Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How were the WTC buildings rigged with explosives?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
The seeming impossibility of rigging 3 building ala controlled demo without being noticed has always been a major flaw in the inside job theory. When asking this question in other threads, the topic always gets changed so I thought a thread dedicated to it would force a bit of focus.

So here's the question.
Knowing what is known about CDs and the process and steps that MUST be taken in order for a CD to take place, how was it done without raising suspicion?

For clarity and focus, I don't mean was there opportunity..or was there motivation..or were there plans in the past that suggested deception.

I mean HOW was it done?..the physical steps involved in doing it. After all..this is the beating heart of the theory..if the buildings could not have been rigged, the whole theory is shot in the azz.

For all you true believers, please enlighten me..I'm curious as to how you think it was done.




posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   
I believe it could have quite easily have been done over a period of time.
It didn't have to be done all at once. Government operations are usualy planned well ahead of the operation.

With a bush on the board of the company supplying security and a building owner, silverstein, in on the plan it wouldn't be that difficult to by-pass security.

Power down the week before 9-11, doing the finishing touches?

I'm just guessing because to me how it was done is not that important, the physics of the collapse is enough to convince me it was done.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I believe it could have quite easily have been done over a period of time.
It didn't have to be done all at once. Government operations are usualy planned well ahead of the operation.

With a bush on the board of the company supplying security and a building owner, silverstein, in on the plan it wouldn't be that difficult to by-pass security.

Power down the week before 9-11, doing the finishing touches.


HA HA HA!Bush left in June 2000,and Stein only got the LEASE rescent.BOoohh!!
Bush also was on "the board"did not contrll anything.TeeHeeHee!Also not only security on the two buildings!As far as being done at once,It was two planes at diff times!!!!!Who has substantiated this power down ,besides" the mystery of Scott Forbes"??????????????????????

[edit on 22-7-2006 by Duhh]



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Well..sure didn't take long to get off topic.

ANOK..whether you want to believe it or not how it was done is absolutely critical to having the theory even approach believability.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Yes, In a nonlinear way,.... off topic.Still think it is in the paradigm,however.The statements are about these folks ability to do this BS in the thread!I refute that!I hope!This is an exponential nite mare of Con's!The thermite/mate!HA! The explosives,"BOMBS", eye witness acconts are ,simili,out of context ,nonsense! Called explosions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
So what Duhh? Like I said who knows when the explosives were set?
Could have been in 2000....And could have been finished when silverstein took over ownership.

And great reply btw, you really know how to bring mature discusion to ATS

And pleeease could you learn to use the space bar, trying to read your posts is a pain.

And Vushta, no I don't believe knowing how it was done is that relevant. You have to admit it could have been done right?
It's not an impossiblity...

Again as far as I'm concerned the physics is more important than all the why's and how's. This is just a distraction imo. You know we can only guess, the only ppl who know how it was done was those that did it.

You do believe there are pyramids in Egypt right? Do you know how they got there?
See my point?

[edit on 22/7/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Done Here!

[edit on 22-7-2006 by Duhh]



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

And Vushta, no I don't believe knowing how it was done is that relevant. You have to admit it could have been done right?
It's not an impossiblity...


You do believe there are pyramids in Egypt right? Do you know how they got there?
See my point?

[edit on 22/7/2006 by ANOK]


Well no. I don't admit it could have been done. Not at all. I'm claiming it to be an impossibility.

Yes the pyraminds are there. Do I know how they got there? Yes. They were built and I'm sure hundreds of thousands of people saw it being done.

Are you admitting that you can't even imagine how it was done..but you're convinced it was?

[edit on 22-7-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Well no. I don't admit it could have been done. Not at all. I'm claiming it to be an impossibility.


On what grounds is it impossible? You have not convinced me it would be immpossible at all. You just don't want to believe it was done.



Yes the pyraminds are there. Do I know how they got there? Yes. They were built and I'm sure hundreds of thousands of people saw it being done.


No you don't know how they got there, no one does, there are only theories and none of them have been proved. Of course they were built, not the point I was trying to make.



Are you admitting that you can't even imagine how it was done..but you're convinced it was?


Did I say that? No, I offered a plausable explanation, my guess. It's just like I already said I don't think it matters right now, pls learn to read so I don't have to keep repeating myself.

This thread is pointless...You don't have to prove how something was done to know it was.

[edit on 22/7/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
wasnt the power down in one tower?

and not the whole tower?

i just wonder how one being partially down accounts for the other...



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Blatant....it doesnt.

Anok, you dont wire a building with explosives and then let it set for MONTHS. For crying out loud, the building inspectors had been through the towers not that long before 9/11. They would have noticed. Oh yeah.....more conspirators right?



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 12:51 AM
link   
This may be slightly off topic but building seven was pulled(controlled demolition) because of a few fires. To bring down a building by controlled demolition takes usually takes days of planning and so forth and building seven was "pulled" a couple hours after the attacks so....logic dictates that the explosives used to "pull" building 7 were planted before the attacks took place. That hurt to type because I would like to believe our leaders are good people but if I were asked if I thought they would go to heaven should they die right now I guess I would say no. I'm not passing judgement, just saying that if certain individuals within the government had a hand in 9/11 it would not surprise me because "I" don't consider them good people, e.g. Rumsfeld. or Herbert. I hope I'm wrong though.
nice thread BTW



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 01:22 AM
link   
You are making the false assumption that pulling referred to controlled demolition, it does not. What they were speaking of was the fire company that was making preliminary steps into WTC 7. Pull it, meant pull the fire company out of the building. Nothing more, nothing less.

WTC 7 was a mess, widespread fires on multiple floors, not to mention the 20 story chunk that was taken out of it by the collapse of the tower. But dont believe me...believe them...

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ... on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.
www.firehouse.com...

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

www.firehouse.com...

"at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged. ... until you had done either a couple of 360s around this whole site or if you got an aerial view somehow, you really couldn’t appreciate the scope of the damage." - Battalion Chief John Norman
Special Operations Command - 22 years



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 01:52 AM
link   
I recall reading online somewhere that an employee (it gave his name) of the WTC reported that for several months prior to 911 sections of the building were closed off and no one was allowed to go on them, they were told it was for maintenance. He reported he did not think too much of it at the time until after 911. Sorry I can't find the website now but I do recall reading that.

Also you might want to take into account that many firefighters reported hearing and seeing explosions just before the towers came down

Here is someone who has done his research on 911 and gives you all the reasons why the official story is a lie.



www.mindfully.org...

Several individuals reported that they witnessed an explosion just before one of the towers collapsed. Battalion Chief John Sudnik said: “we heard . . . what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down” (NYT, Sudnick, p. 4).

Several people reported multiple explosions. Paramedic Kevin Darnowski said: "I heard three explosions, and then . . . tower two started to come down” (NYT, Darnowski, p. 8).

Firefighter Thomas Turilli said, “it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight" (NYT, Turilli, p. 4).

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower. . . . There were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down” (NYT, Carlsen, pp. 5-6).

Firefighter Joseph Meola said, “it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops" (NYT, Meola, p. 5).

Paramedic Daniel Rivera also mentioned “pops.” Asked how he knew that the south tower was coming down, he said:

It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was—do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'? . . . I thought it was that. (NYT, Rivera, p. 9)



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You are making the false assumption that pulling referred to controlled demolition, it does not. What they were speaking of was the fire company that was making preliminary steps into WTC 7. Pull it, meant pull the fire company out of the building. Nothing more, nothing less.


You have proof of this? Because if you do you are the only one who has.
It's not nothing more, nothing less, it's just your opinion.

I know it's only my, and many others, opinion but "pull it' and the context it was said in makes more sense to mean demo the building.

Theres were no fire fighters in the building for hours before the collapse, so who did they 'pull'?
There was an FBI agent in the building when it fell, did he miss the order to 'pull it', or was that what he was doing at the time, making him miss the order?

Since when does the owner of a building make decisions for the fire department?
Since when does the fire dept get referred to as 'it'?
To 'pull' is industry jargon for taking down a building.
The word 'pull' was used in the PBS documentary referring to the taking down of WTC 6. "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six." A construction worker.

Take all that into consideration, along with the obvious squibs seen, the perfect symmetrical collapse into it's own footprint at near free-fall speed, and to me it's seems pretty obvious 'pull it' meant the building, not the fire fighters.

Also do you have proof of this 20 story hole in the building? Another one no has been able to prove. The fires were not as big as claimed either, where are the pics of these huge fires?
Building 6 had more damage than 7, it didn't fall.

[edit on 23/7/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 02:53 AM
link   
ANOK, if you had read Swampfox's post you would see that he posted links to his proof (being the eyewitness accounts of the firefighters at the scene). But wait, I forgot, so called firefighters are paid employees of a government agency (albeit a New York City government agency with NY state accreditation) and are therefore probably in on the conspiracy, right? Sorry, for getting off topic Vushta. That last post kinda just stuck in my craw in a bad way. ANOK, I haven't seen you link to any evidence yet, but I will in the interest of being fair I will be willing to be objective to evidence of your side. Sorry, for taking out my frustrations on you. Please, in the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"

[edit on 7/23/2006 by PapaHomer]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 03:10 AM
link   
So if I understand it correctly, it's not important whether the rigging of the buildings with explosives for a CD was possible? Or to know how it would be possible? I understand, it could ruin a good CT, isn't it?


So during a power off in ONE tower (and not even in the entire tower) they've managed to rig BOTH towers and a WTC7?



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by PapaHomer
ANOK, if you had read Swampfox's post you would see that he posted links to his proof (being the eyewitness accounts of the firefighters at the scene).


Most of what I said don't really need links, it's pretty common knowledge on ATS, the info is on this site, and I'm trying not to repeat what we already have but....

And no I won't take what 2 fire chiefs say without seeing some photographic proof.
There are plenty of pics of WTC 7 and none of them show a 20 story hole or raging fires.

But regardless, buildings don't fall symmetrically in their own footprints from damage to part of its structure. That should have caused a partial, or chaotic collapse if any. For a building to fall as WTC 7 did all the supporting columns would have to fail at the same time. Simple physics proves this.
The fires could not have of played a significant part in the collapse, they couldn't get hot enough with just office furniture as the fuel.

Most of the diesel fuel, who some claim to have fueled the fires, was recovered...


Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation investigated oil contamination in the debris of WTC 7. Their principal interest was directed to the various oils involved in the Con Ed equipment. However, they reported the following findings on fuel oil: "In addition to Con Ed's oil, there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC." To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.

It is worth emphasizing that 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,200 gallons) where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon Silverstein tanks. So, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons recovered was all of the oil in the tanks at that time. Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.

www.wtc7.net...

So the fires couldn't have been that bad if the diesel wan't even effected.

The NIST report only suggests fires were the cause, they offer no proof and didn't really even investigate beyond this.

WTC 7 was bult in a way to stop the spread of fire using compartmentalization, are you suggesting this failed to work and allowed fire to spread to all part of the building and all floors? Again no photo is consistant with that theory.


Concrete floor slabs provided vertical compartmentalization to limit fire and smoke spread between floors (see Figure 5-11). Architectural drawings indicate that the space between the edge of the concrete floor slab and curtain wall, which ranged from 2 to 10 inches, was to be filled with fire-stopping material.

www.wtc7.net...

Anyway enough, I didn't want to get off topic but you forced me to

This has been discussed ad nauseam, the search feature is your friend.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
So if I understand it correctly, it's not important whether the rigging of the buildings with explosives for a CD was possible? Or to know how it would be possible? I understand, it could ruin a good CT, isn't it?


So during a power off in ONE tower (and not even in the entire tower) they've managed to rig BOTH towers and a WTC7?


As usual you're just being silly. The rigging of the building was possible, it's just your opinion that it wasn't.

We only have a report of one power down, see gooses' post above, I'm sure there were more. A building as big as the WTC are filled with thousands of ppl who don't know each other from Adam.
They are often filled with repair men etc...Who would pay attention to someone who was doing 'electrical' repairs or using other such cover to plant the explosives?
Especially if thermate was used...

I can't find the pics, but they're on ATS somewhere, of thermate sticks (not sure the correct name) but no one would know what they were. They look like electric cables or something. Your average office worker wouldn't even pay attention to them.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 04:15 AM
link   
I'm not a bomb expert, but it can be possible that the bombs could be place inside objects like trash cans, one of those big plant pots etc... with a receiver or someting along certain points of the building....





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution