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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Sneakiness is believable.
Sneakiness is not an explanation of the steps and mechanics involved in rigging a building for demo....which is what the thread is about.


- Get access cards from Securacom.
- Walk in with carts posing as repairmen/maintenance (elevator, telcom, HVAC, janitorial).
- Open janitorial closets, elevator shafts, wiring closets, service doors, access panels, ceiling tiles, HVAC access...
- Place camoflagued (re: coated with fireproofing materital, drywall, plaster, make it llok like phone/network equipment, make it look like plumbing, make it look like conduit, Ductwork...) remote detonated charges.
- Repeat
- Leave
- Wait

Sounds reasonable considering they could have full, unfettered access, time and money.

OR TO SUM IT ALL UP...

THEY WERE SNEAKY!


[edit on 24-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]




posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Sneakiness is not believable?

Occam's Razor.


Occams Razor is not what you are using here.



Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (law of succinctness):

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,
which translates to:

entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

Furthermore, when multiple competing theories have equal predictive powers, the principle recommends selecting those that introduce the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.


Occams razor ceases to be applied here the moment any extended explanation is needed to understand how this event occurred (i.e.: cabals, people sneeking into buildings months beforehand to plant det. charges, miles of wire and many pounds of explosives, unheard of conspiratorial collaboration to pull this off, the immense amount of secrecy to pull it off, etc.).

Lets render it down a bit:

Using Occams Razor the way it is supposed to be used, which is more probable:

1. Two jetliners, piloted by people who hate America, flew those jets into the WTC Towers, creating a firestorm that over time weakened the integrity of the metal holding the structures up, thus causing them to collapse (yes, even in their own footprints) or

2. Two jetliners, remotely piloted by internal enemies of the US, involved in a conspiracy with the respective airlines, were flown into the buildings at the command of the sitting president (or some cabal withion the fed. gov.) after months prior were set with mile of wiring, unknown amount of explosive and det. charges with no one noticing.

There is soooo much complexity added to #2 to explain how this was how the event occured that it makes it improbable that this theory is correct. Occams razor requires LESS complexity to proof any given theory....not more...



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lost_Mind
Occams Razor is not what you are using here.


It was sarcasm man. The official line towers always throw it at me. It was a joke.

Besides, we are not talking about the whole plot, just "how were the explosives planted" and the SIMPLEST WAY IS SNEAKINESS.

[edit on 24-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta
Sneakiness is believable.
Sneakiness is not an explanation of the steps and mechanics involved in rigging a building for demo....which is what the thread is about.


- Get access cards from Securacom.
- Walk in with carts posing as repairmen/maintenance (elevator, telcom, HVAC, janitorial).
- Open janitorial closets, elevator shafts, wiring closets, service doors, access panels, ceiling tiles, HVAC access...
- Place camoflagued (re: coated with fireproofing materital, drywall, plaster, make it llok like phone/network equipment, make it look like plumbing, make it look like conduit, Ductwork...) remote detonated charges.
- Repeat
- Leave
- Wait

Sounds reasonable considering they could have full, unfettered access, time and money.

OR TO SUM IT ALL UP...

THEY WERE SNEAKY!


[edit on 24-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



Don't you think you left out all the important stuff?

I mean what you posted sounds like what they would show in a movie...but in reality.uhhhh...no.. Don't you think you left out all therealistic steps? You know ..the ones that actually have to be done in order fail a structure into 'its own footprint'?



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Don't you think you left out all therealistic steps? You know ..the ones that actually have to be done in order fail a structure into 'its own footprint'?


No... I do not. Assuming it was planned by an experienced demo team, the "footwork" is not complicated.

You just want it to be complicated.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   


The how it was done I presume was over an extended amount of time.


Well that doesn't answer 'how'..it suggests 'when'. Not the same thing.



The exact steps to the actual work can be obtained through research of CD contractors.


And in your quest for the truth or the 'facts'..what has your research told you is involved in a CD?



This answers the how, over a extended timeframe, it could be planned and executed


Well..again, No., that answers the 'when'.



Since no Middle Eastern country would let us set up military operations to establish a front line defense on land and with port access in the region needed(near Iran), we would need a event that would allow is into that region with a occupying force.


We were already there in Saudi and we controlled the airspace for ten years in Iraq prior to 911. We bombed Iraq at will for 10 years. If we needed an excuse to invade we could have very easily planted WMDs or biologicals at any time with only a handful of people in on the deception. We could have even faked attacks...whatever. We didn't do that.

The attacks on 911 were the result of terrorists. Deal with it.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta
Don't you think you left out all therealistic steps? You know ..the ones that actually have to be done in order fail a structure into 'its own footprint'?


No... I do not. Assuming it was planned by an experienced demo team, the "footwork" is not complicated.

You just want it to be complicated.


No..you just want it to be simple.

Its so simple that only a handful of companies in the world are even qualified to do CDs, and none of them have ever imploded a building over 50 stories.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
As far as you understand, what are the step in a CD. I mean more detailed than.."stick it on a wall and camo it to make it look like a 'dust bunny'..ba-da-bing-ba-da-BOOM"



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Since your attitude is hostile.

I do not beleive that we could have set up a military base in Iraq at will.

We would need a base to establish a good defensive position on Iran, if they chose to execute a nuclear attack.

The no-fly zone you speak of would not have set up a campaign for war against Iran stategicaly.

Saudia Arabia damn sure did not want a United States Military base capable of launching a full defensive attack in the middle east in their nation.

As for Controled Demolition, I am not doing your research for you.

It could have been set up over a extended time, that is HOW I assume it was done.
Since no one, including yourself was there, we can only speculate.

If you beleive that this was only a terroist operation, with no outside help or any conspiricy other that the terroist conspiring to do harm to AMERICA, then good for you. You rest peacefully knowing all the answers.

I and many like myself dought the Offical Story, the whole thing doesnt make sense.

Sorry if you will not get a 100% how it was done answer, no matter the answer it will only be speculation, there is not enough material to anaylize in order to scientificaly find out what happened.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

Its so simple that only a handful of companies in the world are even qualified to do CDs, and none of them have ever imploded a building over 50 stories.


The PNAC has access to resources beyond which you are willing to accept or admit.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
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!!!!!


Howward you caught me out on nothing. For one you have yet to prove there even was a 20 story hole in the building. 2 did this hole go all the way through the building from one side to the other? For it to effect the other side of the building it would have to. A building is full of walls that stop fire (to a point), this 20 story hole would not have effected all these walls. The floors were only damaged one one side of the building to a point you can't even prove.
It also would not have damaged columns on the opposite side of the hole.
If you only damage 10% or 20% of the columns it isn't going to cause the other 80% to fail like match sticks. No matter what the construction is like, they build building to remain standing, not fall at the slightest damage.

Why can't YOU understand this? Your knowledge of physics is either 0, or you are just trolling. The tactics you accuse me of are the very tactics YOU use. You've got yourself in a logical trap, but you don't care as long as you are convincing ppl of your BS.
You constantly ignore the physics of these collapses...Because you can't de-bunk it, I know you can't, anybody with any sense can see you can't. I can't believe there are people on here who buy the crap you post. They're either working with you or are ignorant. You've tried every trick in the book and been very quickly caught out, then you just move on spurting out the same BS.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
For one you have yet to prove there even was a 20 story hole in the building.


I agree. I want to see the hole... The "crater" or "catastrophic damage" or the "raging infernos" in WTC7 photos.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Yeah 7 stood for how long before it collapsed? 6 hours?

And there are no pictures of this huge hole and raging fires?



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
This is what Vushta, Duhh and Howard do not understand Anok...

If the NIST would just release the photos...

It will answer everything.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I had not seen referance to this paper as of yet (did a search and suprisingly didn't find this either, but could have goofed ) , so I thought it would post it, to help out with the physics of CD in regards to WTC:

External Link

Though this doesn't say how the explosives were throretically set per se, it does have calculations as to how much explosives would be needed if CD was used.

And before the anti-CD people say it, yes the author of this has been slammed by "Screw Loose Change" as having no credentials via Google search. He is an amature physicist, but this paper has been run by several physics groups and the math has been verified in the few web forums I checked.

So I used his numbers along with some numbers I found on the CDI's Website on the implosion of #500 Wood Street

According to CDI it took 13 people 7days to place 595lbs of explosives.

595 / 13 / 7 == 6.5lbs per person per workday

According to Mr. Trumpman it would take approx 1.4 tons of explosives (HMX) to bring down WTC1. If using the CDI's work per day as a benchmark, and using a team of 20 people:

2800 / 20 / 6.5 == 21.5 workdays (if pre-weakend, approx. x2 if not pre-weakened)

I would consider that plausible IMO as long as security was bypassed (I know that this is the main question of this thread).

Not 100% on-topic I will admit, but at least this throws some numbers into the mix to show that it wouldn't take an army nor a year to set this up. 40 people and 2 months could have been all that it took to set the charges, unless I'm off on my math.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Its so simple that only a handful of companies in the world are even qualified to do CDs, and none of them have ever imploded a building over 50 stories.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
As far as you understand, what are the step in a CD. I mean more detailed than.."stick it on a wall and camo it to make it look like a 'dust bunny'..ba-da-bing-ba-da-BOOM"


Wikipedia make it sound simple Vushta...


wikipedia

A building takes several weeks to be prepared for implosion

Selected columns are drilled and nitroglycerin and TNT are placed in the holes

Smaller columns and walls are wrapped in explosive cables

The goal is to use as few explosives as possible, and only a few floors are rigged with explosives

The areas with explosive are covered in thick plastic and fencing to absorb flying debris




posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   


Since your attitude is hostile.


????



I do not beleive that we could have set up a military base in Iraq at will.


I think you missed my point.

We could have faked a reason to invade Iraq by planting WMDs or bio's and could have done so with a plan that would involve a very small number of people to be on the "inside" of the plan and with magnitudes of comparitive simplicity and expense compared to 911.





The no-fly zone you speak of would not have set up a campaign for war against Iran stategicaly.


No..but a very simple "inside job" would have not only put us in the same place we are now, but in better financial standing.



As for Controled Demolition, I am not doing your research for you.


Well..at the risk of having the truth being misunderstood as hostility, I must say...don't do MY research as I've already done it and know what the answers are. Do your own research and learn the truth.
This brings up a couple of points. 1. Are you saying you haven't researched whats involved in a CD, yet have arrived at the conclusion that the towers could have been imploded?..and 2. If you're actually looking for a believable cause for 911, what in the world would stop you from the research? Are you afraid of what you may learn?



It could have been set up over a extended time, that is HOW I assume it was done.


Again..no. Thats now "how" thats when.



Since no one, including yourself was there, we can only speculate.


No. There is no speculation needed in understanding what the process of an actual CD involves. The process is well established and is the product of decades of trial and error refinement.
You can't hand wave that fact away and claim "speculation"



I and many like myself dought the Offical Story, the whole thing doesnt make sense.


Good. Then try to MAKE sense of it by looking at the facts and researching the possibilities that exist in the real world.



Sorry if you will not get a 100% how it was done answer, no matter the answer it will only be speculation, there is not enough material to anaylize in order to scientificaly find out what happened.


We're not getting 10% of a realistic answer as to how the CD theory is even remotly believable knowing whats involved in an actual CD..and a CD is absolutely vital to the theory.

So far we've gotten.....act like a janitor and stick it on a wall....any wall that you can get to..stick it on a steel beam..any beam that you can get to. And then..Boom..it falls like a perfect demo job.
Sorry, that just in not credible.

[edit on 24-7-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta

Its so simple that only a handful of companies in the world are even qualified to do CDs, and none of them have ever imploded a building over 50 stories.


The PNAC has access to resources beyond which you are willing to accept or admit.


Really? Do you belong to the organization and know what they know?
Having resources to what "black" CD companies?
But anyway, the attempts continue to deflect from the topic.

So..am I understanding you correctly to say that the best explaination for 'how' it was accomplished is guys dress up and going into closets with plastics and wires?



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

how stuff works

The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point.

If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.

In order to demolish a building safely, blasters must map out each element of the implosion ahead of time

Drawing from past experiences with similar buildings, they decide what explosives to use, where to position them in the building and how to time their detonations

In some cases, the blasters may develop 3-D computer models of the structure so they can test out their plan ahead of time in a virtual world.

Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper stories

In a 20-story building, for example, the blasters might blow the columns on the first and second floor, as well as the 12th and 15th floors

In most cases, blowing the support structures on the lower floors is sufficient for collapsing the building, but loading columns on upper floors helps break the building material into smaller pieces as it falls. This makes for easier clean-up following the blast.

Destruction crews may also weaken the supporting columns with sledge hammers or steel-cutters, so that they give way more easily.

Next, blasters can start loading the columns with explosives

Blasters use different explosives for different materials, and determine the amount of explosives needed based on the thickness of the material. For concrete columns, blasters use traditional dynamite or a similar explosive material

Dynamite is just absorbent stuffing soaked in a highly combustible chemical or mixture of chemicals. When the chemical is ignited, it burns quickly, producing a large volume of hot gas in a short amount of time

This gas expands rapidly, applying immense outward pressure (up to 600 tons per square inch) on whatever is around it

Blasters cram this explosive material into narrow bore holes drilled in the concrete columns. When the explosives are ignited, the sudden outward pressure sends a powerful shock wave busting through the column at supersonic speed, shattering the concrete into tiny chunks.

Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction.

These days, blasters often use an electrical detonator instead of a traditional fuse. An electrical detonator fuse, called a lead line, is just a long length of electrical wire. At the detonator end, the wire is surrounded by a layer of explosive material. This detonator is attached directly to the primer charge affixed to the main explosives. When you send current through the wire (by hooking it up to a battery, for example), electrical resistance causes the wire to heat up. This heat ignites the flammable substance on the detonator end, which in turn sets off the primer charge, which triggers the main explosives.


Bit more detail for you. Read the whole article, it is quite informative.

After reading through just now, it doesn't sound impossible to rig the towers for a CD with a bit of know how and enough motivation. I'm not saying it was a CD, but I'm not ruling it out either.

The main difference being in a 'legal' CD, the building would be stripped and walls would be knocked out of the way by sledgehammers etc to help the CD; also the normal CD processes and procedures would have to be scaled up to accomodate the heights of WTC 1 & 2

[edit on 24/7/2006 by alienanderson]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts


I agree. I want to see the hole... The "crater" or "catastrophic damage" or the "raging infernos" in WTC7 photos.


Do you put any weight into eyewitness testimony? It would seem like you must. There were numerous eyewitness' to the damage to #7. and testimony to expecting the collapse of #7 for hours before the failure.

This eyewitness testimony is much more credible than the claimed eyewitness testimaony of "bombs" going off. In that situation the term 'eyewitness' is real a inaccurate term to use as no one claimed to see any bombs at all. A better term would by "earwitnesses". The greater credibility would be on the 'eyewitnesses' testimony to the damage of #7. Those people actually saw the damage while the 'earwitnesses' were only giving their impressions as to what they heard. Possibly just using an expressive term or maybe basing the discription on what happened in '93 when there actually was a bomb.

But still...off topic.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Vushta, how can you claim that it was absolutely impossible to place explosives in the WTC? Am I wrong in saying that the majority of the explosives would have to be placed in the elevator shafts attached to the main support beams? Obviously if Marvin Bush and Silverstein were in on it they could get security clearance for anybody they wanted, RIGHT? So a team of GOVERNMENT MILITARY TRAINED PROFESSIONALS who are CD experts as well obtained security clearance from the higherups, posed as maintenance workers working a contract, and put the bombs in place, slowly but surely. Each day they would do more. I don't understand how this is completely impossible. Again, I know everyone's bringing up all kinds of stuff to get this off topic, so I'm trying to make this as direct and to the point as possible. Please tell me how what I just said is impossible. Let's not forget that we're talking about the US GOVERNMENT here. They have some of the best training and resources in the entire world. Saying that they are incapable of pulling off an operation like that seems very silly to me.

[edit on 24-7-2006 by Barcs]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join