FIVE QUESTIONS: The Twin Towers and a Controlled Demonlition: HOW?

I have an open mind. I believe there are unanswered questions regarding 9/11. But I can't yet seem to buy this notion of a "controlled demolition" of the WTC. When watching closely footage of either tower collapsing, it--to me--really does look like a collapse. I can see the top section begin to sag just above the glowing red heat:



So here's what I don't get about the demolition theory in regards to the two towers--perhaps someone can help me out with this. I don't mean for this to digress into a general discussion of conspiracies, inside jobs, who had foreknowledge, etc. I have a few SPECIFIC questions I've yet to see answered regarding the logistics of such a controlled demolition (pertaining specifically to WTC 1 and 2 as opposed to WTC 7).

1: Why and/or how would the pre-rigged explosives begin detonating exactly at the point of impact on both towers? How would this have been accomplished so precisely?

2. How would pre-rigged explosives planted throughout the building survive the extreme impact (jolt) of a commercial jet, subsequent explosion, and resulting fire (which raged for more than an hour)--and still work perfectly when detonated--in sequence, resulting in a "free fall" of the building? It seems like a controlled demolition on such an enormous scale and with such precise timing would leave little room for error, especially from potential prior damage to the rigging.

3. Imploding either tower would have been the largest controlled demolition in history (as far as I know). The amount of explosive needed would have been emormous, meaning a series of VERY LOUD explosions with each collapse. I know there were peripheral explosions heard and reported prior to the collapses and some claim to see explosions in the collapse footage, but it seems like detonated charges from the amount of explosives necessary to bring down such massive structures would have been salient, LOUD, and unmistakeable (see below). Why are no such explosives heard in any of the footage of Twin Towers collapsing?



4. I've never seen a controlled demolition of a large building which begins at the top and progresses downwards (as seen with the twin towers). Has this kind of demolition been used before on other structures? Is this a tried and tested technique?

5. Why would the perpetrators have rested with assured minds that all would go perfectly as planned despite myriad unknown variables inherent with such a violent inferno? Even well planned, well controlled demolitions can and do go awry with much smaller structures and without the additional 767 impact subsequent to the preparation. Who would have considered this feasible and without high risk of possible exposure due to the potential for error?


Thanks.

Let's forget about towers 1 and 2 for the moment. What took WTC 7 down? High velocity explosives. One more time, jet fuel will not burn hot enough to even weaken steel. The buildings didn't "fall over" they were imploded. I still can't believe we are still kicking this one around?

reply to post by Captain Beyond


Since you want to "forget about the twin towers", I assume either you have no answers for me, or you believe only WTC 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition. Regardless, my questions were quite specific so perhaps this isn't a thread you're interested in?

Originally posted by Captain Beyond
Let's forget about towers 1 and 2 for the moment. What took WTC 7 down? High velocity explosives. One more time, jet fuel will not burn hot enough to even weaken steel. The buildings didn't "fall over" they were imploded. I still can't believe we are still kicking this one around?

Your post fits the definition of derailing, if you ask me.

OP asked specific questions. No answers, eh?

reply to post by Captain Beyond


Umm, yes jet fuel can, and will, burn hot enough to weaken steel. And please don't bring up jet engines,

1. You can't
2. They wouldn't
3. There weren't any explosives.
4. Not according to any demolition worker I've talked to
5. Nobody

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by Captain Beyond
Let's forget about towers 1 and 2 for the moment. What took WTC 7 down? High velocity explosives. One more time, jet fuel will not burn hot enough to even weaken steel. The buildings didn't "fall over" they were imploded. I still can't believe we are still kicking this one around?

Your post fits the definition of derailing, if you ask me.

OP asked specific questions. No answers, eh?

edit on 5-12-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

The problem is that many feel that asking questions about towers 1 and 2, while ignoring tower 7 is essentially "derailing" the arguement from the start....

reply to post by v1rtu0s0

Then go to a different thread, or write one..... Ignoring Towers 1 and 2. That's the most convenient way to solve the problem, pretend they didn't exist.

Or call them holograms.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


WTC 7 suffered massive damage and had unchecked fires burning for hours. Just like both of the Towers....with the exception that the towers didn't burn as long before collapse, because the damage they suffered was worse and their design was different.

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by Captain Beyond

 

Since you want to "forget about the twin towers", I assume either you have no answers for me, or you believe only WTC 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition. Regardless, my questions were quite specific so perhaps this isn't a thread you're interested in?

I very rarely contribute to the 9/11 forum, but i dont think you understand what he's saying, WTC 7 is enough proof that something dodgy was going on here, and IT WASNT EVEN hit by a plane and it came down, i believe it was blamed on structural damage and fires, Nah, dont buy it.
I think the poster was saying that this controlled demoltion topic has been done to death. (i may be wrong tho, me is tired!)

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

 

Then go to a different thread, or write one..... Ignoring Towers 1 and 2. That's the most convenient way to solve the problem, pretend they didn't exist.

Or call them holograms.

Not really, it's just that Tower 7 is the smoking gun.

reply to post by lunarasparagus


who knows how those buildings came down, but it was weird. There was also arrests of a few dudes on the day, that where there to "document " the planes, as in knew it was going to happen. They even admitted it in a interview, once they got back home. These guys didn't live in "caves". I find that weird as well

the most obvious thing about the whole 9/11 situation is that there was a HUGE store of gold in the basement of both the towers and it was moved just days before...and if you want to question the towers then you also have to question the pentagon and that was a total joke there is NO WAY a 747 jet could fit into a 25ft hole with no evidence of the plane itself. no motor, no wings, no baggage, no plane


this is blind ignorance at its best

I think that the OP asks very good questions.

I agree with vipertech's answers to those questions.

That is until someone comes up with something that is any better. Haven't seen anything yet though.

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

 

Then go to a different thread, or write one..... Ignoring Towers 1 and 2. That's the most convenient way to solve the problem, pretend they didn't exist.

Or call them holograms.

Not really, it's just that Tower 7 is the smoking gun.

It still baffles me to this day, what happened with the bbc news woman. I really think this must have been one of the biggest clues to the real truth about this terrible event. I ve replayed it over and over in my mind, Why would she say that building 7 had come down when it hadnt. The beeb prides itself on truthful and honest reporting, HOW would they have got something this big, so wrong?

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


I'm not dismissing WTC 7 with this post. I'm merely getting specific with questions that linger in my mind regarding the towers. The collapse of building 7 was very different than what can be seen with the towers. It is much smaller. It was not hit with planes. It did not collapse in a progression from the top down. It looks much more like a text-book controlled implosion. Obviously it's a great topic of discussion and has been addressed in many threads here I'm sure.

But how does broaching the subject of building 7 answer my specific questions regarding the towers?

reply to post by lunarasparagus


The buildings came down in a typical pancake fashion. Never before in history has a building fallen that way unless it was taken down with explosives. And they want us to believe it happened 3 times on the same day. That's absolutely absurd imo. I personally think it was some sort of high grade thermite rather than large explosives, because it is perfect for eating through large support beams. Assuming it might have been thermite, I will attempt to answer your questions.

1. There are several ways it may have been done. Remote detonation would allow them to start a thermite reaction in any part of the building. However I think it's more likely that the heat from the jet fuel was enough to trigger the thermite regardless of where the jet impacted.

2. Thermite takes extreme heat to ignite, and as stated in my first answer the impact may have been the actual trigger that initialized the thermite reaction.

3. Thermite reactions are very quiet.

4. This is actually an interesting question that I don't really know the answer to, but as we can see by the events of 9/11 it's obviously a valid way in which a building can implode, rather than fall over. They would have certainly tried and tested it before they actualy put the plan into action.

5. Another interesting question but this one is asked a lot. I think they just got really lucky, and actually went a lot better than they had ever hoped for. Even if they hadn't of managed to take down a single building, they would have at least managed to make one plane impact one of the buildings, and that still would have caused a very big stir.

reply to post by lunarasparagus

The only thing i saw when it happend was .

#1. One big airplane crashed into a big building.

#2. Another big airplane hit another big building.

#3.And because of the building designs of any structure in the life of humankind, no building can withstand 5 tons just sitting and chilling on a basic office floor burning and partying like its 1999!

4# Then I saw both buildings fall because of the …‘WEIGHT IN THE MIDDLE as well as the intense fire that ultimately caused the buildings fait.

It’s what every body else saw in the world with there own eyes. I honestly don’t understand or fathom into what people imagined they saw or how wild the imagination can be.

My teacher tells me that every human doesn’t think a like and that I have to respect it...so I just laugh and shake my head!
'eyes dont lie'

reply to post by thedoctorswife


You are kidding right? The media screws up ALL the time. Remember a little mining disaster a few years ago? Twelve men trapped? Well, when I went to bed...ALL the media was claiming that eleven had been rescued and one had died. When I got up the next day, it was oops we were wrong, one lived, eleven died.

The media makes mistakes in every huge story, mainly because they are trying to beat their competitors. Using one such mistake as "proof" of a conspiracy is asinine, especially when you realize just how many people had to have been involved for your idea to be accurate.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder
Maybe you should google 'pancake collapse'. I did, and I found a lot of examples of pancake collapse occurring without explosives. Philadelphia and Atlantic City are two places close to me that come up. Europe seems to have it's share also.