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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   


Why use a jack hammer to access the truss bracket from above - access it from the ceiling of the floor below...


Either way, its sure to be noticed don't you think?




posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 05:54 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


I would think that cuts and pre-demo work would need to be done on EVERY floor ... from the demo engineer I talked to and that Discovery program I watched, it seems like in order to get a good pancake you need to have every floor weakened significantly. I have yet to see a controled demo where they only put charges on one floor. If that was the case you are taking a very big chance that it doesn't collapse and/or it's noticeable. And craig732 brings up the best point yet in this thread ... how were the black ops CERTAIN that there would be "collateral" damage to WTC 7 that necessitated the demo in the first place?

[edit on 23-7-2006 by Fiverz]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
ANOK, heres your image for the millionth and one times.

It is plain as day that the fires are in #7 generating all this smoke.




I suppose you are to claim smoke from #1 entered the lower floors and is being rejected from #7's windows some 20 stories up or some other outlandish claim I could'nt even begin to fathom.


The #7 damage was far more extensive than CT's like to admit and as such represents a very poor subject for demolition theory even if the subject of demo charge placement could be explained in a serious manner not requiring duck and jive explainations.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Damn,good job there ,you rebirth of life ,you! Anut will never "believe"there were no explosives.There were explosions!Semantics is the axiom here,yet again!I do like the "there was no damage to WTC 7"that seems to flow so "simply"here!The shot you show is great Glad to see it here!There were no explosives put in these buildings,for 911 to happen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
As a practicle matter can any CT'ers work up the required amount of explosives or thermite required to bring down WTC 1 or 2 in a controlled demolition as you say happened?

This answer to this has much to do with Vusta's original question.

I think the amount required is quite large making the theory bankrupt.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Blatant....it doesnt.

Anok, you dont wire a building with explosives and then let it set for MONTHS. For crying out loud, the building inspectors had been through the towers not that long before 9/11. They would have noticed. Oh yeah.....more conspirators right?


Link please. I'd like to know who, when, where at what. Not saying you have to provide me with this but a start would be nice. I've been trying to find information about inspections, permits, etc. Please provide more info.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Sorry if this is not the right place for this, or if it is off topic, but this website does a good job of explaining the possible reason for the collapse in layman's terms:

www.civil.usyd.edu.au...



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Have you ever wondered why there was so much smoke apparently coming out of WTC7, while you can't see a single flame in the exact same photograph?

Why, whenever actual photographic evidence of the fires is posted, do you guys claim there was still loads more in the building, despite there being absolutely no photos to back you up?

Did you know that the smaller WTC buildings, all behind WTC7, were also engulfed in flames and were producing loads of smoke?

Putting all of the above together, what do you think is the most logical conclusion regarding the smoke surrounding WTC7?

The smoke was coming from the burning buildings of the WTC BEHIND Building 7!





Here's a visualization of the complex:



Notice how all of the images of the smoke allegedly coming from WTC7, are shot from an angle that places all of the other burning buildings behind WTC7.

Notice that no smoke is coming from the front of WTC7. I guess it was just all on that one side and the back of the building?



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Here's one conpiracy "theorists" ideas:


One needs to find out the right size and the dimensions of suitable cutting charges and then order 24 000 pieces. One must as well order fitting detonators (detonators were needed a lot more). Fitting detonators usually already exist in stores of military forces (or the CIA). Time of delivery is several months in any case. All detonators must be equipped with some kind of safety mechanism, which will be removed by a radio signal at the final moment.


Actually, to do a CD of both buildings, one would need over TWICE that number FOR EACH BUILDING.

Why would you need more detonators than cutter charges?

Detonators: "squibs" .... blasting caps, would have to be at least a Number 6, depending on the "cutter charge" used, but actually can be had from any outlet that sells dynamite or other controlled-use high explosive. The writer merely mentions "military and CIA" to make it sound like more of a "conspiracy".

Givencomplete access to each building at the correct locations (which they could not have), it would take many months to even get close to placing those charges...... roughly 20 people MIGHT be able to place 300 per day.

Thermite/Thermate are not "cutting" charges, but are actually used to weld iron-based metals together.

20 guys, doing 300 per day (not likely), equals around 13 months of work (7 days per week). Bush was in office only 9 months on 9-11.

As to the botton photo of the picture just above, it depends on when the photo was taken.

As to the "explosives/bombs" theory, the seismology record would show up as a separate event from the collapses, which they do not.

It a damn shame that so many people want so desparately for the conspiracy to be true.



I know 9/11 was an inside job from extensive research on the subject


REPLY: And yet engineers and other experts can prove you wong on every point you might make. So sad!

[edit on 23-7-2006 by zappafan1]

[edit on 23-7-2006 by zappafan1]

[edit on 23-7-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Does anyone have an rough ballpark estimate of how many floors you would need to rig with explosives or whatever for the CD theory to work? If you can't even give a really rough estimate like, 1 floor rigged per 10 above it, what makes you think you take for certain something you can't even estimate? Then you have to multiply that estimate by the three buildings you are claiming were CDed.

I'm not asking how much explosive per floor and where, just how many floors?

It seems like some CD theorists point to things that imply every 2 or 3 floors were rigged. The possibility of that many floors being rigged and not detected by all the workers and visitors of the WTC has got to be way up there. I seem to remember that a week or so prior to 9/11 bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the buildings after a temporary tour of duty. That would seem to imply that all the explosives were planted in at least WTC 1 & 2 in less than a week, with no noticeable modifications to the buildings and with no one noticing the planting of the charges.

[edit on 23-7-2006 by pavil]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Putting all of the above together, what do you think is the most logical conclusion regarding the smoke surrounding WTC7?

Notice that no smoke is coming from the front of WTC7. I guess it was just all on that one side and the back of the building?


Um.........the wind was blowing almost due south.

In your first photo one can see the smoke from #7 tight on the right rear corner which is not from any other buildings.

I guess since you guys persist in this misinformation campaign about #7 I'll just have to post some more southside photos.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Pavel: At the very least, every other floor, on each core column, and every other perimeter column. Access to which was not possible. Consider the logistics and literally MILES of wire that would have to strung from each location to a central tie-in point. Even using multiple tie-in points (one per floor or every other floor) the idea is whacked.

If I had prints of the buildings structure I could be more specific.

[edit on 23-7-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   
What a weak photo Phoenix...this is supposed to prove your case? Have anything better than that, because it sure looks like weak evidence. That photo shows nothing conclusive that the smoke is coming from the building - in fact, it looks to me that it isn't. Where is the fire causing all that smoke?

How about this? It seems like the NIST was "especially concerned" about any photos out there which further cast doubt on it being pulled.



NIST is still seeking photographic and video images that could help to better document the initial damage and subsequent fire growth in the WTC towers and WTC 7. The investigation team is especially interested in WTC 7 and views of the south and west faces of the WTC towers.


Here

So concerned about photo evidence, then refused to discuss it in the official report?



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
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?


Maybe I wasn't clear enough, my silverstein comment was referring to other buildings that were not part of the WTC complex, not buildings 5 and 6.

Your second question can't be answered and is irrelevant. Did building 7 have to be demoed? Who knows and no one is saying that. But they would have possibly demoed it even if wasn't hit by debris and had fires, cause as it stands the amount of fire and damage is extremely exaggerated as it is, they would have just lies some more imo. Maybe 7 was suposed to be hit by flight 93? Maybe the fires were set intentionally. Maybe for sivlerstein to agree to the plan he required all 3 buildings to be demoed. Who knows I'm just making guesses?

Point is it did collapse and we've all seen the video of it, and the only other buildings that have EVER fell like that have been done with explosives. But I guess 7 and 1&2 somehow due to their construction managed to defy physics that day.

Explain to me how building 5 and 6, which as you can see in the pic have far more damage than 7, stayed standing and 7 did the total opposite. 5 and 6 did exactly what you would normally expect, they had partial damage but the unaffected parts remained standing, just like all other buildings in history that have been damaged extensively.

And the pic of 7 with the smoke, yeah where are the flames? Where is the extensive damage you talk about? I agree with bsbray on that the smoke is not all comming from building 7.

But regardless to me the physics of the collapse is what is wrong, no matter how much fire there was. Fire alone will not cause a 47 story building to collapse symetricaly into its own footprint.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

It seems like some CD theorists point to things that imply every 2 or 3 floors were rigged. The possibility of that many floors being rigged and not detected by all the workers and visitors of the WTC has got to be way up there. I seem to remember that a week or so prior to 9/11 bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the buildings after a temporary tour of duty.

[edit on 23-7-2006 by pavil]


The bomb sniffing dogs were never removed from duty. Since the 93 bombing they were on regular duty. Their duty was raised for a time because of heighten threats and then brought back to normal schedule.

www.911myths.com...



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   
By the time #7 went down there was an incredible amout of chaos and the shock of the magnitude of destruction must have been stunning. That there are few photos available is really no suprise.






How about this? It seems like the NIST was "especially concerned" about any photos out there which further cast doubt on it being pulled.


What do you mean?



So concerned about photo evidence, then refused to discuss it in the official report?


Has the final report on #7 been released yet?
They're asking for any available evidence and photos to help in the investigation and you find that suspecious? Isn't that what they should do?



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by astonished
What a weak photo Phoenix...this is supposed to prove your case? Have anything better than that, because it sure looks like weak evidence. That photo shows nothing conclusive that the smoke is coming from the building - in fact, it looks to me that it isn't. Where is the fire causing all that smoke?



Not a personal attack - just an observation..........

What is astonishingly weak is your eyesight


I have no trouble dicerning smoke directly coming from the windows at the corner adjacent to the south side.

Smokey the bear said, and I quote.........."Where theres smoke, theres fire"



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   
This is from an earlier article that was posted:



WTC Security: The suggestion that explosives might have been used raises the question of how anyone wanting to place explosives in the towers could have gotten through the security checks. This question brings us to a possibly relevant fact about a company—now called Stratesec but then called Securacom—that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center. From 1993 to 2000, during which Securacom installed a new security system, Marvin Bush, the president’s brother, was one of the company’s directors. And from 1999 until January of 2002, their cousin Wirt Walker III was the CEO (Burns, 2003).[57] One would think these facts should have made the evening news—or at least The 9/11 Commission Report.

These facts, in any case, may be relevant to some reports given by people who had worked in the World Trade Center. Some of them reportedly said that although in the weeks before 9/11 there had been a security alert that mandated the use of bomb-sniffing dogs, that alert was lifted five days before 9/11 (Taylor and Gardiner, 2001).

Also, a man named Scott Forbes, who worked for Fiduciary Trust—the company for which Kristen Breitweiser’s husband worked—has written:

On the weekend of [September 8-9, 2001], there was a “power down” condition in . . . the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from floor 50 up. . . . The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded . . . . Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors [while] many, many “engineers” [were] coming in and out of the tower.[58]

Also, a man named Ben Fountain, who was a financial analyst with Fireman’s Fund in the south tower, was quoted in People Magazine as saying that during the weeks before 9/11, the towers were evacuated “a number of times” (People Magazine, 2001).

Foreknowledge of the Collapse: One more possibly relevant fact is that then Mayor Rudy Giuliani, talking on ABC News about his temporary emergency command center at 75 Barkley Street, said:

We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse, and it did collapse before we could get out of the building.[59]

This is an amazing statement. Prior to 9/11, fire had never brought down a steel-frame high-rise. The firemen who reached the 78th floor of the south tower certainly did not believe it was going to collapse. Even the 9/11 Commission reported that to its knowledge, “none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible” (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, p. 302). So why would anyone have told Giuliani that at least one of the towers was about to collapse?

The most reasonable answer, especially in light of the new evidence, is that someone knew that explosives had been set in the south tower and were about to be discharged. It is even possible that the explosives were going to be discharged earlier than originally planned because the fires in the south tower were dying down more quickly than expected, because so much of the plane’s jet fuel had burned up in the fireball outside the building.[60] This could explain why although the south tower was struck second, suffered less structural damage, and had smaller fires, it collapsed first—after only 56 minutes. That is, if the official story was going to be that the fire caused the collapse, the building had to be brought down before the fire went completely out.[61]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   
BUMP

No one up for this yet? - its key to the theory!

Or its an inconvenient fact to CT's




Originally posted by Phoenix
As a practicle matter can any CT'ers work up the required amount of explosives or thermite required to bring down WTC 1 or 2 in a controlled demolition as you say happened?

This answer to this has much to do with Vusta's original question.

I think the amount required is quite large making the theory bankrupt.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by astonished

Originally posted by Phoenix



Not a personal attack - just an observation..........

What is astonishingly weak is your eyesight


I have no trouble dicerning smoke directly coming from the windows at the corner adjacent to the south side.

Smokey the bear said, and I quote.........."Where theres smoke, theres fire"




And so if there is smoke coming from that building at that corner - does that building look on the verge of collapse to you? Look beyond repair? Look beyond fire fighting? Got any other "convincing" pics? Why wasn't WTC7 addressed in the final report? A convenient omission? After I just posted that they were actively seeking additional pictures of WTC 7 - wonder why that was...

Another steel building falls to collapse by fire....only to the disinfo agents, the uninformed, and dullards. Which are you?




[edit on 23-7-2006 by astonished]


[edit on 23-7-2006 by astonished]




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join