Originally posted by Jedi_Master
The design flaw...that's allways one I've had in the back of my head...

That is something that I think merits serious consideration. Every time I bring it up I'm told it's ridiculous and we know it's not the case, swiftly followed by how it was rigged with explosives... Apparantly when the officials say that there wasn't any defects they can be trusted, when they say there was no explosives they can't
I guess a cover up for financial reasons just isn't as exciting as phasers and Tom Cruise planting explosives Mission Impossible style.

When you think about it logically, a cover up of some sort of flaw in the design, the construction or the materials used (or even a combination of them) would also account for the shady behaviour and the destruction of evidence. In fact it may be one of the reasons the explosives theory is so popular as a distraction away from the real issues. Why not encourage it? If it's not true it will never been proven.

No, I think a far more likely explanation (and it would be worth investigating the people involved and what companies they chair, invest in etc) is that there were:

* Design Defects
* Material Defects
* Construction Defects
* Or any combination of the above

Think about it, someone, somewhere would be held liable and be responsible for billions of dollars worth of destruction, not to mention countless people's lives.
It may even have affected insurance payouts..

A far more plausible and likely scenario I think.... It's just not as exciting as the sci-fi stuff (I love Sci-Fi to, but please.....).

[edit on 30-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

I don’t think it was a specific design defect as much as it was the result of the inherent flaws in the fundamental evolution of lightweight building design.

The flaw, as it were, is more the idea that it is possible to build a permanent 110 story structure using the designs and materials that were used to build the towers.

Sprayed on fireproofing, for example, is too easily damaged in a dynamic building environment.

What a surprise the Shillboys are conversing ............ happy Hannukka Shillboys !!!

Wow, zamboni, you have Negative 1471 ATS points?

I wonder why?

[edit on 30-1-2006 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by Essan
Maybe there was a design flaw in the buildings so that that when a large aircraft impacted with them and created a tremendous fire (such that people were leadping hundreds of feet to their death to escape it) it caused damage to the aforementioned central column, weakening it to the extend that it collapsed just from the weight of the floors above?

Look at how much of the complete building was on fire compared to the rest that wasn't. About maybe 20% of the upper building was damaged?
How does 20% suddenly pulverise into dust 80% of stronger lower sections?
That to me makes no sense.

The top part would have resistance from the lower undamaged sections, we can see there was no resistanse at all.

The top part of one building started to tip over which makes sense, why did it not continue to tip over, you know inercia, gravity? Suddenly the undamaged building bellow it gave way and the toppling top section dropped with it.

That's what makes no sense to me.

AgentSmith said:
I guess a cover up for financial reasons just isn't as exciting as phasers and Tom Cruise planting explosives Mission Impossible style.

Nice job reducing a simple idea to absurdity by your choice of words, Smith. Way to end the discussion. Get a clue: It doesn't require Tom Cruise, and miniaturization is the rule of technology, so it's not Mission Impossible.

So essentially what you are saying is that a fire of sufficient size would have collpased both towers into their basement, planes or not? That the WTC was so fatally flawed that it would have collapsed had _any_ fire melted the fireproofing? I find that hard to believe. In any case, even if what you are saying is true, then the remains of WTC become all the more important, don't they?

HowardRoark said:
Suitcase nukes or "antimatter" explosions are for comic books.

You are a fool if you believe this. In fact, I am certain that you do not believe this. I'm sure that since you presumably believe in the "John Galt" ideal, you must also believe in the magic of engineers and their ability to create great machines like super-duper electricity producing machines. So couldn't John Galt have built a micro-nuke? Or is Atlas Shrugged also a comic book?

Not to mention your posting three times in a row on page 8. What's the point of that behavior, other than to quickly add pages to your targetted thread and thereby add to the obfuscation of the issue at hand?

Let's be clear about one thing, Howard: You are exclusively supporting the official theory of 9/11 on a conspiracy-based message board. This fact, and in the manner you choose to do it, betrays your goals. Do you understand, that if you really wanted to be more believable, you'd work a little less hard for the official story?

Notice the mods, some of whom probably believe the 9/11 official story, still encourage discussion of all manner of theories. YOU, however, will not allow it. Your tireless efforts to prop up a hastily prepared and laughable "9/11 report" as delivered for American consumption, is truly descriptive of your nature and agenda.

Originally posted by smallpeeps

HowardRoark said:
Suitcase nukes or "antimatter" explosions are for comic books.

You are a fool if you believe this. In fact, I am certain that you do not believe this.

Well you are wrong, because I don’t believe that the towers were demolished with a suitcase nuke, an “antimatter” explosion, or a “metallic hydrogen” explosion.

Enough of the name calling, whining, innuendo and any other form of posting that may cause me to contemplate climbing a tall building and swat at aircraft.

In other words, back on topic.

Originally posted by mad scientist
There seems to be a lot of talk in here about conventional exlosives not having the power to bring the WTC down.

Uh, no. What has been said is that either
A. It's not possible to wire the buildings to demo and leave them wired for any long period of time.
B. It's not possible to wire the buildings in the "30 hour power down of the North Tower"
C. It would take more than just a few explosives to bring them down.

Where did we say that conventional explosives don't have the power to bring them down? A FEW conventional explosives wouldn't, but IF the building could have been wired properly, then OF COURSE conventional explosives could bring them down.

[edit on 1/30/2006 by Zaphod58]

HowardRoark said:
Well you are wrong, because I don’t believe that the towers were demolished with a suitcase nuke, an "antimatter" explosion, or a "metallic hydrogen" explosion.

If you'll read carefully, you'll find I wasn't saying that you believe that such devices were used to bring WTC down. I was saying that anyone who accepts the concept of super-capitalist John Galt and his magical electricity machine, must also accept the underlying premise that human ingenuity can create devices (like mini-nukes) that the public doesn't know about.

If a person argues that conventional munitions took down WTC, the debunkers can attack the timeframe and logistics of those explosives. If a person argues that we might not KNOW what type of explosive was used, the debunkers will conjure up images of "Tom Cruise and the MI team" or "Comic Book fantasy". Reductio ad absurdum.

You state that "micro nukes are the stuff of comic books". Where do you get your surety? In sixty years since Trinity, I believe strongly that the concept of fission explosives has probably been scaled down to portable, lightweight, compact form, just like all the other tech we see in the world. Do you expect us to believe that the most important weapon on Earth has not been reduced in size? That the tremendous applications of micro-nukes (and keeping them secret) would not be pursued by scientists/engineers with blank checks for research?

I'm not saying it was non-standard munitions that brought WTC down, but I am also not restricting the discussion by suggesting that our theories must be limited to known-munitions. I do not place limitations on what people can "credibly" discuss.

It would be reasonable to argue against fantastic weapons in a world where massive amounts of drug money are not laundered and used for compartmentalized military secret projects. Since we live in America circa 2006, that position is silly. The fact is, you don't know what special munitions exist any more than I do. We're both just guessing, but only one of us is invested in the offical story. Only one of us is trying to convince the world that special weapons do not exist.

I don't believe such weapons were used, per se, but it would not surprise me if that's what actually happened. 9/11 was the kick-off for the GlobalWarOnTerror. This fact makes it likely that the best and most magnificent technology was used, so as to ensure success.


[edit on 30-1-2006 by smallpeeps]

I'm not going to get into a debate if micronukes exist or not, but the statement they exist, because they HAVE to exist is....interesting to say the least. There are a few minor problems with the micronuke dealing with the fissionable material etc.

But I digress. My biggest problem with this theory is the simple fact that we're still talking about a nuclear device. You set one of these off inside the WTC, and you're not gonna get a collapse, the building is just going to blow apart into pieces. Even if you're talking about an FAE type device.

Suitcase bombs makes a lot more sense. Depending on how it was carried out. If you were trying to partially collapse one or two floors, then I can possibly see it. If you're talking about causing a major collapse, as in the entire building, then we're looking at the same issues as the conventional demo theory. You're going ot need so many of them that SOMEONE is gonna notice them laying around and get suspicious.

Yeah you can dial them down, but the SMALLEST yield I've heard of is in the 50-100 KT range

I brought up suitcase bombs, because IIRC it was in YOUR post.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Yeah you can dial them down, but the SMALLEST yield I've heard of is in the 50-100 KT range

I brought up suitcase bombs, because IIRC it was in YOUR post.

I have heard of < 1kt range nukes. Again, others on ATS are more qualified to comment than I am because I have never even seen a nuke nor have I seen one go off, of any size. I just know what I've read.

You argue that suitcase bombs are not practical because they'd be "lying around". Realize please that "suitcase" or "briefcase" is actually a very limiting and disinfomative term, although that may be one template for "device x". It could also be inside a thanksgiving turkey, you see? It depends on the application. You understand the concept of modules, right? So "device x" would probably be designed such that it could be concealed in any number of ways.

For example, if you have a small explosive, you might plant them through the building as motion detectors or light fixtures on key load-bearing walls. Hell, most buildings have drop ceilings anyway, so placing a wireless device wouldn't require much concealment.

Let's imagine four such devices for each floor, with eight floors being rigged (non-rigged in-between floors will break up on their own). That's only 32 such devices (per tower) to ensure full collapse of the WTC murder scene, plane parts (murder weapon) and victims. The devices would go off as the tower is falling, probably triggered by someone nearby who could visually determine the theatrically correct time.

If it were me, I'd probably hide the devices ("hidden in plain site" is a CIA name for this technique) as objects that are uniformly boring, and which can be easily placed against certain walls or supports without suspicion. Fire extinguishers, potted plants, drinking fountains, etc.

And for those who will mention Occam and his razor, please remember that he stipulated "all things being equal", which they are most certainly NOT, in the case of 9/11. Strategy is the rule of geopolitik, and the idea that the simplest explanation is always the correct one, is a hack cliche usually misapplied.


[edit on 31-1-2006 by smallpeeps]

So, how were these nukes used exactly? Where would they be placed? All down the building or just in the impact zone? Any theories that involve just having explosives to start the collapse at the impact zone therefore ackowledge that a pancake collapse is acceptable. In this case then debate can be opened into the possiblity it was also initiated conventionally.

Not only that, but I find it odd that any explosive, especially a mini-nuke would eject material at such a low velocity.

I could do with someone double checking the figures, but if the furthest debris was 70 meters away and the collapse time (of NT for instance) was 8 seconds then the velocity required for material at the top to be ejected to the furthest point would be about 8.75 m/s. Regardless of explosives or not, the furthest debris will be from higher up.

As I said before, it hardly seems like the sort of velocities one would expect from conventional explosives, let alone anything more extravagent. People seem to forget the sheer size of the buildings and their height, material had longer to travel further away than a 30 storey building for instance.

[edit on 31-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith
So, how were these nukes used exactly? Where would they be placed? All down the building or just in the impact zone? Any theories that involve just having explosives to start the collapse at the impact zone therefore ackowledge that a paccake collapse is acceptable, then debate revolves only around the possibility that the collapse could initiated conventially.

I bolded your attempt to limit the discussion with the word "only".

What pancake collapse are you talking about? I never saw that. I saw a huge cloud of atomized concrete dust.

What is so hard to understand about the idea that A: "device x" initiates the collapse, and then B: other similar devices ensure pulverization of concrete or shaped charges directed toward metal once the initial collapse is triggered? Since I believe the planes were remotely flown, the impact points were therefore known ahead of time. Or perhaps not, because if "device x" exists on a series of floors, then the collapse could be trigged by selectively detonating whichever one is most theatrically plausible. This method would allow for error in the impact point of the plane.

Not only that, but I find it odd that any explosive, especially a mini-nuke would eject material at such a low velocity.

It is possible to direct explosive force inward or downward, thereby preventing any exterior evidence.

As I said before, it hardly seems like the sort of velocities one would expect from conventional explosives, let alone anything more extravagent. People seem to forget the sheer size of the buildings and their height, material had longer to travel further away than a 30 storey building for instance.

I disagree because if the floorplan is known, then crippling the spine of the building would not be hard, and this would not involve much out-throwing of debris. The explosion could be contained within the structure, blowing out supports and perhaps ancillary charges to pulverize concrete.

You're saying that if explosives were used, these would have thrown debris outward and that this debris would be identifiable as being from the top floors? Seems laughable when the whole area is engulfed in a billowing, outward moving debris cloud.

Originally posted by smallpeeps

Originally posted by AgentSmith
So, how were these nukes used exactly? Where would they be placed? All down the building or just in the impact zone? Any theories that involve just having explosives to start the collapse at the impact zone therefore ackowledge that a paccake collapse is acceptable, then debate revolves only around the possibility that the collapse could initiated conventially.

I bolded your attempt to limit the discussion with the word "only".

What I wrote didn't even make sense, that's what happens when you are hurrying before you start work and trying to hold a conversation. I've corrected it anyway but seeing as it's meaningless it shows how you see only what you want. The sentence has no structure and could be random words, well it practically is

It is possible to direct explosive force inward or downward, thereby preventing any exterior evidence.

So why do people try and say that the distance the debris landed from the footprint of the building is evidence of explosives then? Why do they say they can see a 'detonation zone'? Either there is external evidence or there isn't.
Talk about changing the story.

You're saying that if explosives were used, these would have thrown debris outward and that this debris would be identifiable as being from the top floors? Seems laughable when the whole area is engulfed in a billowing, outward moving debris cloud.

If there was a sequence of exposions down the building as some suggest then one would assume they would be fairly consistant and that the debris would on average be ejected at the same velocity all the way down, the only difference would be the distance it landed away from the building depending on the height at which it was ejected (obviously).
The same is true for a natural collapse, many people try and say that the distance away that the debris landed is evidence of explosives, all I'm saying is that the velocity it would have to be ejected at to do so is not very high at all - and certainly not evidence in itself of any explosives.

[edit on 31-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Where did we say that conventional explosives don't have the power to bring them down? A FEW conventional explosives wouldn't, but IF the building could have been wired properly, then OF COURSE conventional explosives could bring them down.

Fiirstly, don't wet your pants. You state the obvious, of course with enough wiring and explosives the buildings could be brought down DUH. Most people here say that it couldn't be possible because of the amount of explosives and wiring needed would be obvious.
My previous post established that there is another conventional explosive 35 times more powerful than TNT,C-4, PETN etc - Metallic or Molecular Hydrogen.
Not only has metallic hydrogen been made, it would be impervious to bomb sniffing dogs. Also, 1kg of Metallic Hydrogen has the equivalent explosive power of 35 kg's af C-4/TNT, making the charges needed far far smaller and easier to conceal.
Metallic hydrogen wouldn't leave the explosive residue, which all other explosives do, hence no evidence.

Yeah you can dial them down, but the SMALLEST yield I've heard of is in the 50-100 KT range

Completely wrong, as smallpeeps stated their are dial a yield warheads, with yields as little as 0.1kt not the 50-100 you say. Actually the B-61 has a dial a yield option from hundreds of kilotons to sub kiloton range.


Like I said before, people are looking for a conventional explosive which wouldn't be needed liberally to bring down the building - I give you Metallic Hydrogen

PS. I don't believe that a controlled demolition brought down the WTC towers

Except that Mettalic Hydrogen has only been created for about a milisecond so far. Everything that I have read on it goes back to the Lawrence Livermore lab experiment in 1996 where they accidentally created it, for about a milisecond. Even things as late as last year, ONLY talk about the 1996 experiment. Or is it so high classified, or another "covert military explosive" that we don't know about?