It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How were the WTC buildings rigged with explosives?

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
And security guards, I got to know a lot of them as a messenger, a couple of my friends are also security guards in office buildings. They are just regular working joes, low paid, generally un-educated past high school. Someone comes in with an official pass, easily obtained by the government, and no one will say anything.
[edit on 24/7/2006 by ANOK]


I work in NYC in security and have for the last 19 years.

The security officers that work for me make $22.50 an hour.

Most high-profile office buildings in NYC have unionized and very well paid security officers.

The Bush relative security company that has the contract at the WTC was not the only security company in the building.

Most of the big tenants had their own security officers. The tenants all would have had their own internal procedures for contractors or building personnel working in their areas.




posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
If there were no chance of structural steel being weakened from fire they would not apply protection to it.


Office fires do not get hot enough to cause construction steel to fail, fire proofed or not.

And no the jet fuel did not cause the fires to get hotter. This has already been established.

Most of the fuel burned up in the initial impact, thus the huge fireball you see. The rest would have burned up within minutes, thus the black smoke indicating a cooling, oxygen starved fire.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
I work in NYC in security and have for the last 19 years.

The security officers that work for me make $22.50 an hour.

Most high-profile office buildings in NYC have unionized and very well paid security officers.

The Bush relative security company that has the contract at the WTC was not the only security company in the building.

Most of the big tenants had their own security officers. The tenants all would have had their own internal procedures for contractors or building personnel working in their areas.


Fair enough, they make about $12 in San Fran but anyway my point stands.
All auxilary security would come under the buildings main security. I would think though that most of the explosives would have been places from elevater shafts anyway and not in offices. So it would have been the building security involved.

Is $22 a particularly high wage in NYC?



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Will you at least concede that all of the smoke coming from WTC5, 6, etc. would have risen right behind WTC7, since they were located right behind it?



Sure, I'll concede that possibilty, if you concede that the video evidence clearly shows quite a bit of damage to the south side of WTC 7, as well as showing smoke pouring out of a gaping hole in the building. Also if you stop trying to pass off the damage and fires at WTC 7 as "minor".



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Most of the fuel burned up in the initial impact, thus the huge fireball you see. The rest would have burned up within minutes, thus the black smoke indicating a cooling, oxygen starved fire.


REPLY: Jones, himself, actually got something right in that the smoke would actually make the fire hotter, possibly up to 1100 degrees.

The amount of fuel, even with the size of the fireball noted, would and did burn for quite some time... actually to the time of both buildings collapsing; total burn time depends on surface area and temperature.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by aecreate
Its certainly possible for people to notice. I agree.

We can't assume it was a totally stealth operation, it may have been under a vast number of guises, and it just wasn't considered by any witnesses as setup for a controlled demo. I'm sure that was the last thing they would have thought.

Certainly I agree its possible it was probably noticed, but its possible that whoever noticed it just didn't care. If there were reports from witnesses about such activities would you even accept it? Lol would that even sway you?

Is it not reasonable to assume the buildings were not fully occupied at certain times of varying length, maybe at night, holidays, weekends and such? It may also be reasonable to consider unorthodox methods used to disguise such an operation from witnesses. I'm saying its possible it was done WITH people noticing.


Whats not credible in your scenerio is that even tho you seem to be saying that you now agree that rigging is not feasible without someone noticing and that it could have been done with people noticing, that still doesn't wash at all. What you're leaving out..which now becomes another huge assumption..is that now people have noticed...but no one said anything. If you blurrrr reality and human nature a bit, its almost believeable if nothing would have happened. But seeing that something very big did happen the problem of believability shifts from 'someone wouldn't have noticed' to 'someone wouldn't put two and two together after the fact'..."wait a minute..what were all those guys doing cutting walls and drilling holes in the steel and cutting steel..and wrapping big gobs of stuff with wires coming out of them and trailing all thru the halls and going from floor to floor and connecting them all together ??" It becomes a problem of shifting assumptions from people being too blind to notice to assuming people are too dumb to be curious and put 2 & 2 together.

Did they leave the access holes open or drywall over them trailing the wires out of one corner? Did they paint over the patches?...clean the carpets?etc. lol.

Yet no one said anything. There were no reports from anyone of out of the usual work being performed for weeks and months before 911. No one complained about the noise..no one complained about the fumes..no one complained about the dust and their asthma or allergies. How about all the clients from around the world visiting and doing business in the buildings..people not numbed by the everyday grind of working there. People fresh and curious and very intelligent? How about the chance of one of these people being connected to or having an interest in CD noticing the similarities of activities?
The crime of mass murder hinged on the hope that no one would find the activities unusual and at the same time being stupid enough to buy some flake story about 'just runnin' some wires...nothing to see here.'

It still doesn't wash in the real world.


Would YOU find the activity suspecious? If your friend or child or wife or husband died on 911 would you put 2 & 2 together?

No one did..because it didn't happen.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson


Not exactly my description, just 2 minutes research on wikipedia. 20 minutes later I had read and digested the more detailed article I posted an excerpt from after.


My point is - you think it is ridiculous to suggest a CD took place, whereas others think it is ridiculous to believe WTC collapsed from plane impact and fires

I'm not saying it was a CD - but I am not saying it could not possibly have been one


Originally posted by Vushta
If you factor this into the time need it either goes up in factors of magnitude, or fall in the hole where I believe it actually resides and thats the hole of unbelievability because it simply cannot be done covertly.


That's your opinion Vushta. You stated a few pages back that you had done some research into controlled demolitions and had formed the opinion that it could not have happened.

Care to share some of this research with us?

How about listing some of the steps involved in a legal CD and then pointing out a particular procedure that would have been impossible to follow in a CD of WTC?


[edit on 24/7/2006 by alienanderson]


It wasn't your description but you posted it so I thought you agreed with it.

I thinking the CD theory is rediculous is based in something not the least of which is the reality of what we saw..plane crashing into the towers..explosions..raging fires..slow progression of structural failure..buckling of walls etc. and then the analysis of trained specialists.

So far as I can tell the CD side has gut feeling based on what the collapse looked like and all 'evidence' is simply observations hammered and filed it fit the theory.

I'll post some links about CDs later tonite. I'll have to dig them up. Hope its worth it.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
So you all claim fires and damage from the plane bought them down?

Yet it would take thousands of pounds of explosives and an army to place them on every other floor to bring them down?

You don't even know when you are contradicting yourselfs


Not exactly. The forces of physical damage from the crashes and physical changes to the structure by heat, weightand changing and shifting loads culminated in the collapse of the buildings whos stability depended on the design system being intact within small parameters of design.

An intact..structurally solid and undamaged building would need thousands of pounds of explosives to initiate the collapse.

There is no contradiction. You're comparing apples to oranges.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by craig732
If there were no chance of structural steel being weakened from fire they would not apply protection to it.

Office fires do not get hot enough to cause construction steel to fail, fire proofed or not.


Hmm, they taught me differently in John Jay College Fire Science Academy.

If office fires do not get hot enough to cause steel to fail, then why do they bother putting fire-resistant coating on steel beams in office buildings?

I have posted this in another thread: If anyone here lives in NYC take a drive up the West Side Highway onto the Henry Hudson Parkway. There is (was) a pier at about 65th street that burned down. All that is left is a huge pile of steal beams that are bent and twisted from the heat of the fire. It is amazing what flames from any fire can do to steel.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Is $22 a particularly high wage in NYC?


No. But as with anything it depends on the situation.

I am sure there are office buildings in NYC where the average security officer is making as little as $12 an hour, but in the larger buildings it is much higher than that.

Most of my experience is in hotels. Union hotel workers in NYC make between $17-$25 per hour.

I worked for a short time for a private security and investigation firm. Our office building security officers made about the same, depending on years of experience and certifications they held.

In office buildings, union doormen, security officers, porters, and Fire Safety Directors make about the same.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
Jones, himself, actually got something right in that the smoke would actually make the fire hotter, possibly up to 1100 degrees.
The amount of fuel, even with the size of the fireball noted, would and did burn for quite some time... actually to the time of both buildings collapsing; total burn time depends on surface area and temperature.


How do you know the fuel was still burning? And 1100 degrees would not cause construction steel to fail, especially in ares that were not on fire, like 80% of the building.

Fuel burns hot and fast, it evaporates very quickly. Anything that was coated with fuel would have burned up in minutes.

Burn time depends of fuel and oxygen. Take out one or the other and the fires dies.
Temperature is a result of the fire, not the other way around. The fires were oxygen starved, white smoke turned to black is the sign of that. Also steel columns would act like heat sinks, pulling and spreading the heat along their length, thus not allowing specific spots to heat up enough to fail.

It takes a hot flame, bright yellow, concentrated in an area to cause steal to become malleable. This could not happen in a building fire, the reason NO steel frame building has ever fallen from fire. And even if it did it would not have gone straight down, the columns would have bent first as they became malleable, not waited until they couldn't stand no more.

Take a candle, push it down with your hand from the top. heat it up (don't melt it). Is it going to crush straight down to the floor under your weight? No, it will bend first and break at the weakest point. You will never make it crush symmetrically straight down like the columns in WTC7 supposedly did.

The fires we see in the vids are a dull red, also indicating a cool fire.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
If office fires do not get hot enough to cause steel to fail, then why do they bother putting fire-resistant coating on steel beams in office buildings?


I see no one wants to tackle this question.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732

Add to all this the time it takes to: cut holes in sheetrock to get to the structural beams to install the charges, cut holes in sheetrock to run the wires, haul sheet-rock and joint-compound into the building to repair the holes you just made, repair the hole you just made in the sheetrock, tape and apply joint-compound to the sheetrock, time for the joint-compound to dry, re-paint (or re-apply wall vinyl) and wait for the paint to dry, clean up the HUGE mess you just made, cart all the sheet-rock scraps and mess out of the building...


Nor this one.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
All that is left is a huge pile of steal beams that are bent and twisted from the heat of the fire. It is amazing what flames from any fire can do to steel.


Yeah bent and twisted, I bet you anything it wasn't a neat symetrical collpase like the WTC buildings that produced neat straight 12' sections in it's collapse.

But I'll add this cause you guys love to use this excuse, different building can't compare
Howwards favourite tactic....



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Yeah bent and twisted, I bet you anything it wasn't a neat symetrical collpase like the WTC buildings that produced neat straight 12' sections in it's collapse.


I never said anything about the pier collapsing. I was offering the example as proof that a "regular" fire can soften and weaken steel.

I appreciate your trying to refute me though... that is what makes this board such a great and fun place! Now give a shot at my other 2 questions.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I don't think the fire proofing proves anything. The towers steel had fire proofing right?
That's what I mean when I say contruction steel. It has to meet certain requirments to be used for construction that includes fire proofing.

Are you saying the fireproofing didn't work that day?
Maybe the steel you saw twisted wasn't construction steel?

And your other question is not that important either imo, maybe why no one is jumping on it? We've already shown it's possible to plant explsives, and if you think it's not you just don't want to see it or admit it.

Why don't you answer some of the question you are ignoring?...There's lots to choose from in this post alone, I'll let you pick...



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Yeah 7 stood for how long before it collapsed? 6 hours?

And there are no pictures of this huge hole and raging fires?



Standard fire ratings in most commercial buildings,

Floor slab (no holes) 4 hours.

Stairwells, mechanical and core shafts - 2 hours.

Rated corridors 1 hour.

(I don't need a link as I'm a building professional)


You said the fires burned how long? 6 hours.

Case closed



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I don't think the fire proofing proves anything. The towers steel had fireproofing right?
That's what I mean when I say construction steel. It has to meet certain requirements to be used for construction that includes fireproofing.

Are you saying the fireproofing didn't work that day?


Yes. The fireproofing failed for several reasons. It is believed that the fireproofing was in poor condition prior to the impacts. (My best friend and current boss was the Director of Loss Prevention for WTC 3, the Marriott World Trade Center Hotel. The fireproofing in his building was in very poor shape and bids were being taken to inspect it prior to replacement.) The fireproofing was not designed to withstand the impact of the planes and the force of the explosions. (All the fireproofing is is sprayed on fibers. You can just brush it off with your hand. It is not meant to be disturbed). The fireproofing is also rated for a certain temperature for a certain time. I do not know the specs on what they would have used in the 1970's when the building was constructed.


Originally posted by ANOKWhy don't you answer some of the question you are ignoring?...There's lots to choose from in this post alone, I'll let you pick...

Because I choose to speculate only on things I have knowledge of or training in.

No one still has answered my question: Why bother putting fireproofing on structural steel if it is not needed?



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by astonished

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by astonished
Hey Phoenix, a quick scan of your posts reveal you are pro-Iraq, pro-Bush, and pro-official 9-11 story. This must be a miserable place for you.


I also checked for a bit on Howard Roark - funny how he used to post in the Chemtrail Central Forum (as Wolf_Larson) until he apparently vanished in 2003. I think he was just re-assigned.

Here is Howard showing disdain for anyone "dumb" enough to believe there is anything sinister behind the
Denver International Airport

Same 'ol Howard - spending hours upon hours of his daily life trying to convince others ON CONSPIRACY BOARDS that there are no conspiracies at all. Wonder how he's enjoying the new assignment to ATS?



[edit on 23-7-2006 by astonished]



wow, talk about wasting time.


Not to me - took me probably 25-30 minutes, and it was fun, so no complaints.

So how's the pay? Not too good I bet.


So do you still hang out a thermit's house of nuts, or should I call it Mech's waco world?

Stick to the point here It is bad manners to bring up other forums on this site.


That's amusing Howard...because I found your postings there from a thread you started
here at ATS. Looks like right around the time you switched assignments (and username) to ATS. Wasn't hard from there to find the familiar condescending posts that ridicule the poster and distract from the truth. Easy to see that Wolf_Larson was indeed Mr. Disinfo himself. Congrats.


Is it bad manners to reference any forums here (as I've seen done here before) or just the ones that expose your alter-egos?


[edit on 24-7-2006 by astonished]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   

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


Haven't read all the posts but here is my buck and a half's worth...

Simple. The explosives were placed in the buildings during construction. The "terrorist" attack with the bomb in the basement in 1993 was an attempt to trigger the reaction. There was not enough explosives in that attempt to bring the building down. They were trying to trigger the built in stuff...

Don't believe me? Ask the CIA. Doesn't matter... no one can or will do anything about it anyway


[edit on 24-7-2006 by zorgon]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join