It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Just how convoluted can you get?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   
the recent allegations / counter allegations regarding the " flash " prior to impacts at the WTC have set me thinking

the conspiracists allege that this flash was a missile launch


err ok

why

how a pylon hardpoint could be added to a boeing airfame


what would this " magic missile " achieve in the split second before impact ??????????

to paraphrase the silliest combo of conspiracist claims :

claim 1 ) the plane flown into the WTC was a windoless cargo plane

question 1 ) where did the plane that departed logan and the passengers go

claim 2 ) the plane fired a missile prior to impact


question 2 ) why ????????????


question 2b ) how ????????????

claim 3 ) the towers were " wired to drop " with dems charges

question 3 ) how did these mythical set of charges maintain cohesion druing the impact and fire , with no loss of integrity in any circuit

given that the exact impact point / pattern of damage could not be predicted

how they wired the building is an even siller claim thats covered by others , so i will leave it for now


that enough for an opening post

PS i would love to have seen the look on the face of the engineer who was morally challenged enough to agree to wire the WTC with explosives when they told him that his charges would have to survive a missile , plane and fire of unpredictable nature

PRICELESS :p


I guess the bottom line is KISS


YRS - APE

EDIT: All caps title.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by RANT]




posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I dont subscribe to the missile firing into the WTC that made the flash nor do i subscribe to a laser from a missile made the flash before it fired. I subscribe to the flash was laser targeting and the ordinance or so called missile(was the plane itself). The strange pod like apparatus wasnt a missile nor was it a bomb, it was a guidance system.


I know I know....Im putting on my tinfoil hat as we speak



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
claim 1 ) the plane flown into the WTC was a windoless cargo plane

question 1 ) where did the plane that departed logan and the passengers go


That's the scary part. Anything could have happened to them. Probably blown to bits or something.


Originally posted by ignorant_ape
claim 2 ) the plane fired a missile prior to impact


question 2 ) why ????????????


Don't know, the main point is - a missile of some sort was fired, this proves it wasn't a commercial airliner.


Originally posted by ignorant_ape
question 2b ) how ????????????


What would be so hard about putting some kind of a missile on the belly of a millitary plain, and launching it via R/C ???


Originally posted by ignorant_apeclaim 3 ) the towers were " wired to drop " with dems charges

question 3 ) how did these mythical set of charges maintain cohesion druing the impact and fire , with no loss of integrity in any circuit

given that the exact impact point / pattern of damage could not be predicted

how they wired the building is an even siller claim thats covered by others , so i will leave it for now


?? There is no such thing as a "mythical set of charges" in the WTC, but there were the real set charges/explosives.

What don't you understand? During the drills months/weeks earlier they were planted there by the top government agents, set to go off at a certain time or in sequence, or by some other more advanced trigger.

What is so unbelievable about this?

Have you 'Lose Change' a 9/11 Doc? It shows, on video exactly where the explosives went off, just as the tower was falling and it's very very clear.


Originally posted by ignorant_ape
PS i would love to have seen the look on the face of the engineer who was morally challenged enough to agree to wire the WTC with explosives when they told him that his charges would have to survive a missile , plane and fire of unpredictable nature


What are you a fool?

They don't have to survive anything, no missile, no plane, no fire happened near the explosives. The plane crashed into a designated part of the WTC. The Explosives were detonated at a specific time.

These engineers really couldn't give a crap, they get paid millions + benefits. Maybe they're foreign. Who knows.

In a country of 250-300Mill, and in a world of almost 7 BILL, there is no trouble getting people to do these kinds of things.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Very few who question the official story of 9-11 give credence to the "cargo plane" theory or the "missile pod" theory, despite your valiant yet futile attempts to lump every single one of these people into one conspiracists[sic] basket. (BTW, "conspiracists" is not a word.
)

As for the rest of your post, this should answer your questions.

[edit on 2005-9-4 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
quote :" They don't have to survive anything, no missile, no plane, no fire happened near the explosives. The plane crashed into a designated part of the WTC. The Explosives were detonated at a specific time"

look at ANY video of the collapse , in both towers the collapse starts within the fire , ergo the " mythical explosives " must have been robust enough to survive the crash / missile / fire



quote : What don't you understand? During the drills months/weeks earlier they were planted there by the top government agents, set to go off at a certain time or in sequence, or by some other more advanced trigger.

please educate yourself in atleast the basics of dems procedures - you cannot just " hide " all the work required for a controlled demmolition over a period of weeks and " hope " no one notices or nothing triggers a premeture ignition

as countless people have pointed out previously - structural beams must be cut / pre scored the ecplosives layout requires 100s of charges and kilometers of fusing

you cannot allow live powerbuses and computer netowks or ANY rf interference withing the " target " building

ie - a working evironment like WTC


quote : " what is unbelievable about this? "

absolutly bloody everything


YRS - APE



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
the recent allegations / counter allegations regarding the " flash " prior to impacts at the WTC have set me thinking

the conspiracists allege that this flash was a missile launch


Do we really?

I rather don't know what it is, but that doesn't take away from its presence in the video clips.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   
The biggest proof for a missile hitting the towers is Rumsfeld talking about it.
But I honestly can't see why they would need a missile if the towers were filled with demolition charges anyway. And the video proof is .. well, unconclusive to say the least. It could be anything.




look at ANY video of the collapse , in both towers the collapse starts within the fire , ergo the " mythical explosives " must have been robust enough to survive the crash / missile / fire


That's a bit easy don't you think ?
Do you really think that if they planned something like 9/11 they wouldn't take measures for that? They KNOW a plane will hit, wich will cause a huge explosion... it doesn't look like something they would forget in their calculations. And assuming they use the same techniques as in everyday demolitions is just wrong imo.

They would only need to make sure that small groups of detonations are wired together, if that is even needed.. I wouldn't be surprised if they were ALL triggered wireless. What would it matter if a few charges went off when the planes hit ? It's not like anyone is going to notice, and the towers are strong enough to stay up as long as they don't all go off...

And as a matter of fact, on the video's of the second plane hitting the tower, there IS an explosion wich seems too far from the impact place to be directly related. It also looks like the 'squibs' you see when the towers collapse.

italy.indymedia.org...



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I dont and never have subscribed to any 'conspiracy' on 9/11, way too much circumstanial if, suppose, etc.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rikimaru
I dont and never have subscribed to any 'conspiracy' on 9/11, way too much circumstanial if, suppose, etc.


Aside from all the theorizing on how it would've occured, who would've been involved, etc., have you ever looked at the physics of the WTC collapses?

Have you ever seen the squibs, or wondered what the # caused them? Or maybe wondered how buildings of that mangitude could fall perfectly vertically and symmetrically, all 110 floors, without off-setting? You realize that, for this to happen, all columns on those floors would have to blow out at the exact same moment? That is to say, that within the 0.3 seconds that each 12-foot floor blew out, every single support column had to be blown out simultaneously in order to prevent the building from falling to one side.

That would be a bit unusual, would it not? Especially twice. And even moreso three times, including a building that wasn't even hit by a plane and whose owner admitted on tape to giving a command to "pull it." And when you watch a video of this building fall (Building 7), does nothing odd strike you about the symmetry of it all, despite its lack of severe damage?

How does this



result in this?



Wouldn't you agree that a professional demolition team couldn't have done a better job themselves?

Perfect vertical, symmetrical collapse, straight onto its footprint. And from a fire? In a steel skyscraper? This # is unheard of.

The evidence linking these things to Bush and Co. may be circumstantial, but the evidence of there being something awry at the WTC on 9/11 is pretty straightforward and concrete. There is no way a 110-story building could fall in the same manner, at the same speed, with the same ejection of material, squibs, etc., without explosives. Then you have Larry Silverstein saying he gave the order to "pull it" on Building 7, and then later outright refuses to clarify what exactly he meant. And people still buy the official story without asking a single question!


There is no way gravity did that to those buildings. NIST might tell you that they were able to reproduce the collapses via simulations (implying without explosives) in their "labs," and yet don't tell you how, and then there are guys who've been trying to simulate these collapses for over four years and haven't got it to work yet. Why not? And why didn't NIST publish their critical information, their figures, their test variables and procedures and all, so that we may reproduce and prove that they are right?

Personally, I would at least begin to wonder and ask questions. In fact, that's exactly what I did. If you believe that there was nothing odd about 9/11, or that you got the full story off of your TV, watching CNN and Fox, then you're kidding yourself.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
"Have you ever seen the squibs, or wondered what the caused them? Or maybe wondered how buildings of that mangitude could fall perfectly vertically and symmetrically, all 110 floors, without off-setting? You realize that, for this to happen, all columns on those floors would have to blow out at the exact same moment? That is to say, that within the 0.3 seconds that each 12-foot floor blew out, every single support column had to be blown out simultaneously in order to prevent the building from falling to one side"

This section shows that you know NOTHING about demolition, NOTHING about physics OR NOTHING about how the WTCs were constructed unlike any other buildings.

I can not explain EVERYTHING that happened during 9/11, but I also am not about to make a leap of logic like you and your conspiracist friends are willing to (BTW Welcome, “conspirasists” IS a word, just because MicroSoft doesn’t know it, doesn’t make it so).

Again, still waiting on some PROOF… not just alternate answers to questions that have already been answered (over and over and over…).



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
This section shows that you know NOTHING about demolition, NOTHING about physics OR NOTHING about how the WTCs were constructed unlike any other buildings.


Really?


And I'm sure compressed air caused all the squibs.


And it was just incredible chance that all three buildings fell without lopsiding.

And Larry was just drunk when he said he gave the order to pull Building 7. Or tripping on '___'. Yeah, tripping. Yeah, how stupid of me!


Again, still waiting on some PROOF…


If you honestly wanted proof, you wouldn't troll. All you have done so far is mock the conspiracy claims (which, given how our society usually looks upon these things regardless of facts, is neither hard to do nor uncommon). You haven't contributed aything of substance to this part of ATS.

If all the questions have been answered then you could surely prove us wrong instead of just telling us that we're wrong and expecting us to take your newbie word for it.

But if all of our questions have been answered, then maybe you can tell us what caused the squibs?






posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   
"squibs" is an unproven theory, no PROOF. Again, you show your ignorance of demolition, cast concrete & prestressed concrete. The pictures can be seen on alot of collapses, mostly controlled, but other collapses are rarely filmed. The term squib is used so much it gets confused with anything real. As for anyone say to pull the building down, so what? What does that prove?

If you want to read any real facts, do a basic search. YOU have been proven wrong many times, but you have decided that "they" must be lying... How does someone prove anything to someone like that? There are plenty of links & explanations on this board already, the conspirasists just choose to ignore them, so why add more for you to ignore?

As for trolling, what else can I do? Some of the theories presented here just beg to be made fun of (and I felt I had controled myself). Also, newbie doesnt really apply just because of that date...

Edited to add;
Please don not get angry at me for asking the same question that many others ask of you. Pretty much, we just want some PROOF...

[edit on 5-9-2005 by Jake the Dog Man]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Well, since you just totally failed to explain what in the hell caused those explosions, you might want to tone down your posts just a tad.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   
The "explosions" are not proven, nor plausible. How does one explain something DIDNT happen?

Shattering/Compression/Pressure can explain anything you have seen on any of the films. Check out the Collapse thread for plenty of explainations, though most go unheard just to have a conspiracy.

Again, don't get angry at me because you don't want to hear something. From now on, ignore me as you ignore others with a diffence in opinion.


THIS conspiracy gives other valid conspiracies a bad reputation.

[edit on 5-9-2005 by Jake the Dog Man]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
The "explosions" are not proven, nor plausible. How does one explain something DIDNT happen?


Dude, I just showed you two pics of such explosions.

Here are four videos showing similar explosions over the course of a WTC collapse:

Video 1
Video 2
Video 3
Video 4

How on Earth can you say that it didn't happen when they were recorded by major media video footage and photographed?


Shattering/Compression/Pressure can explain anything you have seen on any of the films. Check out the Collapse thread for plenty of explainations, though most go unheard just to have a conspiracy.


Nope.

Now, see, these are where the "debunkers" start pulling # out of their ass and then people such as yourself blindly buy it.

The 'squibs' (bare with the name) are explosions that occur below the collapsing regions of the towers. We have footage showing these things happening. Right? If you deny this, you're being totally unreasonable, because it's there and plain as day to see.

So you say "shattering/compression/pressure." If you look up the definition of "shatter," you'll soon find how ridiculous that is of an explanation for solid dust debris being shot out over 100 feet into the air in explosions that were unrelated to the collapse.

But next we have "compression/pressure." I assume you mean air pressure, correct? Nothing else would even begin to make sense here, discussing explosions that burst out of the building in such a fashion.

Well, here's the deal with air compression: it equalizes immediately when reaching less dense air. It doesn't travel in jets through less dense air, and let alone will it travel down floors and then through intact offices to blow debris out over 100 feet.

If you'd like to suggest compressed air did this, you will have to prove that compressed air actually acts as a jet when coming into contact with less dense air.


Again, don't get angry at me because you don't want to hear something. From now on, ignore me as you ignore others with a diffence in opinion.


I don't ignore those with a differing opinion. I will ignore those, however, who refuse to consider legitimate evidence against their opinions.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Lack of an explanation hardly constitutes “legitimate evidence”. So you will base an entire conspiracy theory on some puffs of particulate/stressed concrete during the collapse of two of the tallest buildings on the planet after being struck by airplanes filled with jet fuel?

“If you deny this, you're being totally unreasonable, because it's there and plain as day to see”

I certainly do see a reaction on the tapes, but that still doesn’t prove explosions, “squibs” or the existence of any controlled explosion. I don’t mind people having a different opinion then mine, I just want to know how they came to that opinion. I came to mine through overwhelming evidence, 100s of eye witnesses, common sense, some prior knowledge in the WTCs construction techniques, some prior knowledge of demolition, a life long background in construction & prior knowledge in explosives/fire.

You appear to have come to yours by some puffs of concrete during a catastrophic building collapse & a distrust of the government. All anyone is asking for is PROOF. (Maybe you should look that definition up)

Take care & no hard feelings.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Alright, so you admit you can't explain the explosions with what info you have from the official story.

So then, what are the implications of these explosions going off in these buildings as they collapse? This certainly isn't normal for gravity-driven collapse that fall from structural damage. If these were normal, I'm pretty sure you'd be able to explain them.

Well, they are normal for demolition jobs. Charges go off early, and explosions stick out like sore thumbs. Coincidence? You've already admitted you can't explain the explosives in any way that would confirm the official story, so then this must be an alternative that you have to come to grips with: there were explosive charges within the building.

I don't think anything but the detonation of an explosive could cause such massively violent bursts from those buildings, but if you disagree then I would love to see some evidence of another possibility. Compression most certainly couldn't have done it, but yet the explosions were definitely there, coming straight out of the building laterally.

So what would the implications be of explosive charges detonating in the buildings as they collapsed, and only as they collapsed?

You tell me. Take a wild guess.


There are also serious problems with the nature of the collapses even without squibs, so, to respond to your statement,


So you will base an entire conspiracy theory on some puffs of particulate/stressed concrete during the collapse of two of the tallest buildings on the planet after being struck by airplanes filled with jet fuel?


no; the conspiracy "theory" is not based on the squibs alone. The squibs are only one aspect, yet the squibs are also the aspect that those sympathetic to the official story can't even begin to explain. It's a problem too obvious to their story, but, again, only one problem.

The other problems are along the lines of,

The Fires

· The fires, even combined with the structural damage received from aircraft impacts (only a minority of support columns on these floors were compromised, ie less than 15% of the perimeter columns of either building as even FEMA will tell you in their report) were neither hot enough nor widespread enough to cause global collapse in either WTC1, 2, or especially 7. Hydrocarbon fires of this type usually hover around 600 degrees Celsius. There is no evidence of the fires in WTC 1, 2, or 7 sustaining any more than 600 degree fires.



Here you see a chart of what colors steel/iron will glow when heated to certain temperatures. Proponents of the official story claim that the steel was heated to at least 800 degrees Celsius. Do you see what color steel would glow at that temperature? Yet no steel was ever recorded on 9/11 as being any color than a cool, dark color indicative of no major heating.

Similarly, the fires in the WTC buildings did not spread to floors that were unaffected by the initial impacts and fireballs. The fires stayed on the floors they started on, which indicates no raging office fires. Major office fires in steel skyscrapers have been recorded plenty of times, and they will spread to other floors, feeding off of hydrocarbon materials that will burn at higher temperatures (that apparently were never reached in the WTC fires).

Disappearance of Angular Momentum

· Upon the initiation of collapse in either building, the tops of the buildings began tilting as if they were going to fall off sideways (as one would expect), but then, for no apparent reason, the angular momentum of the top floors of both buildings vanished. Angular momentum does not vanish unless the object that is falling is no longer acting as a single solid object. That is to say, the top floors of those buildings (still connected) should have continued to fall at an angle off the sides of the buildings, but stopped suddenly because their frames had been shattered.

Here you can see the tilt in the South Tower as it began to collapse:



Continuing in that direction, it would have fallen like falling timber.

Another example:



I'm sure you've heard 'an object in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an equal and opposite force.' Well, this is sort of the case here. The top floors should have continued falling in those same directions. Why did they stop falling in those directions? Well, there was nothing pushing back to compromise the angular momentum, obviously. There was no giant troll standing in the middle of NYC pushing the building back up straight. So the only conclusion we can come to is that the frames of the tops of the buildings were shattered. They were no longer acting as single objects, connected to each other and acting in relation to each other.

Also notice that this shattering of the upper floors happens before anything comes in contact with the tilting floors to destroy them. Something independent, located within those top floors, destroyed the frames of the top sections.

Click here to watch a video of the angular momentum of the South Tower's top disappear, while the same section continues to fall straight downwards towards it footprint.

The disappearance of the angular momentum, like the squibs and lack of evidence for strong fires, flies right up in the face of the official story.

Concrete Dust

· Even early on in either building's collapse, a fine powder of concrete dust was being spewed from the collapsing building. The squibs even show debris of the consistency of the concrete powder being ejected from the buildings. After the buildings had totally collapsed, the amount of concrete dust raining down on NYC was enough to coat the area in enough powder to make it look as though a dirty December snow had struck New York.







As a researcher going by the name 'plaguepuppy' detailed:


In trying to come to terms with what actually happened during the collapse of the World Trade Towers, the biggest and most obvious problem that I see is the source of the enormous amount of very fine dust that was generated during the collapses. Even early on, when the tops of the buildings have barely started to move, we see this characteristic fine dust (mixed with larger chunks of debris) being shot out very energetically from the building. During the first few seconds of a gravitational fall nothing is moving very fast, and yet from the outset what appears to be powdered concrete can be seem blowing out to the sides, growing to an immense dust cloud as the collapse progresses.

The floors themselves are quite robust. Each one is 39" thick; the top 4" is a poured concrete slab, with interlocking vertical steel trusses (or spandrel members) underneath. This steel would absorb a lot of kinetic energy by crumpling as one floor fell onto another, at most pulverizing a small amount of concrete where the narrow edges of the trusses strike the floor below. And yet we see a very fine dust being blown very energetically out to the sides as if the entire mass of concrete (about 400,000 cubic yards for the whole building) were being converted to dust. Remember too that the tower fell at almost the speed of a gravitational free-fall, meaning that little energy was expended doing anything other than accelerating the floor slabs.

Considering the amount of concrete in a single floor (~1 acre x 4") and the chemical bond energy to be overcome in order to reduce it to a fine powder, it appears that a very large energy input would be needed. The only source for this, excluding for now external inputs or explosives, is the gravitational potential energy of the building. Any extraction of this energy for the disaggregation of the concrete would decrease the amount available for conversion to kinetic energy, slowing the speed of the falls. Yet we know that the buildings actually fell in about 9 seconds, only slightly less than an unimpeded free-fall from the same height. This means that very little of the gravitational energy can have gone toward pulverizing the concrete.

Even beyond the question of the energy needed, what possible mechanism exists for pulverizing these vast sheets of concrete? Remember that dust begins to appear in quantity in the very earliest stages of the collapses, when nothing is moving fast relative to anything else in the structure. How then is reinforced concrete turned into dust and ejected laterally from the building at high speed?


...which brings us to the next point:

Collapse Speed, Lack of Retardation, and Symmetry

· Pretty much, these buildings, which were made of steel and concrete, and were, as all skysrcapers, over-engineered and designed to redistribute weight loads in the event of structural damage, fell at rates comparable to free-fall and without either retardation or lopsiding. They fell perfectly vertically and symmetrically in a manner that would require blowing out all the columns of each 12-foot-high floor within simultaneously and within a 0.16-second (see below) time frame. This also means that the speed of collapse was consistent across each floor even at such small time intervals, as any resistance here or there on any of the floors as a building fell would cause the building to tilt and lopside, just as they began to do at the starts of their collapses but soon (and mysteriously) ceased. But there was no lopsiding after the collapses were underway. They both fell exactly as a controlled demolition would: straight down onto their footprints, perfectly vertically, symmetrically, and at ridiculous speed. At to that the mysterious squibs that were coming out of the buildings as they collapsed and this point alone would paint you a very vivid picture of what actually happened to those buildings.

The 0.16-second-per-floor figure is derived from this NBC footage of the South Tower collapse, as detailed here by the 9/11 Research Site.

As you can see on the video, after a period of about 2.5 seconds in which the building begins to fall, the collapse covers 32 stories (384 feet) in about 5 seconds. This is determined by the time it takes for the roof of the falling building to reach where the 78th floor previously was.

32 stories (384 ft.) in 5 seconds is 6.4 floors (78.6 ft.) a second. 6.4 floors a second is 1 floor every 0.15625 seconds. And again, all perfectly symmetrical, meaning all columns on each floors being blown out simultaneously within that 0.16-second time frame. No lopsiding. All symmetrical.


There's more, but for the sake of my time I'll let you decide whether or not you want to stay cynical and close-minded or else invest more time learning about these events. There is a lot of witness testimony that flies in the face of the official story, from multitudes of recounts of other explosions after the impacts within the WTC buildings and basement explosions, to Larry Silverstein saying on a documentary that he decided to give the order to "pull it" on Building 7 in order to save lives. That raises the question of when the explosives would've been planted, as it would've obviously been beforehand. And this leads to the witness testimony of sections of the WTC buildings being sectioned off and closed to the public for days at a time, security cameras also shut off to the areas, while "cable upgrades" were made in the buildings and so-called engineers came and went constantly. This further leads you to the information that all bomb-sniffing dogs were pulled from the complex the Thursday before the attacks by WTC security (GW Bush's brother, Marvin Bush's security company, no less), and were apparently back in the building by the day of the attacks.

There's a wealth of information, and if we don't have "proof," then certainly neither does the official story, because our story makes a hell of a lot more sense than theirs. They don't account for the squibs; they don't account for the ridiculous rates of fall or perfect symmetry, etc.; they don't account for the weak fires that should never have resulted in global collapse and were in fact dying by the time of collapse; and they utterly fail to compromise the multitudes of contradictory witness testimonies. The demo theory not only explains those problems, but makes perfect, unifying sense of them as squibs are common in demolitions, the speed and symmetry of the collapses are certainly demo-like in their neatness and uniformity, and the fires, in light of our proposal, are simply irrelevant. It wouldn't make a rat's ass of difference how hot they were, because they buildings would come down from the explosive charges regardless.

So saying we don't have proof is a bit hypocritical, if not downright ignorant.

Hopefully this post will give you a little better insight into what we're talking about here, since I spent so long typing it up.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 01:36 AM
link   
if anything I would go with "claim 3" lol

on reasonable one and I highly doubt it lol



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
claim 3 ) the towers were " wired to drop " with dems charges

question 3 ) how did these mythical set of charges maintain cohesion druing the impact and fire , with no loss of integrity in any circuit

given that the exact impact point / pattern of damage could not be predicted

how they wired the building is an even siller claim thats covered by others , so i will leave it for now

[edit on 4-9-2005 by RANT]



The wires were non-existant, partially.

The charges would be placed in 'groups', similar to how your Christmas lighting works. If one goes out, it doesn't take out the entire circuit, sometimes it will take none out, sometimes it will take 5 out (for example), depending on their setup, limitations, needs etc.

Each grouping would be set per designated floor and would have wireless contact with the 'base' located in WTC 7. Theoretically, the base could be in Vans on the street which look like News Vans or which are windowless and can rove while being conducted from WTC 7 up until demolition. The system would be like a switchboard which would tell the user which charges are functional and which are not, by using a relay signal. When that relay signal stops being returned, the user knows they have lost either a group, or a single detonation, depending on the set-up they have used. They would most likely have lost some at the impact areas, most likely this would of been assumed also. The planes were heading toward a GPS location and their impact would of been known within a area of floor coverage already worked out in advance. CAD models of the WTC would of been made to work out detonation position and affect to cut down on installation time. It would be entirely worked out and mapped out before anyone even stepped foot into the building with a charge in their hands.

When you've set groups at each floor of the building on a set number of floors, (going off calculations which determine the weight of the floors falling above it as to which floors will be most critical in removing as per your CAD model) you can then monitor their 'status' and initiate them in sequence as the floors fall.

There would need to be more than one 'type' of charge for different results but this also would limit the need for thousands of charges and miles of cable. Remember, we are talking about the most advanced technology and largest budget available to create these means. Don't expect your local demolition team to be using government developed, pre-fabed equipment designed for a specific purpose:

1. Point Of Impact: There would be few main charges around the point of impact which start the collapsing process after No.4.
2. Floor Resistance: There would be charges placed at the corners and the core connections on certain floors. They would be designed to shatter the steel beems as the rubble above falls on them, removing resistance.
3. Cutters: There would also be charges which are designed to 'cut' certain critical connections before the collapse reaches that area of the building. This will help remove resistance and also remove the need for 'thousands' of explosives.
4. The Core: There would also be a MAJOR bomb in each Core which is designed to remove the Core foundation and also help in removing resistance, allowing for the buildings weight to help the collapse.

Each set of charges would be monitored by a different person(s) who would call their sequence as it was happening and charges would be detonated in sequence.

Major bombs go off at the core as the planes impact and everyone is watching the fire ball. At the area of point of impact, after the WTC cores condition has been established, explosions at the area of point of impact occurs which starts the process, everyone is either running or watching the rubble fall, this distraction allows for cutting explosions below the implosion to occur generally un-noticed, apart from a few inconsistancies which formed 'squibs'. Lastly, the floor explosions would be going off as the rubble reaches them. As this 'dance' is taking place, the demolition team would have a complete montoring system of the WTC, with each floor marked out, each charge marked out on a computer. As the collapse occurs, the charges are let off in a pre-determined sequence via calls to the 'button pushers' as their section is lit up. This would be choreographed easily, they would not need an actual visual of the building, thou no doubt they would of anyway. The relay signal from the charges would tell them their status. If enough calculations were done prior, they may even have set the explosions to go off via an automated system once they triggered the intial collapse procedure.

This all happens in 9 to 11 seconds, creates a visual which is as thou the building fell in on itself and the weight of the building brought itself down. While that is partially true, it only occured because of help in removing the resistance it would of surely met and would otherwise have only partially collapsed the building or had the top topple over, leaving the rest standing.

Control this detonation from WTC 7 for the wireless range, don't worry thou, you'll be safe:


But we'll demolish the building later on so theres no evidence left behind.
(in case you don't know who used WTC 7, check this link:
www.whatreallyhappened.com... )

Now read up on explosive technology, the government have it's own department dedicated to this.... i mean, they are at war aren't they?!
Wireless technology is actually 200 years old!
wireless.itworld.com...
The government would have a fair grasp of that don't you think? Even in Iraq they can create IEDs with 5km detonation radius on the fly, i'm sure the Pentagon would be more advanced than an insurgent right?
www.strategypage.com...
I'm sure the government could create a series of wireless detonations, it would be much easier than using wires, a lot less would be involved, it can be controlled digitally and can be monitored by software.

Oh and if you live in that area, why not join the federal governments 20-year study to find out if there's any health risks for living in NY since 9/11! Find out in 20 years if your sick!
www.nyc.gov...






[edit on 6-9-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
claim 3 ) the towers were " wired to drop " with dems charges

question 3 ) how did these mythical set of charges maintain cohesion druing the impact and fire , with no loss of integrity in any circuit

given that the exact impact point / pattern of damage could not be predicted

how they wired the building is an even siller claim thats covered by others , so i will leave it for now

[edit on 4-9-2005 by RANT]



The wires were non-existant, partially.

The charges would be placed in 'groups', similar to how your Christmas lighting works. If one goes out, it doesn't take out the entire circuit, sometimes it will take none out, sometimes it will take 5 out (for example), depending on their setup, limitations, needs etc.

Each grouping would be set per designated floor and would have wireless contact with the 'base' located in WTC 7. Theoretically, the base could be in Vans on the street which look like News Vans or which are windowless and can rove while being conducted from WTC 7 up until demolition. The system would be like a switchboard which would tell the user which charges are functional and which are not, by using a relay signal. When that relay signal stops being returned, the user knows they have lost either a group, or a single detonation, depending on the set-up they have used. They would most likely have lost some at the impact areas, most likely this would of been assumed also. The planes were heading toward a GPS location and their impact would of been known within a area of floor coverage already worked out in advance. CAD models of the WTC would of been made to work out detonation position and affect to cut down on installation time. It would be entirely worked out and mapped out before anyone even stepped foot into the building with a charge in their hands.

When you've set groups at each floor of the building on a set number of floors, (going off calculations which determine the weight of the floors falling above it as to which floors will be most critical in removing as per your CAD model) you can then monitor their 'status' and initiate them in sequence as the floors fall.

There would need to be more than one 'type' of charge for different results but this also would limit the need for thousands of charges and miles of cable. Remember, we are talking about the most advanced technology and largest budget available to create these means. Don't expect your local demolition team to be using government developed, pre-fabed equipment designed for a specific purpose:

1. Point Of Impact: There would be few main charges around the point of impact which start the collapsing process after No.4.
2. Floor Resistance: There would be charges placed at the corners and the core connections on certain floors. They would be designed to shatter the steel beems as the rubble above falls on them, removing resistance.
3. Cutters: There would also be charges which are designed to 'cut' certain critical connections before the collapse reaches that area of the building. This will help remove resistance and also remove the need for 'thousands' of explosives.
4. The Core: There would also be a MAJOR bomb in each Core which is designed to remove the Core foundation and also help in removing resistance, allowing for the buildings weight to help the collapse.

Each set of charges would be monitored by a different person(s) who would call their sequence as it was happening and charges would be detonated in sequence.

Major bombs go off at the core as the planes impact and everyone is watching the fire ball. At the area of point of impact, after the WTC cores condition has been established, explosions at the area of point of impact occurs which starts the process, everyone is either running or watching the rubble fall, this distraction allows for cutting explosions below the implosion to occur generally un-noticed, apart from a few inconsistancies which formed 'squibs'. Lastly, the floor explosions would be going off as the rubble reaches them. As this 'dance' is taking place, the demolition team would have a complete montoring system of the WTC, with each floor marked out, each charge marked out on a computer. As the collapse occurs, the charges are let off in a pre-determined sequence via calls to the 'button pushers' as their section is lit up. This would be choreographed easily, they would not need an actual visual of the building, thou no doubt they would of anyway. The relay signal from the charges would tell them their status. If enough calculations were done prior, they may even have set the explosions to go off via an automated system once they triggered the intial collapse procedure.

This all happens in 9 to 11 seconds, creates a visual which is as thou the building fell in on itself and the weight of the building brought itself down. While that is partially true, it only occured because of help in removing the resistance it would of surely met and would otherwise have only partially collapsed the building or had the top topple over, leaving the rest standing.

Control this detonation from WTC 7 for the wireless range, don't worry thou, you'll be safe:


But we'll demolish the building later on so theres no evidence left behind.
(in case you don't know who used WTC 7, check this link:
www.whatreallyhappened.com... )

Now read up on explosive technology, the government have it's own department dedicated to this.... i mean, they are at war aren't they?!
Wireless technology is actually 200 years old!
wireless.itworld.com...
The government would have a fair grasp of that don't you think? Even in Iraq they can create IEDs with 5km detonation radius on the fly, i'm sure the Pentagon would be more advanced than an insurgent right?
www.strategypage.com...
I'm sure the government could create a series of wireless detonations, it would be much easier than using wires, a lot less would be involved, it can be controlled digitally and can be monitored by software.

Oh and if you live in that area, why not join the federal governments 20-year study to find out if there's any health risks for living in NY since 9/11! Find out in 20 years if your sick!
www.nyc.gov...






[edit on 6-9-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]

The only way that those three buildings could have collapsed into their footprint was by explosives. Plus, Building 7 was the newest building on the site. Also, it just amazes me how little the damage was to some of the buildings, including No. 7, that are right across West Street.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join