Some of you know I am strongly supportive of the conventional, controlled demolition theory with the footnote, "some 'behind the counter' technologies or concoctions used." I hope you'll share this with with as many as you can and inviting explosives experts, both military and industrial to the conversation. Let's keep the heat on these 2nd generation 'paperclip' scientist who committed this atrocity of the ages. Thanks folks. Keith
Keith Kampschaefer The biggest problem I have with Nuclear weapons is the radioactive contamination that it leaves behind. Calvin Raven Eagle do you have anything that would explain how they could have use nukes and not receive and uprising about radiation levels?- Keith Kampschaefer No, and I have NOT read your MOUNTAIN data regarding your hypothesis. Is everything piled high to be considered equitable content?
- Keith Kampschaefer If you have a comment addressed to someone specific, please include at least a first name to cut down of the confusion of who is taking who. Thank you. I assumed Calvin was talking to me after i asked about nuclear radiation. I don't think the radiation part was answered unless I missed something.
Tracy Lowtemp Blevins I myself swallowed and breathed a lot of the WTC fumes, and I don't have cancer. And cancer rates are not skyrocketing in the Ground Zero neighborhood. This is because inhaling iron particles doesn't give you cancer. It gives you scarred lungs.
Maxwell Bridges Dear Mr. Keith Kampschaefer,
Conventional controlled demolitions have several issues in being able to account for the evidence.
First of all, destruction is one level of planning and implementation, while "overkill pulverization" is another and is a logistics hurdle in the short time bomb-sniffing dogs took holidays in the days preceding 9/11.
Second, the brisance (Brisance is the shattering capability of a high explosive, determined mainly by its detonation pressure) to achieve such pulverization from chemical-based explosives and incendiaries would have very loud. A nugget of truth from Dr. Sunder of NIST is that such would have been deafening at 1/2 a mile, yet we have no reports of survivors and witnesses suffering damaging hearing loss.
Third, the duration of under-rubble hot-spots need to be accounted for. Sure, the 200,000 gallons of diesel fuel under the towers was available, but there's a contradiction between alleged heat and fresh air sources under the pile and how long it could burn so reportedly hot. The presence of unspent-from-original-purposes chemical-based explosives/incendiaries does not mathematically extend how long improbable diesel-fueled fires burned.
//
1 comment:
Hi Maxwell,
Conventional, yes, but not too conventional. You might need to think of multiple types of explosives, the nitrogen rich HE being placed last since these can be detected by dogs or ETK. Just a guess though. What you do is you weaken the steel with thermite (inaudible) and then blow it. This minimizes the use of HE and conceals its use. Off course, every explosive charge is fitted with radio detonators and GPS so it can be located by the firing computer. Think of fireworks synchronized to music, but more advanced.
Post a Comment