WTC 9/11 Site - Molten Metal & Copper Oxide Thermite

Originally posted by Masisoar

The possibility is there, all they have to do is pose as a utility or maintainance worker. Do you really think someone working in the WTC as an office worker is going to side step their job to examine what a utility worker is doing, however suspicious.

What fantasy world are you living in. You have no idea how things really work in the real world with real people do you?

Do you really think that someone can walk into an office and start ripping holes in the wall without initiating a half dozen complaints from the tenants? Do you really think people are that stupid?

What about the other, real, maintenance and custodial workers? Don’t you think that they won’t notice the 50 “new guys?”

Originally posted by Masisoar
Provided that the WTC Leaseholder was probably in on it, he could of put the orders out for maintainance to be done as a cover-story when he was really having people place the charges.

So are you suggesting that the Port Authority was in on it also?

All of these possibilities you are suggesting involve more and more people. How many were in on it 100, 1,000?

A number of those who were in charge of the opperations and mainteance of the towers were killed on 9/11. Were they suicide bombers?

Let me remind you that the buildings were filled with high end financial services tenants,
i.e. traders, investment companies, insurance companies, etc.

These tenants would have all had their own separate security systems, as well as very specific lease agreements specifying what type of work can and can’t be done in their spaces.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Another possibility is you set up dummy companies and lease office space as tenants. Free reign after that. Speculation, sure, but certainly possible.

The problem with that theory is that there were huge blocks of the buildings that were 100 % rented out already.

At best you would only be able to reach a few small areas that way.



You would also be leaving a paper trail that way.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The problem with that theory is that there were huge blocks of the buildings that were 100 % rented out already.

At best you would only be able to reach a few small areas that way.

True. I guess it depends how many floors you think would need to be rigged, over what time frame, and whether the material used was detectable by bomb-sniffing techniques.

You would also be leaving a paper trail that way.

In case you hadn't noticed, no one's investigating.

Show me the scientific material that demonstrates it is impossible.

Until you do so, the feasibility study shows that it can be achieved.

[edit on 19-6-2006 by MMC]

Originally posted by MMC
Show me the scientific material that demonstrates it is impossible.

Until you do so, the feasibility study shows that it can be achieved.

[edit on 19-6-2006 by MMC]

Your “feasibility study” as you call it is fatally flawed. It does not address the following issues.

1. Demolition explosives have to be place in very specific locations, and not just be “suitably hid.” The explosive has to be physically adjacent to the structural element being demolished. Access to these structural elements is limited and obscured by other building components. Your “feasibility study” does not take this into account.
   
   
2. Any demolition required to access a structural member to must be followed by a repair and renovation. All of this has to happen in your time frame. This is not addressed.
   
   
3. Movement of materials through a large building is limited to the freight elevator service. Movement of large quantities of materials requires advanced scheduling in order to avoid conflicts with other, routine uses of the system.
   
   
4. The “feasibility study” fails to account for access issues related to individual tenant security systems which were independent of the building systems and personnel.
   
   
5. Your “feasibility study” also fails to identify if any of the tenants operated 24/7, a common scenario in today’s business world, and how that was worked around.
   
   
   
   ATS used to be much more sophisticated then this.

Howard, I was merely referring to the possibility. If there wasn't possibility we'd never argue anything to do with this topic, so offensive.. also it's hard to argue any point for this other than the few news articles that explain times and advantages where this could of taken place.. all other records are either A) with the companies that conducted business there or B) what was left of the WTC itself.

But the speculuation, however wack, still leads to better points and possibility. Trial and Error til we can define something that could of taken place with the best supported evidence.

[edit on 6/19/2006 by Masisoar]

The feasibility study does not address those aspects yet. Sufficient information does not exist in the public domain.

Demolition explosives have to be place in very specific locations, and not just be “suitably hid.” The explosive has to be physically adjacent to the structural element being demolished. Access to these structural elements is limited and obscured by other building components. Your “feasibility study” does not take this into account.

It wasn't meant to at this stage. This requires the blue-prints for the WTC.

Any demolition required to access a structural member to must be followed by a repair and renovation. All of this has to happen in your time frame. This is not addressed.

This requires blue-prints.

Movement of materials through a large building is limited to the freight elevator service. Movement of large quantities of materials requires advanced scheduling in order to avoid conflicts with other, routine uses of the system.

Show mw your references on the procedures used within the WTC. Demonstrate that it is impossible to circumvent these procedures.

The “feasibility study” fails to account for access issues related to individual tenant security systems which were independent of the building systems and personnel.

This requires the blue-prints.

Your “feasibility study” also fails to identify if any of the tenants operated 24/7, a common scenario in today’s business world, and how that was worked around.

That would also require the blue-prints.


As you can see, your points are irrelevent at this stage. The basics must be established first, such as, is it physically possible for a small group to physically transport the materials in the first place?

Additional Notes 1: Calculations on the Number of People Required to Plant 20,000lbs of Thermite or Explosives
www.gieis.uni.cc...

The answer is yes, it is.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Another possibility is you set up dummy companies and lease office space as tenants. Free reign after that. Speculation, sure, but certainly possible.

Wasn't there plenty of government "offices" in the WTC 1 & 2? I'm not talking about 7 but I think I remember something along those lines. Could make it very plausible then.

More like all the files to pending court cases...Enron for example...

Video 8: The Truth & Lies of 9/11
www.gieis.uni.cc...

Mod Note: You Have An Urgent U2U- Click Here.

[edit on 19/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]

I'll skip my questions about how someone can wonder through a building carrying 198 lbs of explosives without being noticed. I'll also skip the part about there having to be specially designed shaped charges put in specific locations.

My question is a simple one.

How were the explosives or thermite charges detonated?

Impossible no. Impractical yes!

If the base of each tower was blown out and both towers toppled over I'd buy the explosives in the building theory. I have an idea how that could have been done. To me the amount of precision required for a controlled implosion is the greatest evidence that this wasn't one.

Originally posted by MMC
The feasibility study does not address those aspects yet. Sufficient information does not exist in the public domain.

What a cop out. There is plenty of information out there.

Originally posted by MMC

It wasn't meant to at this stage. This requires the blue-prints for the WTC.

…

This requires blue-prints.

…

This requires the blue-prints.

…

That would also require the blue-prints.

Why would it require a blue print to determine how long it would take to open up a drywall enclosure and repair it afterward?

BTW, typical floor plans and structural schematics are readily available. Since the base building layout, and the structural elements within that layout are fixed, they won’t vary per floor. In other words, the core columns were all enclosed in drywall enclosures. Whether there was paint, wallpaper of another finish on the exterior of the drywall is another issue the more complicates the finish, the more time consuming the repair.

In any case. you can’t just ignore these things and then claim that the “feasibility study” is preliminary. You have to address them one way or another.

Let’s go back to your calculations shall we?

You state that 50 people making three trips carrying 135 lbs each trip could do this.

How far do they have to carry the 135 lbs? from the parking garage? Uh, oh, Sirus is on duty.

The loading dock? The street?

135 lbs is a lot of weight to be lugging around.

How many people could fit into the freight elevator at a time?

Let’s say that 10 people at a time can fit in the elevator.

Let’s assume that the average weight of those people is 175 lbs.

So, we have a starting load of 3100 lbs plus the operator at another 176 lbs. What was the elevator capacity?

How many times does the elevator have to stop on each trip?

What about the wait time for the elevator as each man is finished with his individual run and has to go down for a second load?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Let’s go back to your calculations shall we?

You state that 50 people making three trips carrying 135 lbs each trip could do this.

How far do they have to carry the 135 lbs? from the parking garage? Uh, oh, Sirus is on duty.

The loading dock? The street?

135 lbs is a lot of weight to be lugging around.

How many people could fit into the freight elevator at a time?

Let’s say that 10 people at a time can fit in the elevator.

Let’s assume that the average weight of those people is 175 lbs.

So, we have a starting load of 3100 lbs plus the operator at another 176 lbs. What was the elevator capacity?

How many times does the elevator have to stop on each trip?

What about the wait time for the elevator as each man is finished with his individual run and has to go down for a second load?

Let me pile on here Howard.

What type of detonators were used?

How were the charges set off?

If radio controlled detonators were used, was a reception check done?

If radio detonators were used, is there any interference that may cause malfunctions or premature detonations?

If conventional detonators were used, who strung the det cord?

How was the det cord conceled?

How were the charges sequenced?

What steps were taken to prevent the impact of the airliners from interfering with the demolition?

If we knew this information, it wouldn't be debated right now, but through your help Howard, and JimC, we are getting closer to establishing just what really happened Thanks! Much love :-*

If you want to go up above the ceilings, then you need a ladder and another guy to carry it.

I've updated my site again...its now at draft 0.0.7. I've added some new videos on things like the WTC 7 collapse, Dr Robert Bowman and an engineering video on the design of the WTC and its ability to withstand aircraft impacts. There is also a discussion about the 'Burden of Proof' that exists upon NIST and its various claims.

Check it out...

www.gieis.uni.cc...

[edit on 19-6-2006 by MMC]

If I may pile on Howard's and JIMC's posts...

From what I understand from the calculations, it is not taking into the account of the materiel or personnel used in repairing the work done after the "bombs were planted"...

So we've got several 4'x8' sheets of drywall ( enough to cover the walls ripped out to uncover the core columns ) plus the drywall mud, and then the paint...

Not to mention the tools required to do the repair job, and then the cleanup...

We need the blue-prints to make those type of determinations. We may not need to do any form of structural access work at all.

Location...Location...Location...

Hmmm...

Interesting MMC...

If I may ask a question, how much construction experience do you have ?

[edit on 20-6-2006 by Jedi_Master]

Originally posted by MMC
We need the blue-prints to make those type of determinations. We may not need to do any form of structural access work at all.

Location...Location...Location...

Shaped charges need to be in contact with the structural members that they are intended to be used on. They also require material packed around them to direct their explosive force.

This photo shows structural columns rigged with explosives. The black covering is there to prevent high speed fragments from escaping the blast and causing damage. The yellow lines are the detonation cord, a plastic tube filled with an explosive that is used to initiate detonation of the charges.



This photo shows a cross sectional view of an explosive cutting charge. The open section of the 'V' must be placed against the surface to be cut. This charge will only cut the surface it is up against. To cut one of the box beams used in the WTC construction four seperate charges must be used for each cut. In a standard implosion one or more of the beam's surfaces would be pre-cut with a torch to reduce the number of charges.



Contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe these charges must be placed accurately and detonated in the proper sequence. Just sticking a block of explosives on to a column or wall isn't the way it's done. You tape a stick of dynamite to a structural I-beam and detonate it all you are going to do is to strip the paint off of the beam and pit the metal.

I've been on enough of these 9/11 threads to know that there are a group of ATSers who have determined (at least in their own minds) that the official story is water-tight and beyond reproach. Suggesting anything else is utterly fruitless and I for one don't need the added frustration. However, I'd like to offer my own experience as a 'high-rise office tenant'.

I have held senior executive level jobs with a few companies that held significant office space in two different high-rise towers in a major US city. In one case I was directly involved in the build-out of an exapansion to a lease. We covered several non-contiguous floors. There was a variety of tenants sharing these buildings including some federal and state agencies.

During the several years I worked there, ongoing construction was non-stop. Large areas were being reconfigured, expanded, built-out, remodeled. Groups of contractors were constanttly coming and going doing all manner of work. Electricians, IT and HVAC guys were in the ceiling utility spaces. We had a central security service and security staff in the tower complex and they provided the swipe cards needed by the crews to access the areas in which they were working. There were several banks of elevators and it was very common for some of them being 'down', sometimes for a few days, while they were being 'serviced'. This work went on all hours of the day and any day of the week, including weekends. From my experience, these guys could have been anyone and could have carried anything into or out of the building.

Just my $.02