How were the WTC buildings rigged with explosives?

Originally posted by Damocles
ahh but if the plane and fire alone couldnt have done it, then you would need quite a bit of HE...which all wnt off without a sound...or at least a sound that no one could readily identify AS an explosion. sorry but firefighters amped up on adrenaline describing things as explosions isnt the same. if even one shot of HE went off, it wouldnt have been "oh, it 'sounded' like explosions" it would have been THERES A MUTHAF'N BOMB IN THE BUILDING!!!!!!!!

This paragraph is so full of guesses and speculation I do not even know where to start.

Just for arguments sake... why would you need Plane + fire + A LOT of HE and not jus Plane + Fire + some or a little HE? Why would you need HE? Why not incendaries?

How do you know the mental state of the fire fighters and their ability to interpert what they heard?

Why are you so sure they are not level headed and said the truth... It sounded like explosives? Why would guys who are under enormous stress and dangerous conditions EVERYDAY FREAK OUT as you are implying?

Your conclusions are flawed and have no basis or sources.

I have said this before and will be called a liar... I know a guy whose brother was FDNY until he was murdered in the WTC 2 collapse. This guy went to ground zero the same day and was there for eiht days until his brother was recovered. He spoke in depht with many rescue personelle and firefighters and they almost ALL AGREE it was a CD. Unfortunately, heavyhanded tactics, rewards, and psychcology keep them from all coming out and saying it... but a lot of them have...

Do you think the firefighters are idiots or liars or what? Please explain how you can write them and their statements ALL OFF so easily.

[edit on 25-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: Your scenario only refers to the core; the perimeter columns would also have to be done, with no access to them, how did they do it? They couldn't. It didn't happen, and you can come up with all kinds of theories, but that is what they are.

Care to explain why the exterior had to be CD'd also? My belief is that the core only needed "help" for the entire building to come down.

At the very least every other floor would have to be done for a CD.

And yet you believe that the plane crashes and fire did it without every other floor being CD'd? I still don't get people's logic. How can you believe that the plane crashes and fire alone brought down the buildings but say they would have to CD every other floor? If the buildings could have crashed from the cap falling on the rest of the building, then why couldn't they have "rigged" the building to just have the cap fall? My scenario entails this. Severing the core would force the exterior columns to fail at the crash zones (the least structurally sound part of the exterior columns). Think of it this way....where does a chain break? It's weekest link. Where would the "chain" of the WTC facade (exterior columns) fail? It's weekest link. That solves the "how would the highjackers know exactly where the thermite was" question.

Hard wiring it is the most reliable, but some claim radio controlled, of course not considering that for it to "look correct" every charge would have to work, in sequence.... the heck with interference from all the steel in the buildings(s), and the fact the seismologists who recorded the event shows no explosions, just the collisions, and the collapses.

Geez what a waste of time......... have fun......

Why a waste of time? I agree that conventional demolitions would probably be near impossible to rig undetected.

Originally posted by zappafan1


REPLY: No..... hardly a guess 8^) The outer columns, as someone posted earlier, carried about 48% of the gravity load of the building. There's no way the building would have come down in the manner it did with only core column damage.

Only core column damage? Did we forget the plane impacts now?

Originally posted by craig732

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.

Bolded by me. You said it right there. For my scenerio to work, you don't need access to any tenent space...just the cores....which would have been under the main security...i.e. Bush...remember, the company even says it employs maintenance personel themselves.

Originally posted by Vushta

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 do you know? I have been trying to get ahold of permits and such from the NYCbuildings website. Guess what...they don't list the towers. If they did, we would be able to see what kind of maintenance was done from permits. They also have complaints listed for buildings, any violation that has occurred etc. But unfortunately for us (and fortunately for others) they don't list the towers.

Here's the website if you are curious enough to try and find some permits etc.

www.nyc.gov...

Griff....... give it up. No matter what is said you will never believe anything but that which you hold dear.

The name of the thread itself shows a predisposition of beliefs, not really wanting anything that might prove otherwise.

To answer the thread question: THEY WEREN'T!!!

Later, kids.......

[edit on 25-7-2006 by zappafan1]

Originally posted by zappafan1
Griff....... give it up. No matter what is said you will never believe anything but that which you hold dear.

The name of the thread itself shows a predisposition of beliefs, not really wanting anything that might prove otherwise.

To answer the thread question: THEY WEREN'T!!!

Later, kids.......

[edit on 25-7-2006 by zappafan1]

So now thread titles are to be 100% neutral? Yes SIR!

And by the way... the answer to the question is: THEY WERE SNEAKY

As to your other statement, talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

Finally, you toss in a pettty insult by calling us ""kids".

You contradict yourself in your own post. Amusing. You ask for fair debate then you resort to namecalling...

so sad.

[edit on 25-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by zappafan1
Griff....... give it up. No matter what is said you will never believe anything but that which you hold dear.

The name of the thread itself shows a predisposition of beliefs, not really wanting anything that might prove otherwise.

To answer the thread question: THEY WEREN'T!!!

Later, kids.......

[edit on 25-7-2006 by zappafan1]

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant - the thread starter is an official story believer like you zappafan1

See you later, and mind your head on the way out

Originally posted by Fiverz

Originally posted by Jon_SE1
I'm not sure any steel supports would need to be cut with oxy-acetalene - it would seem that the flawed construction of the buildings would not necessitate this. If it was just pan-caking that was needed - surely only the trusses \ concrete raft would have to be damaged sufficiently.

This is the biggest contradiction that annoys me about this theory. All the pro-demo people say that because of the pancaking, it would have to be a demo (debris/fires couldn't do it). But alot of those people think there was poor construction that wouldn't necessitate extensive pre-demo work. Well if the building was weak already, why couldn't the fires and plane ACTUALLY cause the building to pancake? I mean you are using the building's weakeness as a proponent of your argument when it actually supports the non-demo peoples' as well.

I am the Chiefdraftsman for a structural steel fabricator. I have worked on over 800 commercial retail and office buildings. The company I work for does an average of 80 projects a year and I have been with this company for 10 years.

Granted none of the projects I have worked on are on the scale of the World Trade Center. and I must state that I am not an engineer. However, the steel erection standards for a single story building or a skyscraper must all follow AISC standards. (American Institute for Steel Construction.) Obviously there are also local codes that must be considered too.

I have probably seen every shortcut a steel erector can take. Structural steel drafters or detailers as they are called in this industry detail each connection such as beams to beams, beams to columns...ect per the loads the engineer specifies.
The connections can either be bolted , welded or a combination of bolted & welded. Regardless of the type of connection specified there are countless occasions for the erector to deviate from what is specified.

If a structural steel member is out of plumb by more than 1/4 " the erector may be tempted to "field modify" the connection. Use less bolts for instance, use a smaller weld that is specified, Use the wrong type of bolt, even torch cut a steel member to make it fit. These can all weaken the entire structure. In a perfect world every change from the engineers dwgs should be reviewed and signed as approved by the EOR (Engineer of Record). But of course this does not always happen.

The inspectors often miss critical changes caused by bad erectors or fabrication errors. In the real world world steel erectors must meet deadlines, and this causes them to sometimes make decisions in the field without the benifit of an Engineers review.

It is totally within the realm of reason to consider the possibillity that faulty construction could have contributed to the catastrophic failure of a steel structure of this size.

Given these realworld conditions and then Slam a plane loaded with fuel into the building into the mix and you eliminate the need for any pre-placed explosives.

And believe me every company remotely associated with the construction and erection of these building will do all they can to cover their *sses, if you know what I mean. Most of them are probably breathing a sigh of relief that the cleanup was so thorough that the evidence of their errors was gone or so obscurred that now we can only speculate about the dynamics of the collapse.

Originally posted by Sparky63
Most of them are probably breathing a sigh of relief that the cleanup was so thorough that the evidence of their errors was gone or so obscurred that now we can only speculate about the dynamics of the collapse.

Good thing the gov't did this to cover their own arses because the the "shortcuts" you refer to would have been needed to be replicated thousands of times, not noticed by teams of inspectors thousands of times and still withstood the 93 bomb...

NEAT... it is like you just got done watching "Towering Inferno".

Originally posted by Damocles
it wouldnt have been "oh, it 'sounded' like explosions" it would have been THERES A * snip * BOMB IN THE BUILDING!!!!!!!!

What about "There's a bomb in the building - start clearing out"..."We got a secondary device in the building"?

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

[edit on 7/25/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

External Link (Beam Placement)

External Link (Elevators)

This picture is posted in refeance to the possibility of planting HE within the elevator shafts and strictly the elevator shafts. With 99 elevators in the entire structure, including some that ran along the outer area (for the outer support beams) there would be pleanty of space to plant with the ability to take out both inner and outer beams.

The first link (Beam Placement) has a very interesting quote in it:

The inner box at the core of each tower measured about 135 feet by 85 feet (41x26 m). Its 47 heavy steel columns surrounded a large open area housing elevators, stairwells and restrooms.

I hope this helps out a little bit on the possibility of where the explosives may have been planted. Sorry so short but I'm running a little late for an appointment.

Originally posted by goose

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.?

The main person who was in charge of taking away all the ruble from ground zero... Which he never mentioned in his website...

and you forget that some people might have seen "melted aluminum" and think it was steel...

BTW... Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, was the person i was talking about...in his website nothing is said about "molten steel"....so someone made that up. I tried to contact him and got a reply from his assitant saying he didn't want to be bothered anymore about that, he is a businessman, and i can understand that probably a lot of people tried to corroborate his story and he got tired of responding.

Originally posted by Muaddib

and you forget that some people might have seen "melted aluminum" and think it was steel...

You mean the structural engineer who designed the buildings wouldn't know molten aluminum (silver colored liquid) as oppossed to molten steel/iron (glowing bright red in daylight)?

BTW... Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, was the person i was talking about...in his website nothing is said about "molten steel"....so someone made that up. I tried to contact him and got a reply from his assitant saying he didn't want to be bothered anymore about that, he is a businessman, and i can understand that probably a lot of people tried to corroborate his story and he got tired of responding.

I understand his plight but this doesn't mean anything. Why wouldn't someone want to clarify what they said? Can't be bothered anymore? I'm sorry Mister Tully but you owe over 3 thousand families at least THAT MUCH

Just spitballin here! but if the planes had no passengers on them, wouldn't that leave space for more explosives. If they shot a missle like some people think into the tower before the plane hit, what kind of cargo could be launched remotley to take down a building from inside the reckage of the plane? you drive in, and shoot a missle down into the building, so maby you really wouldn't need to do a controled demolition, don't we have missles that can track you, or fly down hallways to only blow up certian rooms of buildings... why waste all the time setting the building up to go down with explosives with all kinds of people around, when you can fly a plane full of explosive crap to take it down all in one morning? only problem with this theory is its the stupidest thing i've ever thought of... but it evens out my other posts... LOL.

here's a site that says depending on the building you may need more than one kind of explosive...

www.implosionworld.com

www.implosionworld.com...
3. CONCRETE VS. STEEL

In the United States and Europe, support columns in most buildings are constructed of either steel 'H-beams' or concrete (with steel reinforcing bars). Some buildings actually have both.

DID YOU KNOW that these two types of support columns require two completely different types of explosives to cause their 'failure'?

Concrete columns are generally easier to destroy, and usually require a small amount of conventional dynamite packed into specially drilled holes. Steel beams, however, require a very high-velocity explosive to perform a 'cutting' action through the steel. A specialized explosive called RDX, made famous by NASA’s space program, is used to perform this task. This copper-encased explosive is physically attached to the beam, and upon detonation 'slices' at an incredible 27,000 feet per second. A small amount of conventional dynamite is also attached to the beam to 'kick' it out of place so the structure will fall uniformly, in a direction predesignated by the blaster.

www.implosionworld.com...
4. THIS IS ONLY A TEST

Through their years of experience, most blasters are very good at estimating the amount of explosives needed to eliminate a specific type of concrete column or steel beam. But it helps to make absolutely sure.

DID YOU KNOW that on most major explosive demolition projects, the blaster initiates a 'test blast' several days before the actual demolition?

(Are there any discussions on the first run at the world trade centers being a set up test to see how much explosives they would need for taking them out in the future?)

This usually involves selecting a few columns of varying size and width, then destroying them with slightly varying amounts of explosives. The resulting fragmentation will enable the blaster to calculate the smallest amount of explosive necessary to cause the failure of any given column. Finding this 'failure threshold' is critical because it helps to minimize the amount of flying debris, which in turn minimizes the possibility of damage to adjacent structures.

www.implosionworld.com



Great discussion!!!


Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/25/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

With regard to the "explosions" heard by some before the building collapsed;
There is a phenomenon called Bolt Banging that sometimes takes place in Steel Structures that can explain the nioses heard by some that are attributed to explosions.
Here is a link that explains what it is.
www.aisc.org.../CustomSource/Faq/SteelInterchange.cfm&FaqID=1957
Quoted from Modern Steel Construction 7-1-1999 is says, "Periodically, I've answered a call where an engineer architect, building owner, or some other related entity has a client or some tenants that reported hearing sharp sounds like rifle shots coming from "the building". Some heard one. Some have heard them a handful of times over a number of years.

What they are all describing is something called "banging bolts". Bolt-banging results when bolted connections slip into bearing under load. In the majority of buildings, bolted connections settle in during construction and the occupants never hear a thing. In other cases, the slip into bearing occurs after occupancy. It's an instantaneous occurrence that makes a loud sound...just like a rifle shot. Fortunately, there is no structural significance to this as the connections can carry the load in bearing by design. That is, there's no threat to life safety here. It just scares the heck out of everyone who hears it from the president of the company down to the summer intern."

Another source states, " The bolts in most bolted connections move into contact with the sides of the bolt holes long before anyone occupies a building and is there to hear it. However, when this movement occurs during building occupancy, it can sometimes be accompanied by loud, sharp noises not unlike rifle shots. While there is no structural significance or safety concern associated with the occurrence of banging bolts, building occupants can obviously become quite startled."
www.engr.psu.edu...

I have personally witnessed this myself and I can tell you it scared the hell out of me. I thought the whole roof was coming down. Usually this happens when a building is still being erected but it can happen any time a bolted connection slips into a bearing condition. It seems reasonable to consider the possibillity that this could have happened over and over again as the building reacted to the stress of the impact and imminent collapse of the structure.

Albert Einstein once said, ""Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

Of course he also said, ""The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."

Please forgive any spelling errors, I have not quite evolved the skill to type as accurately as Iwould like. Monkey fingers

Originally posted by Vushta

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

Ah so YOU bring up the myth of the fireproofing all being knocked off to the point of causing the whole building to fail, then when asked to back up this silly theory you make this statement?

No one has yet to fully explain the fire-proofing was knocked off theory, and again you have proved it's not explainable, because it makes no sense and could not have played a significant cause in the collapse.

Thank you for your contribution.

Originally posted by zappafan1
The building was designed to withstand ONE 707, not multiple hits.

This what Frank A. DeMartini, WTC construction and project manager said...

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Originally posted by Muaddib
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....

WTC 7 was 47 floors and size doesn't matter, everything is reletive. More weight, stronger columns. You think a 9 story building is built to hold the same weight as a 47 story building? Your logic is flawed.

Originally posted by ANOK


WTC 7 was 47 floors and size doesn't matter, everything is reletive. More weight, stronger columns. You think a 9 story building is built to hold the same weight as a 47 story building? Your logic is flawed.

Was the design the same?

[edit on 25-7-2006 by Vushta]