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

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Wizayne
 


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


What evidence do you have that proves gravity alone would cause what we see?
I'm still looking for those diagrams and computer models. Without those you are left to speculate like everyone else.




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by yourmaker
 


Link





Due to the nature of the story, and the accompanying secrecy, details and “mainstream” source material are understandably hard to find, giving mainstream media reason to discount the story. None the less, the revelations produced by Heidner expose a motive that makes much more sense than the B-movie script version we are all familiar with. When 911 is investigated as a crime, and not an act of terrorism, what can we surmise by examining what was accomplished? The main goals appear to have been intended to at least:

1. Destroy evidence of institutional lawlessness in government, finance, military and business.
2. Silence investigations into the above.
3. Demolish the white elephants known as the Twin Towers.
4. Provide pretext for world war and hegemony in the guise of the Global War on Terrorism.
5. Allow the continuation of a culture of plunder and corruption



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

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.


Thanks for the thorough reply. I tend to agree with each of your points. Skeptics of the official NIST structural-failure/pancake-collapse theory are often quick to declare there's NO possible way those buildings could have come down that way merely as a result of the plane (or missile) impact and fire damage, and that gravity and momentum cannot account for the "free-fall" speed of the collapses. Admittedly, I was/am as shocked as anyone that those towers fell that way. It's indeed unprecedented and difficult to fathom. However, I've never understood how a controlled demolition of any sort is any more probable.

To pull off such a monumental (previously unattempted) feat so flawlessly under--not controlled, but--highly chaotic conditions, in broad daylight, in the most densely populated city in the U.S., with all the world watching on live T.V.--by way of an elaborate clandestine plot involving two kamikaze passenger jets--AND--with such little apparent evidence left behind to allow for (for all intents and purposes) a successful cover-up . . . well, considering occam's razor--the NIST account starts sounding pretty good, unless you're willing to consider particle beams from space, mini-nukes, holograms, or a 100% fake grand media facade. But then you're back to weighing probabilities and it starts all over again.

Anyway, maybe some-one else out there has answers I've still yet to consider
edit on 6-12-2011 by lunarasparagus because: type-o



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by yourmaker
 


Link





Due to the nature of the story, and the accompanying secrecy, details and “mainstream” source material are understandably hard to find, giving mainstream media reason to discount the story. None the less, the revelations produced by Heidner expose a motive that makes much more sense than the B-movie script version we are all familiar with. When 911 is investigated as a crime, and not an act of terrorism, what can we surmise by examining what was accomplished? The main goals appear to have been intended to at least:

1. Destroy evidence of institutional lawlessness in government, finance, military and business.
2. Silence investigations into the above.
3. Demolish the white elephants known as the Twin Towers.
4. Provide pretext for world war and hegemony in the guise of the Global War on Terrorism.
5. Allow the continuation of a culture of plunder and corruption


WOW. that guy had amazing posts. seriously eye opening.
wish he would come back and rant some more.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


I think the problem some of us run into when trying to make sense of what happened that day according to NIST, is that they don't give good insight into what was going on in the towers 2,4,6,8,10 seconds into the collapse. That info may help us to understand how gravity and a plane alone destroyed that complex.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Wizayne
 


I'm thinking that you don't know what he meant. He has stated that the towers were basically empty.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Wizayne
 


And gravity alone...is not what happened that day. Try reading the engineering studies.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Wizayne
 


I'm thinking that you don't know what he meant. He has stated that the towers were basically empty.


Can you think of a better reason for all the missing contents? Have you any idea the sizes of just the generators?



But wait, there's more...just a tip of the proverbial iceberg. Keep in mind, this is the sort of stuff that is removed before buildings are demolished. Had they been there, these items would have become projectiles, not dust particles.







edit on 6-12-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


Umm, there werent "missing contents. It's just your flawed research skills that let you think that.

And no, those items in you post arent going to become projectiles when the building collapses on them....they are going to get crushed straight down.
edit on 6-12-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic
 


Umm, there werent "missing contents. It's just your flawed research skills that let you think that.

And no, those items in you post arent going to become projectiles when the building collapses on them....they are going to get crushed straight down.
edit on 6-12-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)


Were am I wrong? We saw dust blow out of the buildings, not industrial generators, not office furniture, none of the hundreds of sets of stainless steel elevator doors...the list goes on. Find them for me, then ignore all the witness testimony and the shocked comments from firefighters who said they saw bigger rubble heaps from ten story buildings.

Watch the video, it has a great list of the comments and contents.




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


I did watch the video. It did nothing to bolster your case, in fact it blew your missile idea right out of the water.

Why is it, I can find pictures of crushed office equipment from the Towers, in about thirty seconds, and yet, you proclaim that office equipment wasn't there?



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


The questions are very provoking when dealing with the realm of fallacy.

It is not a question of "how." It is a question of "who."

The forensic science is in. It is indisputable scientifically. There is no question the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition because of the forensic science. Super nano thermate is in the dust. This fact blows away the fallacy of "how" and moves the question to "who."



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic
 


I did watch the video. It did nothing to bolster your case, in fact it blew your missile idea right out of the water.

Why is it, I can find pictures of crushed office equipment from the Towers, in about thirty seconds, and yet, you proclaim that office equipment wasn't there?


I'm all ears, how did it contradict missiles?

Show me some photos of office furniture if you want, but where are the generators, all the big, heavy equipment? Crushed to dust, or worth removing and salvaging prior to demolition?



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by yourmaker
 


i didn't see any of those generators, but then, everything was covered with a thick coat of dust.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 

Hey LA... Your first YouTube reminded me of this as an explanation for top down demo that you raise in question #4. I saved this from a previous thread. Just a demonstration of collapse from top down initiated by weight from above:




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
OK my 2c, for nothing better to do right now...


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?


That is a hard question to answer. If you look really closely at the collapses you can see the top section of each tower start collapsing from the bottom up, before the bottom sections start to collapse, this is why tower 2 tilted so much. The buildings bellow the impact point started collapsing independent of the top, the top did not cause the collapse of the bottom sections. How this was pulled off is impossible for me to fathom, but the OS version is even more unfathomable. The only missing link in the CD hypothesis is the questions you ask, but those questions do not prove the CD hypothesis wrong, they're questions we all know can't be answered. The OS has far more real serious unanswered physics questions, that have nothing to do with what was used or how. The real questions lie in the absurd NIST hypothesis of collapse initiation, and their failure to even address the collapse.

It's more important to ask, 'Can sagging trusses out a pulling force on the columns they were attached too?' Rather than just believe that and turn it on the 'truthers' to back up and support every single miniscule detail.

If the government said it was red you say 'oh yeah it's red'. If a 'truther' says it's red, you ask them to show you the chemicals that makes it red, then you'd want to see the can it came in, then you'd demand a demonstration that it really is red by comparing it to yellow, which you'd use as proof it isn't red at all but brick red, which is different.


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.


Again who knows? The OS does not make anymore sense just because no one can answer every question you can think of.

How about instead you answer the many unanswered question the OS didn't address? NIST were the ones tasked to explain the collapses not me, or 'truthers'. Ask them the questions. How do sagging trusses put pulling forces on columns? Or is that not a valid question to ask them?


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?


Neither tower was technically 'imploded', they were too tall and skinny for that. Loud explosives were heard, period, go research. Why that fact has to be continually ignored is beyond me, well wait no it isn't


WTC7 was the tallest building ever 'imploded', and yes it was 'imploded'.


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?


Where have you looked, youtube? There are no rules to say how you have to collapse a building, each one is different. It is not a 'technique'. It is simply the order the explosives are rigged. You know, to make it appear that they collapsed from fire? The towers were not conventional controlled demolitions by any method.


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?


Everything is a risk. The first WTC bombing failed didn't it? But how do you know exactly that the plan went perfectly as planned? Did it?

edit on 12/6/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 

Thanks for the effort to bring those pics.
Chilling.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
The towers came down for a number of reasons IMO. Not just one event. I believe there were a few attacks on the towers, demolition, planes, thermite, directed energy etc... This is why there are so many conflicting resukts and why no one has been able to point the finger at any single event. Confusion was the key.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Let me first say that I am undecided on the matter, but hypothetically I will answer the questions I feel that I have something to tell you about/ Sorry I think the other questions have been answered many times on ATS and possibly on this thread.

I don't wana be rude but the questions just seem too obvious to be asked which is why you don't see them much

3. The principles of demolition appear to be the same, the size of the building just would mean more explosives, it is easily possible. The reason these kinds of buildings have not been demolished like this is obviously that it is not safe and would cause mass damage to the area. Do you really think it would be that hard to do? It's just a much larger scale than other buildings and since it's an attack they wouldn't have to worry about neatness even if they didn't want to. In the US there is a stupidly large amount of explosives stockpiled, they could take it out over and over and over and over no problem. Do you really think because it hasn;t been done on this scale that they can't? You say that as if to say 'well no one has demolished such a large building before, it must nit be possible! Well ask yourself why its not been done before? Skyscrapers are in major cities and demolishing them probably is not very safe and would cause a lot of damage around the area. Are you serious in thinking that they would demolish huge building like this!??!?!?! Sorry but that question seems mad to even ask.

4. Collapsing from top to bottom is easily achievable and makes sense fro controlled demolition to leave a more 'neat' debris pile, if you are using explosives or incendiary devices you can take out individual points precisely when you want

5. It could have not gone to plan, but why would they care? Their motivation would just be to cause loss of life, chaos and destruction. Why would that mean that they have to complete a perfectly clean job? Why would it matter if it went 'awry'? The evidence is destroyed during detonation/ignition. The plane crash obviously was the cover as for the reason for the collapse (assuming it was an inside job) Also this would be the biggest scam in history tptb have the resources to make it work, there are not many variables that would cause a major problem. Demolition of buildings is a science which is very efficient. The reason demolitions of this sized are not done are not because they can't be done, it would not be a challenge at all to demolish a building of that size, once the supports are destroyed and the buildings structural integrity is undermined the buildings own weight will bring it down easily.

I really don't want to be rude but these questions are very simple and basic questions that you can see answers for in many of the other threads about 9/11.





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join