive them onto the freight elevators and you could put them on any floor you wanted and you can wait until right before the attack to do the dirty.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 14 2010, 08:37 PM
Post #6





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



The hat trusses were important to tie the core to the perimeter system at least at the top and over course to support the roof loads which were higher than typical floor loads. I don't think breaking the hat truss apart was key to destroying the building, but it certainly helped with wind loads and probably had some very strong connections to the perimeter, much more so than the typical floors.

The twins were not curtain wall construction. The perimeter was a dense structural grid of stacked Vierendeel trusses, made in 3 story staggered sections. The entire facade was like a dense load bearing membrane - 4 of them with diagonal corners all together made a rigid square tube.

The core was constructed like a typical steel frame stick built structure. The core and the perimeter systems were linked by transfer girders at the corners of the core and the floor slabs which were horizontal membranes of a square donut shape.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Feb 14 2010, 11:00 PM
Post #7





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE
The twins were not curtain wall construction. The perimeter was a dense structural grid of stacked Vierendeel trusses, made in 3 story staggered sections. The entire facade was like a dense load bearing membrane - 4 of them with diagonal corners all together made a rigid square tube.


Yes they were. The difference was that until they built the WTC, curtain walls had been non-load bearing. The WTC was the first time a load bearing curtain wall was used.

Most of the curtain or perimeter walls (if you prefer) were made up of prefabbed triple columns, that were staggered except for the mechanical floors.



However, as you can see in this picture all of the columns are set at the same height for this particular floor. The floors above go back to the staggered pattern. They did this to the mechanical floors because those floors had beams instead of trusses, but this seam around the building was considered a weakness in the design. One that was obviously exploited on 9/11.




Maybe that's why we see evidence of explosives going off across the mechanical floors under the impact zone when the collapse begins?

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Feb 14 2010, 11:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Feb 15 2010, 03:35 AM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Perhaps the airplanes had thermobaric material in them, too. One thing i noticed is that thermobaric explosions are very dramatic. There also seemed to be 2 different colours of smoke coming from the buildings after the fireballs, black and light gray.
i figured, the smoke was a necessary screen,
to hide the possibly obvious, initiation of the demolition sequence.

The theory of thermobarics is to disperse a flammable substance into the air, then ignite it. This can also be done with two chemicals dispersed, that react together in an explosion, once they mix as gasses, to a certain concentration.

Thermobarics is possibly the closest a chemical reaction, in explosive force, can get to a nuclear explosion.

...but it wouldn't cause elevated levels of tritium, in the ground water,
under the WTC.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bobcat46
post Feb 15 2010, 11:51 AM
Post #9





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 27-December 06
From: Hobe Sound, FL
Member No.: 382



QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Feb 13 2010, 02:00 AM) *
Yes they were. The difference was that until they built the WTC, curtain walls had been non-load bearing. The WTC was the first time a load bearing curtain wall was used.

Most of the curtain or perimeter walls (if you prefer) were made up of prefabbed triple columns, that were staggered except for the mechanical floors.



However, as you can see in this picture all of the columns are set at the same height for this particular floor. The floors above go back to the staggered pattern. They did this to the mechanical floors because those floors had beams instead of trusses, but this seam around the building was considered a weakness in the design. One that was obviously exploited on 9/11.




Maybe that's why we see evidence of explosives going off across the mechanical floors under the impact zone when the collapse begins?




Well, one thing for sure looking at that photograph. Gravity forces alone could in no way cause all that debris to be ejected horizontally like that. Besides, it just looks like an explosion, not just a collapse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Feb 15 2010, 11:58 AM
Post #10





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



Check out this news clip have not seen this one before lots of talk of explosions
and whether there explosive devices that caused the collapse the news reporters
are speculating that a third explosion caused the first tower to collapse dont know
about thermobaric bombs bringing down the wtc though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NTD1wviAMo...feature=related

9/11: WCBS-TV News excerpts #1
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Feb 15 2010, 09:47 PM
Post #11





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (lunk @ Feb 15 2010, 02:35 AM) *
Perhaps the airplanes had thermobaric material in them, too. One thing i noticed is that thermobaric explosions are very dramatic. There also seemed to be 2 different colours of smoke coming from the buildings after the fireballs, black and light gray.
i figured, the smoke was a necessary screen,
to hide the possibly obvious, initiation of the demolition sequence.

The theory of thermobarics is to disperse a flammable substance into the air, then ignite it. This can also be done with two chemicals dispersed, that react together in an explosion, once they mix as gasses, to a certain concentration.

Thermobarics is possibly the closest a chemical reaction, in explosive force, can get to a nuclear explosion.

...but it wouldn't cause elevated levels of tritium, in the ground water,
under the WTC.

All they needed were a two of those Boeing tankers Dov Zahkeim had bought for the DOD a few years prior and load them with fuel instead of passengers. Rummie wanted to shock and awe and he liked fuel/air weapons.

------
However, in regards to the sublevels. I think they needed something else for that. I don't think a thermobaric weapon would be enough to do the job and maybe that's where the higher levels of tritium are coming from and those big hot spots that persisted until into December?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Feb 16 2010, 01:42 AM
Post #12





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



How many places where found to have elevated levels of tritium?
Because i heard that the water samples where taken from wtc 5
or 6 and had like 20X 55X levels of what is considered normal
levels of tritium which is a product of nuclear fission fusion
so maybe they used a small nuclear based weapon on some
of the wtc buildings like a bomb or a small missile.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Feb 16 2010, 06:17 AM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Paul @ Feb 15 2010, 09:42 PM) *
How many places where found to have elevated levels of tritium?
Because i heard that the water samples where taken from wtc 5
or 6 and had like 20X 55X levels of what is considered normal
levels of tritium which is a product of nuclear fission fusion
so maybe they used a small nuclear based weapon on some
of the wtc buildings like a bomb or a small missile.


I recall, there was talk in the news about suitcase nukes, just before 9/11/2001.
Then after 9/11, silence, as if that news story never existed.
(like a fallback explanation, if the one about airplanes, bringing down buildings, didn't fly)

Then there are the melted guns from the police museum, in building 6, that were caused by "concrete so hot that it poured like molten lava."
i don't think you can even do that with thermite!



Debris-less round hole in roof of building 6, going down to the ground.
(there would be debris inside this hole, if it was caused by falling pieces of tower.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EdWardMD
post Apr 21 2010, 08:16 PM
Post #14





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 12-April 10
Member No.: 5,010



QUOTE (bobcat46 @ Feb 14 2010, 11:53 AM) *
Look at this picture:



Physics just doesn't account for all the energy required to collapse the building while turning each story into dust while falling, plus the upward momentum and outward momentum of the debris, making it look like a fountain. I believe that a newly developed thermobaric explosive developed by the DoD prior to 9/11 (and put into offical use in a weapon on 21 Dec 2001) was used by having insensitive polymer bonded explosives planted in the core section of each floor. They would have been very small packages of the explosive and easily placed during the work on the towers over the months previous to 9/11. Since this material is "insensitive" it was very safe to use and would not explode by shock, normal fire, or other normal influences.

Thermobaric Explosives


The explosives in the WTC towers were controlled from a control center in WTC-7. Then, after that was sucessful, the control center (WTC-7) had to be destroyed to destroy the evidence. As far as WTC 7 goes, more conventional explosives were used for it's demolition.


1. thermobaric explosives will not give a high enough temperature to give the wtc results.
2. all thermobaric explosives require 'open air' detonation to work. - just more woodhead's covert op BS.
3. we are talking tons of mixture vs a grapefruit sized micro nuke.
4. nothing fits like a micro nuke. their existence is proven and all wtc evidence fits and is classic textbook evidence of a nuke.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 2nd July 2020 - 03:11 PM