So if the buildings where brought down by explosion

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Ok, this isnt a thread to debate weather the towers where brought down by explosives
This is a thread to talk about how would they have done it if the towers were hypotethicly brought down by a demo team
Please keep on topic




posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by alaskan
What about wtc7?

And it's not like every single person at the cia is just some guy in a suit. A lot of them are professionals at something, whether you want to say they did it themselves or not.


WTC7 fell down in sympathy for the other buildings.

2 people with tiny knives managed to fend off how many people on the planes? 80 or more? Can you fend off that many people with a tiny knife?

Imagine what I can do with my PDA pen! I'm searched at the airport and told to take my metal buckled (sharp too) off at the screening and then allowed to put it back on, imagine that, take off weapon, put back on. Classic LOL.

On top of that, they where the worlds best test pilots on these large jets. Airbus has it all wrong and should hire these people to test fly their jets. The pilots they have are not as good as these guys, just look at the low level flying they can do! And that is AFTER they fended off all these people with their tiny knives. Something not even an Olympic professional Fencing champion can do.



[edit on 2-6-2008 by mOOmOO]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
well there is no evidence of controlled demolition.

That being said, it would take a team of CD professionals several months per building, to wire it up. Doing so includes removing any material covering load bearing components. In other words, they would need to strip the building down to the framework to place all the charges. Nobody saw anybody doing any of this????

In addition to that, they would need to run calculations that would time perfectly with the plane impacts, explosive fuel spill from the planes, any volatile material in the buildings themselves such as fuel for boilers, etc...

All this seems INCREDIBLY, INCREDIBLY, INCREDIBLY unlikely.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by jfj123]


Now, I am a believer in 9-11 happening just the way you saw it on tv. As I have written before I was there that morning. Here is a link I wrote a while back about my view. They had plenty of time to wire the buildings, They were under constant construction since the first attack, was not there for that.


Here is my link.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Very few comments back them, maybe you could comment.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Probably the most fascinating part of the film 9/11 Mysteries was when they mentioned that there was a steel beam that weighed twice as much as a 767 that was hurled for blocks and impaled itself into a building. And right near the end it showed footage of demolition/construction workers standing next to (and talking about) a huge, very heavy beam that was bent into a U shape (that clearly used to be strait) and had no cracks or breaks in it. What kind of immensely powerful physical force could accomplish that?



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lightworth
What kind of immensely powerful physical force could accomplish that?

The weight of a huge building would probably do the trick.

Ever snap a stick or a plastic spoon or something and get hit in the face with a piece that broke off?



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by alaskan

Originally posted by Lightworth
What kind of immensely powerful physical force could accomplish that?

The weight of a huge building would probably do the trick.

Ever snap a stick or a plastic spoon or something and get hit in the face with a piece that broke off?


The point would be the part about no stress fractures. The weight of the building would cause stress fractures in the steel if this where the case.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   
The twin towers don't look like a controlled demolition. (Not any i've ever seen. ) WTC7 DOES but it could have been structural weakening from fires throughout the building. There were large tanks of fuel in the building.

It takes literally more than a year, working full time to plan, set up and execute a demolition of a building a tenth of the size of the twin towers.

But perhaps there only needed a few well placed explosives to bring it down... Perhaps next to the core to sever it completely.

But there is no conclusive externally visible evidence of melting metal or explosions happening all down the building. The puffs of "smoke" could be explained as air pressure firing out through the points of least resistance, forced down the lift shafts by the building falling above. (theres a good youtube vid about this.)

My favorite theory however, is the directed energy weapon one... but that's just NUTS!!!



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
The beams used in the WTC where of 'mild steel' not the high tinsil steel used today. They where soft and meant to bend and sway in high winds without causing stress cracks. This building was the first of its type ever designed. The towers where essentially two large steel tubes with one center section. It was one the the first to use modular construction with an outer skeleton.

Zindo



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
The beams used in the WTC where of 'mild steel' not the high tinsil steel used today.


Actually, I'm finding that A36 steel is considered a carbon steel and not a "mild steel".


Mild steel is the most common form of steel as its price is relatively low while it provides material properties that are acceptable for many applications. Mild steel has a low carbon content (up to 0.3%) and is therefore neither extremely brittle nor ductile. It becomes malleable when heated, and so can be forged. It is also often used where large amounts of steel need to be formed, for example as structural steel. Density of this metal is 7,861.093 kg/m³ (0.284 lb/in³), the tensile strength is a maximum of 500 MPa (72,500 psi) and it has a Young's modulus of 210 GPa.

Carbon steels which can successfully undergo heat-treatment have a carbon content in the range of 0.30–1.70% by weight. Trace impurities of various other elements can have a significant effect on the quality of the resulting steel. Trace amounts of sulfur in particular make the steel red-short. Low alloy carbon steel, such as A36 grade, contains about 0.05% sulfur and melts around 1426–1538 °C (2600–2800 °F).[6] Manganese is often added to improve the hardenability of low carbon steels. These additions turn the material into a low alloy steel by some definitions, but AISI's definition of carbon steel allows up to 1.65% manganese by weight.


en.wikipedia.org...

I believe there were more high tensile steels used in the towers also.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Griff, yes on the outsides for the modular walls and window perches. The mild steel heavy beams of which some 60 or so per side are the main load bearing parts of that building.

Zindo



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 



So, this would actually go back to my gripe about not having the structural documentation.

Where was that "column" from and what was it's tensile strength and so on and so forth.

Without this information, your conclusion is just an assumption (along with mine). Funny how this is set up eh? That everyone has to guess.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by redmotion
 



It takes literally more than a year, working full time to plan, set up and execute a demolition of a building a tenth of the size of the twin towers.


I believe "they" were working on this planned demolition since the first bombing. (Even if the plan was just to smack a few airliners into them.) In fact, I think it was the results of the inspections after the first bombing that made certain officials realize that the Towers were in bad shape and would have to be brought down. Rudy Giulinai is one of the people on the "inside" in my opinion.



But there is no conclusive externally visible evidence of melting metal or explosions happening all down the building.


Thermite residue has been found at Ground Zero. There is also ample evidence to show that there was also molten steel in the wreckage.



[edit on 6/2/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by redmotion
 



It takes literally more than a year, working full time to plan, set up and execute a demolition of a building a tenth of the size of the twin towers.


I believe "they" were working on this planned demolition since the first bombing. (Even if the plan was just to smack a few airliners into them.) In fact, I think it was the results of the inspections after the first bombing that made certain officials realize that the Towers were in bad shape and would have to be brought down. Rudy Giulinai is one of the people on the "inside" in my opinion.



But there is no conclusive externally visible evidence of melting metal or explosions happening all down the building.


Thermite residue has been found at Ground Zero. There is also ample evidence to show that there was also molten steel in the wreckage.



[edit on 6/2/0808 by jackinthebox]



Explosions cause ANGLED cuts to appear in steel?

Amazing coincidence, so these guys carrying tiny knives, took on over 80 people in a jet better than any fencing champion, then after that flew better than top guns and an Airbus test pilot and they caused the building to cut itself at the BOTTOM at a PRECISE ANGLE.


American's actually believe this. That's the amazing part. I tried hard to not listen to the "American's are stupid rants" but I find it hard to ignore now



It is even funnier when they get on stage with their Patriotic rants.

Just as Hermann Wilhelm Göring said during his trial.

Naturally the common people do not want war: neither in Russia, nor England, nor, for that matter, in Germany. That is understood. But, after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
-- Hermann Wilhelm Goring at the Nuremberg Trails




[edit on 2-6-2008 by mOOmOO]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Griff,
I can give you some knowledge that came first hand about the construction of WTC. A certain Mr. Black was the superintendent of the mechanical plant for Tishman. The plans for all the mechanicals where so bad they where redone a dozen times because pipes and drains as well as electrical systems where, according to the plans, routed to places that where inaccesable. Interior walls where cut out to make revisions. Some structural in nature! J.B.Blacks opinon of the whole thing when he was finished was that it was unbelievable that a high wind from a hurricane didn't knock them down. This man was a graduate of MIT and knew what he was talking about.I knew the man, and his son and I started a company together.

Zindo



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


So, you're saying there is a cover-up for shoddy engineering and workmanship? Because what you just told me doesn't fit well with the official story where they claim the steel met and/or exceeded all local laws.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


One of the motivations for 9/11 may have been to cover up the fact that the Towers were about to fall down on their own, because of shoddy workmanship, design faults, and even the weakening effects of the original bombing.

Still doesn't explain 7 though.


[edit on 6/2/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


So, you're saying there is a cover-up for shoddy engineering and workmanship? Because what you just told me doesn't fit well with the official story where they claim the steel met and/or exceeded all local laws.



And the very same steel was shipped out of the country from a very big CRIME SCENE to be INVESTIGATED. Removal of evidence.

Shoddy engineering requires proof and that is in the evidence, ooops its destroyed.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by Griff
 


One of the motivations for 9/11 may have been to cover up the fact that the Towers were about to fall down on their own, because of shoddy workmanship, design faults, and even the weakening effects of the original bombing.

Still doesn't explain 7 though.


[edit on 6/2/0808 by jackinthebox]



WTC7 fell down in sympathy for the other two buildings.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


In 1965 it did meet the specificatons. Anyone who thinks that ALL the buildings in NYC are built to the HIGHEST standard post 1950 are sorely misguided. Many here talk about all the work going on at the WTC prior to the misshap. Its been going on since the building opened. Mostly its to accomodate the differant tennents that rented there.

Zindo



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
You people are all silly.

The government would never lie to us, have they ever lied to us in the past?





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join