Why Wait an Hour to Blow the Buildings ?

originally posted by: wildb

14 years and counting and still no evidence for explosives.

And still no explanation has been provided as to why the towers collapsed to ground level..

And no explanation as to where 3180* F came from, and on and on..

And if your going to quote things a link would be appropriate..

That's the thing that gets me, well, two things, no wait, maybe three...

Destroyed to GROUND LEVEL. Not only that you can clearly see it's ground level because there is no giant pile of building materials, principally steel, there, because, don't forget, they say the steel only needed to 'weaken' for the towers to 'collapse'. That means there really should not be any steel members missing in the basically nonexistent 'pile'.

'PILE' LOL, it's laughable.

Best Crocodile Dundee imitation: "That's not a pile!"

Even that fireman survivor in the stairwell thought he'd die before they could extricate him, he looks up and sees blue sky! Not a pile of twisted and broken steel over him who knows how high, but the fact it was not higher than him even defies logical explanation.

All the beams didn't melt. Some 90 floors of Tower 1 had room temperature steel, where is it all? It should be in over and around each lobby but IT ISN'T. The lobbies aren't filled with the rest of the buildings.

If the objective of the attack was to inflict maximum damage to NYC and the US (and even global) economy along with maximum casualties, striking the tallest buildings above half height with heavy aircraft at maximum speed in hope of causing the structures to snap near ground level and topple like fallen trees across the city would be at the top of the perpetrators' wish list. The '93 bombing appeared to have a similar objective.

Fortunately, the buildings both survived those initial impacts sparing a lot of lives. Delaying the final destruction would only diminish the effectiveness of that attack.

Fortunately, the buildings both survived those initial impacts sparing a lot of lives. Delaying the final destruction would only diminish the effectiveness of that attack.

I disagree, not when you want it on TV all across the world...

a reply to: Pilgrum

Fortunately, the buildings both survived those initial impacts sparing a lot of lives. Delaying the final destruction would only diminish the effectiveness of that attack.

That is correct, but why plant explosives when aircraft were to be used?

originally posted by: wildb

Fortunately, the buildings both survived those initial impacts sparing a lot of lives. Delaying the final destruction would only diminish the effectiveness of that attack.

I disagree, not when you want it on TV all across the world...

And/Or you had to wait to blow the buildings anyway (for some reason).

Think of building 7, they seemed to have to wait all day with that one. If they were immediately capable of blowing the buildings why make any spectacle out of building 7 by postponing blowing it? It makes no sense.

They probably 'blew' (destroyed) each building only by whatever method was ready to allow them to be able to do it at that time. Which meant waiting as long as they did (or had to etc.) to finish off 7 too.

If they could've blown 7 before they did they would've, but up until it went it just wasn't ready to go. Looks like.

a reply to: wildb

After plane 1 hit (caught on just 1 camera (Naudet) that I've seen) every camera in NYC was going to be focussed on the WTC complex all day regardless of further impacts or collapses

a reply to: NWOwned

Who knows, maybe they were missing a plane and did not know what to do, let it burn so they had a reason for it to fall, or am I reading you wrong..

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: wildb

After plane 1 hit (caught on just 1 camera (Naudet) that I've seen) every camera in NYC was going to be focussed on the WTC complex all day regardless of further impacts or collapses

Yes this is true, I don't understand your point..

a reply to: wildb

Who knows, maybe they were missing a plane and did not know what to do, let it burn so they had a reason for it to fall, or am I reading you wrong..

What caused that huge impact hole on the south wall of WTC 7?

a reply to: skyeagle409

We went through the calculations here in ATS years ago to determine the energy imparted by the impacts alone and that made explosives appear to be a redundant requirement to mortally damage those buildings. Plus the lack of any evidence of explosives like HE explosions, residue, det cord, wiring, whistle blowers etc

a reply to: wildb

The waiting for the plane is speculation, we're talking about blowing the buildings right?

Why if the buildings are rigged not just blow them on impact? Right? But if 7 is wired too why wait till well past the arrival of any plane? Why even plan for another plane? Why not wire it up, make sure the side facing Tower 1 has office fires and damage from Tower 1 and just drop it an hour later? There are even videos of people indicating that 7 was going to fall, but if they could blow it why then the wait see?

The waiting is the key to everything I think. They had to wait to blow them, wait for a tipping point...

I believe one of the biggest problem with the OS about the WTC, is there was to much energy involved when the WTC was collapsing. Way to much energy.

This is something I don't see address. How does anyone explained thousands of tons of support beams hurled over 600 feet in every direction?

originally posted by: NWOwned

The waiting is the key to everything I think. They had to wait to blow them, wait for a tipping point...

Then we can't rule out the possibility that the 'tipping point' was reached as the natural outcome of an unnatural event like ongoing uncontested fires added to major structural damage - the 'straw that broke the camel's back'.

originally posted by: Informer1958
I believe one of the biggest problem with the OS about the WTC, is there was to much energy involved when the WTC was collapsing. Way to much energy.

This is something I don't see address. How does anyone explained thousands of tons of support beams hurled over 600 feet in every direction?

Yep, no answers there..

a reply to: Informer1958

The B-767's slamming into WTC 1 and WTC 2 generated a significant amount of energy that dislodge fire protection that exposed the steel structures of those buildings to the full effects of fires that burned at temperatures that are known to weaken their steel structures under load to the point of failure.

a reply to: samkent
You answered your own question. This would not be the event it was without the media covering the story. To sensationalize the whole event. Seeing the towers collapse live and the "plane" fly into the building on live tv, just outraged the public. And gave justification for invading Afghanistan and then later, Iraq.

If this went down with no media coverage, the attention of the general public would not have cared as much. This helped their cause much more than if the only testimony of 9/11 was through word of mouth.

Only thing is, with them showing it on tv, it opened the doors to people questioning it. Since they could analyze every frame. But the powers in place didn't care about that. They knew the masses would just deem them "tin foils". I mean, even all the ones who question it and know it was not what they told us, what can we really do about it?

When the top floors fell over you can clearly see all the concrete turn to dust, this is not normal when a build just falls down.

Only something with a tremendous amount of energy can cause that.

I can understand the dislodge fire protection that exposed the steel structures of those buildings to the full effects of fires that burned at temperatures that are known to weaken their steel structures under load to the point of failure.

However that does not explain what cause all the concrete to turn to dust in mid air or the amount of energy that we all saw, of thousands of tons of steel beams moving at 60 miles an hour, hurling these steel support beams over 600 feet in every direction.

That is not normal when a build just collapse from a fire.

I have not had an honest scientific answer to this fact yet.

originally posted by: Informer1958

This is something I don't see address. How does anyone explained thousands of tons of support beams hurled over 600 feet in every direction?

The WTC towers were something like 1400' tall so material falling outward to some 600' is not all that surprising. It's simply a factor of where the columns snapped their welded/bolted joints after the relatively weak bracing structure of the floors attached to outer walls was smashed by falling heavy steel sections from above. Any distance up to the height of the impact point above ground would be quite possible.

a reply to: Blackspider928

And gave justification for invading Afghanistan...

Actually, Bush issued a demand for the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden or else. Had the Taliban complied with his demand, there would not have been a war in Afghanistan.

...and then later, Iraq.

In regard to Iraq, the United States did not fabricate WMD evidence. That was the work of Rāfid Aḥmad Alwān: codename "Curveball,," and I watched on TV as he bragged about passing on false WMD to the United States, which resulted in the attack on Iraq. However, WMD was eventually found after U.S. troops entered Iraq and I might add that lots of WMD was uncovered in Iraq.

But on another note, the United States and the UN exercised great restraint in light of the fact that Iraq had violated 16 UN Resolutions after the Gulf War where Iraq invaded Kuwait. Basically speaking, Iraq had violated conditions that ended the war and yet, the U.S. and the UN decided to play a cool hand in dealing with Iraq, but Iraq continued with its violations and the rest soon became history.