How were the WTC buildings rigged with explosives?

original quote by: Vushta
How were the WTC buildings rigged with explosives?

Maybe Marvin Bush, whos company handled security for the building had something to do with it... Why is it Bushes name is everywhere on this yet people do not place it. Bush had long time dealings with the Bin Ladens stemming from Bushs first oil company Arbusto Energy. Bush's brother's comapny handled security for the buildings. Silverstien says "pull it" at about 5:30 and then the building comes down. Of course there were no firefighters in the building 7 since about 11:30 AM that morning.

here is an interesting link that illustrates Marvin Bush's role...
Marvin Bush

Washington, D.C. WASHINGTON, Jan 19, 2003 -- A company that provided security at New York City's World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C., and to United Airlines between 1995 and 2001, was backed by a private Kuwaiti-American investment firm with ties to a brother of President Bush and the Bush family, according to records obtained by the American Reporter.

Two planes hijacked on Sept. 11, 2001 were United Airlines planes, and another took off from Dulles International Airport; two, of course, slammed into the World Trade Center. But the Bush Administration has never disclosed the ties of a presidential brother and the Bush family with the firm that intersected the weapons and targets on a day of national tragedy.

Marvin P. Bush, a younger brother of George W. Bush, was a principal in the company from 1993 to 2000, when most of the work on the big projects was done. But White House responses to 9/11 have not publicly disclosed the company's part in providing security to any of the named facilities, and many of the public records revealing the relationships are not public

see rest of story here

The placing of explosives couldve been done through "renovation work" or installed when the buildings were being built in the first place. The arguement that The biuldings coul not have been rigged that day are absolutely correct. It does take time to rig a building for demolition. Unfortunately, most of the people that could attest to seeing anything going on like this are DEAD! How convienient.

Also, Silverstein's comments are the one of the most singular damning statements that have come out yet.

There is also a list of witnesses that has been willfully ignored by the MSM and the 911 Commision.
eyewitness reports-from Rense.com

Also, a side note. One would not have to rig the entire building to have it come down in a specific way.. there need only be strategic placements of the explosives/thermite and a catalyst(planes)

Also another site that raises some good points is listed below.
renewamerica.us

original quote by: Vushta
So here's the question.
Knowing what is known about CDs and the process and steps that MUST be taken in order for a CD to take place, how was it done without raising suspicion?

If there were "renovations" being done in any of the buildings prior to 911(whether it be weeks or months or even years before 911) Then most people wouldnt think twice about it. And unless you were an explosives expert how would you notice exactly what they were installing into the buildings? It couldve been done slowly over time to allay that very concern of "people noticing".

Considering "Project Northwoods" has been in existance for the better part of 50 years it is not like there wasnt enough time to make these arrangements. There was a few decades. Just because some of us dont think ahead 20 or 30 years does not mean that people wth power and a plan, share in that same mindset. Of course all this would be frickin MOOT if our govt. didnt haul off all the evidence so damned fast. Now all that people who are trying to find out the truth have is circumstantial evidence. And the Govt. investigates itself....brilliant plan. all nice and neat and tidy.. they have but one enemy left... the truth!







[edit on 23-7-2006 by TONE23]

Not rationalizing about exotic new explosives and conceding that it may have been possible to place limited amounts of CAT 5 type cabling in 1,2 and 7 there still remains the question of why is there no physical evidence of such, how do you eliminate RF interference with long term placement of charges and caps. How does one go about "wrapping" the charges to direct the energy as a "cutter" without being noticed. How does one pre-weaken the structure in preparation for demo without being noticed. How does one armor or protect the intricate explosives "system" from unknown placement of aircraft impact and resulting fuel fires, exception being #7.

Bear in mind that WTC had a large staff of engineers and janitorial that you cannot assume were all in on the conspiracy not to mention tenant security and IT who would also have to be in on it as it were.

Vushta asked a simple question - Hows it done?

original quote by: Pheonix
there still remains the question of why is there no physical evidence of such

There would've been evidence if it wasnt broken down so damned fast and shipped off .

original quote by: Pheonix
Not rationalizing about exotic new explosives and conceding that it may have been possible to place limited amounts of CAT 5 type cabling in 1,2 and 7.how do you eliminate RF interference with long term placement of charges and caps. How does one go about "wrapping" the charges to direct the energy as a "cutter" without being noticed

Personally, I believe it was a combined use of both conventional and "exotic" CD tools were used. Also, Is it really that difficult to use the cabling behind the walls where they would not be noticed? And then, use a remote detonator to initiate the blasts/reactions.
Oh you mean this CAT 5 cable?
CAT 5 cable

Optical fiber systems have many advantages over metallic-based communication systems. These advantages
include:

Long Distance Signal Transmission

The low attenuation and superior signal integrity found in optical systems allow much longer intervals of signal transmission than metallic-based systems. While single-line, voice-grade copper systems longer than a couple of kilometers (1.2 miles) require in-line signal repeaters for satisfactory performance, it is not unusual for optical systems to go over 100 kilometers (km), or about 62 miles, with no active or passive processing. Emerging technologies promise even greater distances in the future.

The optical fiber cable in the foreground has the equivalent information-carrying capacity of the copper cable in the background.

Large Bandwidth, Light Weight, and Small Diameter

While today's applications require an ever-increasing amount of bandwidth, it is important to consider the space constraints of many end-users. It is commonplace to install new cabling within existing duct systems. The
relatively small diameter and light weight of optical cables makes such installations easy and practical, and saves valuable conduit space in these environments.

Long Lengths

Long, continuous lengths also provide advantages for installers and end-users. Small diameters make it practical to manufacture and install much longer lengths than for metallic cables: twelve-kilometer (12 km) continuous optical cable lengths are common.

Multimode cable lengths can be 4 km or more, although most standards require a maximum length of 2 km or less. Multimode cable lengths are based on industry demand. (Single-mode and multimode fibers will be covered in detail later in this text.)

Easy Installation and Upgrades

Long lengths make optical cable installation much easier and less expensive. Optical fiber cables can be installed with the same equipment that is used to install copper and coaxial cables, with some modifications due to the small size and limited pull tension and bend radius of optical cables.

Optical cables can typically be installed in duct systems in spans of 6000 meters or more depending on the duct's condition, layout of the duct system, and installation technique. The longer cables can be coiled at an
intermediate point and pulled farther into the duct system as necessary.

System designers typically plan optical systems that will meet growth needs for a 15- to 20-year span. Although sometimes difficult to predict, growth can be accommodated by installing spare fibers for future
requirements. Installation of spare fibers today is more economical than installing additional cables later. The dielectric nature of optical fiber can eliminate the dangers found in areas of high lightning-strike incidence.

Non-Conductivity
Another advantage of optical fibers is their dielectric nature. Since optical fiber has no metallic components, it can be installed in areas with electromagnetic interference (EMI), including radio frequency interference (RFI). Areas with high EMI include utility lines, power-carrying lines, and railroad tracks. Another advantage of optical fibers is their All-dielectric cables are also ideal for areas of high lightning-strike incidence.

Security

Unlike metallic-based systems, the dielectric nature of optical fiber makes it impossible to remotely detect the signal being transmitted within the cable. The only way to do so is by actually accessing the optical fiber itself. Accessing the fiber requires intervention that is easily detectable by security surveillance. These circumstances make fiber extremely attractive to governmental bodies, banks, and others with major security concerns.

Designed for Future Applications Needs

Fiber optics is affordable today, as electronics prices fall and optical cable pricing remains low. In many cases, fiber solutions are less costly than copper.

As bandwidth demands increase rapidly with technological advances, fiber will continue to play a vital role in the long-term success of telecommunications.

It seems that CAT 5 cable is just the right thing to have used.

original quote by: Pheonix
How does one go about "wrapping" the charges to direct the energy as a "cutter" without being noticed

There were years and years to set this up... stop thinking that it had to be done overnight. There were plenty of times where an "Authorized" work crew or crews couldve had clearence and access to the buildings.

original quote by: Pheonix
How does one pre-weaken the structure in preparation for demo without being noticed

Think about this question for a second. Preweaken the structures? we all saw the answer to this question.. its called flying two planes into the buildings.

original quote by: Pheonix
Bear in mind that WTC had a large staff of engineers and janitorial that you cannot assume were all in on the conspiracy not to mention tenant security and IT who would also have to be in on it as it were.

this is a flawed arguement and also unrealistic. I have already illustrated WHO did the security for theWTC it was Bush's brother for crying out loud. Put two and two together for a moment. Also you have to remeber this was New York, prior to 911. New Yorkers have a habit of minding their own business. So in all likelyhood most of the janitorial staff and employees wouldnt have paid it a second thought. An authorized work crew goes in does its job and leaves. As long as they had clearence to be in the building doign thier work then why would anyone raise an eyebrow at what they were doing there?

original quote by: Pheonix
Vushta asked a simple question - Hows it done?

It is not a simple question...dont try to trivialize it and make it seem like there is a simple answer. If it were so black and white we wouldnt be debating it now would we?
You will have to forgive me, since I am NOT an expert; merely a concerned citizen.

Thank you for your time.

I turn up each morning with a couple of kilometres of CAT 5e (normally orange sheathed stuff) and proceed to run it up and down risers, around offices through suspended ceilings, and often stand on desks and filing cabinets in the process without anyone paying a blind bit of attention to me. I also spent quite a bit of time cable tying my work in place above ceilings, where nobody can see what I'm doing.

Would they pay a bit of attention to you if you were cutting the steel supports with an oxy/acet rig and then sticking something to the steel and then wrapping it all up and then running wires to the next support member and starting the process all over?

You seem to be saying that if you were watching the processes going on, that you couldn't tell the difference between running some wires and setting up a controlled demo. Is this correct?

I was merely pointing out a method of installing a network or "triggers", if you like. The type of explosive used is not something I could speculate on, or whether or not the steel supports would need to be cut. No matter what type of explosive - you would need to "trigger" it somehow - and the installation of this "network of triggers" could be carried out in plain site (excuse the pun) by a team of inconspicuous cable riggers.

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.

As for the staff of jantiorial, security and IT personnel - they were probably so split up, compartmentalised and employed by different tenants as to not communicate between themselves.

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.

You just made it way more labor intensive! There are a thousand or so more floor trusses that would have to be tinkered with.Multiply times at least 50 to the work load you thought you were working with.I love the complications built into these theories.Come on stick to thermite on some beams.Take the tin foil hat of for this to ,looks less suspicious.

Originally posted by TONE23


There were years and years to set this up... stop thinking that it had to be done overnight. There were plenty of times where an "Authorized" work crew or crews couldve had clearence and access to the buildings.

this is a flawed arguement and also unrealistic. I have already illustrated WHO did the security for theWTC it was Bush's brother for crying out loud. Put two and two together for a moment. Also you have to remeber this was New York, prior to 911. New Yorkers have a habit of minding their own business. So in all likelyhood most of the janitorial staff and employees wouldnt have paid it a second thought. An authorized work crew goes in does its job and leaves. As long as they had clearence to be in the building doign thier work then why would anyone raise an eyebrow at what they were doing there?

TONE23, did I forget to mention that I am a building engineer in the business with 24 years experience?

Nothing goes on at highrise commercial properties without the engineering staffs knowledge if someone tries it is un-done very quickly.

Pre or post 911 has nothing to do with it either, our standards are more legal/liability driven forcing even the smallest contractor to be vetted for legitimate workmans comp/liability and tax numbers.

Anyone doing the least slightest amount of work is to be approached and challenged if they are not checked through engineering, security and management.

Even when they pass all those checks their work is monitored by staff closely.

No one is given carte blanch (sp?) access.

There is no flaw whatsoever in this point because I make it happen everyday and know that it is SOP on any sizable property.

Have a nice day.

Originally posted by Duhh
Come on stick to thermite on some beams.Take the tin foil hat of for this to ,looks less suspicious.

Ok. Even if thermite was used, which works for me, the question still stands.

"How were the WTC buildings rigged with explosives?"

As has been said - this didn't have to be done in days, hours or minutes.

I'm sure this job could have been done under the eyes of the tenants over a period of months.

Starting tomorrow - I'll count how many times I'm asked for creds by anyone. Have a chat, get them to make you a cup of tea, and they pay you no thought.

original quote by: Pheonix
TONE23, did I forget to mention that I am a building engineer in the business with 24 years experience?

Lol... yes I think you left this bit of info out.

original quote by: Pheonix
Nothing goes on at highrise commercial properties without the engineering staffs knowledge if someone tries it is un-done very quickly.

I am sure you are right... the only response to this that I can muster is that maybe and I do mean maybe, a few key higher ups were in on it. But this, I'll readily admit is a strained hypotheosis..to say the least.

original quote by: Pheonix
Pre or post 911 has nothing to do with it either, our standards are more legal/liability driven forcing even the smallest contractor to be vetted for legitimate workmans comp/liability and tax numbers

Sure people in your field look at it from this angle.. But, I thought you were referring to the Employees in the building and also the Janitorial staff..(the security I believe to be suspect since it was handled by Bush's brother). That was more my focus of this point. The common person..not the engineers.
And you have to admit that there was a completely different mindset before 911 as opposed to after. And as Jon SE1 pointed out he laid cables in offices and the employees didnt pay him any attention at all. That was my point.

original quote by: Pheonix
Anyone doing the least slightest amount of work is to be approached and challenged if they are not checked through engineering, security and management. Even when they pass all those checks their work is monitored by staff closely.

No one is given carte blanch (sp?) access.

Sure this should be SOP but like I said If a couple higher ups left orders for the crews to not be disturbed then thats how they couldve been left unfettered in their task. And please take this with a grain of salt. Like I said this is a far reaching theory and in absolutely no way provable(at least not by me)

But IF SOP was followed then My arguement is flawed.. I am just raising some hypotheotical possibilities.

thank you for your time.

Originally posted by Jon_SE1


Ok. Even if thermite was used, which works for me, the question still stands.

"How were the WTC buildings rigged with explosives?"

As has been said - this didn't have to be done in days, hours or minutes.

I'm sure this job could have been done under the eyes of the tenants over a period of months.

You've gone and done it again.Take long period of time to rig the building,your chances of someone talking or noticing the install or installed widgets,goes up like exponential fire works.See these issues,with all these chances for the perps to blow it ,kill these theories on a common sense level.There were no explosives.

Also, a side note. One would not have to rig the entire building to have it come down in a specific way.. there need only be strategic placements of the explosives/thermite and a catalyst(planes)

Rigging the building in the proper strategic places is rigging the entire building as far as a CD goes.

If there were "renovations" being done in any of the buildings prior to 911(whether it be weeks or months or even years before 911) Then most people wouldnt think twice about it. And unless you were an explosives expert how would you notice exactly what they were installing into the buildings?

What are you basing that on? I don't know how much you pay attention to whats going on around you, but I certainly would noticed workmen tearing out walls and cutting steel in a building I was occupying.

IMO your scheme only works in a world that suspends reality. You can't just leave out huge facts just because your plan works better if you do.

So again attempting to stay on topic...how were the buildings rigged knowing that walls would have to be cut steel would have to be cut.support members have to be wrapped and fuse run thru the entire building, etc..etc.....all with no one noticing.

If you think about it, its very absurd.
You couldn't go to your local Walmart let alone the financial heart of the country dressed in a "I'm just a workman" suit and start hacking walls apart without the guy monitoring the security cameras choking on his donut and spilling his coffee wondering"What the hell is THAT guy doing" in about 2 mins. If the security guy didn't notice..one of the workers would notice..if one of the workers didn't notice, one of the customers would notice etc.

TONE23 - I'm glad there are people around like you, actually doing what you are meant do!!

Many buildings I work in are extremely lax. Nobody ever inspects my work and it's only because I'm proud of my work that I do a good job. However I often find fire-breaks punctured, riser doors left open and access to plant rooms all too easy.

It'd make my job more difficult - but I do wonder whether or not the vast majority of people really care more about security now, even after the "lessons" of 9/11 and 7/7.

J

Originally posted by Jon_SE1

Ok. Even if thermite was used, which works for me, the question still stands.

"How were the WTC buildings rigged with explosives?"

As has been said - this didn't have to be done in days, hours or minutes.

I'm sure this job could have been done under the eyes of the tenants over a period of months.

Starting tomorrow - I'll count how many times I'm asked for creds by anyone. Have a chat, get them to make you a cup of tea, and they pay you no thought.

OK - if its thermite/mate which BURNS then all the misquoted fire dept. and witness testimonials about hearing explosions are no longer material allowing us to concentrate on the placement and proper use of such a cutting device - agree?

It is not a simple question...dont try to trivialize it and make it seem like there is a simple answer. If it were so black and white we wouldnt be debating it now would we?

This statement is unbelievable in the way it attempts to turn reason upside down.

The CTs are trying to make it 'black and white' and 'that simple' by claiming all you need is a bogus security clearence and a nod from M.Bush.

I'm stating that it is anything BUT simple and black and white and that the complications one would encounter in accomplishing a task so complex makes it undoable without raising red flags all over the place..

how the demolishions were planted

this is the part of the conspiracy theory where the CT has to resort to a really complex explanation to get around all of the obstacles that would prevent this.

It would require lots of luck and coincidences to plant explosives without raising suspicion.

It would require lots of luck and coincidences to keep people quiet who realize something messed up is going on inside the WTC buildings.

It would require lots of luck and coincidences to plant them correctly to ensure that none of the demolitions are duds or that they detonate occording to plan.

This is the part of the conspiracy theory where occams razor slices the conspiracy theorists in the ass, who claim it is on their side. lol.

Conspiracy theoriest have to resort to all kinds of complex and wild explanations that would appeat to come from a james bond or mission impossible movie to explain this part of the conspiracy.

Good luck conspiracy theorists explaining this one. becuase where you explain this one, you have to wear 2 hats: the conspiracy theorist hat, AND the coincidence theorist hat.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

how did that work if there was a hole in the side of the building?

Did the hole effect the whole building or just one side of it?

How does damage to one side effect the side that wasn't damaged?

This is where you just seem to totaly miss the physics of the whole thing.

Damage on one side causes the whole building to fail, a hole on one side causes the fire proofing to fail in parts of the building that were un-damaged????

Yeah great logic Howward!

Originally posted by Jon_SE1

Ok. Even if thermite was used, which works for me, the question still stands.

"How were the WTC buildings rigged with explosives?"

As has been said - this didn't have to be done in days, hours or minutes.

I'm sure this job could have been done under the eyes of the tenants over a period of months.

Starting tomorrow - I'll count how many times I'm asked for creds by anyone. Have a chat, get them to make you a cup of tea, and they pay you no thought.

Thanks for the clarification to your other post about just running the 'triggers".

Tommorrow when you test how many times you're asked for credentials, start work by doing something totally unusual..start cutting out drywall for example...matter of fact, when you're done with the drywall, start to jackhammer the area where the wall meets the floor. Thats one of the areas that would have to be accessed in the towers in order to get to planting the charges to fail the floor clips to allow for the trusses to be blown out ahead of the collapse.

As long as you do your legitimate task and the steps to that task are familiar, there would be no need to ask questions if you have the work orders and have worked for a company that has been contracted before. I think there may be a lot of 'checking' that goes on besides asking the worker for credentials.

But there would be nothing at all familiar about what would need to be done in order to rig explosives. Curiosities would be raised.

[edit on 23-7-2006 by Vushta]

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.

Either the building was strong enough to necessitate pre-demo work that would be obviously noticeable ... or it wasn't. If it wasn't then a debris collision/ensuing fires could have weakened it enough to cause pancaking. Does anyone else think this makes sense?

Once again, I believe there IS a big conspiracy ... just not of the controlled-demo kind.

Originally posted by ANOK

Did the hole effect the whole building or just one side of it?

How does damage to one side effect the side that wasn't damaged?

This is where you just seem to totaly miss the physics of the whole thing.

Damage on one side causes the whole building to fail, a hole on one side causes the fire proofing to fail in parts of the building that were un-damaged????

Yeah great logic Howward!

I'm going to jump in here for this!

I believe the prior post was referencing the fire rating of floor slabs and fire block at the perimeter - if it no longer exists as a unit one has no more fire rating to block fire from traveling floor to floor.

As I have already stated My theory on how "security" couldve been bypassed is far reaching. So please refrain from saying I dont live in reality.

Also It was a detail that is not insignifigant.

Your original question Vushta is a great one... but it must be broken down into smaller sections.

How were explosives installed?
How was security circumvented? this question direcvtly relates to the first.

Do we have any members here that have CD experience?

I readily have admitted that the "IF's and "could be's" are far reaching; but in leu of the lack of Factual witnesses,physical evidence, and My limited research capabilities; I was merely offering possibilities. Please refrain from attacking my intellectual capacity. Like I said before; if this was an open and shut case, we wouldnt be debating it.

I will try later to do some more digging to see if there was any work beiong done on the WTC complex in the months/years leading up to 911. And who did any work if it was done.

Just remembered, what about when they were doing the Asbestos removal?

Also, we have two people here saying two diffrerent things both that work in the field. Jon SE1 who says noone ever pays any attention to him. And we have Pheonix; who says that every movement is monitored. We have two people and two different views on supervision..

original quote by: Vushta
The CTs are trying to make it 'black and white' and 'that simple' by claiming all you need is a bogus security clearence and a nod from M.Bush.

I am noit saying by any means that this was it only took a nod by Marvin Bush and some bogus security. Like thyat is easy to fake. I am saying that these are two factors in the bigger picture that must be determined to be true or false regarding how in the world anyone couldve implanted explosives. Let alone the actual proceedure.. which BTW you can probably find on a number of CD web sites. I think your question should be expanded to cover both the physical installation and the circumvention of security.

How (if explosives were used) did they get implanted without knowledge of the staff of the WTC?

Since we have to answer the circumvention of security in order to progress to the actual physical materials and work crews used to install the explosives/thermite.

original quote by: Vushta
IMO your scheme only works in a world that suspends reality. You can't just leave out huge facts just because your plan works better if you do.

present some facts?, you havnt done so so far...you have only given OPINIONS so far Vushta so dont tell me I am leaving out huge Facts when you havnt presented ANY either..lol. the difference is that I have already stated that what I have said is OPINION and hypotheticals.





[edit on 23-7-2006 by TONE23]