Humint Events Online: Explosive Concrete and Microwaves?

Friday, January 12, 2007

Explosive Concrete and Microwaves?

Plausible.

Though I don't think it explains everything-- such as, what happened to all the steel?

posted by spooked at 8:48 AM

7 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I saw some articles on the explosives built-in to the building up on rumormill news a while back. I don't think we can rule it out out-of-hand.

Would the micronuke hypothesis by itself account for the pulverization of the concrete?

If not, how about the exotic weaponry?

We've got films of "backpack nukes" and documents to support them. We know the USA has had a major nuclear program and a major directed energy program.

While I'm not saying that it's impossible, it doesn't seem like there are many links to this "explosive concrete" idea other than for the WTC. Shouldn't there be vendors who sell the stuff? Presumably it could be useful to lower the total cost of ownership of the buildings. On the other hand, who would want to own, lease, or insure such a building-- let alone work there?

If explosive concrete exists, was it only used on the WTC towers?

I'm not against exploring the idea, I'm just wondering what evidence we have for or against it. Are there other places where this has been used or documents supporting the concept besides "Get Smart"? Would explosive concrete hold up for the 30+ years the towers stood? Is there a "shelf life" for it?

Just asking. Building materials are pretty well-understood because there are so many buildings all around us. Almost all of the concepts involved in 9/11 are pretty well fleshed-out in open source materials. (PSYOP, Deception, False Flag Attacks...) We can probably find some examples of the stuff or patent on it if that's actually what they used.

What do the rest of y'all think?

Also, there ought to be articles from the 1950's and 1960's proposing the idea if they were using it during the WTC construction. Even with all the secret technology, you usually see forward-looking research proposing ideas for development. Does anyone have some of those?

Fred

11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this is getting sick..

jones is at it again, this time taking it upon himself to determine what the goals of the 9/11 'truth' community are and publishing a letter in his journal of 911 studies, which can be found here: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/FocusOnGoals.pdf

jones won't discuss crash physics in regards to UA175 and WTC2, but has no problem stating "How do we know whether jets actually hit the Towers?". ahh, excuse me, professor, but we've got some serious problems with the video footage which you won't even acknowledge. if you wish to determine if jets actually hit the towers, i'd start be determining if what is represented of the ~4 videos of UA175 impacting WTC2 actually agrees with the laws of physics. have you done that? certainly, as a 'scientist', you're not going to trust your eyes more than your intuition, are you?

"It is NOT merely a plausible explanation or debates about “possibilities” that we seek. Rather, having seen strong indications of foul play we are looking for hard evidence that would clearly verify an intentional crime beyond that of 19 hijackers." [my emphasis]

so, does the good professor believe he has hard evidence of the 19 hijackers? it certainly appears that way, based on his phrasing of seeking hard evidence beyond the 19 hijackers. i'd be curious to see any evidence, hard or soft, supporting the 19 hijackers.

"We have found evidence for thermates in the molten metal seen pouring from the South Tower minutes before its collapse, in the sulfidation and high-temperature corrosion of WTC steel, and in the residues found in the WTC dust."

i believe jones is referring to the camera planet video which allegedly shows molten metal pouring from the tower. has he verified the authenticity of this camera planet video? how about the sulfidation and high-temp corrosion of the WTC steel? has he verified the origin of the steel sample and has he verified cleanup procedures couldn't have created such corrosion? jones cites only a source for his dust but does expand stating many other details are in his paper.

no time to re-read the thermite paper at the moment, but please, if anyone knows of solid evidence for thermite at WTC, in whatever form (cleanup, demo, etc..), i'd be curious to see a link and/or expand commented. i can find no indepenant analysis of the thermate evidence and i can't really even find hard evidence from jones on thermate. he's basically came out of the closest with the thermite hypothesis over a year ago, and in all the time, what have we got from him? what expand research and analysis has jones done with follow up on the thermite hypothesis?

jones also published a letter about miniature nuclear devices and their hypothesized use at WTCs. i personally think miniature nuclear devices aren't likely to have been used, so i haven't read this paper in detail, but i also don't know much about the specifics of such devices to make an expand comment. additionally, James Gourley has a weak arugment against Woods/Reynolds paper as well, which i've read in full yet. you can find it all here: http://journalof911studies.com/letters.html

very very sad to see science spun just like everything else (but no surprise), and the twoofers swallowing it all, with futile hopes that an independant investigation is all that is needed to change the world. been there, done that, with JFK assassination, and nothing changed.

Rowan, in regards to the audio, it does seem plausible, especially with examined against the get smart/lone gunman evidence. i found the WTC cough analysis and calcium oxide CaO discussion very interesting as well. i haven't done much additional research beyond the audio however but i do believe total (and the paper he reads) presents some plausible ideas.

11:13 AM  
Blogger spooked said...

Thanks for the long comment Shep, with which I agree. I guess the big problem with the explosive concrete idea is that it doesn't completely account for all the missing steel.

11:45 AM  
Blogger spooked said...

Oh, I think the only real evidence for thermite was the molten/fiery stuff pouring out of the corner of the south tower before it collapsed-- according to a couple of videos that mysteriously appeared about the same time Jones started pushing his thermite idea.

11:47 AM  
Blogger spooked said...

Yes, I am suggesting those videos were bogus-- at minimum were manipulated to accentuate the molten stuff.

11:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, I am suggesting those videos were bogus-- at minimum were manipulated to accentuate the molten stuff.

hmmm, potential bogus videos from camera planet? hmmmm, where have we run into that before? ;-)

I guess the big problem with the explosive concrete idea is that it doesn't completely account for all the missing steel.

agreed. i have doubts too, similar to what Fred has raised above. i will research this further and post and additional thoughts i have.

12:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred, i have found those same articles. i am having some doubts too about explosive concrete because i can't find jack about it, 'cept those same articles total read in his podcast from rumormill. still, i believe the analysis on CaO in relation to the WTC cough is interesting and perhaps deserves another look under the DEW microscope.

Would the micronuke hypothesis by itself account for the pulverization of the concrete?

i am under the impression, a naive one no doubt, is that miniature nuclear devices are messy in both that their destruction force cannot be targeted and that radiation would be present after one went off. whatever technology was used to poof the towers, the perps were careful not to completely screw lower manhattan. i am not certain of nukes can be so careful, if they were in fact used. but i realize it's been a long time since the manhattan project and that nuke technology has increased.

If not, how about the exotic weaponry?

i think so. one of the point that has stuck out to me when researching DEWs is the potential ability to effect specific types of materials. Dr. Wood used the analogy of a paper napkin in the microwave when you heat up your food and how the foot gets hot but the napkin doesn't. Dr J. Douglas Beason, Director of Threat Reduction at Los Alamos, who sits on the Board of Directors for the Directed Energy Professional Society, made some fascinating remarks at a lecture by the Heritage Foundation on 11/29/2005:

"Hundreds if not thousands of lives could have been saved in Iraq if science and technology were appropriately applied and used. So, there's the statement, what do I mean by that? Well, if we were to have a program of science and technology that could produce a weapon with certain characteristics, what characteristics what that weapon have? Well, the first characteristic that I would want, as a war fighter, is that it would be infinitely precise, that is to say, you could focus it down so that there would be little collateral damage ... the second characteristic is that I would want it to be infinitely fast. That is, I would want it to be able to deposit its weapon effect in an action that is faster than the blink of an eye ... so the third characteristic, along with infinitely fast and being infinitely precise, would be able to, what I call, give you the opportunity to dial an effect. Currently right now the only way we have to apply force is a binary system: you apply force or you don't and the effects are usually binary too..."

the good doctor concludes his intro by stating, "Well, as you've probably guess, this type of technology does exist, under the name, Directed Energy" and follows up with about 50 minutes of additional lecture. this was part of total's podcast a few weeks back but you can find it via 'the google' as well.

switching gears, you guys have gotta check out Ningen's latest post:

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/my-concerns-about-professor-joness.html

and has anyone read or does anyone have access to this paper?

How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center, International Journal of Impact Engineering

sorry for the long comment(s)-- not trying to hog the blog ;-)

7:34 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger