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: 15
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by TruthCanHurt

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.




Nuclear warheads are shielded against rf interference, electromagnetic pulse, etc.

Blasting caps or ignitors that would be operated via radio signal could not be shielded... if they were the signal that was meant to detonate them could not get through the shielding.




posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   
What if there were no explosives in the upper floors of the building? Say floor 80 and up?

If the planes were remote controlled, they would pretty much be able to hit where they wanted them to. That's a big IF though I'll admit.

What if the explosives were only in the basement, and taking out the foundations, along with just a few key places on the upper columns with thermate, would be enough?

I mean, if fires and a plane hitting is enough?


Don't bite my head off, just making guesses to consider



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
If the planes were remote controlled, they would pretty much be able to hit where they wanted them to. That's a big IF though I'll admit.


Considering (a) the tech for remote control planes has been around for a while, and (b) a detailed scenario for swapping out planes (with remote controlled drones) was described in the Northwoods Document, I don't think remote controlling the planes for their impacts is too far out there at all. They certainly had the ability to do it. There'd have been nothing to stop them, and would cut back on the amount of explosives needed.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Well yeah I agree it could have been easily done.

There's two ways it was done, either there was a real attack with planes flown by the terrorists, and the gov new about it and added their part to it.
Or they were remote controlled....

I lean toward remote control, just because if they were being flown by real people it would too risky. Too much chance to mess up the whole plan, and even expose it before it happened. I don't think they would take that chance but...



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
ok, whether what i think is accepted or not, this one i can answer...

ok, to prime demo there are two methods. (speaking of conventional HE here)

electric and nonelectric. thats it. any type of trigger you would use comes down to those two.




Damocles, since you have some expertise I would like for you to take a crack at the question of how much HE (RDX?) it might take to demo a given floor at WTC 1 or 2 assuming all other impediments were surmountable.

At a minimun 47 large thickwalled box (cut, then blown off plumb) columns or hundreds of truss beam connections (cut) if not both would be the working media.

I know its hard to be exact however a neighborhood number would be helpful, there was an estimate given several pages back from a pro-demo site that I believe to be way underestimated.

I think its low because not only do you have to cut'em (columns), you also have to kick'em with timed secondaries.

Phoenix



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
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.



A passive reciever with somtheing analogous to "wake on LAN" technology would require very little power to recieve the "ON" packets and activate the processor/detonation circuits/DSP. I can imagine a battery about 3-4x the size of a cell phone battery being able to sit on standby for many,many months. I am not going to ompute the mA/t.

Our N620 laptops can sit at work for over two months, unplugged, in an off state and still boot via. WOL and these batteries ARE NOT designed to hold a charge OVER TIME. They drain rether quickly even when off. In this case "rather quickly is on the order of months... I am sure that battery life is an easy issue to overcome even in a small footprint design.

Finally, the recievers would NOT have to be on when set. All it would take is a "final walk through" by one guy to turn them on.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 07:33 AM
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?


The planes were quite accurate in hitting certain floors from what I saw. You would not plant HE anywhere near the 10 floors impact was planned for IF AT ALL. Thermate charges could be "knocked out" but not detonated by the planes. If it was all a plan... don't you think there wer some very simple ways to avoid this issue?



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Do you have a source that could prove any of those fantasy claims actually exist in the real world of CD?

How about just a source that would back up your previous claim that most CD are now done via wireless detonation.
Thanks.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Do you have a source that could prove any of those fantasy claims actually exist in the real world of CD?


www.patentstorm.us...


abstract

In a radio remote blasting system, a radio receiver triggers a blocking oscillator which generates a high voltage output. A rectifier rectifies the high voltage output and charges a capacitor, which is coupled to a plasma arc generator to apply the capacitor voltage to the plasma arc generator and generate a high voltage arc in the arc generator. The end of a shock tube is received in a port in the arc generator and the arc produced in the arc generator will ignite explosive material in the shock tube. The resulting explosion will travel from the point of ignition to an explosive device which will then be detonated.


or

(this one is more interesting...)

www.patentstorm.us...


Abstract

A system is disclosed that remotely activates one or more explosive charge by sympathetic detonation (i.e., not requiring explosives to be interconnected by wire). The system includes electronics that control the activation of each explosive charge and which are responsive to an acoustic sensor, a seismic sensor and a hydrophone sensor. In one embodiment an RF transmitter, which prior to detonation of an explosive charge, sends a wake-up signal to another system for a sequentially controlled sympathetic detonation of one or more explosive charges


Still looking for my CDI qoute. I will find it soon...

[edit on 27-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Those 2 patent applications ? show no indication that their purpose is intended to be applicable for CD's.

In something that doesn't require timing to be accurate to milliseconds like mine blasting or clearing debris or road building etc. those devises could be handy. But again there is no indication that they are used...if they even are in use for anything let alone for CDs.

It seems that the conspiracy just got more complicated by having to impliment yet another device.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Those 2 patent applications ? show no indication that their purpose is intended to be applicable for CD's.


Whatever Vushta. Just showing yet again the VAST number of was the system could be implemented. I in no way said that THESE patents/devices were used, I was sowing that the technology certainly exists and is available.

How you apply a technology or employ it... Seems to me it could work quite well even if it WAS NOT pointe out in the patent application. Note that patent applioactions do not need to list every application in detail, but you know that.

I have seen a horseshoe used as a hammer... Was that the original intent of the horseshoe? No Was its use effective as a hammer? Yes



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
You've also got to remember this wasn't a conventional controlled demo.

The military has technology not available to demolition companies.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   
In like 100 years when everyone involved in these operations are all dead and burried some documents might be released and the entire world will be in shock
and awe and wonder how such an evil thing could happen in /the/ democratic
example of the world.

It are as far as i can tell the regular population that believe the official story without
a doubt because they dont even concider questioning it, beforehand concluding "no way!".

This is ironicly what the purpotraters probably expected to happen. It would be too
viscious to be true and exactly this is what leads the masses to not even
investigate, question or concider different views at the events regardless
(when even examined a little bit up closely) of circumstancial evidence (at least)
that would shed new light on it.

They [the worlds mass population who do not use Internet that much] simple buy
whatever the mainstream media tells them.
CNN, Fox, CBS are like a religion these days, if its on these newsstations it must
be true, if it is spread over the internet it must be bull#, this is unfortunatly how
most people look at news true or false on the Internet especially involving
worldnews like 9/11 events. They simply refuse to even look at the case presented.
If something is not reported on CNN then it must not be true.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by zren
It are as far as i can tell the regular population that believe the official story without
a doubt because they dont even concider questioning it, beforehand concluding "no way!".

This is ironicly what the purpotraters probably expected to happen. It would be too
viscious to be true and exactly this is what leads the masses to not even
investigate, question or concider different views at the events regardless
(when even examined a little bit up closely) of circumstancial evidence (at least)
that would shed new light on it.


HITLER came up with this a LONG time ago... From Mein Kompf...


HITLER

In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted …they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie… It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
pheonix,

ive actually already calculated i could do it with around 50lbs using ONLY linear shaped charges. and thats ONLY doing the core. if i was going to do it, id do more to be sure of my fall but as a MINIMUM thats what you would need.


on a side note...i may have a random post or two in the next week but overall im off line. im moving across the country (literally coast to coast) so ima be a bit busy.

take care and play nice


Good luck and have a safe trip,

When your back online please reiterate something for me.

When you said 50 pounds I'm assuming thats per column and not per floor - right!

47X50 = 2350 pounds/floor is that correct.



[edit on 27-7-2006 by Phoenix]



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts


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?


The planes were quite accurate in hitting certain floors from what I saw. You would not plant HE anywhere near the 10 floors impact was planned for IF AT ALL.



Originally posted by ANOK
What if there were no explosives in the upper floors of the building? Say floor 80 and up?


Then wouldn't we have seen "squibs" at these other floors far away from the fire at the moment of detonation?

It certainly appeared that the collapse started at precisely the point where the planes impacted on each building.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   
This is an exerpt from Michael Rivero's webpage, about the Oklahoma City bombings effects.
Michael is an 27 year veteran of film effects. He's won 5 Cleos, a Hugo, gold medals at the New York Film Festival, a Bronze Lion at Cannes and been nominated once each for an Emmy and an Oscar.


Things that go BOOM in the night!

Before proceeding to the acoustical data, let me explain a little something about explosives and how people perceive them.

I work in special effects. In films, great use is made of low velocity explosives such as untamped black powder and ANFO because they are low velocity explosives. With a great whoosh and roar they belch forth with fire and smoke in a manner that has caused folks to drop their popcorn in matinees ever since sound came in.

Movies have conditioned people to expect a certain look and sound to explosions, all based on very low velocity explosives. In a stunning ironic twist, moviegoers seem to perceive the slower explosions as more powerful.

Demolition experts will tell you that high brissive or high velocity explosives actually are more powerful, as they build up a powerful shock wave. However, except for actually collapsing a structure, such explosives are unsuitable for film. The blast is over so quickly it can be missed while the film is moving between one frame and the next. There is very little visible smoke and flash, and the "crack" of a C-4 cutter charge is downright disappointing to hear.

Thus, the average person's awareness of what an explosion is supposed to look and sound like is based on the movies and low velocity explosives only. In not knowing what high velocity explosives sound like or feel like (as the shock wave moves through the earth), many people might not understand what they have heard or felt on April 19th.


SOURCE

I hope we can start a discussion here at last about the true sound effects of cutter charges, be it C-4 or Thermite/Thermate cutter charges.

I'm convinced you could not hear them in the roar of the collapsing WTC buildings.
But you could feel them passing by in the soil. As was registered by the movements of a camera on a tripod I once posted here. Which can be heard and seen in the 9/11 Eyewitness video at the same time.

And remember, we'll only be impressed by the facts, pictures, commends and links to such, which will be presented by self proclaimed or true professionals.
I am not impressed by any professional, until I can check his/her professionalism.

There is another scenario where one could muffle explosion sounds :

www.gieis.uni.cc...


I can provide a feasible scenerio that would allow significant amount of conventional explosive usage during 9/11 at the WTC. The scenario allows blasting to be inaudible beyond Church Street.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop



I can provide a feasible scenerio that would allow significant amount of conventional explosive usage during 9/11 at the WTC. The scenario allows blasting to be inaudible beyond Church Street.


Is it also invisible? Your source doesn't say one way or the other.

As far as the sound of a CD goes why try and imagine it from a written word? You can download some actual CD vids and the sound of the charges going off is hardly unnoticable. Quite loud infact.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
You keep fortgetting Vushta this was not a conventional demo job.

In a conventional demo job they don't have to hide the fact that it is a controlled demo



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
You keep fortgetting Vushta this was not a conventional demo job.

In a conventional demo job they don't have to hide the fact that it is a controlled demo


Thats a good point but how was this done? In a conventional demo the smallest amount of explosives is used. How could less have been used?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join