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

Good call on Prf. Jones' site LT. Here's the url again:

www.physics.byu.edu...

Those who wish to preserve fundamental physical laws as inviolate may wish to take a closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC Tower on 9-11:

www.911research.com...

We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Law of Increasing Entropy. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)

I downloaded this mpeg as linked above, and freezeframed this image:



Obviously the two red rings show suspicious flashes. Watch the video and see for yourself. Video does not create anomalies like this.


[EDIT]

Here's the image, size increase 100% and cropped.





[edit on 28-1-2006 by smallpeeps]

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?

Possible, but apparently not true in this case (and note this comes from an article entitled "SECRECY SURROUNDS A BUSH BROTHER'S ROLE IN 9/11 SECURITY", so it's not exactly intended as a whitewash).

Marvin Bush was reelected annually to Securacom's board of directors from 1993 through 1999. His final reelection was on May 25, 1999, for July 1999 to June 2000. Throughout, he also served on the company's Audit Committee and Compensation Committee, and his stock holdings grew during the period. Directors had options to purchase 25,000 shares of stock annually. In 1996, Bush acquired 53,000 shares at 52 cents per share. Shares in the 1997 IPO sold at $8.50. Records since 2000 no longer list Bush as a shareholder.
anderson.ath.cx:8000...

Detonators aren't the most stable things in the world, and they're NOT going to stay stable for weeks/months/years at a time. Not to mention that it's possible for any sort of transmitter to cause one to go off if it's close enough and has enough power. If there were explosives in all buildings built after a certarin year, there should have been some accidents already.

You can't set off an explosive without SOME kind of detonator in it, and once the detonator is installed it becomes less than stable. In their packaged form, most explosives are high stable. You can slam them around, or even shoot them, and nothing will happen. Once the detonator is installed, look out. That's why when they are imploding a building the detonators are installed as the last step, and only a couple of people are there to do it. Even installing it wrong can set it off.

Well then maybe the detonators were placed during the power down?

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.

This interesting it is an eye witness account and also he testified before the 911 commission but according to this article his account is not mentioned in the report.

Also I found this (the link below) while looking for a link to a story I read a while back from another survivor, who made the statement that different sections of the WTC he worked in had been closed down for days at a time. And that this closing down of sections had been going on for months and that they were told maintenance was being done.

So if they were able to close off certain sections for a day or two at a time and had been doing this for months then it would have been possible to have placed explosives all over the building. Still looking for the link to this, will post if I find it.

www.theconservativevoice.com...

"I would know if an explosion was from the bottom or the top of the building." He heard explosions both before and after the plane hit the tower.

A fellow worker Felipe David came into the office. "He had been standing in front of a freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries." The skin on his face had been peeled away by the heat of the blast and he was horribly burned on thirty-three percent of his body. "He was burned so badly from the basement explosion that flesh was hanging from his face and both arms." William asks: "How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man's arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?"

Strangely, while William was on the 33rd floor he heard lots of very loud noise as if someone was moving heavy equipment and furniture around on the 34th floor. The reason this is interesting is that the 34th floor was completely empty. Elevators did not stop at the 34th floor. It was off limits due to a construction project. He said that this was the first time that he felt fear.[quote/]

Originally posted by goose

Strangely, while William was on the 33rd floor he heard lots of very loud noise as if someone was moving heavy equipment and furniture around on the 34th floor. The reason this is interesting is that the 34th floor was completely empty. Elevators did not stop at the 34th floor. It was off limits due to a construction project. He said that this was the first time that he felt fear.

The sounds couldn't have anything to do with the construction project it was closed off for could it?

I'm still unsure in the logic behind have basement explosions when the collapse clearly initiated form the top down.
Not only that, but part of the core from one of the towers was still standing with survivors in it after, which kind of makes any basement explosion redundant.

Originally posted by goose

www.theconservativevoice.com...

"I would know if an explosion was from the bottom or the top of the building." He heard explosions both before and after the plane hit the tower.

A fellow worker Felipe David came into the office. "He had been standing in front of a freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries." The skin on his face had been peeled away by the heat of the blast and he was horribly burned on thirty-three percent of his body. "He was burned so badly from the basement explosion that flesh was hanging from his face and both arms." William asks: "How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man's arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?"

Does it matter to anyone at all that demolition charges would not cause a fire, let alone one to shoot out of an elevator shaft? Demolition charges cause high-velocity high-order explosives jets, they do not even contain fire. They don't make fire, they make million psi percussive waves and/or jets. And a given charge's radius of effect will be fairly localized. That's why it takes a lot of them to bring down a building. But nobody ever seems to want to consider the physics of these issues.

Does it matter to anyone at all that we had a French documentary guy in the lobby that verified and burn victims from the elevators who survived that verified that burning jet fuel was pouring, like a waterfall of fire, down through the elevator shafts? Or are we getting into a Green Man/Moved Taxi theory here where all the victims and witnesses are part of the plot?

[edit on 1-29-2006 by Valhall]

Stop repeating the same old tired argument that detonators were too unstable to idle for a while.

HiEx TeleBlaster II

A SAFER SYSTEM

* Eliminates need for safety fuse and its inherent complications.
* Blaster not tethered to blast by shooting line or nonel lead-in line that is often too short.
* Increased stand off distances - up to 5 kilometer (not dependent on line of sight).
* Instantaneous blast initiation with test and abort and automatic shutdown functions.
* Blaster has superior control when working in areas with frequent air, marine, and other radio equipped traffic or personnel.
* Audible status confirmation to blaster
* Secure transmissions at 4 levels to prevent accidental initiation.
* Easy-to-use instructions and operating procedures.

And that's commercial, civilian hardware...

Also, what about military ammunition - conventional bombs, nukes (incorporating conventional explosives to trigger) - can't you store those in EM infested territory without risking accidental detonations? Yes, you can.

[edit on 29-1-2006 by Lumos]

Uh, where does it say that the detonator stable to stay plugged into an explosive for a long time? All it says is that it's safer for blasting, and less likely to be set off accidentally.

I'll find it later, but I have a memo from one of the managers in an explosives lab in Canada that states explicitely that accidents have been caused by cell phones and other transmitters near a detonator.

Military explosives (bombs) are shielded against stray RF interference. Have you ever wondered why they get so nervous if they find a bomb laying around that's been there for years? Because it's become terribly unstable and could go off with any kind of shock. If you look at any kind of bomb that's put on a plane, one of the last things they do is put the fuse on it, just before loading it onto the plane. The fuse contains the detonator in it, they're not stored with the detonator in place.

[edit on 1/29/2006 by Zaphod58]

Essentially, you're claiming it would be impossible to create a detonator that is stable for a good while and immune to random EMR. That's laughable.

Originally posted by Lumos
Essentially, you're claiming it would be impossible to create a detonator that is stable for a good while and immune to random EMR. That's laughable.

Actually, no it's not. And that's really is the problem here. I want some one to give me a plausible set up for how these countless charges were wired and put in place during construction (by the military **) almost 40 years ago and that done in a manner that would ensure they all went off (as planned by the military **) 40 years later without a flaw, and didn't go off unwanted over a 40 year period.

I would like some one to explain that to me. Because I worked for three years in shaped charge applications both with mechanical triggering and electronic triggering and I sure would like to hear the whole set up back in the 1960's and 70's that pulled this one off. To this day electronic detonators have exclusion zones for RF transmitters and other devices such as cell phones, walkie talkies, etc. So are we to believe 30 to 40 years ago they put electronic detonators in a building and managed to not have one of them triggered in all this time?

And are we to believe they were all set to the same triggering frequency? I guess we are unless the hypothesis is that millions of feet of det chord were running through the columns of the WTC. Because you've either got to have a huge number of electronic triggering signals that you're able to trigger simultaneously, or you have to have all the detonators (that were made over 30 years ago and we're to believe would still be good **) go off on the same frequency, or you've got to initiate a det cord triggering.

Pick one - they're all pretty stupid in my mind. I'm sorry, they are and all I can do is just state my experienced opinion.

ValHall

Lumos
Essentially, you're claiming it would be impossible to create a detonator that is stable for a good while and immune to random EMR. That's laughable.

Actually, no it's not. And that's really is the problem here. [...] To this day
electronic detonators have exclusion zones for RF transmitters and other devices such as cell phones, walkie talkies, etc. So are we to believe 30 to 40 years ago they put electronic detonators in a building and managed to not have one of them triggered in all this time?

Strawman. Did I claim the detonators were 33 years old? No. Did you simply, and falsely, insinuate I did? Yes. That makes your point...?

It's perfectly possible to safely, controlledly, detonate numerous charges these days. Denying that is futile, and telling. Besides, there were several thousand miles of cabling in the towers already, so it would've also been possible to rely on those or simply add some more.

And those charges that are safely detonated haven't been sitting there with detonatros plugged in for days/weeks/years, and EVERY ONE OF THEM has an RF exclusion zone around them. We're not saying that they can't be done safely. But you can't leave an explosive with a detonator plugged in for any long period of time, without a HUGE risk of setting it off.

During a controlled demo, the detonators are plugged in within an hour or two AT MOST before the time of the implosion. They NEVER leave them plugged in for any length of time, like would have had to happen at the WTC.

The military does not use electronic detonators in areas of high EM activity, they'll use mechanical firing devices and fuzes.

As for the people who thing all multi-story buildings built since the 1950's hvae been wired, I think it's time to get off the crack, because any sane person finds that statement preposterous

No, I didn't put those words in your mouth. I'm trying to figure out what the premise here is. There have been several posts in this thread insinuating these charges were there from the time of construction. That's what I'm speaking to.
You stated:

Stop repeating the same old tired argument that detonators were too unstable to idle for a while.

and then you stated:

Essentially, you're claiming it would be impossible to create a detonator that is stable for a good while and immune to random EMR. That's laughable.

And I stated - both of your statements are wrong. Now - if you want to change your position to "idle for a while" being a day - then you get be right on stable. You pick the time period, and then we'll decide whether you're right or not, ok? But you don't get to wander between a few hours and 30 years and make a statement like that.

and immune to random EMR

Any one who states that there would be a danger of unintended triggering by random EM emissions is NOT making a laughable statement.

Now, do you want to discuss this logically, or do you want to accuse every one who points out some of the problems with this theory of being a strawman or tool? It's up to you, but I garantee you your choice on that decision is going to go a long way toward some folks paying you any attention or not.

I'm not trying to destroy your theory - I just pointed out that a couple of your statements to other posters were WRONG, and there are some problematic areas in the pre-wired building theory that really have to be explained. You could attempt to do some research and get them explained - or you could just set here and call me names. See how important your choice is? The names you pick for me aren't going to help you prove this theory.

Some of the people here have backgrounds giving them experience in the areas of explosives, I was wondering what your background is Lumos, as you appear to know more than them?

I see two options:

1) The explosives were put in during construction, any assumptions of this would have to be based on decades old technology. There is no point finding the spec for some spangly new detonator when it didn't exist 5 years ago, let alone 30.

2) The entire building was wired with explosives since without detection.
To narrow down the timescales further, Bomb Sniffing Dogs (a favourite point for indicating explosives were used) had been removed the previous Thursday:

www.prisonplanet.com...

So that must mean the whole building was rigged in only 5 days!

I assume that these dogs would have detected any explosives if the building had been laced with them since construction or indeed at any point prior to the dogs removal several days before the disaster.

[edit on 29-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

From the newsday article on the prisonplanet link AS gives

Security guard Hermina Jones said officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center...

I'm sorry, but isn't that a tremendously ignorant thing???

So they were taking steps to prevent fly-by shootings? **

lmao

[edit on 1-29-2006 by Valhall]

How is a detonator that requires transmission of a specific code to trigger, possibly on a non-civilian band, susceptible to random civilian EMR? It's not. It's laughable. Still.

And why are all conceivable detonators highly unstable, rendering them unsafe beyond a day's time? Care to bring up some proof for that claim? The higher the activation energy for initial detonation, the stabler the device, chemistry 101. Would be incredibly unsound to use exclusively unstable compounds in detonators, wouldn't it?

I didn't wander between "a few hours and 30 years", capiche? In case explosives were incorporated within the building from scratch, the detonators could've been installed in the weeks prior to 9/11, that's the most I was estimating. In case I said something to the contrary, feel free to point it out.

If by "some folks" paying me no "attention" upon being called tool you're talking about yourself: Tool!

Valhall
You could attempt to do some research and get them explained - or you could just set here and call me names.

Practice what you preach. Where's your research? Do you think it's sufficient to invoke authority ("I worked for three years in shaped charge applications both with mechanical triggering and electronic triggering")?

Laughable.

Just like shooting down strawmen of your creation.

ValHall

Lumos
Essentially, you're claiming it would be impossible to create a detonator that is stable for a good while and immune to random EMR. That's laughable.

Actually, no it's not. And that's really is the problem here. [...] To this day
electronic detonators have exclusion zones for RF transmitters and other devices such as cell phones, walkie talkies, etc. So are we to believe 30 to 40 years ago they put electronic detonators in a building and managed to not have one of them triggered in all this time?

emphasis added

ValHall

Lumos
Strawman

No, it's not

So, since you won't come out and pick a timeframe for the placement of the demolition charges, am I to infer from your previous post that you are choosing a "few weeks" prior to 9/11?

If so, yes, they would remain stable. And, yes, if they were rigged to electronic detonators they would be susceptible to accidental detonation.

I'm not pulling authority. I'm telling you I know more than you on this, apparently, because you're making some statements that aren't correct. And because of my experience I know they're not.

And apparently you've made the decision to call names instead of doing research. So be it.