One argument I have heard against the controlled demolition idea is that the fires would have destroyed much of the demilition cords, detinators, and set off the explosives prematurely.

What do think of think idea?

I don't know a whole lot about explosives but I have been under the impression that they do not go off by being exposed to fire. In other words professional demolition explosive are actually intially very stable and would need detinator to set them off.

Also would it be possible to fire proof any cords or other equipment? Seems like it would be. But hard to say for sure with out expert knowledge.

Could the bombs have been set off by a radio controll mechanism, thus requiring no cords? Seems like in that case every bomb and it's radio receiver could be fire protected.


Anyone have any special knowledge about this?

Depends on the explosives. The more stable ones still burn although not explode and fire would make a mess of detonators.

...Also wouldn't the cables for remote detonating the explosives be shredded or melted?

I have looked a little more into this. In addition to the fact that many proffesional explosives do seem to be pretty fire resistant and inpact resistant, I have heard the suggestion that such explosives could also have been incased in something much like an airplane black box. This would protect against fire, heat and impact.

As far as detonation there does seem to be two ways to do this without cord.

The most likely one would be the use of strong raido signals. The radio signal would have to be strong in order to make sure bombs would go off in all parts of the towers from the top to way down in the basements. I don't think this would be that big a problems because if 911 was a military operation it seems like such technoology would be avaliable to the special operations forces need to carry out a job like this.

Another possibility is that the detonators were contected to timers set to go off at exact times. Such timer could be sychromized down to the millisecond.

So what exact explosive was used then? Is that any evidence of a specific explosive being used?

Ranb

Well if we knew all that we wouldnt be asking questions now would we.

I worked in explosives. They are all flammable, some more so than others. To my knowledge as a former explosive tech. none should detonate with fire alone. They require blasting caps almost always. Caps provide both fire and pressure which are needed to properly intiate the charge.

To answer the other question of what type of explosive was used - for steel cutting you need thermite and/or plastic. You could use TnT or other blasting devices but you would need literally tons of it. I would surmise that all the explosive laid had to be backpacked up during the late hours of the preceeding nights.

Evidence would be plain as the nose on your steel if you knew what you were looking for. Even if you didn't the steel would look odd and there would be steel splatter near the blast points where the steel plasma'd outwards. It would look 'odd' to the untrained eye.

Since Mr Guiliani saw to the rapid and intensive recycling of all WTC steel at oversea recyclers evidence is hard to come by, I think the NIST guys have some somewhere. The steel would also test positive for explosive residue on the nitrate spectrum. Something jet fuel is incapable of causing as it is a hydrocarbon not a nitrate.

My pet theory, and it is only a theory which is an extremely simplified version, is that there was a "cabling upgrade" before 911.
This upgrade they ran cat5 cable to routers throughout the length the cores via the elevator shafts.
These routers were in turn attached to controllers to which detonators which were attached for the explosives.
All the explosions were computer controlled and went off top to bottom very quickly and in sequence.
The controlling computer was in WTC7... The bunker specifically.
Something went wrong when the second tower fell and WTC7 did not self destruct when planned.

Who would suspect techs carrying boxes of routers and spools of cable with explosives mixed in. ;)

Radio control was not feasible because it was a steel building.... Look at what happened with the firefighters radios. ;)

The main kink in my theory is Willie Rodrigues' report of the blast in the sub cellar. :unsure:

I cannot disagree with anything here but in your opinion would fire be enough to set off the blasting caps?

I also find it odd you mention thermite, to my knowledge outside of destroying wooden beams thermite has never been used in controlled demolition? Is this true in your experience.

NIST NCSTAR 1-3 deals with recovered steel and you'd probably want to look at 1-3B or 1-3C for pictures and details: http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-3index.htm

edit: jfk there are some problems with your theory, mainly that laying that much cable in buildings like the WTC would not be so easy or quick, it is not fun running cables multifloor. Other than that there's the issue of actually getting the cables to the explosives and hiding them but it is more plausible than radio detonation I will agree.

Would be interesting to gather some of th worlds greatest in Controlled Demolition, and ask them to reproduce 9/11 using airplanes and explosives and thermite. It must be constructed so that the towers fall from top to bottom (or so it seems), and the radio-mast at the top needs to fall first (I have heard)

Would be really, realy interesting to see what their answer would be...
And if it could be done, I would like to see squibs like 9/11 and rubble falling faster the de building itself, and the buliding collapsing slower than freefall speed.

Yes e^n, I know there are problems with my theory. Many more than I want to get into in this thread, and the pulling of these cables is the least of them. ;)

I know that you have researched all of this from the official standpoint, and I DO commend you for your respectable behavior in this forum. It must be difficult for you at times with all the hostility... Almost racist in nature... and again I am rambling.

Do you per chance have any links to detailed info regarding the cabling upgrade prior to 9-11 ?
I keep running into dead ends. :(

And thank you for being here. ;)

Unfortunately not, the only person to mention what I assume you are referring to was Scott Forbes who reported a partial power down of the upper section of one tower the weekend prior to 9/11. However, I have never heard any other claim from anyone else about a cabling upgrade or a powerdown in either building. It's intriguing and worth investigating further, and like I said I do have some faith that if the buildings were taken out by controlled demolition they would not be using radio signals, and probably not detcord.

Also thank you for replying calmly and courteously.

That's hilarious. The explosive charges were encased in something that can resist a 500 mph airplane impact from the outside, but can't resist the blast from the explosive on the inside?

Anyhow, if the planes somehow didn't set off the explosives, they certainly would have knocked them far off of their strategic locations.