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 Do You Take Down a Building?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I know that everyone has seen the 9/11 conspiracy videos, and in that they have heard or the Demolishion Theory. Now my question is of action. So if all of these buildings were to have been demolished how in the h3ll did "they" plant the thermite charges? I find it hard to belive that these charges were put into place SHORTLY prior to the the collapse. I am not a demo expert but, I would assume that one would have to place the charges on just about every floor, maby every other floor. So in that were are the work order regristries that should have been logged in a separate building, since the building was built.

It would take MAJOR work to place these charges and I also ask; were the charges place during construction? How long did "they" accually plan the collapse in advance?

www.textfiles.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

This site describes how to do it differently:
www.arsenalofhypocrisy.com...

If anyone has any new theories on how it could be logistacally done in short amount of time please respond.

20 dollar towers might be a streatch but: www.foldmoney.com...

[edit on 19-11-2006 by Brand403]

Mod Edit: All Caps Title– Please Review This Link.


[edit on 19/11/2006 by Umbrax]




posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
*Yawn* Do a search this has been answered many time...

There was plenty of time prior to 9-11 to plant explosives. There are witnesses to unknown workers doing 'maintenance' in closed off areas, power downs etc. etc...

It's not as hard as you think when you've got help on the inside.


But really this question is not important, there is far more overwhelming evidence of some kind of force, other than planes and fire, acting on the 3 buildings. Look at the physics, not the stuff that can't really be answered only speculated.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   
If I am wrong please correct me, or guide me to where you were refering too


Originally posted by ANOK
*Yawn* Do a search this has been answered many time...

There was plenty of time prior to 9-11 to plant explosives. There are witnesses to unknown workers doing 'maintenance' in closed off areas, power downs etc. etc...


From what I have seen is only the top floors had maintenance done within a couple of months prior.

www.911myths.com...

And all logs were missing (early article, could not find any more recent)

911research.wtc7.net...


Originally posted by ANOK
It's not as hard as you think when you've got help on the inside.


But really this question is not important, there is far more overwhelming evidence of some kind of force, other than planes and fire, acting on the 3 buildings. Look at the physics, not the stuff that can't really be answered only speculated.


Very true. I totally agree with the demolishion theory. I am just convinced that; being around construction and these so called maintenance (or tenante inprovements) could not have planted all of the charges. You are talking about serious structural work that would not just happen without anyone seeing. To secretly place these charges one would have to work for years. The ones in the lobby floors, I do not belive are possible to proporly place. SO I ask again how long were "they" planning to take down the buildings?

Or could someone direct me to a better Thread
Thank you

""To demolish a building, you don't need all that much explosive but it needs to be placed in the correct places ... and ignited in a smooth, timed sequence. Someone had to have had a lot of access to all of both towers and a lot of time to do this." And for sure it was not a bunch of Arabs (sneaking around unchallenged in the basement of the WTC) whose expertise with explosives extends not much beyond car bombs."

www.serendipity.li...


On a side thought... If the "black" pope has so much control. Whats to say he did not push the button. I don't know, and I do not think that anybody knows but Who pushed the button?

www.remnantofgod.org/blackpope.htm

I don't know about the validilaty but: www.vaticanassassins.org...

Same about the validilaty: www.exposingsatanism.org...


I have not found much other than people pointing their fingers at Bush and Cheney, but then again I am new to this particular site.

Thank you for reading



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Most people that believe in the Controlled Demolition theory, support it with the speculation that Thermate was involved.

Where is the one shred of evidence that proves there was thermate involved in the collapse?

The NIST report wtc.nist.gov.... was completed and not one TRUE engineer has come forth and said that it was inaccurate. Actually quite the opposite. EVERY engineer that has come out publicly has SUPPORTED the findings of the NIST report on the collapse of the WTC.

The NIST report was developed by over 200 technical experts. This included 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia. These experts examined thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 video's and close to 10 thousand photographs, EXAMINED OVER 230 PIECES OF STEEL FROM THE WRECKAGE , performed tests and computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineers Association of New York all Inspected steel at the salvage yards.

I would like to hear from one Engineer that can speak out against the over 200 experts that studied ALL the evidence. NOT someone that claims to be an Engineer and spends the day on GOOGLE.

I believe Bush is somewhat responsible for 911. I wish people would focus their passion to the REAL questions...

1. Why did Bush wait so long for an investigation (over 450 days )?
2. Why was the original budget so small as compared to Ken Stars report in the investigation into a Blow Job.(close to 100 million dollars) Or the Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster where within 3 WEEKS Bush authorized 50 million into the investigation?
3. Why was Bush's close friend (Henry Kissinger)offered the job as Chairman of the 911 commission only to resign after being questioned by the Jersey 4?
4. Why did Bush refuse to testify UNLESS Dick Cheney was with him?



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Where is the one shred of evidence that proves there was thermate involved in the collapse?


I could not find hard evidence on the fact that thermite was involved.
I did find others who thought the same.
www.whatreallyhappened.com...
There is one picture about half way of a piece of steel looks entierly like a thermite cut. But regardless no documented case.


Originally posted by CameronFox
The NIST report wtc.nist.gov.... was completed and not one TRUE engineer has come forth and said that it was inaccurate. Actually quite the opposite. EVERY engineer that has come out publicly has SUPPORTED the findings of the NIST report on the collapse of the WTC.


The NIST report was developed by over 200 technical experts. This included 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia. These experts examined thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 video's and close to 10 thousand photographs, EXAMINED OVER 230 PIECES OF STEEL FROM THE WRECKAGE , performed tests and computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineers Association of New York all Inspected steel at the salvage yards.


I am going to become a student of engineering in the near future. Not to say that I have any credibility but just I am interested in it. I do work in the trades. I do see how most buildings are constructed and such. I am in no way a formal expert but I do wish to study to become one. None the less the buildings do not exist anymore and their is heavy evidence supporting a demolishion.


Originally posted by CameronFox
I would like to hear from one Engineer that can speak out against the over 200 experts that studied ALL the evidence. NOT someone that claims to be an Engineer and spends the day on GOOGLE.

I believe Bush is somewhat responsible for 911. I wish people would focus their passion to the REAL questions...

1. Why did Bush wait so long for an investigation (over 450 days )?
2. Why was the original budget so small as compared to Ken Stars report in the investigation into a Blow Job.(close to 100 million dollars) Or the Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster where within 3 WEEKS Bush authorized 50 million into the investigation?
3. Why was Bush's close friend (Henry Kissinger)offered the job as Chairman of the 911 commission only to resign after being questioned by the Jersey 4?
4. Why did Bush refuse to testify UNLESS Dick Cheney was with him?


Yes I beilive that Bush had a large hand in it. I mean with the security systems that we have inplace, like the stuff you see on T.V. or in magazines, how could we miss 4 airliners way off course.

What I was tring to get at was that If and only if it was an inside job, how long has it been planned for and who pushed the button. And the google thing, yea I do use google but not for everything. I do know how to read books and I do do it. I have also talked to a couple of engineers responcible for building some amazing structures throughout the world. Granted it is just casual talk and there is no way that these guys I talked to would ever sign their name to something like that. It is career ending.
I am fustrated that it has not been answered correctly in my eyes. I mean I cannot watch all of the stuff on youtube and accually belive that a guy who takes loans from the fed backed banks, flew a couple of planes into the buildings.

Yea Bush is keeping it quiet. Their has to be someone above Bush. Who told Bush that he had to do the things that you asked about before?

I know I need to do more research but I am pissed off enough to talk about it.
Thank you for reading



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brand403
So in that were are the work order regristries that should have been logged in a separate building, since the building was built.


Try looking into the permits for these buildings.

Here's the Department of Buildings website for NYC gov. Try clicking the links for the permits etc. You'll find that few are listed. After 30 years, there HAS to be more permits for the buildings. Here's WTC1, 2 & 7.

a810-bisweb.nyc.gov... 430E

a810-bisweb.nyc.gov... 430E

a810-bisweb.nyc.gov... 430E



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Most people that believe in the Controlled Demolition theory, support it with the speculation that Thermate was involved.

Where is the one shred of evidence that proves there was thermate involved in the collapse?

The NIST report wtc.nist.gov.... was completed and not one TRUE engineer has come forth and said that it was inaccurate. Actually quite the opposite. EVERY engineer that has come out publicly has SUPPORTED the findings of the NIST report on the collapse of the WTC.

The NIST report was developed by over 200 technical experts. This included 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia. These experts examined thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 video's and close to 10 thousand photographs, EXAMINED OVER 230 PIECES OF STEEL FROM THE WRECKAGE , performed tests and computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineers Association of New York all Inspected steel at the salvage yards.

I would like to hear from one Engineer that can speak out against the over 200 experts that studied ALL the evidence. NOT someone that claims to be an Engineer and spends the day on GOOGLE.

I believe Bush is somewhat responsible for 911. I wish people would focus their passion to the REAL questions...

1. Why did Bush wait so long for an investigation (over 450 days )?
2. Why was the original budget so small as compared to Ken Stars report in the investigation into a Blow Job.(close to 100 million dollars) Or the Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster where within 3 WEEKS Bush authorized 50 million into the investigation?
3. Why was Bush's close friend (Henry Kissinger)offered the job as Chairman of the 911 commission only to resign after being questioned by the Jersey 4?
4. Why did Bush refuse to testify UNLESS Dick Cheney was with him?


Can you explain the molten steel in the basements of the buildings ?



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Can you explain the molten steel in the basements of the buildings ?


You are aware that there are no reports of, and there is no evidence of molten steel in the basement?

Molten metal was seen. Metal doesn't equal steel buddy.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
There was plenty of time prior to 9-11 to plant explosives. There are witnesses to unknown workers doing 'maintenance' in closed off areas, power downs etc. etc...


There was a 26 hour power down, on a maximum of 40 floors. The 40 floors figure is the maximum stated by Scott Forbes. Yet no one except Scott Forbes has reported this power down. Why?

To put it bluntly, the tenants of these floors having a 26 hour power down wouldn't be too happy with it. Why aren't they showing their faces? No security to major banks and no one kicks up a stink? Why?

So even if there was a powerdown in WTC2, what about WTC 1 and WTC 7?

Phil Moreli, a construction worker at the WTC's said in an interview that he did construction work on all of the towers in the complex for 8 years. Is it so weird that some vacant floors were being worked on?

We know for a fact that power and internet cabling upgrading was occuring on the weekend before 9/11. These workers could very well have been doing this work. So how did they setup a controlled demo in under 2 days when the record holding demolition took literally months with over 20 guys working around the clock doing nothing but place explosives? Not to mention the record holder was 1/3 the size of ONE of the towers. So somehow in such a short period of time 3 towers, requiring 7 times the amount of work done by 20 men over months, were prepared for demolition?




It's not as hard as you think when you've got help on the inside.



So everyone in those buildings is covering up the fact they saw thousands of charges being placed on the building? Please...



But really this question is not important, there is far more overwhelming evidence of some kind of force, other than planes and fire, acting on the 3 buildings. Look at the physics, not the stuff that can't really be answered only speculated.


So I am supposed to look at physics from papers that haven't been peer-reviewed? Or should I look at the NIST report constructed by highly experienced engineers? A paper that hasn't been refuted by any respectable engineers.

Actually, along with that, I might check out one of these peer-reviewed papers supporting the official story from highly respected professionals in their respective areas.

www.debunking911.com/paper.htm

[edit on 30/11/2006 by doctorfungi]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi
Phil Moreli, a construction worker at the WTC's said in an interview that he did construction work on all of the towers in the complex for 8 years. Is it so weird that some vacant floors were being worked on?


Yeah, he said that construction work was constantly going on at the WTC complex.

Trouble is, there are apparently no records of what was being done available to the public, which is apparently unusual. Griff's a civil/structural engineer, so he could tell you more about that. There were reports of elevator work, which means access to the core, and I've even read in the past of fireproofing upgrades, which means access to the trusses as well as the core. Who had this access would be important info, as lying is not impossible, and is rather pretty commonplace from my view in the world of governments and politics.


Actually, along with that, I might check out one of these peer-reviewed papers supporting the official story from highly respected professionals in their respective areas.


Highly-respected by who?

These are the same guys who said, right after 9/11, that the steel columns must have melted (structural engineers!).

The Commission Report said the cores were hollow shafts. FEMA supported the pancake theory. The independent Dr. Greening doesn't even understand the collapses well enough to present an accurate mathematical model of their physics. These "highly-respected" individuals have a piss-poor record on this subject.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Bsbray:

Trouble is, there are apparently no records of what was being done available to the public, which is apparently unusual. Griff's a civil/structural engineer, so he could tell you more about that. There were reports of elevator work, which means access to the core, and I've even read in the past of fireproofing upgrades, which means access to the trusses as well as the core. Who had this access would be important info, as lying is not impossible, and is rather pretty commonplace from my view in the world of governments and politics.


First of all, it is not unusual for work in a commercial building NOT to be made available to the public. There is a company in the northeast (including New York) called Equity Office. They are a pretty big building management company. They are constantly doing some type of move in their millions of square feet of property when new tennants arrive. They are not required to generate building permits on EVERY change. Cubicles, and office furniture are the majority of what goes on. The only time building permits are typically required is when something that is load bearing is aded or removed. That being said...any additions or changes in life safety equipment MUST be authorized prior to commencement and then inspected upon completion.

Elevator work is done DAILY in ALL commerical buildings. Anyone that TOUCHES elevator equipment MUST be licesed to do so. I have been in building management for a little over 15 years and in every building where I have worked has had a full time elevator mechanic on duty minimum 40 hours per week. Just another thing...in my experience, elevator mechanics are VERY anal about thier properties. If someone comes into "Their" building and touches "THEIR " elevators...they ask MANY questions. Also..commercial buildings have contracts with elevator companies that are anywhere from 1- 5 years...possibly more depending on the contract. I have never seen another elevator company come in to do work on a system that wasnt theirs. Typically this is stated in the contracts.

As far as the fireproofing. There would need to be permits involved in this if the fireproofing was being changed in the towers. Tower 1 or 2 didnt have ANY asbestos and one of them only had it up to i THINK the 28th floor.

Also I have reported that the WTC complex at the time of the attack, had an occupancy level of 98%. I posted the exact square footage that was available in another post.



[edit on 30-11-2006 by CameronFox]

[edit on 30-11-2006 by CameronFox]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
First of all, it is not unusual for work in a commercial building NOT to be made available to the public.


The towers were not privately owned until Silverstein bought them shortly before 9/11. Before then, they were owned by the Port Authority. Some information on work done to the towers is available, they just stop somewhere around the late 80's/early 90's if I remember what Griff was saying correctly, even though there are reports of work going on after then anyway.


They are not required to generate building permits on EVERY change. Cubicles, and office furniture are the majority of what goes on.


Would you consider that "construction"? Moving cubicles and furniture? Is that what Morelli was talking about?


Not one elevator contractor that I have worked with has ever allowed another company come in to do work on their systems. Typically this is stated in the contracts.
[...]
As far as the fireproofing. There would need to be permits involved in this if the fireproofing was being changed in the towers.


I don't get where you're going with these statements. Are you trying to say that it would be impossible to obtain a permit for a front team? Or that everything in this building would have been typical while assuming that intelligence networks or etc. were trying to plant explosives? That they wouldn't have accounted for problems like this ahead of time, if they had this goal?

Otis Elevator Company installed the WTC systems, but I've seen no information on who maintained them. And really, again, I don't see what we're establishing exactly. These are logistics problems that have nothing to do with anything scientific that would show whether or not there were secondary devices. This is the "how could this be done?" stuff, and you can't provide for this stuff with typical examples of how things usually go when intelligence agencies aren't trying to blow up a building from the inside. Maybe if you had experience with how they would actually go about doing this if they wanted to, but not otherwise, because you aren't going to convince me that these guys are just going to walk in and start hanging stuff up like no one's going to notice.

They would use a front team if they were demolished. Were they demolished? That's an easier question to answer, because you can resort to science instead of a bunch of speculation and questions that no one here would be able to answer with full knowledge even IF the towers were demolished, because we weren't there. You understand that, right? That these questions deal more with probabilities based on how things USUALLY go rather than how they WOULD in these circumstances.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
OTIS is a very large elevator company and I have used their services in the past. I would like to know how in a building the size of the WTC....that probably has at least 3 full time elevator mechanics on duty...how this type of operation would go unnoticed. I'm not looking for an argument...just trying to figure this out.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
It wouldn't go unnoticed. They would just LIE about what they were doing, or otherwise obfuscate or conceal it. There are probably hundreds of ways to do that. Explosives can even come in slurry form, so you can just spray it on as if it's fireproofing. If someone were to sit down and think of things like this, I'm sure it could get done.

The last thing someone is going to suspect, is that explosives are being planted by a front team. What makes you think people would suspect that anyway, when YOU won't even consider the possibility AFTER the fact?



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
It wouldn't go unnoticed. They would just LIE about what they were doing, or otherwise obfuscate or conceal it. There are probably hundreds of ways to do that. Explosives can even come in slurry form, so you can just spray it on as if it's fireproofing. If someone were to sit down and think of things like this, I'm sure it could get done.

The last thing someone is going to suspect, is that explosives are being planted by a front team. What makes you think people would suspect that anyway, when YOU won't even consider the possibility AFTER the fact?


Well i DID consider it AFTER the fact. I abandoned the CD theory after about 6 months of research.

Ok, with all due respect Bsbray, "Spray On Explosives?" Not to sound rude, but you seem like a pretty smart guy and that theory is kind of ...well far fetched. I believe the New York State Law states that ANYONE working inside a hoistway MUST be a licensed Elevator Technician. ( i know it is in Massachusetts) I understand how easy it is to get false credentials, but I also know anytime wrok is being done in ANY of my elevators...myself along with the contracted maintanance elevator company is aware of what goes on. Part of my job is to make sure all work is done up to code and appropraite permits are in order.
Just an FYI, my title is "Director of Engineering" and my current property that I oversee is just over 1.5 million square feet. Yes TINY compared to the WTC. I can assure you that the Building Super at the WTC knows pretty much everything that goes on inside his elevator shafts. I know I do.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
First of all, it is not unusual for work in a commercial building NOT to be made available to the public. There is a company in the northeast (including New York) called Equity Office. They are a pretty big building management company. They are constantly doing some type of move in their millions of square feet of property when new tennants arrive. They are not required to generate building permits on EVERY change. Cubicles, and office furniture are the majority of what goes on. The only time building permits are typically required is when something that is load bearing is aded or removed. That being said...any additions or changes in life safety equipment MUST be authorized prior to commencement and then inspected upon completion.


The bolded statement is absolutely false.

a810-bisweb.nyc.gov...



Job No: 104256136 Job Type / App No.: ALT2 Fee: STANDARD
Permit No: 104256136-01-EW-OT Issued: 10/14/2005 Expires: 04/01/2006
Seq. No.: 01 Filing Date: 10/14/2005 INITIAL Status: ISSUED
Work: Proposed Job Start: 10/14/2005 Work Approved: 10/12/2005
ALT2 - GEN.CONSTRUCTN.
REMOVAL AND INSTALLATION OF INTERIOR NON-BEARING PARTITIONS AND RELATED


That is a permit for a building I have worked on in NYC. BTW, it is an Equity Office building also. Permits are required for most things. Sprinkler upgrades, plumbing, Mec/HVAC upgrades, fuel storage, scaffolding, etc.

Here is the link to the NYC Buildings website for this building.

a810-bisweb.nyc.gov...

I invite all to look into the links. Especially the "Permits In-Process/Issued" link. Then compare the amount of permits you find for this 20 story building to the amount you find for the towers and building 7 (buildings that are 5 times and over twice as big respectfully).

Here are the links:

Tower 1

a810-bisweb.nyc.gov... 430E

Tower 2

a810-bisweb.nyc.gov... 430E

Tower 7

a810-bisweb.nyc.gov... 430E

Funny thing is: There are NO permits listed for tower 2. How can that be?



[edit on 11/30/2006 by Griff]

[edit on 11/30/2006 by Griff]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Ok, with all due respect Bsbray, "Spray On Explosives?" Not to sound rude, but you seem like a pretty smart guy and that theory is kind of ...well far fetched.


It was only an example, but I don't see what's so unlikely about it:


Slurries, sometimes called water gels, contain ammonium nitrate partly in aqueous solution. Depending on the remainder of the ingredients, slurries can be classified as either blasting agents or explosives. Slurry blasting agents contain nonexplosive sensitizers or fuels such as carbon, sulfur, or aluminum, and are not cap sensitive; whereas slurry explosives contain cap- sensitive ingredients such as TNT and the mixture itself may be cap sensitive. Slurries are thickened and gelled with a gum, such as guar gum, to give considerable water resistance.

Since most slurries are not cap sensitive, all slurries, even those containing TNT, are often grouped under the term blasting agent. This grouping is incorrect. A blasting agent, as defined by the National Fire Protection Association, shall contain no ingredient that is classified as an explosive.

Slurry blasting agents require adequate priming with a high-velocity explosive to attain proper detonation velocities, and often require boosters of high explosive spaced along the borehole to as sure complete detonation. Slurry explosives may or may not require priming. The detonation velocities of slurries, between i2,000 and 18,000 fps, vary with ingredients used, charge diameter, degree of confinement, and density. The detonation velocity of a slurry, however, is not as dependent on charge diameter as that of a dry blasting agent. The specific gratity varies from I.i to i.6. The consistency of most slurries ranges from fluid near iOOO F to rigid at freezing temperatures, although some slurries maintain their fluidity even at freezing temperatures. Slurries consequently give the same advantageous direct borehole coupling as dry blasting agents as well as a higher detonation velocity and a higher density. Thus, more energy can be loaded into a given volume of borehole. Saving in costs realized by drilling smaller holes or using larger burden and spacing will often more than offset the higher cost per pound of explosive. Adding powdered aluminum as a sensitizer to slurries greatly increases the heat of explosion or the energy release. Aluminized slurries have been used in extremely hard rock with excellent results.

A slurry and a dry blasting agent may be used in the same borehole in "slurry boosting," with the buk of the charge being dry blasting agent. Boosters placed at regular intervals may improve fragmentation. In another application of slurry boosting, the slurry is placed in a position where fragmentation is difficult, such as a hard toe or a zone of hard rock in the burden. The combination will often give better overall economy than straight slurry or dry blasting agent.


www.globalsecurity.org...


The trusses weren't as thick as the actual columns. Spraying the above would wreak havoc if detonated. I'm not saying this happened. I'm saying this is the kind of stuff that would be considered, potentially, in a situation such as rigging the WTC with explosives. It wouldn't just be walking in, announcing your intentions, and going to work in front of everybody, from the outside of the shafts or floors or etc. It would have to be deceitful. Lying is nothing compared to murder. I don't see why this is so hard for you to consider.


I believe the New York State Law states that ANYONE working inside a hoistway MUST be a licensed Elevator Technician.


Well, you got me there. Surely they wouldn't break the law.

You realize who the potential suspects are here, right? And what a front team is?



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Can you explain the molten steel in the basements of the buildings ?


You are aware that there are no reports of, and there is no evidence of molten steel in the basement?

Molten metal was seen. Metal doesn't equal steel buddy.


Well lets see how many professionals witnessed molten steel.

Source: 911research.wtc7.net...

The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.

A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains." 2 Â

A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating:
In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel 3 Â

A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel." 4 Â

A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating:
Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel. 6 Â

A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated:

Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster. 7 Â

An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage:
As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. 8 Â

A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based.
Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots. 9 Â



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join