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.

 

a slight question concerning the demolition theory

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
okay, I was wondering, if the cause of the WTC's collapse was explosives, then how is it possible that the collapse began in the EXACT SECTION The plane hit? just wondering.




posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Ever wondered how your remote control for your TV works, or digital LCD clocks or any modern electronic devices like that? Or ever see the video of the guy that programmed all the lights around his house to go off to form all those intricate patterns all over his lawn?

Complicated demolitions today (such as those carried out by CDI) are carried out with computers. When the charges go off is determined by when they have been programmed to go off and are therefore detonated by autonomously by a computer.

Between the impacts and collapses, parameters would have to be set for which floor the charges would begin detonating from and when. Thermite cuts the support on the initial floors, and then other explosives are initiated in a pre-determined sequence after that, all from a computer.

Whether those collapses were or weren't demolitions, that's how it would've happened regardless if they were, as sophisticated CD's are ultimately carried out by computers today.

[edit on 8-10-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
no, I mean where it hit. how could it be due to explosives, when it collapsed exactly where the plane hit? wouldn't the plane destroy them one way or another? and don't demolished buildings collapse bottom first?



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by monica_lewinsky
no, I mean where it hit. how could it be due to explosives, when it collapsed exactly where the plane hit? wouldn't the plane destroy them one way or another?


None of the structure that was destroyed by impact needed to be destroyed a second time by explosives.

My post above details how they could initiate explosives from any intact floor they wished, so long as explosives were already on those floors. Please re-read it.


and don't demolished buildings collapse bottom first?


Not always. The base just has to be destroyed most of the time to bring the building down into its footprint as it's much easier this way, and there were explosions in the basements of the Towers, and plenty of eyewitness testimonies and video footage confirming this.

Also consider that the Towers would obviously not be blown up from the bases if we were being led to believe the plane impacts themselves brought them down. It would not make sense to blow them up from the base and blame the collapes on higher-up perimeter failures.

[edit on 8-10-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Unless the explosives were all connected to the internet, this would mean you'd have a whole lot of cables leading to a computer coming from explosives.

Or they could be wireless and have antenna's on them.

Either way it's not going to happen un-noticed. The setting up and programming of each explosive in a commercial building could never go un-noticed.

WTC Worker: "Why are you strapping a bomb to that column?"
*Sips Coffee*
Demolishion Man: "Oh, we're blowing up the towers in a false flag terrorist operation"
WTC Worker: "Oh... ok, have a nice day"

Not going to happen.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Simple solution: Bring in guys to do work on the Towers, and use the time to insert explosives. There were "cabling upgrades" and various power-downs before 9/11 that had guys in the core structure. Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, and his cousin had a hand in the WTC Towers' security company after the 1993 bombing, so if a front team needed to be brought in, it would be possible, and there would be means to do it.

Another simple solution: build them in. Then only the detonators have to be serviced, and could even be serviced in a part of the building that is secure. After we all get over the "WHAT?! THEY WOULDN'T DO THAT! THAT WOULD TAKE YEARS OF PRIOR PLANNING! SICK!" stuff, let's remember the oral histories of the construction workers, and complaints of the evacuation of each floor for security reasons before the concrete was poured, and of the placement of various materials under the concrete that were supposed to have been to prevent degradation or whatever, and yet required individuals to have PA security clearance to be around.

The Port Authority bitched and moaned over the security of the construction drawings and etc. of these buildings for years, which is why the BBC said they were supported by a single concrete column, the Kean Commission said they were hollow, and Oxford University saying it had a reinforced concrete core. The drawings still aren't public, despite all these investigations. I've read articles from people saying they'd noticed and asked about missing 1/8" or 1/4" places in the floor slabs (pre-9/11), just to have the PA jump down their throats.


The Internet is not something you hook up to by accident. Wouldn't happen.

Wireless technology does exist, even without antennae (gasp!). Security for these networks also exists to prevent false detonations. Could be either binary or analog. For example, you can just require a particular signal to be read, or else the signal is ignored. Like I said, all that would have to be serviced would be the detonators. Everything else is automatic chemical reaction, provided the explosives are already there, and personally, I would not be surprised.

[edit on 8-10-2006 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join