If the towers were demoed, how the explosives were set up?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 03:22 AM
link   
I watched a good and lengthy documentary on TV called "Implosions" or something like that. This docu was a detailed explanation how the demolition crew is performing the demolitions of buildings. They explained the basics of implosion, shown a bunch of actual demolitions and so on. What was very informative for me was that they documented one exact demolition of 10 story building.

This 10 story old building had steel columns, in docu they explained how they need to plant explosives on each floor and on each column, they even weakened the columns before the implosion with welding unit. Before the actual explosion they removed everything between floors so only the steel columns were visible. They stated that it takes weeks to take down this kind of building.

So I have a question for members who believe that the 1,2,7 were demoed. If the buildings were demoed, what do you think how the explosions were set up? You think that the explosions were only in the basement? From my amateur view I doubt if it is enough to put the explosions in the basement and expect such fine symmetrical implosion. OK, so you think on each floor? Doubt again, how they were able to put the explosives on each floor with all the people in the buildings? During the night? What about the massive amount of explosives which needed to be used, how they could actually hide them?

Thanks for your contribution.




posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Since the Towers collapsed from the top down, the explosives must have been placed in, or close to, the floors which the aircraft hit....... Obviously they were also invisible or else some of the thousands of people working there would have noticed something



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   
It seems to me i read that the explosives were placed in the buildings when they were built.

Why? I've yet to find out. It could be that it was a plan all along, from many years ago.

On the other hand, i dont know if all high rises have explosives put in to make implosions easier at a later date.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
It seems to me i read that the explosives were placed in the buildings when they were built.

On the other hand, i dont know if all high rises have explosives put in to make implosions easier at a later date.


Few people realize it, but every structure in America built after 1950, including apartment buildings, hospitals, schools and office buildings have high explosives built right into them to facilitate demolition years later, as dg surmises. Of course, building contractors keep this information from building owners and tenants because it might very well make some people nervous. It's just a courtesy for the anxious among us, the way some hotels and such used to not have a 13th floor. The cost of the explosives (which can be quite considerable) is usually hidden from developers as plumbing costs, as most developers are clueless about plumbing and only care that waste is effectively eliminated from the premises, regardless of the costs.

And now you know the rest of the story. Good Day!



[edit on 2006/1/28 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   


The cost of the explosives (which can be quite considerable) are usually hidden from developers as plumbing costs


Exactly, you don't really think that bill for 75 dollars an hour is for plumbing do you. As a contractor, that was one of the hardest things to keep secret, but I'm glad its out now.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Few people realize, but every structure in America built after 1950, including apartment buildings, hospitals, schools and office buildings have high explosives built right into them to facilitate demolition years later, as dg surmises.


I already heard this once, but this seems to me as sci-fi, can you provide some links and so on? Thanks.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   
What I don't get is people who think that planes and fire brought the tower down by collapsing one story have a hard time believing that they wouldn't need to place the explosives on every floor. What's up? Did one story failing bring the towers down or did every story need to be blown up? What is the logic in that?

I mean why is it logical to believe that one story failing can bring the towers down but not only one story being demolished? It doesn't make sense to me. If it only takes one story to make a building go into complete utter destruction, why don't explosives experts use this method? It would certainly cost much less than having to demolish every floor and every column wouldn't it?

[edit on 28-1-2006 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Griff,

I am not sure what brought the towers down, I'm just trying to ask questions. Yeah you're probably right that I used wrong word up there, it would've been better to write something like "Doubt again, how they were able to put the explosives on each or some floors with all the people in the buildings?"



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott


Few people realize, but every structure in America built after 1950, including apartment buildings, hospitals, schools and office buildings have high explosives built right into them to facilitate demolition years later, as dg surmises. Of course, building contractors keep this information from building owners and tenants because it might very well make some people nervous. It's just a courtesy for the anxious among us, the way some hotels and such used to not have a 13th floor. The cost of the explosives (which can be quite considerable) is usually hidden from developers as plumbing costs, as most developers are clueless about plumbing and only care that waste is effectively eliminated from the premises, regardless of the costs.


[edit on 2006/1/28 by GradyPhilpott]


Prove it.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Just some food for thought...


"On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brought back up afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded ...


sf.indymedia.org...


Forbes, who was hired by Fiduciary in 1999 and is now stationed at a U.K. branch office, was working on the weekend of September 8-9, 2001, and said that his company was given three weeks advance notice that New York’s Port Authority would take out power in the South Tower from the 48th floor up. The reason: the Port Authority was performing a cabling upgrade to increase the WTC’s computer bandwidth.


sf.indymedia.org...


George W. Bush's brother, Marvin P. Bush's company Securacom provided electronic security for the World Trade Center. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family and the Kuwaiti Ambassador's daughter that lied setting up the Incubator Babies Hoax to start the first Gulf War.

Disgraced Police Police Commissioner and adulterer Bernard Kerik, Giuliani's close ally, admitted they planned for building collapses and practiced them immediately before in 9/11 testimony. MSNBC Expose


www.libertypost.org...


Stratesec, a now-defunct company that had security contracts at the World Trade Center and Dulles International Airport, should be investigated, among others, because of the strange coincidence that President Bush’s brother, Marvin P. Bush, and his cousin, Wirt D. Walker III, were principals in the company, with Walker acting as CEO from 1999 until January 2002 and Marvin reportedly in New York on 9/11. At least one report claims that a "power down" condition prevailed on September 8–9 (pdf, p. 45) at WTC to complete a "cabling upgrade," presenting an opportunity to plant explosives with low risk of detection.


www.lewrockwell.com...


Firefighter Edward Cachia independently reported:

[We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down…It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. (Dwyer, 2005; emphasis added.)


www.reopen911.org...



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Prove it.


Well, of course, proof is hard to come by, but we can make certain inferences:

www.rense.com...

www.rense.com...

www.plaguepuppy.net...

www.attackonamerica.net...

www.apfn.net...

www.letsroll911.org...

/7oesz

Google Search



[edit on 2006/1/28 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   
The Scott Forbes story has not been confirmed, nor has the existence of Scott Forbes. How is it that half of one tower was powered down, and only one guy has talked about it.

911 review even calls Forbes story a hoax.


911review.com...

After being posted on scores of websites for over a year, this story has failed to elicit any corroborating reports, even about the identity of 'Scott Forbes'. Aside from the fact that the sourcing of the story doesn't meet the most basic journalistic standards, its content is thoroughly implausible.


There is a blogger out there who claims to have interviewed Forbes, but that interview and the initial email are anonymous sources.


As Zer69 pointed out it takes a lot longer than 36 hours to prepare a ten story building for demo. Heres an account where the demo of a 33 story building took 24 days.


www.controlled-demolition.com...

In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 “primary delays" and an additional 216 “micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum.



So even if Forbes story is true, are we to believe that 50+ storys were prepared for demolition in 36 hours? I think that the evidence points to no.

Secondly let's say that somehow they managed this amazing feet, where is the power down in the second tower? Forbes story only accounts for one building.

Marvin Bush stopped working at Stratesec in 2000.


www.commondreams.org...

Marvin P. Bush, the president's youngest brother, was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to fiscal year 2000.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
If they were built into the towers then, as AgentSmith points out, why do the plane impacts not dislodge them or blow them up?



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Not every explosive is unstable, see RDX for example:


wikipedia: RDX
At room temperature, it is a very stable product. It burns rather than explodes and only detonates with a detonator, being unaffected even by small arms fire.


Or here, wikipedia about C4:


C-4 is widely renowned for being malleable. It can be molded into gaps in buildings and under bridges, or into any desired shape. C-4 is also well known for its durability and reliability. It will not explode even if shot, punched, cut, or thrown into a fire. The only method for detonation is a detonator or blasting cap.


[edit on 28-1-2006 by Lumos]



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Well, of course, proof is hard to come by, but we can make certain inferences:


OK, your links are mainly from biased sources, so I am not taking them too seriously. But lets say that they were explosives inside WTC's concrete, do you think that after almost 30 years they were operational on 9/11?

What I see as possible is that they make preset holes for future demolitions in skyscrapers.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   


LeftBehind said:
So even if Forbes story is true, are we to believe that 50+ storys were prepared for demolition in 36 hours? I think that the evidence points to no.

I'm no expert, of course, but I think the WTC makes it possible.

The pics I've seen of WTC show a huge, massive central column running up the building like a central spine. Then there's the outer framing which provided the lateral support. Most of the weight, from what I could see (and read) is supported by the central column, as shown in available construction photos.

It seems that the logistics of demoing a building are often determined by an hourly fee or what have you. Also each building they face is often brick and mortar, and therefore with four points of weight distribution, knocking it straight down without toppling it takes more rigging and more wiring, blasting caps, etc.

WTC, on the other hand, seems to have a big central thick concrete spine which held a lot of the weight. Knocking that (single load-bearing) component out, would probably drop the whole item right into the subway. This central support core (with strengthening outside lattice) made the WTC towers unique, from what I've read.

If a group of military-level engineers needs to rig WTC to come down, I'm sure it could be rigged inside 24 hours. Once the right threads are cut, all heavy things fall in a straight line toward Earth.

They don't always cook for two weeks, but then thermite is needed for evidence-erasure... Oh wait. I mean jet fuel burns for weeks.



GradyPhilpott said:
every structure in America built after 1950, including apartment buildings, hospitals, schools and office buildings have high explosives built right into them to facilitate demolition years later, as dg surmises.

I think somebody needs to take his meds.


Either that, or Grady's onto the largest conspiracy in the history of man. Imagine how many building contractors are potential terrorists now!



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the "failed" 1996 bombing attack on the WTC. That bomb (Which we are told was placed upside down) demolished the underground parking area and the first several floors of the building. I'm sure it required extensive work to repair. Seems like the perfect time to be planting explosives...



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Marvin Bush stopped working at Stratesec in 2000.


www.commondreams.org...

Marvin P. Bush, the president's youngest brother, was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to fiscal year 2000.


regarding fiscal year 2000... i know some companies fiscal year end is in december and other in june/july.... isn't it possible that the end of fiscal 2000 for that company is in june/july 2001? I'm not sure if companies that operate like that are staggered ahead or behind, that's why i'm asking



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
with unlimited access to the towers (not being hindered by marvin bush being on the board of directors of the company that controlled security at the wtc, securacom), unlimited time, and unlimited resources including covert military technology...........it's not a far stretch to imagine it as possible.

contractors were perpetually working in the towers doing something or other.

there is no reason to believe that they couldn't have had "contractors" wire the place with high tech explosives late at night over a period of weeks or months.

since of course the only hypothesis about how the the towers fell that actually works is professor jones' it doesn't make sense to work backwards and speculate "how" they wired the building.

because obviously you must realize zer69; the only answers you can get to your question would have to be speculation.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by derdy

regarding fiscal year 2000... i know some companies fiscal year end is in december and other in june/july.... isn't it possible that the end of fiscal 2000 for that company is in june/july 2001? I'm not sure if companies that operate like that are staggered ahead or behind, that's why i'm asking


as if it matters.

securacom, now called stratesec, suspiciously had the contract to run security at the towers right up until the very day of 9/11. isn't it odd that their contract ran out on that day?

and do you really think as a member of the board of directors from 1993 to 2000 and a significant shareholder in the company that marvin bush's influence/connections with the company completely ceased in 2000 when he stepped down as board of directors?

come on!

he was the brother of the sitting president.

if anything, the end of his tenure with the company so soon before 9/11 is indicative of a proactive move on his part to cover his ass!





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join