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.

 

Why Didn't the Planes Trigger Explosions Instantly?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Ok, I'm not saying that the "government is responsible" thing has no credence. I actually believe 95% of it. The only thing that confuses me is how the planes hitting the building didn't set off the preset explosives. Here's a timeline to demonstrate what I mean.
1. They (whoever "they" are) rig the top 50 or so floors with explosives.
2. The explosives are rigged to be triggered externally whenever someone hits the button.
3. The planes hit.
4. 20 min. later, the explosives go off and bring the building down.
The molten aluminum and jet fuel from the planes might not be enough to cut steel, but wouldn't pouring flaming jet fuel on any conventional explosive substance make that substance explode instantly? That would have brought the towers down seconds after the planes hit.
Just a thought. Ideas?




posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by alexbassguy
The only thing that confuses me is how the planes hitting the building didn't set off the preset explosives.


I have not seen any evidence that their were any preset explosives,, can you explain please?



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   
They did in our concept of reality, they bent the rules of science now you are wondering was this move made without time, and the answer is yes.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
how about: The 'planes ' were guided into a certain section of the Towers that were prerigged with explosives. The remote controllers simply used a beacon inside the building to guide the plane in. Then after the ' plane ' is seen entering the Towers, FULLY entering, then we see the explosions start popping out along a row on the side of the Tower and debris coming out.

That way only a few floors had to be rigged, not 50, but maybe 4 0r 5 at the most. Then when the fires were about to be knocked down, it was time to pull the plug and turn them into dust. This could ONLY have been done by advanced weaponry based in space or on a plane, most likley a plane or planes. The siesmographs simply do not show enough energy being brought to the ground from the collapses to account for it al: The buildings were dustified as they came down, thus dimishing the weight bearing down dramatically. The Towers were turned into dust from the top down and that has to be an energy source far more vast than any known to be present and it had to come from above.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I agree totally, the idea that jet fuel brought those towers down is ludicrous...

Also why was everything vapourised? I'm sure I read somewhere that cars parked around the buildings suffered from bizarre effects that melted tires and stripped the paint, how could this happen from burning wreckage?

The beacon idea is also something I've considered too.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   


I'm sure I read somewhere that cars parked around the buildings suffered from bizarre effects that melted tires and stripped the paint, how could this happen from burning wreckage?


Its called a vehicle fire - happens when a car is set on fire. Paint burns
off, tires melt or burn. Occurs every day.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by alexbassguy
The molten aluminum and jet fuel from the planes might not be enough to cut steel, but wouldn't pouring flaming jet fuel on any conventional explosive substance make that substance explode instantly?


The devices could be specially housed and placed to best prevent this (would have been part of engineering the entire thing), and the devices that were actually physically taken out by the impacts themselves wouldn't matter anymore, and neither would the columns already taken out by the planes (would no longer need explosives on them anyway).



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman


I'm sure I read somewhere that cars parked around the buildings suffered from bizarre effects that melted tires and stripped the paint, how could this happen from burning wreckage?

Its called a vehicle fire - happens when a car is set on fire. Paint burns
off, tires melt or burn. Occurs every day.


This has already been addressed in this forum including car photos

Cars burn 7 blocks from WTC

sorry for the 1-line, just pointing out the ATS link


edited for spelling

[edit on 20-12-2007 by SimonSays]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Why would the planes impact set the explosives off? It wouldn't.

Explosives need a detonator and an electrical charge to set them off. Simply hitting them wouldn't set them off. If the fuel exploding did then we wouldn't have seen them anyway.

Would it be possible for all the explosives to have had their own individual receivers, and were not wired together? (or sets of explosives on individual floors wired together, but not floor to floor?) Then it wouldn't matter if some of them were destroyed and couldn't be set off when they were supposed to?



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by alexbassguy
1. They (whoever "they" are) rig the top 50 or so floors with explosives.

It is not my opinion that the upper floors were rigged with explosives.
It is my opinion that the core columns were cut by detonations in the
basement area which is evident by the lobby blast. As the elevator which
connects the basement to the parking garage is the one that exploded
and blew out the windows of the lobby. That didn't come from the plane area
but from underneath. There was also port authority police radio calls
of an officer running after 2 suspects getting out of a van in the garage area
with a mural on the side of the van of a remotely flown airplane
crashing into Manhattan. It appeared the officer was jumped and got the
crap beat out of him and the suspects were later arrested and nothing else
was heard of the incident. What a coincidence of a mural painted on the
side of a van which was showing exactly what was happening on that day??
Explain that ??? There were several vans stopped that day with explosives
in them including one near the bridge. It may have been their plan
to keep sending in these vans into the parking garage and detonating
them til the columns gave way due to they couldn't hold up the structure.
It would surely explain the blowed out lobby and the firemen yelling
they had located bombs. And also the time frame between each explosion.
Blow up one van and wait to see if it falls. If it don't then send in another
and blow it up. If that doesn't work, then send in another til it does.
That may have been the reasons for all the vans with explosives
in them. Those vans could also have housed the Thermite which explains
why the molten steel was so far down in the rubble and burned so long
as it was covered up with 110 stories of debris. All these events I shared
here are on the web if you look for them as I don't have the links
to them, but a quick google search can put you on the right path.
I don't think the gubment wanted to admit that the port authority
and WTC security did not catch all those vans in the basement which
would be a total disaster for competence. Wouldn't that be a good enough
reason for covering it up ??? Couldn't fake the planes as too many people
saw them but they surely could hide those vans loaded with explosives
in the parking garage. William Rodriquez the last man out also states
that a huge electric 60 ton generator was blown out of the basement.
They couldn't have been done by a plane crash, 80 stories up. It all
points to the basement or parking garage. Once you take out the
structures support, the building falls. The planes were just a diversion
to get people to look up when they should have been looking down.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by alexbassguy
 

The planes didnt 'trigger' the explosives, because impact-shockwave is not a trigger in itself.
I believe, of course, that the inner core or the columns of both the towers IS where the explosives were rigged.
Plus, i heard in a video clip interview that the outerside of the buildings were specifically designed to withstand a direct plane hitting them.
The outer-side of the buildings had those steel columns which were designed to act like a STEEL-MESH, ie, to hold and absorb the momentum of the impact, muchlike a kevlar-vest absorbs a bullet without letting it penetrate it.
Of course, the plane penetrated this outer mesh, BUT NO WAY it proceded to the inner core with much momentum to do any danmage.

The twin towers would have still been standing today, it it werent for those explosives.
It just wasnt meant to be, thanks to those @#$%^&* NWO freaks.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by vladmir]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   
A couple of things I'd note:

Thermite doesn't need access to air as it carries its own oxygen source in the mix in the form of iron oxide so covering it up won't control it at all and the reaction will be over in minutes at the most. Ongoing thermite reactions in the rubble are unlikely but fires involving active metals like aluminium are very possible as an intense heat source.

WTC1 & 2 failed from the impact zone down so a demolition detonation in the basement just doesn't fit the observations. Only WTC7 exhibited an event at or near ground level being the primary cause of failure.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 

if the steel beam was heated to 4000 DEG in temp and then dropped
into a hole and covered up, it becomes insulated. It remains insulated
and heated due to other heated objects in it's vicinity. So while the
reactions wear off quickly, if it is insulated by another heat source
it remains heated for weeks.

An opposite example with ice cubes.

Take 20 pieces of ice from your freezer and put into a glass.
The exterior pieces of ice melts at a faster rate than the ones
closest to the middle.
Those in the middle are kept cold cuz they are being shielded from
the higher temperatures. They are insulated. This is why those
moltem metal pools stayed hot until that heavy machinery opened
up the insulation and let the heat out. It had nothing to do with how quick
the reaction was or took. It was how long it was insulated or buried.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimonSays

if the steel beam was heated to 4000 DEG in temp and then dropped
into a hole and covered up, it becomes insulated. It remains insulated
and heated due to other heated objects in it's vicinity. So while the
reactions wear off quickly, if it is insulated by another heat source
it remains heated for weeks.


But is there any insulation effective enough to kept steel in a molten state for weeks. The only way is to have a very active ongoing heat source like an intense fire and IR detection of those hotspots is indicative of a radiative loss of heat which would need to be compensated.

I feel it's an invalid conclusion to assume that any molten metal in the rubble definitely became molten before or during the collapse.

Again, just my opinion



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
WTC1 & 2 failed from the impact zone down so a demolition detonation in the basement just doesn't fit the observations.

I saw a video from an amateur from across the river who showed
smoke coming out of the basement area after an explosion was
heard. The smoke rose 10-12 stories and showed up on the
footage. This is impossible from a fire 80 floors up when no elevator
shaft reached the upper floors from the basement area. This explosion
was heard and seen BEFORE the collapse started.
This is a misconception in your theory. The footage I am referring to is here:

Basement explosion with dust cloud

Same video with Audio spectrum analysis

If the floors collapsing was what some think were explosions,
then the dust would not have come from street level. It would
have been at the floor that collapsed, not way down at the bottom.

Now, don't tell me there were no explosions close to street level.
Cuz there is proof otherwise. This video allows you to SEE it with
dust clouds and HEAR it with audio spectrum analysis.

This is demolitions attacking the core's structure at or below ground level.
Once the support is gone then the building started falling.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SimonSays

Please don't go thinking I have a definite theory on 9/11
I'm just trying to look for what fits ALL the recorded observations because that will, hopefully, be nearest to the real events.
As theories are proposed that require more and more independent devices all over the buildings with critical timing requirements, the increasing complexity becomes a virtual guarantee of it not going quite as planned

Was that 'explosion' sufficient to fail all the core columns at ground level?
If it had been there'd no question about it and most of the windows in Manhattan would have been blown out by it IMHO. The only questionable pre-collapse seismic spike is in relation to WTC7 as discussed in another thread. I note also that the lower levels of the building (WTC1 & 2) appeared to remain intact until the collapse front reached them which runs counter to a suggestion of a ground level event.

Elevator shafts were not the only paths through the core structure and utility (water, power, phone, sewer) ducts would be continuous from roof to basement level. This provides the real possibility of burning material from the impact zone reaching the basement level.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 

Another video of photographic proof that shows the rubble and destruction
in the basement of the tower BEFORE it collapsed. This is the only known
footage of the basement levels showing an explosion that made it out of
the tower that I have seen. Look around 25 seconds into this video to
see the cars in the basement sub-level 6 after explosion. This could
not have been caused by the plane 80 floors up since the tower's
elevator shafts were sealed at each sky lobby level (each 1/3 of building)

Basement bomb destruction video



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by SimonSays
Elevator shafts were not the only paths through the core structure and utility (water, power, phone, sewer) ducts would be continuous from roof to basement level. This provides the real possibility of burning material from the impact zone reaching the basement level.

LOL, I have worked with pipe conduit before and guess what, they are plastic
and cannot hold such a force or fireball capable of producing this kind of
damage. The conduit would melt and explode at the point of pressure not 80
floors down. Your theory of all the damage in the basement was from the
planes is ludicrous. There were explosions in the basement and it wasn't
from a plane. Sorry



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Elevator shafts were not the only paths through the core structure and utility (water, power, phone, sewer) ducts would be continuous from roof to basement level. This provides the real possibility of burning material from the impact zone reaching the basement level.


This is not true and an assumption that keeps popping up. No shafts would run the entire length of the building for fire safety reasons.
A shaft would help spread fire and smoke. Elevator shaft, only one, was stopped at every sky-lobby and the next set of elevators sat on top of the one bellow, making 2 breaks in the el shaft at the sky lobby levels. So if any burning material did run down the el shaft if wouldn't go all the way to the basement.
Not sure the exact set up in the WTC, as we don't have the plans, but air ducts would have separate systems on possibly each floor, or groups of floors, but the whole building wouldn't share the same system. Again for fire safety reasons; to keep fire and smoke spreading to other floors. It is called ‘fire compartmentalization’.
Any other cables etc would share shafts, not have their own unique ‘shaft’, or run behind walls and ceilings, and they would stop at junctions all over the building. They wouldn’t run one length of cable 110 floors.

Not sure if the towers used this method, but a lot of high rise buildings use fans in the air and elevator shafts to maintain air pressure to help eliminate spread of smoke in case of fire also.


The New York City Building Code is considered one of the most stringent building codes in the country.


Source


The final line of resistance of the building and its elements, including the building frame, the floors, partitions, shaft enclosures, and other elements that compartmentalize the building and structurally support it. Most important of these are the requirements of the structural frame (including columns, girders, and trusses). See section 1.5.3 for a discussion of fire resistance rating…
All three of these lines of defense were present, but were overwhelmed by the magnitude of the events of September 11, 2001.


Source

NIST tells us the safety features designed to help stop the spread of fire were overwhelmed by that which they were designed to stop, fire? Yeah that makes sense. But anyway the point is the spreading of fire and smoke is not a reasonable hypothesis, as there is no reason the shafts would not still be ‘compartmentalized’ and work as designed. These towers were built in the 1970’s not the 1870’s.

This is a typical elevator layout for a high rise building…


Source

To save space in the WTC instead of the shafts being split up they sat on top of each other, but they were still separated by the sky lobbies so the principle is the same.


In structures, such as land-based buildings, traffic tunnels, ships, aerospace vehicles, or submarines, compartmentalization is the fundamental basis and aim of passive fire protection. The idea is to subdivide a structure into "fire compartments", which may contain single or multiple rooms for the purpose of limiting the spread of fire, smoke and flue gases, in order to enable the three goals of fire protection:


Source


[edit on 21/12/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SimonSays

Thanks for the video link
Indeed very interesting but let's compare it to the '93 bombing which failed to bring the building down IE was it larger or smaller than that example?
To me at least it appears to have nuisance value only and insufficient power to affect the structural integrity in terms of demolition which makes me think of it as a side effect of something else.

reply to post by ANOK

Can we think of the entire core being water-tight from top to bottom?
I'm considering what arrangements there were to cope with a more credible contingency than attack by a 767 - like a broken water main for example. There would have to be a low impedance path to the base of the building for such an event and I'm sure that most of the sheet rock lining on the core and elevator shafts, firestairs was blasted off at the impact floors to expose such areas considered to have at least a 1 hour fire rating in the event of fire only. It's hard to imagine the entire core cross-section, with the exception of elevator shafts, being totally hermetically sealed at regular intervals. Elevator shafts and firestairs are normally maintained at a slight positive pressure to prevent the ingress of smoke in a fire but the sheetrock lining providing that seal was severely compromised.

Just trying to make more pieces of the puzzle fit.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join