@lionsforlyons Absolutely false. Scientists have discovered "fingerprint" of thermite reaction as well as trace amounts of unreacted thermitic material.
I don't recall the vid I saw it in (I drink a lot while watchin youtube!) BUT...
I did see a clip where they (military testing goons) actually xray the shaped charge explosions and something to do with infrared and the explosion and the "carrot" or slug formed from the shape charge copper lining doesn't actually become hot enough to become plasma. Something I think I read in wikipedia also stated that it behaved as a liquid but was not actually hot enough to be so. Dunno!
Rubbish. Shaped charges do not have the ability to drive those steel collumns inwards. At most they ciould be made to cut the steel, but without anything but air behind them, the force neccessary to push the collumns inwards would be lost. The point of a shaped charge is a sudden and massive force on one spot. it cuts, it doesn't push.
So sad to see all the amateurs muddying the waters with their nonsense.
mr douche, ehem, an explosion that melts copper, which has a high melting point means that the liquid copper is DENSE, and also being pushed from the blast of the explosive the jet wuld obviously push the jet through
No, the copper is in a gaseous phase, and is anything but dense. You are completely wrong. Shaped charges send a sharp cutting impulse, they do not send a broad pushing force. To be fast en0ough to cut through, they also must be a finely directed beam of energy, and bending those steel columns took a massive amount of force, not a sharp cutting one.
In fact, the copper is even more than a gas, I believe, and it is not entirely well understood, so my theorising is fair. I believe it is in essence a plasma. There is much more going on at a molecular level than just a hot cutting blast of energy. What there is not however is any pushing force. Suc effet is achived not with ultra fast explosives, but with relatively slow ones. The farmer uses Ampho to push a stump from the ground, not powergel, for example.
but being plasma it wuld be relativeley fast and go thru the steel, and the steel in WTC isnt bent by the charges, it bent from the plane crash after wards, the charges were used at spots that would weaken the steel as seen in the video
My point exactly, is that the planes are what bent the collumns in the plane shaped hole left in the side of the Tower.
All you just did was to restate my case. Thankyou. But it does beg the question as to why you felt justified in calling me a Douche in your initial post. As happens I am a professional in the field.
It has been my point that shaped sharges do not answer the inwardly bent massive steel collumns in the shape of a plane which was left in the WTC. They would only cut.
Actually the copper isn't a gas, there is no plasma, and why the hell would somebody use a cylindrical shaped charge to punch holes in an I-Beam, that wont do shit! You have to use linear shaped charges to cut an I-Beam.
Perhaps you should try not to be such a presumptuous twit.
I am not referring to any cylindrical charges. You are incorrect to state categorically that there is no gas and no plasma. In fact the exact process is not even fully understood. Are you the worlds foremost expert with new knowledge are you?
Of course you have to use linear shaped charges to cut an I-beam. Does stating the obvious somehow enhance your assumptions?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
In fact the copper (some of it) is turned into a gas at the very least. There are other gases too of course. The jet is not simply a jet of hot gas, usually. For best results, the inner faces of the explosive are covered with a soft but dense material (copper is a favorite). Upon detonation, this face is pushed ahead of the explosion, and forms what is essentially a high-density plasma moving out the jet at high speed.
Now please don't try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs. :)
It was merely a reference, taken without wasting lots of time. After all, someone who doesn't realise what not only he, but nobody is sure about, but yet makes bombastic claims over, is surely a moron, and hardly worth much time.
Do you know anything about Plasma? A charged gas? Do you know anything about elctron transfer reactions and how this amounts to electrical energy, especially at high temps and pressures? If you do not, you are too far out of your depth to even discuss it.
If indeed you knew anything about these things, basic knowledge for a high energy chemist such as myself for example, then the discussion on the exact mechanisms of a shaped charge, does include discussion of Plasmas. If instead you are just a moron who likes to go round trying to look like he has a clue, then I am sorry to tell you that you are just beating off here.
In fact almost any discussion of Shaped charges, includes mention of plasma. The theory is quite solid and not discounted.
You are constantly showing your lack of knowledge with all this talk of copper gas and plasma in this video and the penny SC video. so please just shut the hell up and quit acting like you know what you're talking about.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No since any search including shaped charge and plasma will turn up many references, it shows at least that it is not such a foreign concept as you in your ignorance presume.
I have explained in shorthand such that any highschool student would be guessing why it is a solid concept by now. Yet you still think you can pretend to know otherwise.
Now to end this stupid argument with a moron once and for all
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That reference includes the following paragraph you fucking CRETIN!
"Employing a phenomenon known as the Monroe Effect, the shock wave produced at detonation accelerates and deforms the shaped housing into a high-velocity (24,000-27,000 fps) plasma jet within the void space. The formed jet is able to cut through steel targets of various thicknesses based upon the void shape and the stand-off distance to the target wall."
not a high energy chemist but university chemistry and knows a bit about HE. from my brief reading on SC's i both disagree and agree here. i agree that there is much no understood about shaped charges particularily the jet and what it is. [physical state] but i don't think the jet is plasma. the cu liner will not convert fully to a gas and thus cannot act as a charged gas. sources depict the use of plasma as the jet is inter "state" [solid liquid] and this term best fits.
in saying this charged gas molecules will be produced. i feel the cutting jet from what sources have told me is not plasma so to speak in a sub atmoic sense. i am afriad plasma is just a jargon word which fits what cannot be described my friend. although is being a bit kewl in his responses and could afford some detail to say the least.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If we have charged gas particles, what then do we call these? There is another name for charged gas, now can you tell me please what it is?
The problem many have in trying to understand the shaped charge, is that few chemists have the experience of pyrotechnics to understand the way electrons move about at super high energy states. If you have a charge in that gas, then you have what is called PLASMA and it isn't just a jargon word, that is what people who know nothing about Plasma say.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Given that I have explained in simple straightforward detail the theory, and I have given reference to a very substantial source which agres with it, what on earth makes you think, that your vacillating, confused and admitted doubtful understanding, would change my mind?
As it is, I have advanced a theory and given some reasons for it. It is a theory which explains observed effects and you have no alternative theory. It isnt a matter of changing minds, but of putting up something scientific.
got a paradox there mate "In fact the exact process is not even fully understood" and yet u can scientifically prove it..you presented one source of which the credability was otherwise poor to say the least when cross referencing, try some books . people put 10000 X more effort in books u will really notice the quality and effort revolving around a conclusion based on results. not replying anymore ur happy to live in the ignorant view of "iam the best" so may god guide u in it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Now you go for the old strawman argument. LOL
Drop the fallacies please. The exact process is not fully understood. That's well known. Even you admitted it. NO, I have not said I could scientifically prove it. You just showed you are not even a science student to have made that basic error of logic. How many sources would you like? Would ten do it for you? Maybe twenty? I think that Global security is a fine source actually. If you knew anything about science you'd not need a source idiot.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Now rather than call you a liar, because you just told a direct untruth, I shall assume you were just a pretender all along and got flustered and forgot you were supposed to be a logical science student. Strawmen are silly stunts for logical scientists I think. I just pointed out you dopey bastard, that a theory allows for testing and eventually as I said, somebody may be getting around to testing for plasma effects because the theory is certainly out there. That doesn't mean what you stated.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I said and gave reasons for the belief, that I am a "very good high energy chemist". I did not say "THE BEST" and when you pretend I did, you sink to the level of a grovelling liar, and a stupid little troll which is too small a man to stand up and behave like one. You never had an argument, never had a thing so why did you get into it? I practically begged you not to, if you were not clued up, yet you jumped in with both feet, and sank out of sight.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Anyway, please don't start arguing with me about this, if what you have written really is your understanding of plasma. I have already provided a reference which confirms my thesis is solid so just don't. You started well but now you're talking about some gas and charged gas and yet somehow trying to pretend that Plasma is some sort of third option. Plasma is a charged gas. We have gas, copper gas, and it matters not if all of it is gas, it is a gas capable of holding a charge. QED.
plasma is present. plasma exists everywhere just as ions do[plasma being a form of ion]. but as the jet itself..idk maybe but from what i have read unlikely. there is nothing more i can argue because the limit or facts stop there. "i am a very good high energy chemist" is a bit of a wanker thing to say too. the best scientists where never narrow minded.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Well since I actually formulated the theory independently which is as it happens held now by some of the best people in the game, then my claim is perfectly valid. However there is another reason I say this. I have a history which has left me with a repuation second to none in the explosives game in this state, possibly the country. It isn't all pretty, it involved criminal charges, poliitics and deep police corruption, but I am who I am and thats simply the truth.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I demolished the state forensic team a few years ago in court, on precisely the subject of high energy chemistry. I had also spent a year locked up in jail and had NOTHING but what I pulled off the top of my head in court. I cost the chief and number two government chemists their jobs. Crushed like moron bugs.
I so totalled the system, that I have myself something of a Mexican standoff. An amazing degree of autonomy, so long as I do nothing scary. Trust me, I am a very good high energy chemist.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It may be just a theory, because there are certain technical difficulties with observation and measurement, but theory is a perfectly valid tool when it comes to understanding something sometimes. Theory allows us to perfform experiments and it is probably only a matter of time now before someone gets around to checking for a charge, with the right equipment. Until then it remains a theory to explain an observed effect, and no other theory exists to better it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Somebody who may actually have a clue. Now I can tell you that in fact the idea that Plasma is involved, was my private theory. I argued it once before, and was forced to seek something to back it, due to morons who couldn't understand simple REDOX reactions and who know nothing about electron trasfer in high energy reactions. I was pleasantly surprised, and once again today, to find that there is indeed an increasingly notable talk about Plasma. Fact is, I am a very good high energy chemist. :)
Proof WTC Towers were demolished using explosives 1.Pyroclastic clouds are formed after event 2.Secondary explosions caught on camera before collapse 3,Squibs seen at reinforced points of Towers 4.lobys of Towers destroyed before collapse 5. fell under 10 seconds 6. No evidence of Pancaked floors 7, Molten Metal Found At ALL 3 Towers 8. Giant Steel Columns Blasted Hundreds of Feet Away 9.Fires Burned for Months 10, 1100 Bodies Unaccounted 4 11, complete Destruction speaks 4 its self.
I agree with you completely. I am a professional in the field of explosives, both the chemistry and practical side and knew on the morning of 9/11 the Twin Towers were explosively demolished. I can't even take anyone who denies it seriously. My argument here is that shaped charges would not explain the hole in the side of the WTC from the plane strike, which is something the TV Fakerist clowns have begun to try and spout since they got trapped on that fact, which proves a real plane hit the WTC.
The "squibs" (wrong term in my opinion by the way), are definately visible, and in some videos so clearly it is impossible to deny even for an amateur. I didn;t know they had been establisehd to have been at re-inforced points though, this would be a very important fact, as it would finally eliminate the prevarication that it is compressed air. Of course it isn't given the spacing but it takes a lot of solid things to crack the thick skull of denial.
I assume these shaped charges could even conceivably have been stuck to the outside of WTC1 to perforate in a shape of an airplane upon RC detonation?
And of course, IF that were the case, it could have caused the columns to be bent inwards now, couldn't it? ;-)
The shaped charge doesn't need any kind of backing to force the plasma in the right direction; it moves at that incredible speed in the correct direction by providing its own Equal and opposite force within the tube.
HEAT anti tank (no longer used by tankers) works the same way; the round never goes thru the target!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Only if you know nothing about explosives and are gullible enough to buy into anything your cult pushers say. This is pure bullshit. There is no form of explosive which could have created that hole in the WTC, without an equal or greater force behind them.
I dont know how relevent this is to the demolition of the wtcs but what it does show is that its possible to cause massive damage with small amounts of explosives if you know what youre doing.
Those holes were cut with an oxy/acetylene torch, as a hooking point for crane removal. The #1 priority at that time was to clear debris to get to anyone still trapped, and that's why you see lots of beams already with holes cut in them.
The person who made this video is sadly uninformed. If you look closer at the last hole you pointed out with the dog, and compare it to an oxy/acy torch cut, you will see the similarities. They would have needed linear shaped charges to do effective cutting.
The description is full of lots of misinformation, the cone is called a liner, the liner is not molten, it's at 500-600C therefor not molten. Also there is no plasma, just copper.
no actually maybe you should take science again just because somethings not at its melting point doesn't mean its not liquid if it has enough energy it can stay liquid such as large lakes not freezings over during the winter. under the plastic explosive the copper crystals slide by each other fuidly in effect making it a liquid
exotic tech, youtube: hutchinson effect + 9/11... there's some anomalies there too... the rothchields who funded hitler are funding clinton now... scary times ahead my friends
This is laughable. The towers would have needed bigger charges to bring them down. Also the charges would have needed to be in the right place, and those small holes in the middle of steel plates doesn't prove a thing.
It's your opinion, but may you explain me how those holes have been made? Perhaps workers were proving their tools while rescuers did their job or what else?
Hi, I have that clip in my collection already and the sound of the explosion is very similar to the explosion heard near wtc 7 when a policeman called home. Thanks anyway.
Seems like you guys want this bs to be true.Well it isin't.No way could the govt pull off a conspiriacy this big and keep it quiet.Somone would talk.
TimU2Cool 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bull shit as far as any relationship to 9/11.
jimbbski 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lionsforlyons
Google scholar search: active thermitic materials
that article is not moronic; it is science. Now you are the moron.
152czar 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lionsforlyons Absolutely false. Scientists have discovered "fingerprint" of thermite reaction as well as trace amounts of unreacted thermitic material.
Google scholar search: active thermitic materials
152czar 9 months ago
Possible explanation for all of the holes in the steel beams, and for all of the "flashes" we see in the buildings! Informative video.
molitor2005 11 months ago
strange indeed...but i can't see the point in punching a single hole in a sheet of metal, as this was no supporting element...
vSilentv 1 year ago
It all depends which explosives you use.
hamsto24 1 year ago
this idea is older than my grandpa!!
Erniz2 1 year ago
I'm not an expert....
I don't recall the vid I saw it in (I drink a lot while watchin youtube!) BUT...
I did see a clip where they (military testing goons) actually xray the shaped charge explosions and something to do with infrared and the explosion and the "carrot" or slug formed from the shape charge copper lining doesn't actually become hot enough to become plasma. Something I think I read in wikipedia also stated that it behaved as a liquid but was not actually hot enough to be so. Dunno!
greg313662 2 years ago
This might be what happened to wtc3, which was kept out of the public eye.
And the look of the wtc1 wall that was leaning up against wtc6 after it too was destroyed.
And, remember - wtc1 never was damaged by the demolition of wtc2.
nameofthepen 2 years ago 2
well this is not the same but efp are semi solid / liquid
critmass 2 years ago
This is BULLSHIT. Bush did NOT blow up the fucking towers. GET OVER IT. It was DISPROVE over and over again.
You liberals need to MOVE ON.
crazycuntryboy2 2 years ago
yeeeep
LAXERkid16 2 years ago
thank you!
crazycuntryboy2 2 years ago
Comment removed
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This video is sad. Obviously a desperate attempt to invent some more nonsense for the uneducated to lap up.
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
Rubbish. Shaped charges do not have the ability to drive those steel collumns inwards. At most they ciould be made to cut the steel, but without anything but air behind them, the force neccessary to push the collumns inwards would be lost. The point of a shaped charge is a sudden and massive force on one spot. it cuts, it doesn't push.
So sad to see all the amateurs muddying the waters with their nonsense.
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
mr douche, ehem, an explosion that melts copper, which has a high melting point means that the liquid copper is DENSE, and also being pushed from the blast of the explosive the jet wuld obviously push the jet through
MastaShortie 2 years ago
No, the copper is in a gaseous phase, and is anything but dense. You are completely wrong. Shaped charges send a sharp cutting impulse, they do not send a broad pushing force. To be fast en0ough to cut through, they also must be a finely directed beam of energy, and bending those steel columns took a massive amount of force, not a sharp cutting one.
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
In fact, the copper is even more than a gas, I believe, and it is not entirely well understood, so my theorising is fair. I believe it is in essence a plasma. There is much more going on at a molecular level than just a hot cutting blast of energy. What there is not however is any pushing force. Suc effet is achived not with ultra fast explosives, but with relatively slow ones. The farmer uses Ampho to push a stump from the ground, not powergel, for example.
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
but being plasma it wuld be relativeley fast and go thru the steel, and the steel in WTC isnt bent by the charges, it bent from the plane crash after wards, the charges were used at spots that would weaken the steel as seen in the video
MastaShortie 2 years ago
My point exactly, is that the planes are what bent the collumns in the plane shaped hole left in the side of the Tower.
All you just did was to restate my case. Thankyou. But it does beg the question as to why you felt justified in calling me a Douche in your initial post. As happens I am a professional in the field.
It has been my point that shaped sharges do not answer the inwardly bent massive steel collumns in the shape of a plane which was left in the WTC. They would only cut.
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
Actually the copper isn't a gas, there is no plasma, and why the hell would somebody use a cylindrical shaped charge to punch holes in an I-Beam, that wont do shit! You have to use linear shaped charges to cut an I-Beam.
Cyf531 2 years ago
Perhaps you should try not to be such a presumptuous twit.
I am not referring to any cylindrical charges. You are incorrect to state categorically that there is no gas and no plasma. In fact the exact process is not even fully understood. Are you the worlds foremost expert with new knowledge are you?
Of course you have to use linear shaped charges to cut an I-beam. Does stating the obvious somehow enhance your assumptions?
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In fact the copper (some of it) is turned into a gas at the very least. There are other gases too of course. The jet is not simply a jet of hot gas, usually. For best results, the inner faces of the explosive are covered with a soft but dense material (copper is a favorite). Upon detonation, this face is pushed ahead of the explosion, and forms what is essentially a high-density plasma moving out the jet at high speed.
Now please don't try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs. :)
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
oh and by the way. Reference.
everything2. com/title/shaped%2520charge
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
This isn't a credible reference, this is a fucking kewl spewing out bullshit, just like you.
Cyf531 2 years ago
It was merely a reference, taken without wasting lots of time. After all, someone who doesn't realise what not only he, but nobody is sure about, but yet makes bombastic claims over, is surely a moron, and hardly worth much time.
Do you know anything about Plasma? A charged gas? Do you know anything about elctron transfer reactions and how this amounts to electrical energy, especially at high temps and pressures? If you do not, you are too far out of your depth to even discuss it.
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
If indeed you knew anything about these things, basic knowledge for a high energy chemist such as myself for example, then the discussion on the exact mechanisms of a shaped charge, does include discussion of Plasmas. If instead you are just a moron who likes to go round trying to look like he has a clue, then I am sorry to tell you that you are just beating off here.
In fact almost any discussion of Shaped charges, includes mention of plasma. The theory is quite solid and not discounted.
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
You are constantly showing your lack of knowledge with all this talk of copper gas and plasma in this video and the penny SC video. so please just shut the hell up and quit acting like you know what you're talking about.
Cyf531 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No since any search including shaped charge and plasma will turn up many references, it shows at least that it is not such a foreign concept as you in your ignorance presume.
I have explained in shorthand such that any highschool student would be guessing why it is a solid concept by now. Yet you still think you can pretend to know otherwise.
Now to end this stupid argument with a moron once and for all
globalsecurity. org/military/systems/munitions/bullets2-shaped-charge. htm
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That reference includes the following paragraph you fucking CRETIN!
"Employing a phenomenon known as the Monroe Effect, the shock wave produced at detonation accelerates and deforms the shaped housing into a high-velocity (24,000-27,000 fps) plasma jet within the void space. The formed jet is able to cut through steel targets of various thicknesses based upon the void shape and the stand-off distance to the target wall."
tinyurlDOTcom/2fv39c
Cue Simpsons music.....Ha ha.
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
not a high energy chemist but university chemistry and knows a bit about HE. from my brief reading on SC's i both disagree and agree here. i agree that there is much no understood about shaped charges particularily the jet and what it is. [physical state] but i don't think the jet is plasma. the cu liner will not convert fully to a gas and thus cannot act as a charged gas. sources depict the use of plasma as the jet is inter "state" [solid liquid] and this term best fits.
nixrate 2 years ago
in saying this charged gas molecules will be produced. i feel the cutting jet from what sources have told me is not plasma so to speak in a sub atmoic sense. i am afriad plasma is just a jargon word which fits what cannot be described my friend. although is being a bit kewl in his responses and could afford some detail to say the least.
nixrate 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If we have charged gas particles, what then do we call these? There is another name for charged gas, now can you tell me please what it is?
The problem many have in trying to understand the shaped charge, is that few chemists have the experience of pyrotechnics to understand the way electrons move about at super high energy states. If you have a charge in that gas, then you have what is called PLASMA and it isn't just a jargon word, that is what people who know nothing about Plasma say.
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
anyway u seem very confident in what u think. i cannot convince u otherwise nor can i provided facts which dont exist. so leave it there.
nixrate 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Given that I have explained in simple straightforward detail the theory, and I have given reference to a very substantial source which agres with it, what on earth makes you think, that your vacillating, confused and admitted doubtful understanding, would change my mind?
As it is, I have advanced a theory and given some reasons for it. It is a theory which explains observed effects and you have no alternative theory. It isnt a matter of changing minds, but of putting up something scientific.
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
got a paradox there mate "In fact the exact process is not even fully understood" and yet u can scientifically prove it..you presented one source of which the credability was otherwise poor to say the least when cross referencing, try some books . people put 10000 X more effort in books u will really notice the quality and effort revolving around a conclusion based on results. not replying anymore ur happy to live in the ignorant view of "iam the best" so may god guide u in it.
nixrate 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Now you go for the old strawman argument. LOL
Drop the fallacies please. The exact process is not fully understood. That's well known. Even you admitted it. NO, I have not said I could scientifically prove it. You just showed you are not even a science student to have made that basic error of logic. How many sources would you like? Would ten do it for you? Maybe twenty? I think that Global security is a fine source actually. If you knew anything about science you'd not need a source idiot.
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Now rather than call you a liar, because you just told a direct untruth, I shall assume you were just a pretender all along and got flustered and forgot you were supposed to be a logical science student. Strawmen are silly stunts for logical scientists I think. I just pointed out you dopey bastard, that a theory allows for testing and eventually as I said, somebody may be getting around to testing for plasma effects because the theory is certainly out there. That doesn't mean what you stated.
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I said and gave reasons for the belief, that I am a "very good high energy chemist". I did not say "THE BEST" and when you pretend I did, you sink to the level of a grovelling liar, and a stupid little troll which is too small a man to stand up and behave like one. You never had an argument, never had a thing so why did you get into it? I practically begged you not to, if you were not clued up, yet you jumped in with both feet, and sank out of sight.
Instead of grace in defeat you sling poop.
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Anyway, please don't start arguing with me about this, if what you have written really is your understanding of plasma. I have already provided a reference which confirms my thesis is solid so just don't. You started well but now you're talking about some gas and charged gas and yet somehow trying to pretend that Plasma is some sort of third option. Plasma is a charged gas. We have gas, copper gas, and it matters not if all of it is gas, it is a gas capable of holding a charge. QED.
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
plasma is present. plasma exists everywhere just as ions do[plasma being a form of ion]. but as the jet itself..idk maybe but from what i have read unlikely. there is nothing more i can argue because the limit or facts stop there. "i am a very good high energy chemist" is a bit of a wanker thing to say too. the best scientists where never narrow minded.
nixrate 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well since I actually formulated the theory independently which is as it happens held now by some of the best people in the game, then my claim is perfectly valid. However there is another reason I say this. I have a history which has left me with a repuation second to none in the explosives game in this state, possibly the country. It isn't all pretty, it involved criminal charges, poliitics and deep police corruption, but I am who I am and thats simply the truth.
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I demolished the state forensic team a few years ago in court, on precisely the subject of high energy chemistry. I had also spent a year locked up in jail and had NOTHING but what I pulled off the top of my head in court. I cost the chief and number two government chemists their jobs. Crushed like moron bugs.
I so totalled the system, that I have myself something of a Mexican standoff. An amazing degree of autonomy, so long as I do nothing scary. Trust me, I am a very good high energy chemist.
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It may be just a theory, because there are certain technical difficulties with observation and measurement, but theory is a perfectly valid tool when it comes to understanding something sometimes. Theory allows us to perfform experiments and it is probably only a matter of time now before someone gets around to checking for a charge, with the right equipment. Until then it remains a theory to explain an observed effect, and no other theory exists to better it.
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
"cannot act as a charged gas in terms of the cutting jet"
nixrate 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Somebody who may actually have a clue. Now I can tell you that in fact the idea that Plasma is involved, was my private theory. I argued it once before, and was forced to seek something to back it, due to morons who couldn't understand simple REDOX reactions and who know nothing about electron trasfer in high energy reactions. I was pleasantly surprised, and once again today, to find that there is indeed an increasingly notable talk about Plasma. Fact is, I am a very good high energy chemist. :)
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TruthLogic 2 years ago
I agree with you completely. I am a professional in the field of explosives, both the chemistry and practical side and knew on the morning of 9/11 the Twin Towers were explosively demolished. I can't even take anyone who denies it seriously. My argument here is that shaped charges would not explain the hole in the side of the WTC from the plane strike, which is something the TV Fakerist clowns have begun to try and spout since they got trapped on that fact, which proves a real plane hit the WTC.
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
"Squibs seen at reinforced points of Towers"
The "squibs" (wrong term in my opinion by the way), are definately visible, and in some videos so clearly it is impossible to deny even for an amateur. I didn;t know they had been establisehd to have been at re-inforced points though, this would be a very important fact, as it would finally eliminate the prevarication that it is compressed air. Of course it isn't given the spacing but it takes a lot of solid things to crack the thick skull of denial.
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
Truth! Share! Expose! Care! DO SOMETHING!!! Thx for the vid!
danoking69 3 years ago
danoking69
I love this video!
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago
there are tons of evidence that they used mini-nuclear bombs and i am talking about smaller than a coca cola 33cl
and they way it explode each and one of them is a techonlogy that nobody of us can guess or know. MOSSAD/CIA are 20-30 years ahead of our time
thanks for the video
Mahdiarmy 3 years ago
incredible such force to actually reverse the cone amazing
Quandary121 3 years ago
Highest respect for this, Footjob56!
I assume these shaped charges could even conceivably have been stuck to the outside of WTC1 to perforate in a shape of an airplane upon RC detonation?
And of course, IF that were the case, it could have caused the columns to be bent inwards now, couldn't it? ;-)
nameofthepen 3 years ago
nameofthepen
One possible use of the window washer scaffolding!
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago 4
CNN911Fakes - yes! Good point.
Who would ever notice or pay attention to "window washers"?
Yes. Makes perfect sense...
nameofthepen 3 years ago
nameofthepen
And note from the video...
The shaped charge doesn't need any kind of backing to force the plasma in the right direction; it moves at that incredible speed in the correct direction by providing its own Equal and opposite force within the tube.
HEAT anti tank (no longer used by tankers) works the same way; the round never goes thru the target!
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago 2
Now thats a good point nom!!
PollenB 3 years ago 3
PollenB
Doncha love this video?
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago 2
Very plausible indeed!
PollenB 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Only if you know nothing about explosives and are gullible enough to buy into anything your cult pushers say. This is pure bullshit. There is no form of explosive which could have created that hole in the WTC, without an equal or greater force behind them.
RabbitNexus 2 years ago
in many ways this is the single most important 911 video.
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago 3
God I love this video!
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago 3
Now we know what happened to wtc3.
It also explains the convenient shape of the wtc1 wall that was leaning up against the destroyed wtc6.
And, of course, it explains why wtc1 never was damaged by the demolition of wtc2.
Many thanks for a great video
CNN911Fakes 3 years ago 2
Hmmm...
Looks like someone(s) didn't care for your pointing that out, CNN911Fakes. :-)
Thanks muchly for the superb share.
nameofthepen 3 years ago
yeah last thing i heard is that thermate was used
tittysmithy 3 years ago
I dont know how relevent this is to the demolition of the wtcs but what it does show is that its possible to cause massive damage with small amounts of explosives if you know what youre doing.
onesliceshort 3 years ago
Those holes were cut with an oxy/acetylene torch, as a hooking point for crane removal. The #1 priority at that time was to clear debris to get to anyone still trapped, and that's why you see lots of beams already with holes cut in them.
The person who made this video is sadly uninformed. If you look closer at the last hole you pointed out with the dog, and compare it to an oxy/acy torch cut, you will see the similarities. They would have needed linear shaped charges to do effective cutting.
SteveWho 3 years ago
The description is full of lots of misinformation, the cone is called a liner, the liner is not molten, it's at 500-600C therefor not molten. Also there is no plasma, just copper.
Cyf531 3 years ago
no actually maybe you should take science again just because somethings not at its melting point doesn't mean its not liquid if it has enough energy it can stay liquid such as large lakes not freezings over during the winter. under the plastic explosive the copper crystals slide by each other fuidly in effect making it a liquid
HaFRRQ 3 years ago
I never said it wasn't fluid, I just said it's not molten due to temperature.
Cyf531 3 years ago
exotic tech, youtube: hutchinson effect + 9/11... there's some anomalies there too... the rothchields who funded hitler are funding clinton now... scary times ahead my friends
nahitini 4 years ago
Irrelevant.
imbok 4 years ago
Perhaps irrelevant but in any case, very, very strange.
footjob56 4 years ago
This is laughable. The towers would have needed bigger charges to bring them down. Also the charges would have needed to be in the right place, and those small holes in the middle of steel plates doesn't prove a thing.
crazyguy9145 4 years ago
I belive that it was CD,but this is laughable
peterene 4 years ago
It's your opinion, but may you explain me how those holes have been made? Perhaps workers were proving their tools while rescuers did their job or what else?
footjob56 4 years ago
normal shaped charges are useless in this type of demolition,however linear shaped chrarges are usefull along with normalcharges and thermite
i think that majority of the charges in WTC were normal,because shaped charge leaves a copper trace which is obvious..
peterene 4 years ago
Thanks.
footjob56 4 years ago
Hi, I have that clip in my collection already and the sound of the explosion is very similar to the explosion heard near wtc 7 when a policeman called home. Thanks anyway.
footjob56 4 years ago