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: 14
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   

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.


Well, well well, thank you...47 floors, and "my logic" is not flawed in the least...

More weight on a weakened structure means the easier the structure would collapse, since the added weight will have much more of an impact in the "weakened columns" than a building which is smaller....

Obviousl,y whose logic is flawed is yours...




posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Muaddib, the point is that how much weight is relative to how much the buildings were designed for.

Ever heard of psf? Pounds per square foot? Take these figures from any up-to-code wooden shack, and compare them to the psf ratings of the WTC between the core and perimeter columns (the trusses). You'll find they won't be much different, and this has obviously already taken into consideration the loads presented by the building itself. Bigger loads, bigger columns.

Buildings are rather proportional in their respective sizes and abilities to bear their own loads. Skyscrapers are actually more over-engineered, for safety reasons. That means they're not easier to fail structurally than smaller buildings, but much harder.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Your Name Is A Killing Word is right.BsBy just doesn't get the whole damage thing.Till he can wrap his head around that, he will fly this same circle,over and over.If you think that 7's floors don't count as helping in the collapse,with out explosives.Thats the end of the road!Too bad though,lots O' evidence here to refute it.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

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.


Just because it's not on his website does not mean he did not say it. Is there a statement on his website that he did not say it? You assume because it is not on his website that some one made it up, that every website that has anything about molten steel has a quote from him and this man has not seen fit to deny he said it, but because it is not on his website, you assume everyone is lying on him.

I appreciate the fact that you tried to get in touch with him and he refused to give you a statement, but that does not mean he did not say, he saw molten steel where the WTC stood.

You constantly demand proof, but we are all supposed to be satisfied he did not say it, simply because he does not have it on his website and automatically believe the rest of the world is making up stuff because it is not on his website. I doubt every statement he ever made is on his website.

The fact that he is trying to run a business and does not want to discuss anything controversial about 911 with you or anyone else would be a good reason it is not on his website.

[edit on 26-7-2006 by goose]



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Just my 2 cents, but it seems like this thread has run its course as it can't seem to stay on topic. But it ran for 260 posts with some good points being made.

It was started in hopes that the believers in the CD theory would clarify the process that would be necessary for their theory to be seen as believable.

To sum it up in all of the responses given, what explaination as to "how" seems to be the most credible and believable? Just curious.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
.BsBy just doesn't get the whole damage thing.


Show me a picture of this damage. There must be hundreds of photos of this supposed damage... show them to me.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Duhh
.BsBy just doesn't get the whole damage thing.


Show me a picture of this damage. There must be hundreds of photos of this supposed damage... show them to me.


Source of your claim that hundreds of photos of the damage exist?



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I have just read the vast majority of this discussion, I have yet to determine whether I believe one side or the other.

This point may seem plausable or completely invalid. But, if the towers where rigged with explosives before the planes hit, how did the explosives inside the towers withstand the impact of the planes hitting the towers? You would think that the pilot could not properly calculate the exact point of impact which would guarentee missing the explosives, so one would believe that if explosives where planted in the towers, the planes would hit directly into a section where the explosives where planted.

If this was the case, wouldn't this trigger some kind of domino affect? If not, wouldn't this contradict the proposed suggestion that a CD was organised? A plane hitting a tower would alter any kind of organised D, one would think that a plane would certainly alter the outcome.

(It is well known that one plane did not have full contact between the tower and itself ( meaning 100% of the plane did not hit the tower ) , which further suggests that a pilot can not calculate the direction of a plane, therefore unintentionally colliding with the explosives.

If there where explosives in any tower, than the plane's impact with an explosive was invetable.

The impact from the planes would throw of a calculated CD.

Let me know what you think, Cheers.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Duhh
.BsBy just doesn't get the whole damage thing.


Show me a picture of this damage. There must be hundreds of photos of this supposed damage... show them to me.


Source of your claim that hundreds of photos of the damage exist?


Every mainstream and fringe media outlet was there. Aprox. 1,000,000 live within blocks and many I am sure have cameras. The NIST admits to holding 7,000 pictures...


Are you suggestion that out of 7,000 witheld photos NOT ONE EXISTS of the "crater" in WTC 7?



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasterBoofa

If there where explosives in any tower, than the plane's impact with an explosive was invetable.

The impact from the planes would throw of a calculated CD.

Let me know what you think, Cheers.



How would anyone know the difference between a plane exploding and a plane exploding with a few charges going off? BTW, I'm not sure if I believe that conventional CD's were in use....if at all.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
How were explosives timed to co-incide with the planes hitting? Why bother with the planes, why not just increased the explosives to do the job, well placed c4 or something on every floor might do the same if enough was used.
The towers wernt designed with such an event in mind, its as simple as that.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Damocles,

Since you have experience with explosives and such, I was wondering if you could answer a question for me. Is my scenario plausible in the stand point of starting thermite reactions on a timed basis? Or would they need to be started by hand?

Also, do you think my scenerio could be possible?



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
The head of CDI states that most demolitions ARE remote controlled via RADIO signals now. I will locate the source. You guys are forgetting that these "signals" are encrypted digital signals. There is really no chance of accidental detonation via. "radio interference". The reciever must recieve millions of bits of data in an EXACT sequence on a certain frequency to fire.

It is not like my cell phone could accidentally tune in the frequency, break the encryption, decomplile the firmware/software, figure out the logic and send the proper data.

Not possible.

It WAS NOT NECESSARY to "wire" anything. No "cords" or wire would be necessary. All radio controlled controllers/igniters/electric matches.

[edit on 26-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   
One issue with radios that no one seems to consider is battery life.

If, as some have proposed, the installation of the charges took place over the course of several months or even years, how were the battery charges maintained?

One the charge was in place, the receiver would have to be on, waiting for the detonate signal.

Furthermore, the system would have to have sufficient charge to then activate the detonation charge.

All of this would have to be on a system that was small enough and light enough to transprot and install quickly.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
slapnuts,
is he saying that the radio controlled charges are initiated via radio control to each individual charge or to a radio detonator that is then hooked to det cord. if they are using RC detonators to each charge, thats kind of insane, but if thats their preferred method then thats what they do.


I am still looking for the quote and do not know, however, in an "unlimited budget" scenario I am sure you could do each charge individually.

Heck, you could even connect them to the IP netowrks in the building and communicate to them over exisiting lines in an IPSEC tunnel or something (TOTAL FRINGE BS GUESS, BUT a possibility to eliminate wiring.


Originally posted by Damocles
but when i refer to radio interferrence, yes, i do mean to the actual reciever but more to the blasting cap itself. military manuals will tell you that minimum safe distance from an electric cap to any transmitter is 300m. (if you insist ill post which manual and page etc, but i hope my integrity has shown that im not going to "make up facts", especially when i could so easily be proven wrong by 5 mins on google
)thats because a radio wave can actually spark the gap in the blasting cap. so, if they tell you otherwise they either are ignorant of that fact or the military tests were all messed up. for safety i trust what i know. also keep in mind, the radio recievers they are using are hooked to the firing circuits shortly before the shot, not days or weeks/months.

this again is just my opinion.


Agin, you are theorizing HE with clasting caps and I am sure what you say is true.

I agree with the theory of remote detonated Thermatae shaped "charges" for melting box colums at critical points and some superthermate if explosive power was needed. These are detonated with "electric matches" and as far as I know these ARE NOT susceptable to RF interferrence like a blasting cap.

Finally, I am sure that the blasting caps can be "shielded" with lead (conjecture) or something in the very unlikely chance they were employed. The CIA, NSA, ARMY, etc. must have some way of detonating in a RF heavy area? Do you think?

I am still looking for the other post of yours I need to reply to. I have typed a lot today.


[edit on 26-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasterBoofa
if the towers where rigged with explosives before the planes hit, how did the explosives inside the towers withstand the impact of the planes hitting the towers?


This question has been proposed many times by many of us.

It is a great question. Wouldn't the impact of the planes knock the explosives out of their hiding spaces, disconnect them from their ignition sources, even incinerate the wires and other components of the devices?

Anyone care to tackle this question?

[edit on 26-7-2006 by craig732]



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   
The explosives would need to be planted for different situations. There would be to many possible trajectories. That means lots of extra explosives just incase. All to many choices. More chances of being discovered, before and after. The Cters think they were exploded by remote. I like the whole thought of the disslodge theory. That would make the chances of having the right explosives perform as designed ,a little bit more iffy!



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
The only feasible was that the towers could have been imploded would be by using detonators operated by radio signals. Whith the number of cell phones, computers and radios being used placing the explosives in advance would be very risky and improbable.


Really?, Our nuclear arsenal must really be at risk as well. What, with all the cell phones and computers around. Give me a break.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
Wouldn't the impact of the planes knock the explosives out of their hiding spaces, disconnect them from their ignition sources, even incinerate the wires and other components of the devices?


Probably would, but so what? Chances are, if there's that much damage in a region of the building, that region won't present major resistance during a collapse anyway. It would've already been blown, essentially.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthCanHurt
Really?, Our nuclear arsenal must really be at risk as well. What, with all the cell phones and computers around. Give me a break.



Obviously you've never studied explosives have you. Detonators are subject to stray EM radiation. A cell phone or a radio too close to a detonator can cause it to spark and set it off.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join