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: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
The guy who invented the particular asbestos spray-on insulation which was first used had a comment he made when they were being built. His insulation was no longer used, above floor 60-something, because of the enviro-nutballs. His comment (paraphrased) was: "... if there's ever a major fire above this level, the tower(s) stood a chance of collapsing."




posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
........................
I still want to see photos of this alleged monster fire that was supposed to have raped Building 7. I haven't seen anything even remotely troublesome in a single photo of that building.



That's WTC5 on fire.


Why is it that you do not mention the differences between WTC5 and WTC7?...

You apparently claim that because WTC5 had higher flames and more of an intense fire that it should have collapsed instead of WTC7 collapsing....

BTW...there were two buildings WTC5....not just one....and one of them collapsed as much as WTC7.....

Here is a picture, although it doesn't point to which building is which, you should be able to tell at least the WTC5 building which collapsed, and WTC7.

www.greatbuildings.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Anyways, one of the things which you are trying to avoid mentioning, for some reason, is the fact that wtc5, the one you are showing in the above picture had 9 floors....while WTC7 had... what 21 floors?...

Meaning WTC7 had a lot more weight, hence a lesser fire would have caused the structural design to weaken enough for the weight of the building to do it's work downwards....


[edit on 24-7-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

....................
The buildings were designed to withstand mutiple hits from a 707, heavier than a 757 btw.


Could you present us with a "reliable link please",..nothing from Rense.com...., that the towers were built to witstand multiple hits from 707s?....




Originally posted by ANOK
The buildings were constructed so if some collumns failed the others would take the slack.


But if too many columns failed the whole building would fail and collapse..which has been shown many times already in several threads....



Originally posted by ANOK
The planes impacted maybe 5 floors, what happened to the other 105?

What caused the fire proofing to fail in the rest of the building?


.... The planes hit the buildings leaving some 12-18 floors on top of the place where the planes hit.... When these specific floors collapsed due to the crash, the explosions sending wave pressures which did weakened the structures, and the fires weakening the columns even more, allowed for the weight of several floors to completly collapse the lower floors, a chain reaction occurred.

Once the collapse began there was no way for the bottom floors to stop it, simply for the reason that the weight which kept collapsing on each floor kept increasing as more mass of debris was added from each collapsing floor, which made the building collapse a little bit faster each time one of the floors collapsed because they provided less and less resistance to the continuously added weight of the falling debris...

Why did the rest of the fireproofing fail?... it was being grinded by the weight of the collapsing floors, and was turned into dust....... You know...the same dust that was seen all over that part of New York city.....



[edit on 24-7-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   
How Stuff Works
WTC7 only needed 2 floors to have explosives, for them to collapse it in on its own footprint.



science.howstuffworks.com...

Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper stories. In a 20-story building, for example, the blasters might blow the columns on the first and second floor, as well as the 12th and 15th floors. In most cases, blowing the support structures on the lower floors is sufficient for collapsing the building, but loading columns on upper floors helps break the building material into smaller pieces as it falls. This makes for easier clean-up following the blast.



So for WTC7, it would be fairly easy to do this.

Also, in the link I provided, look at the image that shows where explosives are generally put to bring down a building. Maybe 9 different places, treating each building as a group of 9 different towers, would need explosives. Now, that seems extremely easy to get away with. Something the U.S. government is more than capable of planning and acting on.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   
You would then hear several explosions and see squibs "coming out of every window".... BTW, WTC7 did not collapse all at the same time as some keep claiming... i have presented video of this, and at least bsray should be man enough to remember and corroborate this... The video shows that there was internal collapses, in the middle of the building and in some of the outside parts of the building from 6 -8 seconds before the whole building collapsed. It's too late to be looking around for this video, but do a search of "wtc7 video with my name" and you should find it in the forums....



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   
trudginup: Although your link is somewhat interesting, one cannot compare the desciption on that page to explain WTC.

One picture, though, of the actual building collapsing, looks similar to how (not why) one of the towers fell. I'll have to find a place to post some pictures.

The building was designed to withstand ONE 707, not multiple hits.

One can plainly see here (link below) where the top of the tower, from where the plane hit and above, is what started the collapse due to the weight of 20+ stories above it.
www.bestsharing.com...

The heat failure of the clips (and elastomeric material) the trusses were connected to caused the floors to sag and give way.

Truss Detail: www.bestsharing.com...

Heated Floor:
www.bestsharing.com...
(Please note that the picture in the link above is not the WTC, but it shows how solid steel beams can warp from heat. The trusses used would sag even more.)

For those who think the smoke from WTC-7 (46 stories, I believe) was from the other buildings/towers, please check the following:
www.bestsharing.com...

The white-ish smoke at the bottom front is from another source; it's quite obvious that all the black smoke is coming from inside WTC-7.

PS: When the page opens on these links, left click on the "Download File" button and it will open in another window. Right click and "save target as" (or "save link as', depending on your browser), to download it to your computer. Most of you know that, but.....!!!

[edit on 25-7-2006 by zappafan1] for URL change.

[edit on 25-7-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
trudginup: Although your link is somewhat interesting, one cannot compare the desciption on that page to explain WTC.

One picture, though, of the actual building collapsing, looks similar to how (not why) one of the towers fell. I'll have to find a place to post some pictures.

The description does describe WTC7. It could have been brought down, on its own footprint, with only explosives on the bottom floors.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
You apparently claim that because WTC5 had higher flames and more of an intense fire that it should have collapsed instead of WTC7 collapsing....


No, I'm not. You're the second person in a row to totally misrepresent my posts. Please read them carefully.

But besides that, not much of your post made sense anyway. Skyscrapers are built to be much more redundant than low-rises for safety reasons. WTC5 was a low-rise. Also, the totally collapsed portions collapsed because of large debris tearing through the buildings. The rest of the buildings held up, though.


And I remember the video you're talking about, and the main point, but it doesn't much matter. NIST argues one column failed first -- the one under the penthouse. After that, all massive box columns miraculously failed at the same time and proceded to free-fall. Goes back to the same problems we're all already familiar with.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Double Post

[edit on 25/7/2006 by alienanderson]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
theres simply NO WAY to set off as much demo as would have been required, even if i did it minimalistically, and have no one notice it was a CD.

sorry, im good, but im not that good. ive never met a team taht was taht good. so a straight up CD yeah, i could do it. a covert cd that didnt matter if people knew the end result was deliberate? yeah, i could do that. a covert op where the end result looked like a natural fall? no. sorry...no way.

not unless someones developed silencers for HE charges. (dont start with thermate/mite. wouldnt produce a lot of the other "anomolies" everyone likes to use as evidence of a cd)

these are simply the opinions of a guy who's had some REAL explosives set off by his own hand.

[edit on 25-7-2006 by Damocles]


Thanks for your input and opinion Damocles, very informative and much more useful than a lot of the guesswork going on around here (from both sides of the discussion)



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

The molten steel claims have been made so many times is not even funny. I searched when this question was raised a few months back to see if there was any truth to this claim. i went to the website of the person who was contracted to remove the debris at ground zero, nowhere did he say anything about "molten steel". If anything melted it could very well have been aluminum. Again, it could be possible, but I haven't seen any evidence to prove this.


BTW, please....stop quoting from Rense.com...is insulting, really....


But there are plenty of people saying there was molten steel there. How many people that were there saying they saw it does it take before you believe the molten steel was there.? Here is a website with a list of statements from many knowledgable people that were on the site who say they saw it.



stopthelie.com...
Leslie Robertson, the Chief Structural Engineer for the Twin Towers, said: "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running"


Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, and Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Incorporated both reported molten steel. Tully said that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the site. Loizeaux said that several weeks after 9/11, when the rubble was being removed, "hot spots of molten steel" were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement]levels" (both statements quoted in Bollyn, 2004).[33]

Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint, Inc.-added that "sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping

molten steel" (Walsh, 2002).



As for quoting from Rense.com, why do you find it insulting when someone quotes from there?



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by blackhumvee113
so if there really were explosives set, why didnt anything fly out in a large radius around the building

LArge chunks of steel, etc. were ejected quite a distance from the towers. you will nee to use search as I am lazy today. There are good pics. of this "phenomenom on this site.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   


Many studies though have showed how thermite would have the same effects on the beams that were recorded on 9/11. I think there were secondary incinerations and explosions that ultimately dropped the towers and building 7.


Gotta call you on this one.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

.... The planes hit the buildings leaving some 12-18 floors on top of the place where the planes hit.... When these specific floors collapsed due to the crash, the explosions sending wave pressures which did weakened the structures, and the fires weakening the columns even more, allowed for the weight of several floors to completly collapse the lower floors, a chain reaction occurred.

Once the collapse began there was no way for the bottom floors to stop it, simply for the reason that the weight which kept collapsing on each floor kept increasing as more mass of debris was added from each collapsing floor, which made the building collapse a little bit faster each time one of the floors collapsed because they provided less and less resistance to the continuously added weight of the falling debris...
[edit on 24-7-2006 by Muaddib]


No, the upper floors of WTC 2 tilted off to the side and would have provided little if any symmetrical downforce on the UNDAMAGED floors below. WAVE PRESSURES? So all of the columns on a floor failed SIMULTANEOUSLY, like pulling the table cloth out from under he dishes and this was enough to casue full collapse as the weight (force) you mention was turnig to dust? WRONG. The force would not have been enough to overcome the resistance of the colums remaining below. Use search for "elasticity phase"



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

Originally posted by zappafan1
The guy who invented the particular asbestos spray-on insulation which was first used had a comment he made when they were being built. His insulation was no longer used, above floor 60-something, because of the enviro-nutballs. His comment (paraphrased) was: "... if there's ever a major fire above this level, the tower(s) stood a chance of collapsing."



Source?



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
You would then hear several explosions and see squibs "coming out of every window"....


Why?

You do not need to blow every coolumn on every floor AND we do see a series of squibs in the WTC 7 video.

Not all cutting charges ould have caused a squib as they were obviously trying to avoid this "signature" I am sure simple measures could be taken to avoid MOST of these squibs from showing.

With all the noise at ground zero... who would hear the pop-pop-pop? WAIT... PEOPLE DID... the FDNY.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta





Many studies though have showed how thermite would have the same effects on the beams that were recorded on 9/11. I think there were secondary incinerations and explosions that ultimately dropped the towers and building 7.


Gotta call you on this one.



Grounds?



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


How much fire proofing do you 'freakin' think could have been knocked off?
You seem very impressed by these huge 'freakin' planes. The buildings were designed to withstand mutiple hits from a 707, heavier than a 757 btw. The buildings were constructed so if some collumns failed the others would take the slack.


This has been gone over so many times its getting absurd.

So anyway..back to topic. Does anyone have any even vaguely believable ideas as to how the explosives could have been placed and the fuses hidden in a fully occupied and security laden building that had mutiple security companies and bomb sniffing dogs patrolling on a regular basis and have it accomplished without being noticed?
Let me guess....M. Bush.....and bogus dogs who were trained NOT to react to explosives.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta





Many studies though have showed how thermite would have the same effects on the beams that were recorded on 9/11. I think there were secondary incinerations and explosions that ultimately dropped the towers and building 7.


Gotta call you on this one.



Grounds?


Whats with the one word replies?

I'm calling on the "grounds" of not knowing of any studies that show thermite having "the same effects" on beams that were recorded on 911.
Matter of fact, what 'effects' are being compared?

And I'm also wondering about reasons to believe 'secondary incinerations and explosions' and the basis for the belief.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   
If all it takes to make the towers collapse the way it did is a plane crash & fire, then technically they wouldn't have needed to place that many explosives. All they would need was a few critical ones in the right spots, especially if a plane already hit it. Am I wrong?

[edit on 25-7-2006 by Barcs]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join