look again said:
Now if you and others attempting to ridicule on here, actually read the whole article and can refute even half of the evidence presented, then go ahead.
Piece of piss.
Except to get this effect that they refer to you need multiple layers of explosives, normally at intervals of several floors apart, depending on the building design and layout, never every single floor, waste of dems, time and money. Oh, damn, did we forget to mention this?
Almost Free-Fall Speed: <snip> However, the videos of the collapses show that the rubble falling inside the building’s profile falls at the same speed as the rubble outside[23] (Jones, 2006). As architect and physicist Dave Heller (2005) explains:
Do they really? I've watched these videos and it shows no such thing. The debris falls faster than the building does.
In [the method known as controlled demolition], each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it.
There is no bounds to this stupidity, the author has never seen what the interior of a building rigged to blow looks like. You have to strip the insulation off the support beams, wire up the explosive charges, probably with a dual ring main... Anyways, if you're going to do this on every floor then you'd think someone would have noticed.
If the goal is to destroy the building then you're not going to bother demolishing the bottom section, you'll rely on the thousands of tonnes of metal and concrete to do it for you.
Bwahahahaha! I've used cutting charges, i've set off RDX, i've had to carry the debris back to the truck afterwards, i've also seen that photo (a large steel I Beam standing vertically with a diagonal shearing effect clearly visible, no noticable heat induced discoloration, nor deformation from blast effects). That's not the work of either thermite (diagonal "cut" means it can't be) or shaped/cutting charges (you get deformation at the start of the cut as well as a much more ragged melted effect from the copper slug melting it's way through the beam, not to mention that the angle is completely wrong, you lose nearly all the force of the explosion if you angle the charge that way). Not to mention you'd need a custom made charge for that size of beam, normal procedure is to use several offset for something that big.
Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials
Well gee wilbur, maybe it's the thousands of tonnes of falling concrete and steel that's crushing the stuff that's already beneath it?
Depends on how much explosives you're using, for the amount of dems you're talking about that's a suspiciously small amount of dust.
Oh it's true, but not with cutting charges, or rather not that way. If they'd strapped Anti tank blast landmines to the supports then it'd do that (having said that the distance they are being projected is too small), but only a complete idiot would do it that way.
Yeah, they're called ring mains, instead of having each charge on it's own bit of fuse you stick them all on one fuse, lay a line of det cord and use this to trigger the seperate charges. Of course the shockwave moves at around 6.8KPS and you wouldn't be able to see it moving, nor for the record would the explosions be red, that only happens in the movies. Nor would it explain why in the WTC 7 video these rings are at an angle, which would require you to pass the det cord through a floor.
Sounds Produced by Explosions
The most stupid point so far.
Molten Steel: An eleventh feature that would be expected only if explosives were used to slice the steel columns would be molten steel
RDX based explosives, (to the yanks that's C1-5 i belive, or to brits PE1-5) don't heat things up, they explode. You can touch the metal within minutes after a cutting charge has been used on it. Also i'd expect to see large amounts of concerntrated copper from the cutting charges.
Fucking arm chair sappers.
)) and the first line reads "Future Air Navigation Systems (FANS) is a standard developed by the air transport industry to allow more aircraft to fit into a given volume of air space" - which seems a little at odds with your insistence that 'That report on the use of FANS says it's only for use in remote areas with little traffic'.
