What a controlled demolition really looks like.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Originally posted by Stateofgrace

Brilliant, wonder why it never occurred to me before?

Quite obviously because you haven't researched the details surrounding the event.

You have failed to explain why

1. The explosive charges that went off were not reccorded visually.
2. The sound from the explosive charges were not recorded.
3. The Towers did not collapse into its own footprint.
4. The Towers collapsed from the top down.
5. The Towers did not split during there collapse.
6. The cloud dust was generated from the top.

As did the building in the video.

1. The explosive charges that went off were clearly visible.
2. The explosive charges that went off were clearly audible.
3. The Building collapsed into its own footprint.
4. The building collapsed from the bottom up.
5. The building split during this collapse.
6. Very little dust cloud was generated from the top of the building.

Gee, guess I should do some more research.

Is this a game of showmanship?, a simple show for you?

If so,my friend,you are the one handing out the balloons.

[edit on 5-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Well considering that thermite is an incindiary and not an explosive there would be no explosions to hear. Nano aluminum? You have got to be kidding me. My question is simple what kept the thermite attached to the beams during the aircraft's impact? If the explosives were set off before the planes hit, why did the buildings take so long to collapse? Why go through all of the trouble of using aircraft any way? If you had the charges set in the buildings all you had to do would be to set off a truck bomb on the street by the towers. Just scale up the Oaklahoma City bombing. Leave some fake IDs in the truck and presto.

Nano Aluminum

Someone has been watching the SciFi channel too much.

I draw your attention to two things:

The outer shell of the buildings design as 'stand alone' and very strong and rigid and not damaged greatly in much of the building.

Secondly the core of the building was built very strong such that even if floors collapsed the core should still have stood.

These two factors required the usage of charges explosives etc to bring them down as they would not have fallen in a neat pile like a demo on their own. That would explain the time difference the slow acting of the thermite for example. How it was loaded I don't know and since the wreckage was not inspected otherwise for the world to see it will be difficult to figure it out.

The charges could have happened before the collison in order to unhinge the building from its massive foundation so that the loads above could shift sufficiently for the collapse. That is how I can envision what happened. It appeared in the prior attempt to topple the tower that they tried that but found that they couldn't bring the buildings down solely using that method, I'm guessing.

The outer shell of the building is not that difficult to cut as it was primarily metal and all supports were gathered at the bottom in a few critical points so I don't see difficulty in cutting there. It is the central core that is an issue due to the concrete and reinforced steel. This is an issue that pro demo's have to deal with and would have to know their methods.

Again I bring to attention the fact that designers, engineers and expert commentators were all surprised that the building actually collapsed and there is record of that out there. If they are surprised then what am I supposed to think?

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
So there were some planted witnesses, some that were fooled by the decoy, and some who saw a small craft.

*sigh*

I had really hoped that the quick summary dismisal attitude would have been over. I didn't realize that you were the end-all-be-all of truth, deciding things for us. Telling us who is right, who is wrong, what is fact, what is not, who is credible, and who is not...gets a bit old.

First, you casually dismiss the point I made. Witnesses for your version are completely credible and correct in your eyes. Witnesses opposed to your version are incorrect, agents, plants, etc.

Second, you say "plenty" of Pentagon witnesses are actually reliable, but of course they are all ones that support your version. You say some were fooled, some were wrong, and some that saw a small plane.

What you DIDN'T say was anything about the ones that saw a United Airlines Boeing 757. Oh no, those are the ones that are not credible. Those are the ones that were fooled. Those are the ones that can't know what they're talking about.

I'll say it again because you certainly proved it here. This is a case of the facts being twisted to fit the crime.

Again I bring to attention the fact that designers, engineers and expert commentators were all surprised that the building actually collapsed and there is record of that out there. If they are surprised then what am I supposed to think?

Hey mate, I don't want to rain on your parade but what people claim shouldn't happen and what can happen are two different things.

They claimed that the Titanic was unsinkable, it was impossible to sink it. It sank on its maiden voyage.

You know they used to claim the earth was flat and that the sun travelled around it.

The difference between claim and reality is the difference between these claims and the reality of what happened.

How can anybody claim that the Towers shouldn't have collapsed? How can anybody claim it was physical impossible, it defied all logic?
They can't because they are not basing their claims on the real circumstances

Claim and reality are not the same.


[edit on 5-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

What you DIDN'T say was anything about the ones that saw a United Airlines Boeing 757. Oh no, those are the ones that are not credible. Those are the ones that were fooled. Those are the ones that can't know what they're talking about.

Just because they were fooled doesn't mean they don't know what they are talking about or that they are not credible.

Very few claim specifically that they saw "United Airlines Boeing 757".

How could anyone know that definitively if the plane was traveling at 400 mph?

What they witnessed was a decoy or they are planted liars.

What they witnessed was a decoy or they are planted liars.

Just keep handing out them balloons pal.

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
1. The explosive charges that went off were not reccorded visually.

They were.

2. The sound from the explosive charges were not recorded.

They were.

3. The Towers did not collapse into its own footprint.

Building 7 sure did. The towers were unique structures that required a unique demolition method. There was a massive exterior support grid that had to be obliterated along with an intense core of 48 incredible concrete reiforced vertical steel columns. Just as all buildings require different styles of demoltions.....so did the particularly unique and massive wtc towers.

4. The Towers collapsed from the top down.

This was shown as a typical controlled demo method as demonstrated in Philiadelphia 1999. Go back and look at the picture I posted.

5. The Towers did not split during there collapse.

I don't understand why you would think they would have to if it was CD.

6. The cloud dust was generated from the top.

Huh? The dust cloud came from the entire structure and was massive.

As did the building in the video.

1. The explosive charges that went off were clearly visible.
2. The explosive charges that went off were clearly audible.
3. The Building collapsed into its own footprint.
4. The building collapsed from the bottom up.
5. The building split during this collapse.
6. Very little dust cloud was generated from the top of the building.
Gee, guess I should do some more research.

Yes you should. I already showed you how no 2 demolitions are alike. Virtually every demo is different. There is absolutely no reason to think that all demos should look like the one you cited. That notion is absurd on it's face.

Is this a game of showmanship?, a simple show for you?

If so,my friend,you are the one handing out the balloons.

I have no idea what you mean here. You posted an absurd topic and I proved you wrong right off the bat yet you continue to hold to that notion. ALL demolitions vary greatly so the notion that the covert demolition of the towers should look anything like the example you pulled out of a hat is based on a fallacy.

1.They were.

Really? Care to show me or anybody a single video from anywhere that actually shows the visual flashes of explosions?

2.They were.

Really? Care to show me a single sound recording from anywhere that recorded the dozens of explosives, if not the hundreds of explosives that was required to collapse the Towers.

3.Building 7 sure did. The towers were unique structures that required a unique demolition method. There was a massive exterior support grid that had to be obliterated along with an intense core of 48 incredible concrete reinforced vertical steel columns. Just as all buildings require different styles of demoltions.....so did the particularly unique and massive wtc towers

This is not about WTC 7, the Pentagon, Flight 93 or any other topic you wish to bring forward to deflect the short falls in your logic. At some later stage I will gladly discuss these issues with you.

4.This was shown as a typical controlled demo method as demonstrated in Philadelphia 1999. Go back and look at the picture I posted

So it is now typical to demolish building from the top down. Funny that since the only one you can find is the Philadelphia one. Maybe the guys that planned it wanted to put on an extra special show for us all.
quote:

5.I don't understand why you would think they would have to if it was CD.

Of course you don’t

6.Huh? The dust cloud came from the entire structure and was massive.

NO, No No it didn’t, it came from the top of the building as it collapsed. The building in the video generated dust from the bottom.

Yes you should. I already showed you how no 2 demolitions are alike. Virtually every demo is different. There is absolutely no reason to think that all demos should look like the one you cited. That notion is absurd on it's face

Of course no demolitions are alike, according to you the demolition of the Towers was the most unique demolition in the history of demolition. Infact it was so unique I’m surprise we didn’t all notice it at the time

I have no idea what you mean here. You posted an absurd topic and I proved you wrong right off the bat yet you continue to hold to that notion. ALL demolitions vary greatly so the notion that the covert demolition of the towers should look anything like the example you pulled out of a hat is based on a fallacy.

Of course you have no idea what I am talking about, the logical fallacy.

Let me clarify.

What is logical fallacy?

"The term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal fallacy: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid."


Got it?


[edit on 5-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
1. The explosive charges that went off were not reccorded visually.

They were.



The charges were set off so the buildings would appear to fall slower than free-fall, but (a) you can still see expulsions from under the falling debris (above gif), and (b) there were out-of-place expulsions (one is also apparent in the above gif).

BillyBob has pointed out in one thread that one distinct expulsion ("squib") in particular from WTC1 emerged from the building before free-falling material from the collapse had reached the same distance down the building. Explain that one to me if these are not explosive charges.

2. The sound from the explosive charges were not recorded.

They were. There were some blasts picked up on video from Hoboken on 9/11 just seconds before at least one collapse. Once the collapses initiated, there was a lot of noise, described by at least one witness as a metallic roar.

You can argue that all of that noise would've been naturally provided by a building falling anyway, but you can't say that the noise was definitely not caused by explosives, so this (#2) isn't a legitimate problem you're raising anyway.

3. The Towers did not collapse into its own footprint.

The center of gravity for both buildings was still in their footprints, which is what you're getting at if you're suggesting demos cause buildings to fall straight down. This was accomplished.

This means that the debris was ejected outwardly, outside of the footprints, yes, but the buildings did not tilt or lean in any particular direction during their collapses as would a natural collapse (or so we would expect), and the debris was ejected in four directions pretty evenly with each tower (watch videos; observe Ground Zero pics).

4. The Towers collapsed from the top down.

What's the problem here? You can set charges to go off in any order you'd like. I don't understand your objection.

5. The Towers did not split during there collapse.

Why should they have?

Parts of the core structure of WTC1 still stood after the perimeter/truss collapses all around it, but then it came straight down too. I think the charges taking out perimeter columns were top-down, not necessarily floor-by-floor but close enough to give that appearance. The core looks to have come down conventionally by detonations at the base.

6. The cloud dust was generated from the top.

There's no issue with this, as it relates to an imaginary issue you invent for your #4, that it would've somehow been impossible to set off charges in an unusual order.

Here's an animation of a typical demolition:



Notice that charges are sequenced to go off at different times. There are three separate events there.

There is no reason that demolitions must be limited to only three different events, and not 40-some or 90-some or a few thousand or however many would be needed to offer a natural-looking collapse.

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Of course you have no idea what I am talking about, the logical fallacy.

Let me clarify.

What is logical fallacy?

"The term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal fallacy: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid."

Yeah, you're using such a fallacy, buddy.

Fallacy Of The General Rule:

assuming that something true in general is true in every possible case. For example, "All chairs have four legs." Except that rocking chairs don't have any legs, and what is a one-legged "shooting stick" if it isn't a chair?

Or assuming that all demolitions look exactly like the one you provide for us in your initial post: that's false logic, especially when we already know that no two demolitions are ever the exact same.

Source.

[edit on 5-5-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Oldtimer2
under high heat steel will bend not snap,if it were the case those buildings would of teetered taking out a bunch more buildings as they would of went top 1st

I think Seekerof is refering to the beam snapping not from high heat but from high load on a floor once the pancaking started. The weight would have sheared portions of the building with the force similar to an explosion with each pancake.

Occam's razor really needs to be followed more often.

Originally posted by pavil
I think Seekerof is refering to the beam snapping not from high heat but from high load on a floor once the pancaking started.

Steel doesn't "snap." I think this is what the poster you're responding to is getting at. It'll bend and tear under extreme stress, or else at extreme temperature, but what Seekerof suggested doesn't make sense. There's no precedent for steel behaving as he's suggesting. The sound of steel ripping wouldn't be confused with an explosion.

The charges were set off so the buildings would appear to fall slower than free-fall, but (a) you can still see expulsions from under the falling debris (above gif), and (b) there were out-of-place expulsions (one is also apparent in the above gif).

Wait a minute are you not contradicting the thermite theory? Thermite does not explode it burns. I actually asked for video evidence of the flashes from explosions, not squibs.
Since you have now chosen to champion this campaign, maybe you can explain exactly what type of explosive was used to cause the squibs. Was it thermite or tradition explosives? Think carefully as one answer may contradict another claim you are making.

They were. There were some blasts picked up on video from Hoboken on 9/11 just seconds before at least one collapse. Once the collapses initiated, there was a lot of noise, described by at least one witness as a metallic roar.

So thermite wasn’t used?

You can argue that all of that noise would've been naturally provided by a building falling anyway, but you can't say that the noise was definitely not caused by explosives, so this (#2) isn't a legitimate problem you're raising anyway.

Of course it is totally illogical of me to imagine that the collapse of the Towers didn’t sound like an explosion. I can imagine quite easily it was quiet. It probably sounded like a atomic bomb going off, my friend

The center of gravity for both buildings was still in their footprints, which is what you're getting at if you're suggesting demos cause buildings to fall straight down. This was accomplished.

Really? have you any idea how far outside the footprint of these buildings, this collapse went. Let me show you.
www.logoto.com...

What's the problem here? You can set charges to go off in any order you'd like. I don't understand your objection.

The objection is simple, my friend, both Towers started to collapse at the point of impact. This allows for no margin of error. The planes had to crash at precisely the point the explosives were, the explosives, detonators, primers and all associated wiring had to survive this crash and then be detonated. What odds would you give that? Two planes slamming into a building at precisely the point the explosives were and the explosives surviving?

Why should they have?

Why would they split? Sorry are you actually visualising what it would take to bring down a 500, 000 ton steel and concrete building? Kind of think it would be a couple of pounds, maybe a small charge? It would take tons of explosives my friend. The building would have split. Again what are the odds of both towers being brought down by explosives (thermite or conventional) and them not splitting during the collapse

Now here is a very simple lesson in proving your point.

Take your claim, in this instance “the Towers were brought down by explosives”

1. State your claim and why you believe it is true.

2. Use logic and common sense to justify your claim.

3. Use scientifically proven methods to reinforce your claim.

4. Back up these methods with credible evidence.

5. Put together a complete picture which encompasses all the facts.

6. Put forward your draft thesis, for peer approval.

7. Once your thesis is approved by the entire scientific community you have made scientific fact.

8. Hooray you did it and have no longer any need to make unsubstantiated and illogical claims.

Now use this method to verify any other claims you vaguely allude to and maybe people will take you seriously

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Since you have now chosen to champion this campaign, maybe you can explain exactly what type of explosive was used to cause the squibs. Was it thermite or tradition explosives? Think carefully as one answer may contradict another claim you are making.

I think both were used, except replace "traditional explosives" with just "high explosives" in general. I don't know what kind they were, but neither do I have to for the demo theory to still be top dog as far as explanations for those collapses go.

Thermite would've allowed the collapses to initiate without a blatantly obvious fireworks show (ie WTC2 during its tilt, up until the start of a vertical fall), and then a sequence of high explosives charges would've been set off, which is when the expulsions of pulverized materials started coming from within the buildings, and the buildings start falling straight down floor-by-floor.

Also, since you're apparently into logical fallacies, here's another one for you:

Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection):

if your opponent successfully addresses some point, then say he must also address some further point. If you can make these points more and more difficult (or diverse) then eventually your opponent must fail.

Same source as before. lol

Of course it is totally illogical of me to imagine that the collapse of the Towers didn’t sound like an explosion. I can imagine quite easily it was quiet. It probably sounded like a atomic bomb going off, my friend

Then why do you take issue with the lack of sound coming from the collapses?

Really? have you any idea how far outside the footprint of these buildings, this collapse went.

Have you any idea what a center of gravity is? It doesn't matter how far the debris was sprayed. The buildings still fell straight down in a manner of speaking (the manner of speaking that's to the point of what you're complaining about) if all of the debris landed around a central point.

The difference between the WTC Towers and any other demolitions falling straight down is that the WTC Towers' materials were violently ejected outwards as they fell downwards. I should be stating the obvious here. Watch a video of the collapses.

The objection is simple, my friend, both Towers started to collapse at the point of impact. This allows for no margin of error.

Ah, ok. In that case, it's still to do with the order in which you set off the charges. Between impacts and collapses there was plenty of time to pick a floor to detonate the charges from. It's the same issue of which charges to trigger, and when to trigger them.


Next you assert that because of the amount of explosives you're assuming were used, the Towers would have had to have "split." I don't have any reason to believe that would've been the case, and you didn't give me any reasons to believe it, so I don't see any point in addressing what you failed to support anyway.


As for the last list of demands, you should send that to NIST and all the relevant government agencies telling you it was the fires and plane damage alone. I'm sure you've read the NIST Report and carefully analyzed the "evidence" they use to support their case, right? My argument is a sort of process of elimination. Until you can substantially back up NIST's claims, which not even NIST itself can do, I have more reason to believe these were demolitions than anything else. And so until then, I will.

The burden of proof as to what happened to those towers isn't on a bunch of nutter conspiracy theorists. It's on the people you're paying with your taxes to do this kind of stuff for a living. So I'd email them up and tell them to get cracking.

[edit on 5-5-2006 by bsbray11]

As for the last list of demands, you should send that to NIST and all the relevant government agencies telling you it was the fires and plane damage alone. I'm sure you've read the NIST Report and carefully analyzed the "evidence" they use to support their case, right? My argument is a sort of process of elimination. Until you can substantially back up NIST's claims, which not even NIST itself can do, I have more reason to believe these were demolitions than anything else. And so until then, I will.

I have actually read all the NIST reports including this draft report

wtc.nist.gov...

Have you read it?

I don't need to back up anybodies claims nor do I need to prove to you exactly what happened.

You support and promote an alternative theory, not me. The burden of proof lies entirely with you, not me.

Stop acting so childish when people question your theories and start acting like an adult and back them up.

It is not enough to speculate or make claims, you and you alone must prove these claims. Do not try to insult me again nor try to belittle anybody who doesn't believe you.

You have your opinion and I have mine, we are entitled to them, it is simply called freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom to say or do what ever we like.

We could continue trading insults but it is pointless, we could continue this game of one upmanship, but it is pointless because you will never convince me you are correct, in the same way I will never convince you.

As such I withdraw, manly because I'm going to bed, but also because you have proved nothing.

Hence the logical fallacy

Originally posted by bsbray11
Steel doesn't "snap." I think this is what the poster you're responding to is getting at. It'll bend and tear under extreme stress, or else at extreme temperature, but what Seekerof suggested doesn't make sense. There's no precedent for steel behaving as he's suggesting. The sound of steel ripping wouldn't be confused with an explosion.

Ok, the sound of 3,000,000+ pounds of material on each floor crashing into the floor below it would make quite a good impression of an explosion in my opinion.

The figure I quote is what I have found doing a little research as to what each floor weighed, correct me if I am really off on that estimate.. Each floor was almost an acre in area and was made of 4 inches of concrete in addition to what else was on each floor. I am sure that is enough extreme stress to tear the steel and other structural components.

I have a couple of questions (please keep in mind that I haven't read every thread posted on the twin towers, or read all the conspiracy theories behind them. There's too many to go through, and I did read a few here and there).

My questions:

#1.) If you believe that the towers were brought down by explosives other than an aircraft,..... Is it impossible to assume that terrorists may have planted those explosives prior to the planned impact? Why must the U.S. government be responsible for bringing down the towers? Couldn't this have been the work of international terrorists? I mean.... it could have been their "back-up" plan if the planes didn't do enough damage.

#2.) How long after the plane crash did the towers collapse? How long were they intact (so-to-speak)?

#3.) If explosives were indeed an issue,...if terrorists planted the explosives in the tower, wouldn't their success be enough to make the government deny any explosions other than the airplanes? Hijacking a plane is bad enough, but in my belief it is more difficult to prevent a hijacking, than preventing someone from planting explosives inside a building of such importance. It would be an even greater embarrassement to let something like that slip through, and to be partly responsible for so many deaths.

#4.) StateofGrace has got a good point in my opinion. People thought the Titanic was unsinkable, and they were wrong. Isn't it possible that a large, burning plane could bring down big buildings like the twin towers, despite of what our held beliefs were prior to the incident?

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
It is the central core that is an issue due to the concrete and reinforced steel.

What is "reinforced steel?"

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
The towers were unique structures that required a unique demolition method. There was a massive exterior support grid that had to be obliterated along with an intense core of 48 incredible concrete reiforced vertical steel columns.

What the heck are you two sock puppets talking about?

The core columns win the tower were not concrete, the only concrete in the core area was the floor slab. In fact there was proportionately less concrete in the core then the tenant area due to all of the elevators and utility shafts.

OK. Look, in order to understand this completely one must fit all the pieces of the puzzle:

#1.) If you believe that the towers were brought down by explosives other than an aircraft,..... Is it impossible to assume that terrorists may have planted those explosives prior to the planned impact? Why must the U.S. government be responsible for bringing down the towers? Couldn't this have been the work of international terrorists? I mean.... it could have been their "back-up" plan if the planes didn't do enough damage.

It is not impossible to assume that the terrorists implanted the bombs, but it is highly unlikely. The place has always been severely guarded ( relatively speaking ). One must also note the fact that there have been 2 blakcouts in the tower one month before. Also, the bomb-sniffing dogs have been discharged of aprroximately one week earlier before the attack. One must also look at WTC 7. It is VERY UNLIKELY that terrorists would be able to infiltrate the building where CIA offices exists. So am I saying that it's impossible? Absolutley not, but everything seems too "in the right time" and VERY HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

#2.) How long after the plane crash did the towers collapse? How long were they intact (so-to-speak)?

I am not too sure on the exact times but these times have been around one hour for each building. So a steel frame building collapsing from a weak fire in just one hour? ---- UNLIKELY

#3.) If explosives were indeed an issue,...if terrorists planted the explosives in the tower, wouldn't their success be enough to make the government deny any explosions other than the airplanes? Hijacking a plane is bad enough, but in my belief it is more difficult to prevent a hijacking, than preventing someone from planting explosives inside a building of such importance. It would be an even greater embarrassement to let something like that slip through, and to be partly responsible for so many deaths.

Yes, however planes have been hijacked before in the past and it is not impossible. Several people in the passt have been able to get in airliners with knives. Now these planes are considered civil aircraft. WTC 7 is of much importance however. It was considered a high security fedderal building. So terrorists just went in WTC 7 and planted bombs just like that ?? Again HIGHLY UNLIKELY

#4.) StateofGrace has got a good point in my opinion. People thought the Titanic was unsinkable, and they were wrong. Isn't it possible that a large, burning plane could bring down big buildings like the twin towers, despite of what our held beliefs were prior to the incident?

Yes, State of Grace does have a good point, in fact he is more logical than many other people in this forum who would post anything like " blah blah it hass to be this way cause i say so". The thing is that this unlikely event was accompied by hundreds of other RARE CONINCIDENCES. If you want more information on the coincidences click on my signature.


Hopefully I have answered your questions in an efficient manner. We must remember, even us conspiracists, we always have to remember the possibilty of the U.S. government not being involved in the attacks. Of course our "half evidence" points otherwise but always take that possibility into account.

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Have you read it?

Yeah, and they only try to explain how the collapses initiated, describing everything else (the global collapse and its mechanisms) as simply "inevitable" (real scientific eh), and only backed up their truss failure theory with a few weak pics; none of the pics showed enough buckled columns, assuming they were actually buckled, to justify a collapse initiation by their own figures for the safety factor ratings and etc. And that's about all they offer in the report; that's the meat of it.

So they never proved anything to begin with really. If I've failed to mention anything very important to their case feel free to throw it in.

We could continue trading insults but it is pointless, we could continue this game of one upmanship, but it is pointless because you will never convince me you are correct, in the same way I will never convince you.

Trading insults? I think I was doing a lot more than just trying to insult you in those posts. I thought they were totally reasonable. But sleep tight.

Originally posted by pavil
Ok, the sound of 3,000,000+ pounds of material on each floor crashing into the floor below it would make quite a good impression of an explosion in my opinion.

Except the buildings weren't collapsing when most of the explosions were heard by witnesses. The buildings actually collapsing produced sounds that were referred to as steady roars and things like that, and you can sort of get a taste of that with some videos of the collapses. I think Seekerof was suggesting explosions were confused with *ripping* steel, which I don't think would happen, and the actual witness testimonies don't seem to back that up either from all that I've seen.

Originally post by 2manyquestions
#1.) If you believe that the towers were brought down by explosives other than an aircraft,..... Is it impossible to assume that terrorists may have planted those explosives prior to the planned impact?

No, but there are a lot of things that point to foul-play on the part of some governmental factions. FEMA was in NYC on the evening of 9/10, for example. Most of the steel from Ground Zero was immediately carried away (by the same company that handled OKC) and the clean-up in general removed a lot of material that would've been valuable for a good investigation. G. W. Bush's brother ran the security company that worked the WTC Towers up until shortly before 9/11, which would be key to smuggle in explosives. The 9/11 Commission Report gives a fudged timeline of events, Bush wasn't immediately taken to a secure location by the SS and later said (twice) that he saw the first plane hit on live TV, and etc. I think NIST and FEMA's reports were overseen to ensure a whitewashing as well, which at least implies dishonesty as to what actually happened on the feds' part.

#2.) How long after the plane crash did the towers collapse? How long were they intact (so-to-speak)?

WTC1: Stood for 102 minutes after impact.
WTC2: Stood for 56 minutes after impact.

#3.) If explosives were indeed an issue,...if terrorists planted the explosives in the tower, wouldn't their success be enough to make the government deny any explosions other than the airplanes?

I suppose, if you think they really were caught with their pants down.

#4.) StateofGrace has got a good point in my opinion. People thought the Titanic was unsinkable, and they were wrong. Isn't it possible that a large, burning plane could bring down big buildings like the twin towers, despite of what our held beliefs were prior to the incident?

I didn't have any beliefs prior to the incident, and for a good while afterwards I thought the planes and fire did bring them down. If the planes and fire did, though, no one has really explained how yet. The explanations offered so far would explain the failures of a few floors and a local collapse, but no one has really attempted to try to explain how, for example, 13 floors in WTC1 fell and destroyed the lower 97 with virtually no resistance and without slowing down or lopsiding (not to mention all sorts of other oddities), except demo theorists. So that's why I stand where I do for the moment.