Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How were the WTC buildings rigged with explosives?

page: 17
0
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by gordonross
"..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.


Back to the word 'how'...not 'how can I concoct a scenerio in words and ideas'..but how was this done? "attack" the corners"..."attack" the core etc. doesn't really say much.




posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Your assumption that "loads could have easily been redistributed while the columns remained intact" is purely speculation.


If it is wrong, then so is NIST's information on safety factor ratings, but I'm not digressing anymore to explain crap to you.

Dude, did you even read my post? I'm trying to go somewhere LOGICAL with you. Do you agree or disagree with the information I've already presented you with, that has come directly from the FEMA and NIST Reports?


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).


Agree, or disagree?

Judging by the fact that you've avoided answering for about three posts now, I'm beginning to think you don't WANT to discuss these kinds of facts.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


If it is wrong, then so is NIST's information on safety factor ratings, but I'm not digressing anymore to explain crap to you.

Dude, did you even read my post? I'm trying to go somewhere LOGICAL with you. Do you agree or disagree with the information I've already presented you with, that has come directly from the FEMA and NIST Reports?


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).


Agree, or disagree?

Judging by the fact that you've avoided answering for about three posts now, I'm beginning to think you don't WANT to discuss these kinds of facts.


Do I agree with the information snippet you offered?..yes.
Do I agree with the context you place this in?..no
Do I agree with your interpretaion of functioning normally to mean..'crash happened..explosions exploded..loads transfered..so now all forces stable and the initiating event must have been explosives?..no

I'm not avoiding addressing anything. After the deluge and oven temps we've been having, I actually have to limit my time online and catch up on contracted projects...no biggie, but my focus is a bit split now.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Do I agree with the information snippet you offered?..yes.
Do I agree with the context you place this in?..no
Do I agree with your interpretaion of functioning normally to mean..'crash happened..explosions exploded..loads transfered..so now all forces stable and the initiating event must have been explosives?..no


What, in your opinion, brought the Towers down after the impacts? Or did the impacts themselves bring the building down?

If you do not think loads "settled" (redistributed and stabilized) after the impacts, then how do you explain the fact that they remained standing without additional failures until they collapsed?



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
then how do you explain the fact that they remained standing without additional failures until they collapsed?


Easy.

That's not a fact, so it requires no explanation.

There were additional failures, the sides of the building were buckling, for one.

How about instead of trying to pigeonhole someone into making some statement you can attack, you actually attempt to stay on topic and explain how the buildings were rigged with explosives.

Remember the title of this thread?

How were the WTC buildings rigged with explosives?



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Thats a good point LB. Its so common to get sidetracked in these dicussions.

But I do like bsb's approach of dealing with one point at a time with yes or no questions.

On topic.
Yes or no.

A CD requires specific members to be failed and not just any 'ol structural member that you can get to?



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Agreed Vushta.

Posting links like this only prove that people don't understand the complexity involved in controlled demolitions.

www.gieis.uni.cc...

It also shows that most people advancing these theories think that it happened like a movie. A few people just snuck in and planted devices on things is not realistic. It takes massive amounts of work to do a controlled demolition.

There are good reasons why demolition experts do not agree with the CD hypothesis.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
That's not a fact, so it requires no explanation.

There were additional failures, the sides of the building were buckling, for one.


If you kept things in context you would realize that this is irrelevant as it was allegedly caused by the fires and not the impacts.


On topic.
Yes or no.

A CD requires specific members to be failed and not just any 'ol structural member that you can get to?


I don't think anyone has ever argued otherwise, so I don't see the point in you even asking this. Of course. Especially the core. And a pseudo-maintenance team with clearance could have done wonders with it.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

If you kept things in context you would realize that this is irrelevant . . .


In context?

This is what you said.



then how do you explain the fact that they remained standing without additional failures until they collapsed?


There were additional failures, there is no context were the above statement is correct.

/off topic



So a pseudo-maintenence team could perform wonders. Ok, what exactly do you think that they did?

Was it only to the core on the floors impacted, or was it every single floor?

Secondly, if they only did this to the core, do you still believe that the "squibs" were caused by demo charges?



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Agreed Vushta.

Posting links like this only prove that people don't understand the complexity involved in controlled demolitions.

www.gieis.uni.cc...

It also shows that most people advancing these theories think that it happened like a movie. A few people just snuck in and planted devices on things is not realistic. It takes massive amounts of work to do a controlled demolition.

There are good reasons why demolition experts do not agree with the CD hypothesis.


No you are wrong. The information in that link was written be a highly skilled physicist, probably one of the best in the world in his area.

The same person also speculates on non-linear acceleration of climate change and specializes in mathematical models and communications. Unless you have not figured it out yet there are highly skilled people telling everyone straight out that 9/11 is a flat out lie.

Stop spreading the BS on the forum and let the truth be told. The towers, all three of them where brought down with explosives. WTC 7 was more of your coventional demolition which is just plain obvious by looking at the videos available all over the internet. WTC 1+2 was a much more powerful controlled demolition which is apparent by the matter being thrown upwards and outwards. If you want to see this matter being ejected do a search on google for the pictures, they are available just about anywhere on the internet as well.

If you would like to explain how gravity throws steel columns hundreds of feet outwards from the building itself be my guest, I need a good laugh.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
In context?

This is what you said.



then how do you explain the fact that they remained standing without additional failures until they collapsed?


There were additional failures, there is no context were the above statement is correct.


Show me where Vushta and I were discussing the fire damage and I'll admit that you are correct. We were discussing impact damage and the structure stabilizing afterwards, without additional failures, as in FROM THE IMPACT. You must be * snip * .


So a pseudo-maintenence team could perform wonders. Ok, what exactly do you think that they did?

Was it only to the core on the floors impacted, or was it every single floor?


I don't have any knowledge of how the Towers were rigged, or what types of explosives were used. All the examples we give here are theoretical to show that is was POSSIBLE. None of us would have been there to actually see it, obviously.

And if this negates demolition theory, that we can't describe a specific arrangement of explosives, what kind they were, where they were, etc., then by the same logic, your own theory must also be incorrect, as no one is yet to establish the exact mechanisms that allowed a "pancaking". Not NIST, not FEMA, not Greening, not the Commission Report, not Eager, (which all give different versions, btw, none of which supported scientifically) -- no one. They analyze the first floors to fail at most (which was NIST only!).

So if you want to get to the heart of it right away, neither side of this issue has provided a full, in-depth explanation for the global collapse in such details as you're requesting. What a surprise that must come to you guys.

But if you do have this covered, where as demolition theorists do not, then post it. The exact mechanisms that allowed the pancaking, beyond the same vague descriptions that we DTs also have to resort to from lack of information. Then you could claim to have some advantage over us, instead of this pot-kettle crap.

[edit on 5-8-2006 by bsbray11]


Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 8/5/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by solgrabber

No you are wrong. The information in that link was written be a highly skilled physicist, probably one of the best in the world in his area.


That's great that he's a "highly skilled physicist", but he obviously knows nothing about controlled demolition. Let me show you what I mean.


www.gieis.uni.cc...

Given a good hiding spot for the devices, 1 person could move across 4 floors, positioning 60 devices, in 3-4 hours.


You don't cut steel beams by putting explosives in a "good hiding spot".

His whole scenario shows a complete lack of understanding on how a controlled demolition works.

His assertion that only 1500 devices would be needed is laughable.

It took over 4000 charges to demolish a much smaller building.


www.controlled-demolition.com...


In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Show me where Vushta and I were discussing the fire damage and I'll admit that you are correct. We were discussing impact damage and the structure stabilizing afterwards, without additional failures, as in FROM THE IMPACT. You must be dense.


Look, pal, no need for name calling. You wanted him to explain "the fact that they remained standing without additional failures until they collapes".

It's not a fact. Get over it.

If you meant something else that's great, but trying to discuss

"the fact that they remained standing without additional failures until they collapes"

is ridiculous when there were additional failures.

I can only go off what you post, if you have deeper subconscious meanings they don't come across well. If being dense means "not a mind reader" then yes I must be dense.

/offtopic





Originally posted by Bsbray11

I don't have any knowledge of how the Towers were rigged, or what types of explosives were used. All the examples we give here are theoretical to show that is was POSSIBLE. None of us would have been there to actually see it, obviously.


Great, then why the heck are you posting in a thread called "How were the WTC buildings rigged with explosives?"?

This is not a thread about whether it was possible. This is a thread about how.

And so far these theoreticals are laughable. It's possible that Tom Cruise donned his Mission Impossible suit and did it singlehanded in one night, but there is no evidence of that.

Possibilities are not evidence.

Given that actual demolitions require thousands of explosive charges and drilling into beams, in addition to months of prep work,

How were the WTC buildings rigged with explosives?



[edit on 5-8-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Look what I found on youtube it's like 2 minutes long, not to much time wasted.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Very nice clip man.

I guess that sums up exactly how it was possible.

Vushta? Are you still around?
What about you leftbehind? Care to comment on this two minute clip?






top topics



 
0
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join