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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   


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?


Appearently most questions can't be answered.

How is it irrelevant? If the building was rigged it had to be shot...but why?? Wouldn't taking down the towers be enough to piss off the public to go to war or whatever you think the reason was? Just jeopardize the whole project by adding an unnecessary level to the conspiracy by rigging an extra building?...Why?
Thats a lot of 'maybe's'



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.


What other building had the building structure of #7 and the towers?



But I guess 7 and 1&2 somehow due to their construction managed to defy physics that day.


No. Because of their construction, they fell exactly as physics dictates.



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,


5 &6 had completly different structural designs.
No comparison and no mystery there.




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.


It wasn't fire alone. There was a 20 story hole which took out one whole corner. How many times does this have to be pointed out?


But this is off topic.




posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Hey Phoenix, a quick scan of your posts reveal you are pro-Iraq, pro-Bush, and pro-official 9-11 story. This must be a miserable place for you.


I also checked for a bit on Howard Roark - funny how he used to post in the Chemtrail Central Forum (as Wolf_Larson) until he apparently vanished in 2003. I think he was just re-assigned.

Here is Howard showing disdain for anyone "dumb" enough to believe there is anything sinister behind the
Denver International Airport

Same 'ol Howard - spending hours upon hours of his daily life trying to convince others ON CONSPIRACY BOARDS that there are no conspiracies at all. Wonder how he's enjoying the new assignment to ATS?



[edit on 23-7-2006 by astonished]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   
The picture Pheonix posted clearly shows smoke coming from many of the corner windows, practically all the way to the top. The picture shown, if from a greater distance, might show the hole.. .. so no conclusion can be drawn in that respect; at least not from that picture. However, see below......

Need more photos of the WTC-7 smoke? Check the bottom of the following link.

link


[edit: fixed link]

[edit on 7/23/2006 by 12m8keall2c]




[edit on 24-7-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

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!


Look, YOU were the one claiming that the buidling couldn't burn because the floors were separated by fireproofing. If there were holes in the building envelope, then that theory goes out the window.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by astonished
Hey Phoenix, a quick scan of your posts reveal you are pro-Iraq, pro-Bush, and pro-official 9-11 story. This must be a miserable place for you.


I also checked for a bit on Howard Roark - funny how he used to post in the Chemtrail Central Forum (as Wolf_Larson) until he apparently vanished in 2003. I think he was just re-assigned.

Here is Howard showing disdain for anyone "dumb" enough to believe there is anything sinister behind the
Denver International Airport

Same 'ol Howard - spending hours upon hours of his daily life trying to convince others ON CONSPIRACY BOARDS that there are no conspiracies at all. Wonder how he's enjoying the new assignment to ATS?



[edit on 23-7-2006 by astonished]



wow, talk about wasting time.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 12:12 AM
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]


HAHA, but how many stories were WTC 5,6 ? what 9 and 7 stories respectively?



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by astonished
Hey Phoenix, a quick scan of your posts reveal you are pro-Iraq, pro-Bush, and pro-official 9-11 story. This must be a miserable place for you.


I also checked for a bit on Howard Roark - funny how he used to post in the Chemtrail Central Forum (as Wolf_Larson) until he apparently vanished in 2003. I think he was just re-assigned.

Here is Howard showing disdain for anyone "dumb" enough to believe there is anything sinister behind the
Denver International Airport

Same 'ol Howard - spending hours upon hours of his daily life trying to convince others ON CONSPIRACY BOARDS that there are no conspiracies at all. Wonder how he's enjoying the new assignment to ATS?



[edit on 23-7-2006 by astonished]



wow, talk about wasting time.


Not to me - took me probably 25-30 minutes, and it was fun, so no complaints.

So how's the pay? Not too good I bet.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   

by astonished:

Not to me - took me probably 25-30 minutes, and it was fun, so no complaints.

So how's the pay? Not too good I bet.


REPLY: Back on topic please?

The Denver Int'l Airport? Swastika??? Do the people who come up with this crap-ola have jobs? Michealangelo himself would have to really stretch to see that in the overhead view on the "commiemedia"link.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   
edit... double post.

[edit on 24-7-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by ANOK

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!


Look, YOU were the one claiming that the buidling couldn't burn because the floors were separated by fireproofing. If there were holes in the building envelope, then that theory goes out the window.


In other words, you have no answer to his questions.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   

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?


No.. I don't agree... Major box collumns were supporting MASSIVE amounts of weight. Do you have any idea how much gravitational energy was stored in WTC 1 and 2? I don't have the figure off the top of my head but it's astounding. Any catastrophic, complete failure of a box collumn from cutting whether from thermite/mate or an 'explosive' would have been EXPLOSIVE either way. (Especially if the failure occured at the base of each respective tower.)

Geez, another interesting thread... Gots some reading to do but you can rest assured I lean towards it being very simple indeed to have 'rigged' the towers with controlled demo gear.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by astonished
Hey Phoenix, a quick scan of your posts reveal you are pro-Iraq, pro-Bush, and pro-official 9-11 story. This must be a miserable place for you.


I also checked for a bit on Howard Roark - funny how he used to post in the Chemtrail Central Forum (as Wolf_Larson) until he apparently vanished in 2003. I think he was just re-assigned.

Here is Howard showing disdain for anyone "dumb" enough to believe there is anything sinister behind the
Denver International Airport

Same 'ol Howard - spending hours upon hours of his daily life trying to convince others ON CONSPIRACY BOARDS that there are no conspiracies at all. Wonder how he's enjoying the new assignment to ATS?



[edit on 23-7-2006 by astonished]


Hey astonished, a quick scan of your posts reveal you are anti-Iraq, anti-Bush, and anti-official 9-11 story. This must be a wonderful place for you.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 01:30 AM
link   
And by the way.. Myself as well as alot of other people are getting really weary about this 'claim' of a 20 story hole in the side of building 7. I think one firefighter or chief said that "it HAD TO HAVE BEEN 20 stories"... I have never seen this 'hole' in pictures and aside from this one 'testimony' that's about it. Did I mention that there are tons of pictures out there and not ONE show this big hole that's being beaten to death?

I call BS. Give it a rest people.


Why did building 7 have to be demoed? Easy.. it was the command center for the demolitions. Interestingly, it had a perfect, unobstructed view of WTC 1 and 2. If you have any other questions as to why building 7 was demoed why don't you bone up on what building 7 housed..Look it up, you might be surprised.

www.wtc7.net...


I'm sure you can put two and two together.. I hope.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
..............
And Vushta, no I don't believe knowing how it was done is that relevant. You have to admit it could have been done right?
It's not an impossiblity...


Yes it is an imposibility.... the two towers resisted the crash of the planes, even though it weakened the structures, the fires weakened the structures even more, allowing for the buckling effect, which was not perfect btw as some people would like everyone to believe, the collapse of the towers themselves made very strong preasure waves which facilitated the weakening of the second tower and wtc 7, plus all the debris that hit wtc 7 and the fuel/burning material which was blown into wtc 7 made the buildings collapse... Even looking at the videos you see that towers 1 and 2 start collapsing right where the planes hit them.


Originally posted by ANOK
Again as far as I'm concerned the physics is more important than all the why's and how's. This is just a distraction imo. You know we can only guess, the only ppl who know how it was done was those that did it.


i am always amazed how some people talk about "the physics prove it was a demo job" yet when inconsistencies in their arguments are shown, these same people continue as if there was never any inconsistency... the distraction comes from those who claim that dismissing the facts is a distraction...



Originally posted by ANOK
You do believe there are pyramids in Egypt right? Do you know how they got there?
See my point?


.......That has nothing to do with this topic....and proves nothing at all...



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 02:19 AM
link   
There is also the fact that not once before or since has any steel structures fell from fire and while one could argue that two of those buildings were hit by planes that's not the case with WTC 7. While I like everyone else have a hard time believing the gov or anyone other than terrorists would do this, I have to wonder why these buildings fell like they were demoed, why even demolition experts say that it looked like a demo job.

I have to wonder why molten steel was found a month after the attack in the bedrock the towers stood on. And then there are the seismograph reports showing that there were spikes of energy just before the towers came down. I have to wonder why anyone knowing all of this would not question the official story.



www.rense.com...
American Free Press has learned of pools of "molten steel" found at the base of the collapsed twin towers weeks after the collapse. Although the energy source for these incredibly hot areas has yet to be explained, New York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused unexplained seismic "spikes" at the beginning of each collapse.

These spikes suggest that massive underground explosions may have literally knocked the towers off their foundations, causing them to collapse.

In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of "literally molten steel" were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed.


Then there is this, here is one more report of people having to leave their offices for so called evacuations, one floor was entirely closed, there was also reports of maintenance work going on, it's possible that the explosives were being placed during these times when people were evacuated, sections closed off due to maintenance work, one floor no one was allowed on.




killtown.911review.org...
Ben Fountain, 42, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund, was coming out of the Chambers Street Station, headed for his office on the 47th floor of the south tower.
How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on." - People (09/12/01) [Reprinted with: WayBack Machine]




killtown.911review.org...

9/11 (8:46 am) - WTC janitor William Rodriguez was working in the basement area of the North Tower when he hears a large explosion from the floors below him seconds before the first plane crashes into the top of the building, rescues a fellow worker who is severely burnt from the blast below, and also hears various explosions from the 20th trough the 30th floors included the 34th floor which was completely empty due to a "construction project".

Strangely, while William was on the 33rd floor he heard lots of very loud noise as if someone was moving heavy equipment and furniture around on the 34th floor. The reason this is interesting is that the 34th floor was completely empty. Elevators did not stop at the 34th floor. It was off limits due to a construction project. He said that this was the first time that he felt fear.






www.rense.com...

The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

However, the Palisades seismic record shows that-as the collapses began-a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the Earth.

These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Still no takers on this question

Come-on CT'ers this should be an easy one since you guys have it all worked out!




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, 24 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by TxSecret
And by the way.. Myself as well as alot of other people are getting really weary about this 'claim' of a 20 story hole in the side of building 7. I think one firefighter or chief said that "it HAD TO HAVE BEEN 20 stories"... I have never seen this 'hole' in pictures and aside from this one 'testimony' that's about it. Did I mention that there are tons of pictures out there and not ONE show this big hole that's being beaten to death?

I call BS. Give it a rest people.


Why did building 7 have to be demoed? Easy.. it was the command center for the demolitions. Interestingly, it had a perfect, unobstructed view of WTC 1 and 2. If you have any other questions as to why building 7 was demoed why don't you bone up on what building 7 housed..Look it up, you might be surprised.


One firefighter?

Heres a link to half a dozen. The firefighters on site at the time consistantly report the the collapse of #7 was inevitable because of the damage. This link also has a pic of #7 that I've never seen before and clealy shows the smoke to be originating for the building.
www.911myths.com...

Demoed because it was a command center? I thought it was a 'push button' job?
How does that work now?...Kill your own people to keep them from talking?..the real 'inside people' who are running the 'command center'?...THEY gotta go, but the thousands of other people in the cover up you can just trust to keep their mouth shut?

I call B.S. People give it a rest.

[edit on 24-7-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
WTC 7 was a mess, widespread fires on multiple floors, not to mention the 20 story chunk that was taken out of it by the collapse of the tower.


Please locate photos of this missing chunk and widespread fires.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

No. Because of their construction, they fell exactly as physics dictates.




Wrong. Entropy.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by astonished

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by ANOK

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!


Look, YOU were the one claiming that the buidling couldn't burn because the floors were separated by fireproofing. If there were holes in the building envelope, then that theory goes out the window.


In other words, you have no answer to his questions.


His questions are an attempt to divert the fact that I caught him out on the fireproofing issue.

Typical CT behavior, when faced with a logical trap they can't get out of, they throw out a dozen "questions" to divert attention.

How was the floor to floor fireproofing of WTC 7 relevent if there was a hole in the side of the building?

ANSWER ME!!!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join