Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition

Brown Bomber · 29-08-2012 11:11pm

enno99 wrote: »

LOL you reading my mind or my bookmarks

Yeah, sorry, joined (alcoholics) anonymous they thought me all the hacking skillz. I see all.

Brown Bomber · 29-08-2012 11:13pm

Sixtus wrote: »

Is patiently absurd.

My old man always said if your gonna be absurd be patient.

iguana · 30-08-2012 12:16am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My old man always said if your gonna be absurd be patient.

My old man said that empty vessels make the most noise.

If you are incapable of addressing the actual merits of the opposition arguments and be reduced to pedantry, well bless.

Perhaps you could discuss the fact that the supporting columns of the WTC were external columns making the idea that demolition charges could be placed internally on external columns I would entertain your position. Or the idea that wireless demolition charges could be effectively placed in the midst of building that acted as telecommunications hub of one the biggest cities in the world, without interference

In short your rebuttal lacks merit, dignity, or content. Unless you have anything of substance to contribute to the discussion I would suggestion you walk away with whatever semblance of dignity you think your argument deserves.

Brown Bomber · 30-08-2012 1:25am

iguana wrote: »

My old man said that empty vessels make the most noise.

He was a little hard on you so.

iguana wrote: »

Perhaps you could discuss the fact that the supporting columns of the WTC were external columns making the idea that demolition charges could be placed internally on external columns I would entertain your position.

My position???

Anyway, nothing to discuss. The main support was provided by the many, massive columns around the elevator shafts not from the perimeter so it's a moot point.

iguana wrote: »

Or the idea that wireless demolition charges could be effectively placed in the midst of building that acted as telecommunications hub of one the biggest cities in the world, without interference

I have no response to that. I never mentioned anything about "wireless demolition charges".

iguana wrote: »

In short your rebuttal lacks merit, dignity, or content. Unless you have anything of substance to contribute to the discussion I would suggestion you walk away with whatever semblance of dignity you think your argument deserves.

Thanks for sparing me the long version

King Mob · 30-08-2012 1:30am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Insensitive Munitions (IM)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/im.htm

And here we reach the roundabout of logic you need to sustain a belief in the conspiracy.

You are presupposing that they are using explosives not typical of a demolition.
But you know it's a demolition because "it looks like a typical demolition."

And then even if we assume these explosives were used we still run into the other problems Penn mentioned and have yet to be addressed.

Brown Bomber · 30-08-2012 1:47am

King Mob wrote: »

And here we reach the roundabout of logic you need to sustain a belief in the conspiracy.

You are presupposing that they are using explosives not typical of a demolition. .

No. You've pulled that out of your hat. I am stating that it is possible that these explosives were used which would explain their lack of reaction to the fires/impact.

King Mob wrote: »

But you know it's a demolition because "it looks like a typical demolition."

I don't "know" it's a demolition. Again you've pulled that out of your hat, must've been no room left for your head before.

King Mob wrote: »

And then even if we assume these explosives were used we still run into the other problems Penn mentioned and have yet to be addressed.

Such as? My understanding was that all his points hinged on the fact that any explosives would surely react to the fires and/or impact.

King Mob · 30-08-2012 1:55am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. You've pulled that out of your hat. I am stating that it is possible that these explosives were used which would explain their lack of reaction to the fires/impact.

And it's "possible" that it was a nuclear explosive....

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't "know" it's a demolition. Again you've pulled that out of your hat, must've been no room left for your head before.

So why are explosives coming up at all?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Such as? My understanding was that all his points hinged on the fact that any explosives would surely react to the fires and/or impact.

The impact causing the means of detention to stop working.
The impact and fires could have simply destroyed or damaged the wires leaving the conspirators with a intact building littered with unexploded charges which would prove a conspiracy.
Similarly this new non reactant explosive could be safe and not be set off by fire, but then once exposed or damaged does not go off at all.
It makes no sense to risk that when they could just fly a plane into the building.

Brown Bomber · 30-08-2012 2:09am

King Mob wrote: »

The impact causing the means of detention to stop working.

They are designed to not be effected by impacts.

King Mob wrote: »

The impact and fires could have simply destroyed or damaged the wires leaving the conspirators with a intact building littered with unexploded charges which would prove a conspiracy.

Which could be blamed on Al Qaeda.

King Mob wrote: »

Similarly this new non reactant explosive could be safe and not be set off by fire, but then once exposed or damaged does not go off at all.
It makes no sense to risk that when they could just fly a plane into the building.

A plane was flown into the building.

King Mob · 30-08-2012 2:18am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

They are designed to not be effected by impacts.

The explosives might be, but the detonators and the wires connecting them wouldn't be.
And the site you link to only states that the explosives are designed not to go off after impacts or fire, there's nothing about them being viable after that.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Which could be blamed on Al Qaeda.

But it's not possible for them to have been able to sneak in the explosives despite being able to control the security apparently. How would Al Qaeda have been able to?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

A plane was flown into the building.

So they why were explosives needed.

The only reason they are presupposed to exist is because some sellers of conspiracy theories needed something convincing and dramatic sounding.
But the idea of them actually being there does not make any sense.

Penn · 30-08-2012 7:44am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Such as? My understanding was that all his points hinged on the fact that any explosives would surely react to the fires and/or impact.

Not all of my points hinged on that. It was simply one point.

Other points include:
How and when were these explosives and detonators installed?
How many people would have been involved in opening up the building fabric, cutting steel, planting explosives, covering it back up, making the room/office look like nothing happened? That's a lot of people who would have been involved?
What if someone had found the explosives like a maintenance man or contractor, or were they in on it too?
Preparation works for demolition normally involve cutting steel members partially. If they were going to do that, the impact from a plane would have done the rest without the need for explosives at all.
And most importantly, why use explosives at all when you knew you were going to be flying planes at full force into the buildings? It's a huge risk because there are a huge number of things which could easily go wrong? Why was the impact of the plane itself deemed to be insufficient?

Penn · 30-08-2012 7:56am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Insensitive Munitions (IM)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/im.htm

But surely that's all based on the fact that the explosives are housed in some form of munitions casing? I know some types of explosives are less volatile and sensitive than others, but it's the housing of the explosives that would make the biggest difference (unless I'm reading that wrong).

In which case, you not only have to plant explosives, there's also then more work involved in shielding the explosives or housing them in a non-standard munitions casing which would have the same effect as a munitions casing but also allow for wireless detonation.

Brown Bomber · 30-08-2012 3:45pm

Penn wrote: »

Not all of my points hinged on that. It was simply one point.

Other points include:
How and when were these explosives and detonators installed?
How many people would have been involved in opening up the building fabric, cutting steel, planting explosives, covering it back up, making the room/office look like nothing happened? That's a lot of people who would have been involved?
What if someone had found the explosives like a maintenance man or contractor, or were they in on it too?
Preparation works for demolition normally involve cutting steel members partially. If they were going to do that, the impact from a plane would have done the rest without the need for explosives at all.
And most importantly, why use explosives at all when you knew you were going to be flying planes at full force into the buildings? It's a huge risk because there are a huge number of things which could easily go wrong? Why was the impact of the plane itself deemed to be insufficient?

This should answer some of your questions. It's the WTC Chief Electrical Design Engineer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJy7lhVK2xE

asherbassad · 04-09-2012 6:47pm

Penn wrote: »

Three weekends is not long enough to wire up a building and plant explosives for demolition purposes, and that's without taking into account that the explosives would have to be hidden. I remember watching a doc years ago where it took a month to set explosives in a building half that size, and that was without having to conceal them, and there were wires all over the place. I also worked in a quarry for a short while and one day had to help set explosives for a rock blast, which took a day and wasn't nearly as complex as doing it in a building.

Then add to that the fact that once the planes hit and the fire started, the explosives would have been set off instantly.

As for wireless detonators, I'm not sure that would have been advisable to use with the amount of cellular devices in New York City, and even in those buildings. They could have accidentally set off the explosives early which would have been disastrous. I'm pretty sure the time I helped with explosives we had to turn all phones off, even though it was a wired detonation, though it was a few years ago now and I can't really remember.

Real demolition experts counter your claims.

seannash · 04-09-2012 6:55pm

asherbassad wrote: »

Real demolition experts counter your claims.

Real demolition experts counter your claims

AngryHippie · 04-09-2012 9:30pm

They had since 1993 to put something in place, after the first wtc bombing.
is 8 years enough ?

seannash · 04-09-2012 9:32pm

AngryHippie wrote: »

They had since 1993 to put something in place, after the first wtc bombing.
is 8 years enough ?

Who did

AngryHippie · 04-09-2012 9:36pm

are we not on CT ? ...

Them of course

seannash · 04-09-2012 9:39pm

AngryHippie wrote: »

are we not on CT ? ...

Them of course

Yeah but which side are you on.
its either the goverment had 8 years to plan it or Al Quaeda had 8 years?

AngryHippie · 04-09-2012 9:46pm

Neither I'm pretty sure.

I think if anything it would have been a small radical group, highly invested in Blackwater, Halliburton, weapons manufacture and oil supply.
With access to the wtc, that group would include :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Tower and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_Two_World_Trade_Center

Some of these players were taking a bath at the time in the stock markets and it would have suited them down to the ground. ( no pun)

I believe there are too many inconsistencies between the official documented causes and the actual events as witnessed on the day for it to be exactly as stated. Too much has happened because of this tragedy for it to be entirely accidental. Almost as if it suited certain groups involved to spend billions arming up and going to war.

seannash · 04-09-2012 9:51pm

AngryHippie wrote: »

Neither I'm pretty sure.

I think if anything it would have been a small radical group, highly invested in Blackwater, Halliburton, weapons manufacture and oil supply.
With access to the wtc, that group would include :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Tower and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_Two_World_Trade_Center

Some of these players were taking a bath at the time in the stock markets and it would have suited them down to the ground. ( no pun)

I believe there are too many inconsistencies between the official documented causes and the actual events as witnessed on the day for it to be exactly as stated. Too much has happened because of this tragedy for it to be entirely accidental. Almost as if it suited certain groups involved to spend billions arming up and going to war.

You do realise were gonna ask for proof,Unless your happy to have it just as a theory

AngryHippie · 04-09-2012 9:55pm

as long as you don't change it to the conspiracy proof forum, I think I will leave it as it is.
Just following the money trail. thats all

seannash · 04-09-2012 9:57pm

AngryHippie wrote: »

as long as you don't change it to the conspiracy proof forum, I think I will leave it as it is.
Just following the money trail. thats all

Cool,thats fair enough
Some people might call on you to provide evidence on that theory though.

AngryHippie · 04-09-2012 10:01pm

thats the beauty of it, most of the evidence went up in a fireball or was scattered across Manhattan.
That is another one of the reasons it is a very elegant solution to the mystery

seannash · 04-09-2012 10:05pm

AngryHippie wrote: »

thats the beauty of it, most of the evidence went up in a fireball or was scattered across Manhattan.
That is another one of the reasons it is a very elegant solution to the mystery

Okay I know I said I wouldnt but do you believe it was explosives or that they fell due to the planes hitting them and the resulting fire

AngryHippie · 04-09-2012 11:29pm

I think they would have fallen after the plane impact either way, but looking at the nature of the collapse, I think it was essentially and extraordinary controlled demolition, that somehow before the event the towers had been prepped with demolition charges for such an event. (not that wild a claim as they had been targeted before). A controlled demolition would limit further damage to downtown Manhattan.

seannash · 05-09-2012 12:27am

AngryHippie wrote: »

I think they would have fallen after the plane impact either way, but looking at the nature of the collapse, I think it was essentially and extraordinary controlled demolition, that somehow before the event the towers had been prepped with demolition charges for such an event. (not that wild a claim as they had been targeted before). A controlled demolition would limit further damage to downtown Manhattan.

Please dont take this as a flippant disregard for your opinion but there are a good few threads on the explosives theory on here which(I think)prove that explosives werent used.

I dont think you want to get into a debate about it(Think I'm reading you correctly abot that one)so you can have a look at them in your own time as they will basically give the side of the story I believe

asherbassad · 05-09-2012 1:07pm

AngryHippie wrote: »

thats the beauty of it, most of the evidence went up in a fireball or was scattered across Manhattan.
That is another one of the reasons it is a very elegant solution to the mystery

And the hard evidence (all the steel was swiftly gathered up, carted off and dumped in a landfill in China).
Ever see work crews quickly gathering up everything at a murder scene, bagging it, hoisting it into dumpsters and sending the dumpsters to a garbage tip while the body is still warm?

asherbassad · 05-09-2012 1:13pm

seannash wrote: »

Please dont take this as a flippant disregard for your opinion but there are a good few threads on the explosives theory on here which(I think)prove that explosives werent used.

I dont think you want to get into a debate about it(Think I'm reading you correctly abot that one)so you can have a look at them in your own time as they will basically give the side of the story I believe

How do you prove that explosives weren't used??
I haven't seen any proof that explosives weren't used?

But to digress, do you think it's possible that the towers, including WTC7, were felled through controlled demolition rather than the explanations of fire?
Because engineering experts state categorically that it's impossible for them to collapse from fire. I'm an engineer myself. It is an EXACT science.

seannash · 05-09-2012 1:27pm

asherbassad wrote: »

And the hard evidence (all the steel was swiftly gathered up, carted off and dumped in a landfill in China).
Ever see work crews quickly gathering up everything at a murder scene, bagging it, hoisting it into dumpsters and sending the dumpsters to a garbage tip while the body is still warm?

They wouldnt be in a rush to try and save anybody trapped in the rubble by any chance?Would you prefer if they bagged absolutely everything and let people trapped below die?
Also it wasn't carted to a landfill in China,the scrap metal was bought

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm

Equium · 27-09-2012 5:33pm

asherbassad wrote: »

How do you prove that explosives weren't used??
I haven't seen any proof that explosives weren't used?

But to digress, do you think it's possible that the towers, including WTC7, were felled through controlled demolition rather than the explanations of fire?
Because engineering experts state categorically that it's impossible for them to collapse from fire. I'm an engineer myself. It is an EXACT science.

Which experts are these? The failure mechanisms for both towers (there were two distinct types of failure) are well understood and have been modelled on numerous occasions. They are even taught as part of structural analysis courses in universities here.

Sixtus · 27-09-2012 6:24pm

asherbassad wrote: »

How do you prove that explosives weren't used??
I haven't seen any proof that explosives weren't used?

I'm sorry the burden of proof is on the claimant. Your argument is akin to a murder trial wherein the defendant needs to prove that they couldn't possibly have committed the crime and offer proof that they didn't.

But to digress, do you think it's possible that the towers, including WTC7, were felled through controlled demolition rather than the explanations of fire?

Fire, and damage from the impact of two jet airliners (and in the case of WTC7 damage from falling debris from the collapse of WTC 1&2) to be precise.

Whether it is possible is irrelevant. I've yet to see a credible alternative theory, and the supporting evidence to support this theory.

Because engineering experts state categorically that it's impossible for them to collapse from fire.

Which ones? The NIST released a detailed report into the collapse that supports the hypothesis that the towers were destroyed due to the structural damage caused by impact of the two planes and subsequent fires. Engineering journals support this. The NIST report has been used around the world to improve and change skyscraper design since it was published.

I'm an engineer myself. It is an EXACT science.

Really? Whats your specific specialty?

weisses · 27-09-2012 8:29pm

Sixtus wrote: »

Fire, and damage from the impact of two jet airliners (and in the case of WTC7 damage from falling debris from the collapse of WTC 1&2) to be precise.

Falling debris from the towers wasn't the cause of wtc7 collapsing

Sixtus · 28-09-2012 2:43pm

weisses wrote: »

Falling debris from the towers wasn't the cause of wtc7 collapsing

No, you misread what I wrote

Fire (as in the fires started, by the damage caused by the falling debris of the collapse of the twin towers) was the main cause of the collapse. Structural damage from the debris weakened the structural integrity, and initiated several serious fires. These blazing raged uncontrollably for hours, and the weakened structure finally collapsed.

weisses · 28-09-2012 4:24pm

Sixtus wrote: »

(and in the case of WTC7 damage from falling debris from the collapse of WTC 1&2)

I didn't misread you but thanks for the clarification

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition

Comments