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: 16
0
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

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?


hehe this is the most common contradiction from you official story peddlers...

How could less have been used? I thought you were under the impression we didn't need any explosives at all? But then you tell us it would have required a full compliment of explosives on every floor for it to collapse?...It's funny how you guys keep tripping up on this one.

Plane crash + Fires = Collapse
I think it's pretty much proved this couldn't happen, sorry...

Plane crash + Fires + Explosives on a few key points in the building. Basement/Foundations, and maybe every 10 floors. I can't say for sure, obviously, but it's just a suggestion for discussion.

Really if you think it was only fire and damage that bought them down then you have to agree it would not have taken as much explosives as you all try to claim.
Which you obviously will, because you want your argument to be as hard to refute as possible, even if it means stretching reality and the truth along with it




posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
LETS SUPPOSE IT WASNT DONE, AND ITS ALL A LIE, THERE WAS NO DEMOLITION ASPECT TO THE CONSPIRACY.
OFFTOPIC, HOW THE FITER PLANES FAILED TO RESPOND, AND THE PHYSICS OF IT, WELL, THATS ALL PRETTY CLEAR.

WHY COULDNT THEY HAVE SIMPLY, OVER TIME, AND LETS FACE IT, THEY HAD TEN YEARS, FROM THE FIRST ATTEMPT TEN YRS PRIOR, TO ORGANISE....
AFTER THE FIRST BOMBING, IM SURE THERE WAS A SECURITY SHAKE UP IN THE WHOLE SCENE AT THE SECURITY DEPARTMENT OF THE COMPLEX....

WHY IS IT NOT FEASIBLE THAT AN ENTIRE TEAM OF MEN WORKED TO RIG THE BUILDING OVER A VERY LONG PERIOD OF TIME.... ?

SLOWLY, AND WITH SECURITY TAKEN CARE OF IN SECTIONS, SECTORS, ITS NOT LIKE EVERY SECURITY GAURD HAS ACCESS TO EVERY SECURITY ZONE....

it could easily have been done if the whole security team was special ops, hired over time to sit put like any terrorist cell, doing their little jobs, until the whole building complex was rigged and ready...


hell the security team itself might have been ignorant to the big picture...

all i know is that if they coordinated the kennedy thing from senator arlen spector, still inpower, to stand up and say one bullet did a ballet dance that day, why is it so unfeasible to think they could coordinate a whole team of security officals to oversee the rigging of the trade tower, they pulled vietnam off, they did watergate, they did the civil war, we stole texas, why is it so unbelievable to think they could rig the towers secretly?

I DO LIKE THE QUESTION THO, AND IT DOES BEG FOR A PLAUSIBLE ANSWER, PERHAPS FROM SOMEONE WITH EXPERTISE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, DEMO TECHNOLOGY, ETC... WOULD LOVE LOVE LOVE TO READ UP ON THAT WHOLE ASPECT OF THE THEORY
BUT WETHER THE DEMOLITION WAS CONTROLLED OR NOT, WE ALL SAW THOSE BUILDINGS FALL! AND WE ALL KNOW IT WAS NOT WHAT THEY SAY IT WAS.....

SO, GOOD QUESTION!!!



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   
YOU WOULD ONLY HAVE TO RIG THE SEVERAL FLOORS BELOW THE IMPLOSION OF THE JETS, IF THEY WERE JETS....
ONCE THE TOP OF THE BUILDING BEGAN TO FALL, THE BOTTOM FLOORS, PERHAPS JUST THE SUB BASEMENTS WOULD GIVE WAY....

IF YOU ONLY HAD TO LOAD SEVERAL FLOORS TO DO THE JOB, THAT WOULD MAKE IT ALOT EASIER
REMEMBER WEVE ONLY SEEN THE COLLAPSE FROM OUTSIDE THE BUILDING... WE DIDNT GET FILMS OF THE COLLAPSE FROM INSIDE, OR FROM OUTSIDE AT GROUND LEVEL, AND SO MUCH OF IT WAS OBFUSCATED BY SMOKE....

WHY IS IT UNBELEIVABLE THAT THE WALLS OF THE BUILDINGS COULDNT HAVE BEEN FULL TO THE BRIM WITH LITTLE BOMBS READY TO GO BY REMOTE?
THERE IS ALOT OF BACKSPACE IN A BIG BUILDING, ALLEYS, HALLWAYS, SPACE BETWEEN WALLS, SPACE BETWEEN FLOORS, ELEVATOR SHAFTS, UTILITY ROOMS, ITS NOOT REALLY A QUESTION THE MORE I THINK OF IT....

HOW COULD THEY HAVE RIGGED THE WHOLE BUILDING WITHOUT BEING DETECTED?

EASILY, THATS HOW....
SLOWLY, THERES A CLUE, OVER TIME... AND IT MAY NOT HAVE HAD TO BE RIGGED ON EVERY FLOOR.... DONT FORGET, ONCE THE COLLAPSE BEGAN, THE SMOKE CONCEALED ALOT.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Vushta

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?


hehe this is the most common contradiction from you official story peddlers...

How could less have been used? I thought you were under the impression we didn't need any explosives at all? But then you tell us it would have required a full compliment of explosives on every floor for it to collapse?...It's funny how you guys keep tripping up on this one.

Plane crash + Fires = Collapse
I think it's pretty much proved this couldn't happen, sorry...

Plane crash + Fires + Explosives on a few key points in the building. Basement/Foundations, and maybe every 10 floors. I can't say for sure, obviously, but it's just a suggestion for discussion.

Really if you think it was only fire and damage that bought them down then you have to agree it would not have taken as much explosives as you all try to claim.
Which you obviously will, because you want your argument to be as hard to refute as possible, even if it means stretching reality and the truth along with it


You have voted ANOK for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

And this is the post, although it's been posted a few times in this very thread, that never gets a response.

IMO, it creates contradictions, as you've already stated. Which is why I voted you for the WATS award.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

hehe this is the most common contradiction from you official story peddlers...



Actually it's not a contradicton at all.

The "official story peddlers" not only believe that no extra energy was needed, but that the whole motivation and methods for a controlled demolition are absolutely ludicrous.

Which they are.

The conspiracy side is the one claiming that so much extra energy is needed for the buildings to collapse.

If it only took a few explosives, then why even use them? How is it obviously a demolition, if it only took a handful of demolition charges.

Why do the same people who advance "evidence" like "squibs", which require every floor to be laced with bombs, change their story to "just a few explosives would be needed" when backed into a corner on the rigging of the building question.


Why do no demolition experts agree with you?

Why do demolition experts call the CD hypothesis absolutely ludicrous.

I'll let you folks figure that out.


(hint: the answer is not that they are on the gubmint payroll.)



[edit on 3-8-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
...And turn it around. If you believe that few explosives would be needed why do you think a huge explosion coupled with a 530 mph collision of many tons couldn't cause the collapse?
Its apples to oranges. A structurely sound building vs. one damaged by the collision and fires.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
...And turn it around. If you believe that few explosives would be needed why do you think a huge explosion coupled with a 530 mph collision of many tons couldn't cause the collapse?


Do you think that the impacts caused the collapses? Not the ensuing fires, but the collisions themselves? They were explosions alright, and they didn't cut it.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Vushta
...And turn it around. If you believe that few explosives would be needed why do you think a huge explosion coupled with a 530 mph collision of many tons couldn't cause the collapse?


Do you think that the impacts caused the collapses? Not the ensuing fires, but the collisions themselves? They were explosions alright, and they didn't cut it.


No. Why do you ask? I've stated on several occasions that the collisions combined with the fires aided the real cause of the collapses which was physics.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Physics was ultimately the cause in either of our opinions, Vushta. The reason why I asked was because, in your post, you equate the impacts with demolition charges, in that demolition charges would not be needed because of the high-velocity impacts.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Physics was ultimately the cause in either of our opinions, Vushta. The reason why I asked was because, in your post, you equate the impacts with demolition charges, in that demolition charges would not be needed because of the high-velocity impacts.


I don't really equate the explosions as being similar to demo charges. Actually there were basically three forces involved in the initial damage. The physical damaging force of the collisions, the explosions and the fires. After these events the buildings were no longer able to function per design specs.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   
After the initial impacts (including fireballs), the vast majority of the structure was still intact and functioning normally, even according to FEMA and NIST. Do you understand this?



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Sorry, i can't offer any evidence on how this was done. But take this into account. the raw footage of the two towers coming down, you can clearly see explosions in an outward blast 20-30 stories below the collapsing debree on its way down in a free fall speed and not a toppling like you would expect. A women filming the two towers for a documentary on the World Trade Center had a camera on a tri-pod which looks like about 5 blocks away and 12 seconds before the first building came down you can clearly see the camera shake.
Also, a research institute about 20 miles away from New York which measures seismic activity recorded an activity about the time of the collapse, which i think it was a 2 or 3 on the rictor scale. They also register this same activity when a quarry ignites its explosives during mining operations and they set off about 80,000 pounds of explosives.
Another bit of evidence would be in the history of fires bringing down buildings there have only been 3 in the entire world. WTC 7 and Towers one and two, they would have you believe that 10,000 gallons of jet fuel did this. and WTC 7 was brought down by burning debree from the two towers how rediculous!! Scientifically there is no way kersosene could burn hot enough to melt reinforced steel and fire proof steel at that. To melt steel the temperature would have to remain at 2000 degrees for several hours. Kerosene burns at 1368 degrees not nearly hot enough.
Investigators found melted steel in the sub-basement where the support structures are located. Not to mention that a janitor in the first floor heard explosions seconds before the first plane hit and saw people coming off the elevator with 3rd degree burns. When asked about this the only explination given was the explosion from the plane made its way into the elevator shaft and thats how they got burned.
That would be nice except the elevator shafts are hermetically sealed so it would be impossible for flames to make there way down more than 1700ft to the lower basement plus it would loose momentum.
And, finally why were bomb sniffing dogs pulled and 12hour security shifts ended 6 days before 9/11. Larry Silverstein took out a 3.5 billion dollar terrorist clause in his insurance 6 weeks before 9/11. And he ate religious at tower one restuarant since buying the buildings in July of that year except on that day...he said he had a doctors appointment. I could go on cause of more tidbits that i have come across but my time here is limited.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
After the initial impacts (including fireballs), the vast majority of the structure was still intact and functioning normally, even according to FEMA and NIST. Do you understand this?


If you're asking me..yes I understand that. The majority of 'the structure' that existed below the impact areas was intact.
Whats your point?



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
No, no. The majority of the structures ON THE IMPACTED FLOORS was still intact. That's what I'm asking if you understand. This is corroborated by both NIST and FEMA.

You get that, right? That most of the structure on the impacted floors was intact and functioning properly? This is covered in FEMA 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2.2, and NIST's computer modeling of possible core damage from impact (described around page 165 of the PDF). NIST even altered the flight paths to cause more severe damage, such as modeling Flight 175's impact as head-on, instead of indirect (as it ACTUALLY WAS), and still could only severe 10 columns, and variously damage 11 others, which, even in the most severe circumstance modeled, comes out to 21 out of the 47 columns (approx. 45%). In reality, this was likely significantly less due to the indirect impact.

So.. just to clarify..

You do understand that the majority of the structure on the impacted floors was perfectly intact after the impacts, right?



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   
The link below provides excellent information on how much and how the explosives where taken into the WTC.

www.gieis.uni.cc...



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, no. The majority of the structures ON THE IMPACTED FLOORS was still intact. That's what I'm asking if you understand. This is corroborated by both NIST and FEMA.

You get that, right? That most of the structure on the impacted floors was intact and functioning properly? This is covered in FEMA 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2.2, and NIST's computer modeling of possible core damage from impact (described around page 165 of the PDF). NIST even altered the flight paths to cause more severe damage, such as modeling Flight 175's impact as head-on, instead of indirect (as it ACTUALLY WAS), and still could only severe 10 columns, and variously damage 11 others, which, even in the most severe circumstance modeled, comes out to 21 out of the 47 columns (approx. 45%). In reality, this was likely significantly less due to the indirect impact.

So.. just to clarify..

You do understand that the majority of the structure on the impacted floors was perfectly intact after the impacts, right?


O.K. Why didn't you just say that instead of 'the majority of the structure'?

"intact" as in 'not damaged' is different than 'under normal daily loads' if thats what you mean to imply.

'Functioning properly' means the rest of the structure was incountering the load transfers if I'm understanding it correctly.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by solgrabber
The link below provides excellent information on how much and how the explosives where taken into the WTC.

www.gieis.uni.cc...


..and once inside the building they were set....how??



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
"..and once inside the building they were set....how??"





The... demolition of the WTC towers was achieved using a four phase attack. These attacks weakened the tower structure, initiated the collapse, progressed the collapse, and finally completed the collapse.


Early stages of the write up so bear with me, but I'm sure you'll get the picture.

Gordon Ross.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Nice to see you still posting on ATS! And congrats on your work with Scholars, man.


Originally posted by Vushta
O.K. Why didn't you just say that instead of 'the majority of the structure'?


So you do understand it? You've not given me a very clear answer.

Just a yes or no, that you understand and agree that an easy majority of the structure on the impacted floors remained intact and structurally functioning (see above referenced material).

I'm going to try to go somewhere with this, and just want to make sure you're totally on board, and agree with each point, one by one. We'll should see exactly where agreement breaks down.


"intact" as in 'not damaged' is different than 'under normal daily loads' if thats what you mean to imply.


Loads could have easily been redistributed while the columns remained intact. And this is what obviously happened after the impacts.

Take into account the great safety factors, too, which are common to all skyscrapers. Columns are used that can handle much more than the loads they will be expected to carry on a daily basis, just in case of (allegedly) unforeseeable disasters like 9/11. Specific info on these ratings in regards to the WTC are available from NIST.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 07:15 AM
link   


Loads could have easily been redistributed while the columns remained intact. And this is what obviously happened after the impacts.


Well..that didn't take long did it?

Your assumption that "loads could have easily been redistributed while the columns remained intact" is purely speculation. How are you arriveing at the conclusion that the damaged misshapen steel could have transfered loads per design and how did the extra weight of the aircraft basically centered on one spot affect the load transfers. I know it should have been evenly carried, but the design of the structure was no longer intact.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join