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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fiverz
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?


I just thought of a third option... the building was weak enough to allow pancake collapsing, but the collapse was helped by a relatively small number of key explosives

Explosives could have been hidden on one one floor only - and when they were triggered, that floor went and the rest of the building collapsed pancake style as per the official explanation

Just a thought... I'm still firmly on the fence with regards to the causes of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2




posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   
TONE23,

I will qualify my statement about activity within commercial buildings.

It is SOP to be on top of all work using full staff capability at class "A" or "Landmark" commercial real estate building.

I cannot vouch for smaller facilities with limited or no onsite staff which is the predominant case based on shear numbers. However these smaller properties are not attractive to terrorists looking for a major media event.

Maybe those are the ones where workers go unchallanged.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson

I just thought of a third option... the building was weak enough to allow pancake collapsing, but the collapse was helped by a relatively small number of key explosives

Explosives could have been hidden on one one floor only - and when they were triggered, that floor went and the rest of the building collapsed pancake style as per the official explanation

Just a thought... I'm still firmly on the fence with regards to the causes of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2



By itself in isolation its far more pluasible, however one then must know ahead of time exactly where the 500mph airplane is going to hit.

Be very suspicious if explosives went off in the wrong place.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix

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?



Yeah.

Where would thermite need to be placed on a truss and what percentage of trusses per floor? At the core end or external column end or both? Every floor, or just every other, every fifth?

Why use a jack hammer to access the truss bracket from above - access it from the ceiling of the floor below... Did WTC office space consist of paper tray ceilings?

I don't claim to have any answers - just plausible suggestions. The question "How were..... rigged with explosives?" is probably the most important question we need to ask. If it wasn't CD and it was the impact of the planes alone - Well, that might change a lot of peoples views.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson
I just thought of a third option... the building was weak enough to allow pancake collapsing, but the collapse was helped by a relatively small number of key explosives

Explosives could have been hidden on one one floor only - and when they were triggered, that floor went and the rest of the building collapsed pancake style as per the official explanation


That fits with my theory too, and I'm pretty much on the fence too, just feel that there was more explanation available to the USG than was fed to the people.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
By itself in isolation its far more pluasible, however one then must know ahead of time exactly where the 500mph airplane is going to hit.


True, and then you would have to get into the realm of remote controlled planes, which isn't the subject of this thread


Be very suspicious if explosives went off in the wrong place.


Not necessarily - the rigged floor could be above or below the point of impact. With the ensuing fire, any one of the affected floors could be the one to finally 'give out' and it wouldn't really matter as the whole tower is coming down.

Anyone still in the tower is not going to be a living eye-witness, and I'm sure explosives could be rigged so that they cannot be seen from outside the tower

[edit on 23/7/2006 by alienanderson]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jon_SE1

Yeah.

Where would thermite need to be placed on a truss and what percentage of trusses per floor? At the core end or external column end or both? Every floor, or just every other, every fifth?



Well I say we just eliminate the thermite issue once and for all right here and now since as you aptly put it we need pluasibility in the mechanics of placement as well as practicality of use, it has to small, it has to be quick to place and it needs foolproof operation.

Thermite does not fit the bill, there is a major flaw.

(Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here with a legitimate link)

Thermite to my knowledge does not burn through steel in an upwards path nor can it cut columns in any horizontal fashion. It only burns downwards through the material its in contact with.

I suppose one could set it on the floor above a truss connection but then that defeats the whole exercise.

So much for simplicity huh?

Guess we have to fall back on explosives and all the backflips associated with making them pluasible for the CT'ers.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   

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


Sorry for any misunderstanding. I didn't mean to imply that YOU don't live in reality.

The implication was that the CD theory doesn't exist in accordance with reality. I know that your life is very much more than this demolition theory.



Please refrain from attacking my intellectual capacity.


Again sorry. It was not intended.
When I respond to points I really am responding to the points. If any personal flavor gets mixed in its either by misunderstanding or a bit of a jab back at something that was directed at me personally.
You have never done this.



I think your question should be expanded to cover both the physical installation and the circumvention of security.


This is probably a good idea, but with the ease of splitting off the topic I thought it would be more fruitful to stick to one point...I think a very important point.



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.


The thread wasn't about presenting facts to counter the CD theory, it was a request for CD advocates to present their side with a more inclusive picture as to how their idea might work in the real world.

The facts of whats needed for a CD are well known and far from opinion.

The site Implosionworld has a small forum dedicated to question about CD and when someone asked if the TWC collapse could have been the result of a controlled demo, the people who work in the field uniformly stated that the idea was rediculous for many of the same reasons of needed prep work being impossible to hide. 'Chowderheads" think the administrator of the site called them. When the CTs pressed for explaination of why with questions about details, they just blew them off....not gonna bother.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
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.


There was more fire proofing than just floor slabs...There was fire proofing to stop the flow of fire and smoke from room to room also.


Exterior wall columns (columns engaged in masonry walls) shall be fireproofed on the exterior side with 2-inch solid gypsum, 3-inch hollow gypsum, 2-inch concrete or spray-on fireproofing. Interior columns shall be fireproofed with materials and have rating conforming with Section C26-313.3 (27-269 current section).

killtown.911review.org...

But still there is no proof, even from NIST, that the fires were as big as claimed.
Photographic eveidence contradicts that also...


Compared to...


The 20 floor hole is also questionable...


a photograph taken across from the World Financial Center (WFC), shows the west elevation and indicates damage at the southwest corner of WTC 7 at the 24th, 25th, and 39th through 46th floors.

According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor façade occurred at the southwest corner. According to firefighters' eyewitness accounts from outside of the building, approximately floors 8-18 were damaged to some degree. Other eyewitness accounts relate that there was additional damage to the south elevation.


[edit on 23/7/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
ill tell you how it happened, it didnt happen! because bush would be a complete dumb *&^% to be the leader of this CD. because if tha amrican ppl find out as a whole he did do it... bush will be running for his life.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   

original quote by: Vushta
Sorry for any misunderstanding. I didn't mean to imply that YOU don't live in reality.

The implication was that the CD theory doesn't exist in accordance with reality. I know that your life is very much more than this demolition theory.


No worries, I was just trying to emphasize my point that what I said was strictly conjecture.

Sure there are still lots of gaps that the CD theory... But by the same token.. there are still alot of gaps in the Official version too.


original quote by: Vushta
This is probably a good idea, but with the ease of splitting off the topic I thought it would be more fruitful to stick to one point...I think a very important point.


I agree if you get too many points going then it is easy to loose focus. But in this case. The circumvention of security, I think is paramount to how the actual implimentation could be achieved.


original quote by: Vushta
The thread wasn't about presenting facts to counter the CD theory, it was a request for CD advocates to present their side with a more inclusive picture as to how their idea might work in the real world.


Fair enough, I withdraw my former statement.. And you are right the ball is in the CD theorists court.

The whole CD theory is rather difficult to explain. And I am certainly not qualified to answer all the questions, for sure. Also, I am not necc. a proponent of the CD theory; nor am I against the possibility. I guess, I am as hungry for the answers as you are. One way or the other.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

There was more fire proofing than just floor slabs...There was fire proofing to stop the flow of fire and smoke from room to room also.

But still there is no proof, even from NIST, that the fires were as big as claimed.
Photographic eveidence contradicts that also...

a photograph taken across from the World Financial Center (WFC), shows the west elevation and indicates damage at the southwest corner of WTC 7 at the 24th, 25th, and 39th through 46th floors.



Why don't CT's use the photo of the south corner damage? How come CT's never post the photo of the south face edge on with smoke streaming from the entire tower?

My guess is those photos are counter to your world view - so they remain ignored and most often are claimed not to exist - which is really hilarious to me.




[edit on 23-7-2006 by Phoenix]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
Why don't CT's use the photo of the south corner damage? How come CT's never post the photo of the south face edge on with smoke streaming from the entire tower?

My guess is those photos are counter to your world view - so they remain ignored and most often are claimed not to exist - which is really hilarious to me.


Hey man post the pic! I'm not ignoring anything. You guessed wrong. Do you think I want the official story to be a lie? I wish it wasn't my friend, I really do, then we could get on with our lives confortable in the fact, rather than the illusion, that our government is here to protect us.

The pic with all the white smoke, could arguably be dust from the towers collapsing.
You can't see any fire, just white smoke/dust. But pls post it so we can all take another look, for the millionth time.

And I'd still love to see a pic showing raging fires and this 20 story hole, post them if you can.

Funny you should say 'counter to my world view'. So you assume your world view is more valid than mine? At least my world view isn't being dictated to me by the very people involved in the conspiricy, you think they're not going to hide the truth?



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
It is quite telling you used a pic of WTC 7 with rageing fires.The only fires you could see were the ones through broken windows.That must mean those were the only fires burning,at least in some ones small mind.Forget all the firemen who say there were large blazes throughout the building.Why believe them?I does not fit your "beliefs".Nothing more ,nothing less.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Isn't it a strange coincidence that WTC 1, 2 & 7 all happened to be the ones that caught fire on 9/11/01 and it was the same buildings that the government or whoever had previously chosen to plant explosives or thermite charges in?

WTC 1 & 2 I can understand... planes abviously crashed into therm saucing fires... but how in the heck did "they" know in advance that burning debris would fall on WTC 7 and start a fire there that would be the cover story for their explosives or thermite charges bringing the building down?

[edit on 23-7-2006 by craig732]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
Isn't it a strange coincidence that WTC 1, 2 & 7 all happened to be the ones that caught fire on 9/11/01 and it was the same buildings that the government or whoever had previously chosen to plant explosives or thermite charges in?

WTC 1 & 2 I can understand... planes abviously crashed into therm saucing fires... but how in the heck did "they" know in advance that burning debris would fall on WTC 7 and start a fire there that would be the cover story for their explosives or thermite charges bringing the building down?

[edit on 23-7-2006 by craig732]


you hit the nail right on the head there. THis is an example where being a conspiracy theorist will also require you to be a coincidence theorist. Occams razor is slicing them in the ass as I type this.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Huh? You do realize that both WTC 5 and 6 were on fire also? And both had more significant damage than 7?

I think it's more odd that the only buildings collapsed were the ones owned by silverstein.

WTC 6


WTC 5


pic source chapelhill.indymedia.org...

Both more damaged than 7...

[edit on 23/7/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Huh? You do realize that both WTC 5 and 6 were on fire also? And both had more significant damage than 7?


Yes I realize that.

My question was: How did they know in advance that WTC 7 would catch on fire from burning debris falling on it? Was it a lucky guess?



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Huh? You do realize that both WTC 5 and 6 were on fire also? And both had more significant damage than 7?

I think it's more odd that the only buildings collapsed were the ones owned by silverstein.

WTC 6


WTC 5


pic source chapelhill.indymedia.org...

Both more damaged than 7...

[edit on 23/7/2006 by ANOK]


So? Are you saying that the buildings you posted didn't get the insurence money because they didn't collapse?

What if the debris for the tower didn't strike #7 and cause a fire. Would they have 'imploded' it anyway for the money?

Daaaang!..I'm diverting the thread.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Wrong again! He had a lease on the WTC period! Lease not owned,yes 99 year lease.That included all the buildings, that were destroyed.Notice none of those WTC buildings survived!In the WTC.Why do you keep getting this wrong!Why destroy the buildings with explosives,or anything for that matter,if you are going to spend double that to rebuild.Not to mention all the loss of revenue over the years of reconstruction?Makes no sense.Typical for CT!

[edit on 23-7-2006 by Duhh]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join