Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by B1ayneO
 


It was a 757, 90 some foot hole and yes, it left plenty of evidence. Bodies, luggage, personal effects and 757 parts were found.




posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
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?


In my opinion, this would not be possible without rigging every single floor of the building with charges that were separate from every other floor's charges. A separate detonation would have to be available for every floor, and it's highly improbable for use, as it increases error by a ton and will leave a much larger paper trail than anything. If you're going to do something like 9/11, you can't spend too much money.


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.


There's no logical way the charges would survive completely intact. There would be no way of knowing which ones were still ok unless they had beacons in them and were each separately controlled by a radio, which is highly improbable because of all the interference from pipes, people, and office stuff. In controlled demolitions, everything is cleared out of the building first, and even then, radio demolitions are unreliable, so they tend to go wired.


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?


I think they would be ridiculously obvious, personally.


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?


The French verinage method is the closest type, used without explosives to collapse a single floor in the middle of a concrete high-rise, causing the whole building to collapse. As far as I know, this has never been tested on a steel high-rise, and even then, it would not be comparable to 9/11 because of the towers' unique open-floor truss system.

www.youtube.com...


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?


I don't think there's any way it could have been done without a ton of error.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
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.


So you like the theory that thermite was planted to weaken and/or cut the steel in order to compromise the structural integrity of the building, causing the collapse. Then you believe it was a gravitational collapse? Rather than a series of progressive explosions? Do you then buy the "pancake collapse" theory? If so, how do you account for the alleged "free-fall speed" which is often cited as a smoking gun?

Just curious.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I have often asked these sort of questions before - and truthers simply avoid ever answering them. I have come to believe that for a large contingent it is simply an article of 'political faith' - for people for whom critical reasoning is simply a foreign concept, reminds me a lot of the sort of 'reasoning' employed in the advocacy of the Palestinian cause.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Here is my thoughts on Question #3

I wonder how OS'ers have no problem believing the building fell down all by itself without help BUT, if charges were placed inside its impossible that it could have been demolished without every floor being rigged and bla bla bla.
How does it make sense to have no issue with it falling on its own accord, but mention a controlled demolition and it becomes impossible to bring down the building TOP DOWN first without some super secret genius plan. Help or not, IT FELL TOP DOWN first!

According to OS physics, steel can weaken on One floor and destroy the building. How do you know that charges weren't just planted on one or two floors? OS logic here seems flawed.
edit on 5-12-2011 by Wizayne because: im stupid, so im told.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Ignoring conspiracy for a moment, I've often wondered what would have happened if they hadn't fallen and simply burnt until the upper floors self-extinguished. Or, burnt until the tops of the building partially collapsed.

It seems to me that the buildings would have been damaged beyond repair, if the upper floors would have been so corrupted by the damage from the planes and fires, it would be unsafe for anyone to be in the buildings and working on them, much less demolishing what remained. It almost seems like they (the owners) lucked out by having the buildings 'self demolish'. I can't even begin to imagine the expense and trouble it would have been to demolish those building in downtown Manhattan in preparation for new construction.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizayne
Maybe I will answer the five questions later, but for now:

I wonder how OS'ers have no problem believing the building fell down all by itself without help BUT, if charges were placed inside its impossible that it could have been demolished without every floor being rigged and bla bla bla.
How does it make sense to have no issue with it falling on its own accord, but mention a controlled demolition and it becomes impossible to bring down the building TOP DOWN first without some super secret genius plan. Help or not, IT FELL TOP DOWN first!

According to OS physics, steel can weaken on One floor and destroy the building. How do you know that charges weren't just planted on one or two floors? OS logic here seems flawed.


It's because to work under the hypothesis that demolitions had to be used, it must be assumed that the initial collapse from the plane impact wouldn't be enough to take down the tower.

What you are suggesting is that the planes hit, and then someone had charges planted exactly where the planes hit to make it seem like the planes started the global collapse. It makes no sense, you know? The plane would have damaged present charges, and there would be no reliability in the charges leftover after that. Plus, the spread of the fire cannot be predicted. It's just a mess of a thought experiment.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizayne
 


Two things

1. Absolutely NO evidence of any kind of explosives. No primer cord, no wiring, no detonators, and NO noises consistent with a controlled demolition....I have witnesses cd's first hand and they are quite distinct.

2. Oops..combined them into point 1.... No evidence and no noises/shockwaves consistent with a cd
edit on 5-12-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


I call BS. Stop saying there is absolutely no evidence to support demolition when there is a mountain of witnesses that heard explosions, saw flashes, saw molten metal plus all the squib evidence and on and on. Just because the average Joe isn't aware of all the evidence doesn't make you right when you try to sweep it under the rug.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizayne
 


Well Average Joe, You can call BS all you want. It won't make your viewpoint any more factual.

Explosions heard, sure. You hear them in ANY large office building fire, ask a fireman who has fought one. There are plenty of things that aren't explosives, that will go bang in a fire. And as of yet, no one has produced a valid recording from that day that has a sound signature consistent with a CD.

Molten metal....proves nothing. Especially when the molten metal is seen flowing from what used to be a large computer room full of UPS for Sun Bank's computer systems.

Plus, you missed a key point....all those people who spent MONTHS going through the wreckage at those landfills, and not a single, solitary, ONE of them found any evidence of explosives, det cord, blasting caps, receivers for wireless detonation.....nada, nothing, zilch.....
edit on 5-12-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


There are pics of wtc7 showing a massive amount of damage to the base of the buildings, two 100 + story building fell down on top of it. I was actually surprised more buildings didn't collapse .



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
didn't read any of the thread because instantly my mind began racing through the possibilities within the probabilities.

devils advocate allows me to peer into the mind of someone sick enough to do something like this;

my controlled demo theory: a conspiracy between multiple multi-national intelligence agencies to bring down the twin tower complex, WTC 7, a hit on the pentagon and the shanksville incident.

Twin towers; a plane hit each tower driven by unsuspecting terrorist assets who believe they are working for "Al-Qaeda" when in reality are carrying out specific missions within a co-ordinated tactical strike.
Meanwhile, high-intensity heat "explosives" are detontated to coincide with the buildings being hit as to give the illusion that the plane's fuel caused the initial explosion.
Those charges could have been planted that day, or could have been in there for weeks within the wiring and added during a "routine check".

WTC7 I believe it served two primary functions that day:
a)Most of the technical assets I believe worked out of this building.
b)It was used as a terror tool for New Yorkers. Since the towers had already collapsed, it was primed to give the sense to the local area that they were still "under attack", which would evoke even more patriotism in the weeks afterwards to "get back at them"

You see, these attacks not only served an agenda of fear, but also support for the nation's search in a justification to get into the middle east for oil, minerals and military/corporate contracts to last for decades.

This was a psychological attack just as much as it was a physical attack.

Attack on the Pentagon I believe was ment to show that not even the top military brass of the nation was immune to the threat. And served as another local disaster for psychological gain, and served the physical agenda of war through national tragedy.

Shanksville This one I have my own personal doubts. I believe it was ment to reach a tactical destination, but then the people on board did resist and ended up bring down the plane in a field which served the agenda beautifully even those it was not in the mission specs.

In the end, it wasn't an American led attack or "inside job" but some of them certainly had a hand in there somewhere.

just random thoughts spewn out



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Do you think they'd fake it to not look like a collapse, since that was their story?

1. Missiles were used to cut the hole and ignite previously positioned napalm.

2. There was no commercial jet, and the buildings were mostly empty.

3 . The towers had been dismantled over the years to be as close as possible to bare shells, as is done with all controlled demolitions. We can trust none of the video record so we really don't know how the towers were dismantled. Even what record we have of their destruction shows huge clouds of dust ejecting almost immediately, not possible unless it was purposefully placed to camouflage the collapse. Because the footage is untrustworthy, it us useless to ask why there was no sound of the explosives.

4. I really don't know, but I guess they only use a top-down demolition technique when trying to simulate a terrorist attack.

5.There wasn't a "violent inferno", they simply told us there was a violent inferno, which was essentially proven by the collapse. The buildings collapsed because the heat from the violent inferno weakened the steel, therefore there must have been a violent inferno.

They would have needed to guarantee success, so they prepared video far in advance to override any pesky eye witnesses that made it through the censors. They only had about 15 minutes of eye witness testimony to worry about after the first impact. People would report bombs, or small planes, or missiles, but after 15 minutes everyone would see planes, 'cause everyone was watching TV. This is exactly what happened; with most folks initially reporting anything but a large jet, but once the smoke, fireworks and confusion, not to mention the evacuations kicked in, it was easy to corral the crowds into areas where they would not have a view of the towers. Contrary to what most people think, the twins were difficult to see from the city itself due to the building-lined streets. Even the Naudets needed to stop traffic to find a good spot to position themselves for a good shot. I'm sure thousands would have a good vantage point, but even then, where are their images?

Why are there dozens of images of the second impact (which all cancel themselves out), yet so few images of the first impact's damage? No one knew a second plane was coming, so where are the tight, close-up shots of WTC1's "plane-shaped hole"? Where are the telephoto shots of the interior of the building? All we have are a paltry few grainy images of the damage from all those thousands of eye witnesses.

It was a movie set used like the moon landings to cover up the real way they were demolished. Wag the dog on steroids.






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



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Back to the "the towers were empty" argument?

Bob, price check on prune juice



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Back to the "the towers were empty" argument?

Bob, price check on prune juice


Are you at work or are you bound?

I suppose you find it easier to believe all the people, concrete, plumbing fixtures, generators, elevators, escalators, office furniture and not to mention floors turned to dust?



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Wizayne
 


Well Average Joe, You can call BS all you want. It won't make your viewpoint any more factual.

Explosions heard, sure. You hear them in ANY large office building fire, ask a fireman who has fought one. There are plenty of things that aren't explosives, that will go bang in a fire. And as of yet, no one has produced a valid recording from that day that has a sound signature consistent with a CD.

Molten metal....proves nothing. Especially when the molten metal is seen flowing from what used to be a large computer room full of UPS for Sun Bank's computer systems.

Plus, you missed a key point....all those people who spent MONTHS going through the wreckage at those landfills, and not a single, solitary, ONE of them found any evidence of explosives, det cord, blasting caps, receivers for wireless detonation.....nada, nothing, zilch.....
edit on 5-12-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)


Well super genius, I haven't seen an accurate diagram and or computer model showing that you have
any facts whatsoever proving your gravity alone collapse theory is even plausible let alone logical.
If you can eliminate every witness at the complex simply because "office fires make noise" ,then I honestly have no comeback for that.
you are going under the assumption that the plane strikes were random, while I think it is more plausible that they were remotely controlled. knowing where they would hit lets you know where to place the equipment. let's assume they were smart enough not to leave a distinctive sound trail, considering that they used an unconventional form of demolition.
also let's assume that the people looking through the debris for human remains or human belongings were amatures not looking for explosive equipment, and also because FEMA admitted to ruling out demolition very early into the clean up.

so that leaves us with the possibility that the buildings had been remotely demolished. it's that possibility that causes people to still question what really happened. Remember, you have just as little factual support for your gravity alone collapse theory.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


Those who know the reference, will understand why it fit so very well in response to your post.

And no, I dont think all the interior items turned to dust. I just have to look at the photos of the wreckage taking during the clean up to see what was left of things that were in the towers when they collapsed. Thinking that everything turned to dust is, well, severely misinformed.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Wizayne
 


And again, you stick to ideas that have absolutely no basis in reality. Whereas, mine, fit the known evidence.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596

Those who know the reference, will understand why it fit so very well in response to your post.

And no, I dont think all the interior items turned to dust. I just have to look at the photos of the wreckage taking during the clean up to see what was left of things that were in the towers when they collapsed. Thinking that everything turned to dust is, well, severely misinformed.


The building turned to dust




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic
 


Those who know the reference, will understand why it fit so very well in response to your post.

And no, I dont think all the interior items turned to dust. I just have to look at the photos of the wreckage taking during the clean up to see what was left of things that were in the towers when they collapsed. Thinking that everything turned to dust is, well, severely misinformed.


while I don't believe in tv fakery, I do believe he means an extremely illogical amount of dust and debris was witnessed being ejected up and out of the towers. Not completely poofed entirely to dust. But I think you knew what he meant.





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join