Anybody know about blasting caps or detonators that self-destruct?

The triumphant statement by a " demolition expert" on the History Channel that he saw no detonation cord, wiring or remnants of blasting caps at Ground Zero has given courage to OCT supporters.

This has come up in a long-running debate I'm running on an industry forum. The latest rejoinder I got was this

"you have not produced one blasting cap, nor one piece of wiring"

What I could find on the Web on the subject was all about detection of

A. detonators before they explode, or
B. explosives by means of chemical taggants after the blast

but nothing about detecting remnants of detonators post-blast (except that "stealth explosives" has been used as a term of ridicule for the controlled demolition argument.)

Re A, I found this: "Plastic weapons, plastic detonators, explosives enclosed into plastic cases and plastic mines are very difficult to detect."

I am beginning to suspect that the problem of detectability might actually be the other way around.

Because of the potential for criminal abuse, manufacturers of commercial explosives and detonators are required to make them trackable for forensic criminology. (The 9/11 perps would not be complying with those rules.)

Common sense would say that a detonator or blasting cap, which is a primary explosive charge that sets off the main charge, tends to blow itself to bits too!

So that if the casing is made of plastic or other soft material, instead of metal, you're not going to see anything left - especially after the secondary charge blows up around it.

Can anyone confirm or deny this?

This would explain the too-triumphant tone of the History Channel expert - he could be reciting the prepared alibi.
Funny how the debunkers have held this alibi back until now.
Do they need it to clear the decks for the next false flag attack that will precipitate the nuking of Persia?

I found this source on plastic detonators:

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=5966
"A program should then be implemented that utilizes the best available taggant technology... other measures should be considered, such as adding ultra low-level, radiation-emitting detection markers to plastic explosives and detonators."

If radioactive taggants are being considered for post-blast detection, it certainly sounds like the plastic detonator would be too thoroughly pulverized to be identified by mechanical means, and certainly not optically by casual, non-forensic observation.

Remember the bitter protests by Fire Engineering Magazine that physical evidence was quickly and illegally removed, and nornal forensics were not allowed at the WTC sites?

The main thrust of explosive forensics is to determine the type of explosive and trace it to the manufacturer, leading thence to the identity of the perpetrators. This is made possible by embedding chemical taggants in the explosive.

Since forensics relies on chemical tests on the blast traces, there would be no need in normal criminological circumstances to try and identify physical remnants of plastic detonator cases visually, and the History Channel has brought up one more red herring.

If making plastic blasting caps that are visually recognizable post-blast is not an issue, this would also explain why I could not find anything on the subject with a web search.

As for detonation cord, it appears to be much more difficult to detect than detonation caps, and there are alternatives, such as plastic gas tubes.

I found a reference to blasting caps which look like ordinary fuses, and caps which look like innocuous objects, such as pens or pencils.

Of course, the material in the towers was pulverized to micron size anyway. But my OCT-hugger isn't taking that for an answer. He says my arguments are "abstract."

So if anyone can add concrete details about detonation cord and caps that leave no obvious traces, I'd be glad.

Or if there is a law against them, then that.