Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:823:852:1124:1449]

stundie · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Fledermaus said:
Examples?

C4, Octanitrocubane and RDX to name a few.

I thought you already knew this, but you and retaining information are like the odd couple...lol

zyzygy · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

stundie said:
This might surprise you, but some explosives are not set of by fires....even ones burning for several hours! lol

Links to a scientific study please, or some examples. I'm not holding my breath.

zyzygy · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

stundie said:
C4, Octanitrocubane and RDX to name a few.

I thought you already knew this, but you and retaining information are like the odd couple...lol

So it's not thermite anymore? You change your mind with every post. Most amusing. How were huge amounts of those explosives planted without anybody noticing? Or is that just you saying the first thing that comes in to your head yet again?

Quag · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

zyzygy said:
So it's not thermite anymore? You change your mind with every post. Most amusing.

I thought you knew already. Holding multiple mutually exclusive positions is perfectly logical in trutherdom

Fledermaus · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

stundie said:
C4, Octanitrocubane and RDX to name a few.

I thought you already knew this, but you and retaining information are like the odd couple...lol

No, they deteriorate/deflagrate...

In other words they burn rather than explode.

EXAMPLE: RDX in TEMPERATURE RESISTANT tube form used in gas/oilfields has a time limit of one hour at 350F

Not quite "hours".

zyzygy · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Quag said:
I thought you knew already. Holding multiple mutually exclusive positions is perfectly logical in trutherdom

Multiple cognitive dissonance. Fascinating.

zyzygy · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Fledermaus said:
No, they deteriorate/deflagrate...

In other words they burn rather than explode.

EXAMPLE: RDX in TEMPERATURE RESISTANT tube form used in gas/oilfields has a time limit of one hour at 350F

Not quite "hours".

Ah, the perils of two minute Googling.

stundie · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

zyzygy said:
Links to a scientific study please, or some examples. I'm not holding my breath.

Its wiki time for you....

C-4 (explosive) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
C-4 is stable and an explosion can only be initiated by the combination of extreme heat and shock wave from a detonator.
C-4 is very stable and insensitive to most physical shocks. C-4 cannot be detonated by a gunshot or by dropping it onto a hard surface. It does not explode when set on fire or exposed to microwave radiation.

You need to understand that not all explosives.

I would post the other ones, but you've got the worlds biggest library at your finger tips....use it. lol

stundie · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

zyzygy said:
So it's not thermite anymore?

Thermite/thermate/Nanothermite....Not sure of the mixture.

There is more than one way to make a Victoria Sp

zyzygy said:
You change your mind with every post.

No, I've never said which one it is because I don't know.

zyzygy said:
Most amusing. How were huge amounts of those explosives planted without anybody noticing?

So you believe huge amounts were used?? lol

I thought you believed that the plane crash and fires was enough? lol

zyzygy said:
Or is that just you saying the first thing that comes in to your head yet again?

No, I leave that to the pantomime debunkers. lol

Fledermaus · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

stundie said:
Its wiki time for you....

C-4 (explosive) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
C-4 is stable and an explosion can only be initiated by the combination of extreme heat and shock wave from a detonator.
C-4 is very stable and insensitive to most physical shocks. C-4 cannot be detonated by a gunshot or by dropping it onto a hard surface. It does not explode when set on fire or exposed to microwave radiation.

You need to understand that not all explosives.

I would post the other ones, but you've got the worlds biggest library at your finger tips....use it. lol

So, we agree they will not explode...

They will simply burn away.

C4 by itself will burn.

Now, how were they DETONATED?

stundie · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Fledermaus said:
No, they deteriorate/deflagrate...

In other words they burn rather than explode.

EXAMPLE: RDX in TEMPERATURE RESISTANT tube form used in gas/oilfields has a time limit of one hour at 350F

Not quite "hours".

That is just one form of RDX, I'm sure with the right ingredients, it could withstand higher temperatures for much longer.

Anyway...C4 and Octanitrocubane are perfectly safe, making your entire point moot......lol

stundie · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Fledermaus said:
So, we agree they will not explode...

They will simply burn away.

C4 by itself will burn.

Now, how were they DETONATED?

If C4 was used, it would be detonated using a charge.

And of course, in the world of panto debunking, they forget that there were plenty of places all over the buildings which were not on fire and therefore, perfectly safe!! lol

stundie · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

zyzygy said:
Ah, the perils of two minute Googling.

You should try it sometime instead of cheer leading the losing side....lol

Fledermaus · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

stundie said:
If C4 was used, it would be detonated using a charge.

And of course, in the world of panto debunking, they forget that there were plenty of places all over the buildings which were not on fire and therefore, perfectly safe!! lol

C4 is already a charge...

How are you setting the C4 charge off?

Fledermaus · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

stundie said:
That is just one form of RDX, I'm sure with the right ingredients, it could withstand higher temperatures for much longer.

Anyway...C4 and Octanitrocubane are perfectly safe, making your entire point moot......lol

And the EVIDENCE either was used in WTC7?

Fledermaus · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Fledermaus said:
C4 is already a charge...

How are you setting the C4 charge off?

ETA -

CLUE: The detonators used are heat rated as well... 300-500F for no more than an hour. (By which time the C4 is long gone)

zyzygy · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

stundie said:
You should try it sometime instead of cheer leading the losing side....lol

The side that has won and still keeps on winning after 13 years? I'll keep cheering, you carry on floundering and avoiding answering questions.

zyzygy · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Fledermaus said:
ETA -

CLUE: The detonators used are heat rated as well... 300-500F for no more than an hour. (By which time the C4 is long gone)

I would reccomend a longer Google for stundie next time.

stundie · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Fledermaus said:
C4 is already a charge...

How are you setting the C4 charge off?

Detonation charges, cords, wireless....there are variety of different ways.

Why does it matter?? lol

stundie · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Fledermaus said:
And the EVIDENCE either was used in WTC7?

Told you, I have the same amount of evidence that you have for your fire induced collapse. lol

zyzygy · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

stundie said:
Told you, I have the same amount of evidence that you have for your fire induced collapse. lol

Quite a lot then. When are you going to post yours?

zyzygy · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

stundie said:
Detonation charges, cords, wireless....there are variety of different ways.

Why does it matter?? lol

You're quite right, it doesn't matter because the idea of C4 being used is a fantasy.

stundie · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Fledermaus said:
ETA -

CLUE: The detonators used are heat rated as well... 300-500F for no more than an hour. (By which time the C4 is long gone)

And what temperature did the NIST give....

Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC (p 90/140)

So even according to the NIST own temperatures analysis, it would appear they were safe enough to detonate your brand of C4. lol

hahahahahahahaha!!

I love your failings, they are spectacularly hilarious!!

Every time you play these silly panto debunker games, you end up with your foot, firmly planted in your mouth.....lol

stundie · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

zyzygy said:
Quite a lot then. When are you going to post yours?

The same time you post your none existent evidence. lol

stundie · Jan 22, 2015

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

zyzygy said:
You're quite right, it doesn't matter because the idea of C4 being used is a fantasy.

I never claimed it was used.

You asked for an explosive that could survive fires and I mentioned a few......lol

Showing you that your debunking isn't debunking, it's a belief that explosives couldn't survive fires, which is patently false......hahahahahaha!!

I think you had better stick to what your best at...Cheerleading. lol