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.

 

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

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 02:34 AM
link   
The title of this thread is "If the towers were demoed, how the explosives were set up?"

In my view, the first question requiring exploration is the issue of how secure the buildings were? The easier the access, the less sophisticated the technology required to bring the buildings down... no?

Howard posted a few pages back- and let me thank him for doing so
- the following:


Originally posted by HowardRoark
...Secondly this theory runs smack into the reality of how large buildings and complexes like the WTC are managed, maintained and run. This theory runs up against the fact that these buildings were occupied and operated 24/7. The maintenance engineers in particular are active at night and on weekends. No construction project, no matter how big or small operates in a vacuum in a building like that.


This is ridiculous and should not remain unchallenged. Those buildings were not military installations. You make it sound as if they were...
They were commercial buildings with private and government tenants, whose daily activities could hardly be known by any property management company or security firm.


Remember who works for who here. They are there at the pleasure of the tenants. As a legal matter, tenants may need to abide by their tenancy agreements, but as a practical matter, owners, managers and security firms are there to please the tenants. The tenants are their clients.

Even after the previous bombing attempts of the towers, I sincerely doubt that pre-911 ANYONE devised a security plan for the buildings that would have included significant review of the activities authorized by any tenant.

Were all packages and freight brought into the building by tenants searched? I think not. We don't even do that now in a post-911 environment.

Howard continues...


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Some have put forth the idea that because a certain security company was in place at the building, that this is how the explosives were brought into the building. Unfortunately, security is not responsible for building maintenance and construction activities. Coordinating construction schedules around tenants is the job of the building manager. In a building of that size, and with many tenants in the financial sector, it is a difficult task, at best to get into those spaces to change a light bulb, let alone anything else.

Furthermore, the issue of building trade unions has to be dealt with. Unions are zealous about guarding their turf. In a building that size, there are contractors in there continuously. The union B.A.s and reps, always know exactly what contractors are doing what.


I laughed out loud when reading this. Are you freakin' kidding?


None of what you say is true. NOT all contractors are provided by the property management company. If I want the shiny new mahogany board room table with associated wall units and crown molding, I'm on my own in selecting a contractor. Oh, and what about my telecom, and my office equipment, and my decorating...

Absurd!


Originally posted by HowardRoark
THe idea that a bunch of workers were running around without anyone noticing or paying attention to what they are doing just doesn't fly.


That is precisely what is happening now in nearly every commercial building in the United States today. If you are there under the authorization of a tenant, NO ONE IS REALLY LOOKING THAT HARD...and that is in a POST-911 world.

Returning to the original question: "If the towers were demoed, how the explosives were set up?"

ANSWER: I say easily... if "tenants" were involved.

If you are going to take down the WTC, or any building for that matter, how hard would it be to secure the necessary space? What was the occupancy rate like in the WTC?

Anyone have some info on that?


EDIT: BTW, I find the speculation that someone "facilitated" the collapse of the towers by planting explosives in anticipation of the terrorist attack and interesting idea.

I should point out, however, that it also opens the possibility that someone could have been trying to mitigate the potential damage of the terrorist attacks. Knowing about the impending attacks is not the same as being able to stop them. The next prudent plan would have been to "pull" the towers for safety reasons...to minimize the damage and destruction...

What would it have looked like if the towers had NOT fallen within a perfect footprint? What if they had only partially fallen? How long would they have burned? Would there have been risk to a wider array of buildings over time? ...Fire, for example, from fallen and blown debris?

How would our resources have controlled such a scenario? Remember, this was downtown Manhattan. (*loam also reminds everyone how well we did in New Orleans*) ...and as long as we are all speculating...

Someone could have had a pre-existing plan to secure the necessary space to pull the buildings in the event of some attack that would compromise the buildings. Plenty of people would have had this interest...if not before the 1993 bombings, certainly after...

First, let me say that they designed the building with a plane attack/accident in mind...so at least someone theoretically thought it might be a problem if the buildings fell down.

After the 1993 bombings, what then would have been the concern of the owners? ...and the government? Would those concerns have been compatible? The government would have had a political interest in the security issue...the owners a commercial one.

Each would have motive and incentive to pre-plan a way to "pull" the buildings under short notice...and it could have been done individually or in cooperation with one another.

...and all of it with the intent to mitigate potential damage resulting from an attack or disaster threatening the structure of the buildings.

That's how the mundane gets you the necessary explosives to bring the building down in advance of the attacks... No magic tricks... no gimmicks... just pure commercial and/or government interest...

What happened after such a "system" was in place is anyone's guess...

EDIT AGAIN: BTW, you never really see this discussed anymore...




World Trade Center bombing

In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, an Egyptian man named Emad Salem, who was involved with the bombing conspiracy. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992, information he was privy to possibly because he himself initiated the plot. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of the hundreds of possible suspects.

Salem asserted that the original FBI plan was to supply the plotters with a harmless powder instead of actual explosive to build their bomb, but that an FBI supervisor decided that a real bomb should be constructed instead. He substantiated his claims with hundreds of hours of secretly-recorded conversations with his FBI handlers, made during discussions held after the bombings.

Salem said he wished to complain to FBI headquarters in Washington about the failure to prevent the bombing despite foreknowledge, but was dissuaded from doing so by the New York FBI office. The FBI has never contradicted Salem's account.



And,

The FBI allowed the 1993 WTC bombing to happen

If true, how do those potential "facts" fit in???



[edit on 7-2-2006 by loam]




posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
The title of this thread is "If the towers were demoed, how the explosives were set up?"

In my view, the first question requiring exploration is the issue of how secure the buildings were? The easier the access, the less sophisticated the technology required to bring the buildings down... no?

Howard posted a few pages back- and let me thank him for doing so
- the following:


Originally posted by HowardRoark
(Edited to avoid long nested quote, see above) - HR


This is ridiculous and should not remain unchallenged. Those buildings were not military installations. You make it sound as if they were...
They were commercial buildings with private and government tenants, whose daily activities could hardly be known by any property management company or security firm.





“Those buildings were not military installations. You make it sound as if they were...
They were commercial buildings with private and government tenants

Yes, they were commercial buildings. Very high end commercial buildings, and as such, I suspect that their internal security was probably better then most typical military installations, (no, not NORAD HQ, obviously, but your typical military base populated by typical military personnel and their families, yeah)

Obviously you have never worked for a financial sector firm dealing with securities and investments. Or even a large Insurance company dealing with personal data and financial instruments.

No, the property management firm is not expected to know the day to day activities of their tenants, and I never said that they did.

They are, however, expected to know the day to day activities of anyone that could possibly affect the ability of those tenants to occupy their spaces (i.e. contractor’s potentially impacting potential building functions, making noise, etc.). That is exactly what their job is.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam


Even after the previous bombing attempts of the towers, I sincerely doubt that pre-911 ANYONE devised a security plan for the buildings that would have included significant review of the activities authorized by any tenant.

Were all packages and freight brought into the building by tenants searched? I think not. We don't even do that now in a post-911 environment.


Are you sure of that? How do you know what types of security arrangements are in place in large potential targets? Do you have any specific data or facts here or are you just basing this on your opinions?




Note, I'm breaking up my reply to avoid a stuffing an oversized post into a bigger post.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Howard continues...


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Some have put forth the idea that because a certain security company was in place at the building, that this is how the explosives were brought into the building. Unfortunately, security is not responsible for building maintenance and construction activities. Coordinating construction schedules around tenants is the job of the building manager. In a building of that size, and with many tenants in the financial sector, it is a difficult task, at best to get into those spaces to change a light bulb, let alone anything else.

Furthermore, the issue of building trade unions has to be dealt with. Unions are zealous about guarding their turf. In a building that size, there are contractors in there continuously. The union B.A.s and reps, always know exactly what contractors are doing what.


I laughed out loud when reading this. Are you freakin' kidding?


None of what you say is true. NOT all contractors are provided by the property management company. If I want the shiny new mahogany board room table with associated wall units and crown molding, I'm on my own in selecting a contractor. Oh, and what about my telecom, and my office equipment, and my decorating...

Absurd!


Once again Loam attempts to distract with the trivia. Unless of course you are suggesting that the building was demolished with explosive mahogany tables.

Your office equipment is of course yours to control. The building supplies access to the base system. However, you may not penetrate core walls to access these systems yourself.

Nor will you be allowed to do any construction that is covered under building codes without securing the nessessary permits.

In addition, with the presence of asbestos in the building, you will also be restricted from accessing the ceiling plenums.

And yes, your carpenters, electricians and painters had better be union.

Got a problem with that?


[edit on 7-2-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam


Originally posted by HowardRoark
THe idea that a bunch of workers were running around without anyone noticing or paying attention to what they are doing just doesn't fly.


That is precisely what is happening now in nearly every commercial building in the United States today. If you are there under the authorization of a tenant, NO ONE IS REALLY LOOKING THAT HARD...and that is in a POST-911 world.


Wrong. That is not how large commercial buildings operate. From a liability standpoint alone, no property manager would ever allow a contractor unfettered access to a building with out knowing exactly who they are and what they are doing.

No building engineer would ever allow a contractor access to building chases and structural systems with out knowing what they were up to.

I realize that this may be difficult for people who have never worked in the real world to grasp, but nothing happens in a vacuum. Reality is nothing like a Hollywood screenplay. In a large building complex like the WTC, Everyone knows exactly what everyone else is doing.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
First of all, there is only one anonymous source for the "power down".

Secondly, it only applies to one tower.

If you want to claim that they could do such a thing in 36 hours, you should probably provide evidence for a power down in both towers.

I find the argument that agents disguised as contractors planting bombs equally hard to swallow.

Any sort of covert operation to accomplish this is going to have whole crews that know whats up. If we say they did it in 36 hours, your talking hundreds of people in on this, and not one has come forward.


Now the real question is that, even with wireless detonators, how exactly do you hide something that has to go on every core column and looks like this.



Another thing to consider is that in most controlled demolition they have to weaken the building before they can be successfully demolished. Has Mr. Forbes reported that they were removing walls and clearing out floors during this powerdown?


science.howstuffworks.com...

The first step in preparation, which often begins before the blasters have actually surveyed the site, is to clear any debris out of the building. Next, construction crews, or, more accurately, destruction crews, begin taking out non-load-bearing walls within the building. This makes for a cleaner break at each floor: If these walls were left intact, they would stiffen the building, hindering its collapse. Destruction crews may also weaken the supporting columns with sledge hammers or steel-cutters, so that they give way more easily.





posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Returning to the original question: "If the towers were demoed, how the explosives were set up?"

ANSWER: I say easily... if "tenants" were involved.

If you are going to take down the WTC, or any building for that matter, how hard would it be to secure the necessary space? What was the occupancy rate like in the WTC?

Anyone have some info on that?


If those who claim that the building could not have collapsed without the help of explosives are to be believed, then you would need a tenant space on floors throughout the building every five floors or so, right? Do you really think that that is possible?



Originally posted by loam
First, let me say that they designed the building with a plane attack/accident in mind...so at least someone theoretically thought it might be a problem if the buildings fell down.


No, actually that is not quite correct. It is a common mistake, but in fact the ability to withstand an aircraft impact was never a specific design criteria.

What happened was that after the buildings were designed, the engineer calculated what would happen if an aircraft struck and damaged a number of columns. This calculation was not conducted prior to the design but afterwards. No changes were made to the design as a result of these calculations. These calculations made a number of assumptions about the aircraft size and speed that were inconsistent with the 9/11 impacts. In addition, the calculations did not account for any subsequent jet fuel related fires. Thus the claim that the buildings were designed to withstand an aircraft impact is not really true.

A more accurate statement would be “It was determined that the design of the building was capable of withstanding the impact from a slow flying 707 hitting the structure with no subsequent fires.” But since it is so much easier to insist that the buildings were specifically designed to withstand the 911 attack, most people don’t bother with being accurate, especially when it doesn’t help their position any.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

That's all????


I assume that he means that this was distributed throughout the building, does he realize that the impact energy of the top of the building hitting the bottom would be greater than that?


He is a physics professor. Are you? Do you have a better source stating that 4,000 lbs of explosives wouldn't be sufficient?




Originally posted by Jack Tripper

That could be distributed by a mere 10 people in 10 trips at 40 lbs each.



That statement makes so little sense, that I can only conclude that you are a troll.



Troll? Little sense? Do you not understand simple math? 10 people times 40 lbs each equals 400 lbs. 10 trips equals 4,000 lbs. What part do you not understand and how could the posting of such simple and blatant logic sourced by a physics professor constitute trolling?



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
What I am stating is that the force of the impact to one floor from the top of the building falling 12.5 feet and impacting the bottom of the building would probably have been greater then the local energy imparted to a single floor by the distributed detonation of 4,000 lbs of explosives.

In other words, if that is all he thinks was necessary, then why bother? The energy of the falling mass would have been much more destructive.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

It would depend. I'm not an explosives expert, and I don't think you could find any explosives expert to come forward that would not be totally out of their league with what the most powerful institution on Earth has access to.






"THERMITE CHARGES USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH SMALL LINEAR CHARGES COULD BE USED TO DROP THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS"



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Lost in the bowels of another thread is a couple of posts from someone who actually communicated with a “real” explosives expert.

Maybe someone remembers where they were.

Anyway, IIRC, the linear charges have to be placed directly on the steel to be effective, and that if you can’t place them on all 4 sides (for instance under the best conditions, you would only be able to access 1 side of the perimeter columns) then you have to increase the size (and the noise) of the charges considerably.

So, you mystery contractors have to get into the occupied units, open up a hole in the wall, remove the asbestos fireproofing, attach the explosives, run the wires to a central point, close up the wall, re paint the wall, move on to the next column without anyone noticing?

Maybe in Hollywood. . .



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
What I am stating is that the force of the impact to one floor from the top of the building falling 12.5 feet and impacting the bottom of the building would probably have been greater then the local energy imparted to a single floor by the distributed detonation of 4,000 lbs of explosives.

In other words, if that is all he thinks was necessary, then why bother? The energy of the falling mass would have been much more destructive.


Really? Can you show me where demolition companies have used this technique in the past? Sounds pretty efficient. All they would have to do is blow out the top few floors and they would be golden!




Just as you ignore the tail, wings, and actual height of the 757, you are ignoring the massive verticle core columns of the wtc.

Plus there is no accurate study showing that the force of the upper damaged part of the building contained enough energy to bring down the much greater lower undamaged portions completely and perfectly at near free-fall speed.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

So, you mystery contractors have to get into the occupied units, open up a hole in the wall, remove the asbestos fireproofing, attach the explosives, run the wires to a central point, close up the wall, re paint the wall, move on to the next column without anyone noticing?



Are you stating catagorically that this would be the only way to gain access to the necessary strategic columns for destruction?

How do you know this to be fact?

Are you claiming that you know the exact make up of the building and every physical possibility?

If not then you do not have the knowledge to make such a claim.

Were there any unoccupied floors?

Is late night access to more heavily populated floors impossible?

4,000 lbs.

10 people, 10 trips late at night. Certainly not a wild stretch of the imagination nor is it a significant amount of people enough to seem questionable to those that may have seen them.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Originally posted by HowardRoark
In other words, if that is all he thinks was necessary, then why bother? The energy of the falling mass would have been much more destructive.


Really? Can you show me where demolition companies have used this technique in the past? Sounds pretty efficient. All they would have to do is blow out the top few floors and they would be golden!


Actually that is essentially what they do do. The trick is keeping the pieces from falling on the neighbor’s house.



Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Just as you ignore the tail, wings, and actual height of the 757, you are ignoring the massive verticle core columns of the wtc.


I’m not ignoring them. What about them? They would have twisted, sheered and buckled also as the top of the building fell.




Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Plus there is no accurate study showing that the force of the upper damaged part of the building contained enough energy to bring down the much greater lower undamaged portions completely and perfectly at near free-fall speed.


Why would you need to do a study to realize that the collapse was consistent with a catastrophic buckling failure? Engineers understand this type of failure very well.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Actually that is essentially what they do do. The trick is keeping the pieces from falling on the neighbor’s house.


Please show me an example of controlled demolition where only the top portion is wired with explosives and they simply allow the top to destroy the much greater bottom portion that has not explosives whatsoever. This is NOT "essentially" how it's done.




I’m not ignoring them. What about them? They would have twisted, sheered and buckled also as the top of the building fell.


Then how do you explain them literally disintegrating as we can visually see in the video particularly of the spire that crumbles to dust at the end? Or how about the mysterious sulfidation consistent with thermate reactions (military grade thermite) as described by FEMA?













Why would you need to do a study to realize that the collapse was consistent with a catastrophic buckling failure? Engineers understand this type of failure very well.


They do? How could they even though it has never occured in all world history with ANY steel framed high rise? Since it miraculously happened 3 times on one day I would have to say that a study is in order.



[edit on 7-2-2006 by Jack Tripper]



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Hey Roark ... give it up. Even if the wtc's structure failed symetrically at the point of impact ... can you explain how the rest of the structure failed ? Pancake theory would never have been symetrical all the way down and certainly would have taken longer.

Roark ameks all these wild claims about the top section collapsing having all this super momentum/explosie ability when he is in fact ... and hasn't proven anything nor is he trained to do so. Prove your theory .

Mod Edit: If you can not participate without mocking other members and using foul language, do us all a favor and don't.

[edit on 2-7-2006 by Djarums]



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   
zamboni, please read your u2u (private message)



[edit on 7-2-2006 by kinglizard]



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Originally posted by HowardRoark

So, you mystery contractors have to get into the occupied units, open up a hole in the wall, remove the asbestos fireproofing, attach the explosives, run the wires to a central point, close up the wall, re paint the wall, move on to the next column without anyone noticing?



Are you stating catagorically that this would be the only way to gain access to the necessary strategic columns for destruction?


For the core areas, yes. In addition, the drywall in the core areas was 2” thick.

For the perimeter columns I suppose you could access them from above the ceiling, only then you have to deal with the spandrel panels as well.

BTW, have you ever personally witnessed a controlled demo? I have. The sounds of the charges going off is quite unique, sharp, and very loud. Even a quarter mile away, you can feel the pressure wave from the explosives hitting your chest cavity.


Originally posted by Jack Tripper
How do you know this to be fact?


There is enough info available on the construction of these buildings on-line. In addition, all buildings share certain defining characteristics in how they are put together and built out. I have done enough work in high-rise buildings to be familiar with various types of construction and build out techniques.


Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Are you claiming that you know the exact make up of the building and every physical possibility?

If not then you do not have the knowledge to make such a claim.


Oh, knock it off. You know I’m right. You remind me of a guy claiming to have a dragon in his garage.



Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Were there any unoccupied floors?

I’m sure there were. So what?


Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Is late night access to more heavily populated floors impossible?


www.cnn.com...

A lot of financial institutions, law firms, and insurance companies are quite zealous about not letting any Tom Dick or Jack wandering about on their floors.



Originally posted by Jack Tripper
4,000 lbs.

10 people, 10 trips late at night. Certainly not a wild stretch of the imagination nor is it a significant amount of people enough to seem questionable to those that may have seen them.



If it was that simple, then how do you know that the mere forces of the collapsing floors weren’t enough to bring the whole building down?



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

For the core areas, yes. In addition, the drywall in the core areas was 2” thick.

For the perimeter columns I suppose you could access them from above the ceiling, only then you have to deal with the spandrel panels as well.


You have offered nothing to back up your claims and even if your claims are correct that does NOT prove that there was no other way to gain access to the core. Perhaps through the elevator shafts or some other utility access. Unless you have the credentials or first hand experience to claim otherwise you have no knowledge to catagorically rule other options out because you can NOT find every detail of the towers construction online.



BTW, have you ever personally witnessed a controlled demo? I have. The sounds of the charges going off is quite unique, sharp, and very loud. Even a quarter mile away, you can feel the pressure wave from the explosives hitting your chest cavity.


Since of course those explosions ARE quite audible from footage recorded in hoboken accross the river 2 miles away this claim only supports the controlled demolition hypothesis.



There is enough info available on the construction of these buildings on-line. In addition, all buildings share certain defining characteristics in how they are put together and built out. I have done enough work in high-rise buildings to be familiar with various types of construction and build out techniques.


Prove it. There is nothing that gives detailed enough description of the towers to catagorically know every single possible way to physically get access to the core columns. The wtc was a unique structure unlike any other on earth. Did you work on the wtc? Have you ever even been in the wtc?


Oh, knock it off. You know I’m right. You remind me of a guy claiming to have a dragon in his garage.


I know no such thing. All I know about you is that you are a frequent poster in a conspiracy site that has a propensity to refer to vulgarities and use ridicule to discredit your debate opponent.



Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Were there any unoccupied floors?



I’m sure there were. So what?


So obviously those floors could have been easily targeted as ones to use for the explosives without fear of tenants discovering them.


A lot of financial institutions, law firms, and insurance companies are quite zealous about not letting any Tom Dick or Jack wandering about on their floors.


How do you know that the particularly sensitive institutions didn't have high up CEO's that were complicit or perhaps were the floors skipped to be wired? Why on earth would these bomb planting perpetrators be sent to do their job as a random Tom, Dick ,or Harry anyway? Of course they would be provided with the necessary passes, credentials, uniforms, and cover-story.





If it was that simple, then how do you know that the mere forces of the collapsing floors weren’t enough to bring the whole building down?



This question was not meant to make sense right? It is absurd to suggest that because the building could be brought down by 4,000 lbs of explosives that it could be brought down with zero explosives. What a ludicrous concept.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
It is not necessary to know every single detail, All you have to realize is that the building was subject to the same codes and standards as every other building.

Core areas, shafts etc, are not designed for human occupancy. The need to maintain firewalls between core shafts and occupied spaces dictates that access to these areas is limited.

Yes it is possible to get into a core shaft, but it is not easy. Furthermore it is pretty hard to move up or down without extensive safety gear.

Elevator shafts can be accessed from the top of the elevator cab, of course. There isn’t much clearance between the sides of the elevator cab and the shaft wall, however.

A typical core layout



The structural layout




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join