Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why a “controlled demolition”

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   
I find myself doing this rather a lot just now, questioning the conspiracy theories of 9/11 like the conspiracy theorists question the official story.

This thought hit me some time ago when I witnessed a controlled demolition of a high rise building, why if on 9/11 if the used explosives to blow up the building did they make it look like an “obvious” controlled explosion. Many think that in the controlled demolition of a tower, the floors of the building fall one on top of the other in almost free fall into a tidy pile of dust and rubble within the space the former building once stood. This is not the case, in the building I saw destroyed they had do have the building crash down on its right hand side rather straight down because of nearby buildings.

So why does this make me question the idea of controlled demolition on 9/11, because I don’t understand why they would deliberately make it look like a controlled demolition. Why not have the building’s collapse onto their right or hand side. Why did they not make it look like a more “random” or “messy” collapse

And another thing, would the impact of the planes not disturb the explosives in some way by destroying the electrical cables connecting them all up? If all the explosives need to detonate in synchronicity with each other the impact of the planes would disturb this synchronicity because it is inevitable that they would have dislodged the explosives, destroyed the wiring systems and possibly even have detonated some of the explosives inside the building.

It’s starting to seem to me that we don’t even need evidence to “debunk” a 9/11 conspiracy just some common sense. I know that this is probably very lazy but it’s still true when you just think about it logically a lot of the claims made by the so called “truthers” fall to bits.




posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   
I agree with all your statements but.
Why demo the building at all?

Wasn't the plane(s) enough to rally the country?



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Exactly it makes no sense what so ever.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


I'm not going to try to convince you towards either, I will just throw my two cents in....

As with any controlled demolition, it takes a lot of work, it's not just slapping some explosives in there and setting them off. The core structure first has to be exposed. Then the structure is weakened with strategic cuts and such. then the explosives are applied to the columns and timed in such a way as to help direct the collapse.

When you are demoing a building, you aren't blowing it up, it's more like imploding. You are weakening the core structure so gravity brings the building down. Because we are well versed in the law of gravity, we can use this to our advantage.

You mentioned a building going over on it's side. This is one method, it really depends on the surrounding structures. You can basically direct the building to collapse in any direction by taking out the support on that side first, letting gravity pull the other side down. Or, if you are say right smack dab in the middle of a city block, you bring the center of the building in and bring the supports down at the same time.

The time it takes for a fuse to go is fast enough that the charges go off, the collapse doesn't start until the charges have all gone off, so there's no worry of the collapse severing a fuse, the signal has already gone through the fuse long before that can happen.

Ok, now specifically the WTC. first, I suggest you look into building 7, that's the on that is hard to explain, and mimics almost exactly standard demolition.

But you talked about the twins, so I will too. This is just conjecture on my part, lets keep that in mind.


Lets say you are whatever nefarious group that did this. Your plan is to bring those towers down, but you also want a shock and awe, inescapable horror aspect to it as well. So your plan is to slam hijacked jets into the buildings, which is horrific and terrifying in it's own right. But you are aware that, in reality, those towers were built to withstand almost that exact scenario, and you can't ensure destruction.

Now, lets also say, you don't want the fact that this was a much more sophisticated attack than mere arab hijackers on a suicide mission. Well, you use the fact that most people have lost the ability to think critically against them. The action movie scenario is, jet hits building, big bright explosion, building collapses.

So you decide to wire the building, below the suggested point of impact (a little above half for both) with explosives. This way, the plane strikes towards the top and causes a fire, then because the lower half is wired with binary explosives (fire aint gonna set them off) you destroy the core support beams, allowing for a gravity fueled collapse (at first glance).

This way, to the person watching, all appears to happen as it should, building collapsed at the point where the plane hit.

But they didn't, the collapsed down, with little to no resistance, which means the structure below the point of impact had to offer no resistance, meaning it had to be weakened before hand.

Again, not trying to sway you, just my two cents, not saying that's even how it happened.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   
You don't want to destroy surrounding buildings that don't belong to you when it comes to the insurance pay-out. Making it look more messy is very costly, money that has to be paid out to OTHERS...no way!
Keep it easy and collect, whilst blaming two measly aeroplanes scratching the sides a bit.
I mean it has obviously worked a treat for Larry Silverstein.


[Source is one of many, just Google WTC Silverstein Insurance]
whatreallyhappened.com...

That is why they fell so neatly. IMO



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 



....with little to no resistance....

Says who? I see this all the time. What would resistance "look" like? There was resistance, hence all the dust and broken and twisted structural material. It doesn't take long for things to break once they have been stressed beyond their capacity. Milliseconds. That's why "resistance" isn't visibile to the naked eye.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


The WTC was full of asbestos and it would have costed millions or more to safely remove it. They were also having occupancy issues, neither tower was filled anywhere close to capacity.

Add to that, a double insurance payout because each plane was considered a separate terrorist attack, and you have plenty of reasons to bring them down.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by samkent
 


Exactly it makes no sense what so ever.


Soooo, the fact it may have gone awry and taken even more life, is not enough sense?

Guess not, hasn't been in 11 years... why should it now.

Bit like accusing the fire brigade of starting forest fires "There was a blazing fire and they started a new one, what gives! I bet that start them all!!!11" when in reality, it's to prevent further damage.

Then again, I shouldn't be here... i can't argue the logic and let my opinion cause conflagration where there should be none.

adios!



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 





Says who? I see this all the time. What would resistance "look" like? There was resistance, hence all the dust and broken and twisted structural material. It doesn't take long for things to break once they have been stressed beyond their capacity. Milliseconds. That's why "resistance" isn't visibile to the naked eye.


Go watch the collapses with the time code on screen. The top of the tower, instead of disintegrating around the outside edges or toppling over the side, came down through the rest of the structure, to the ground, taking the path of most resistance.

Again, this is supposed to be a fire induced, gravity fueled collapse, which simply can not be symmetrical.

I'm not trying to support either story, which might be hard to tell lol, I'm just responding to the OPs questions, he asked why, I'm giving some whys. I don't necessarily believe all of them.

Anyways, I think I just told you what resistance should look like, but let me be exactly clear..

According to the OS, the planes it, caused fires at the points of impact that weakened the steel columns, and allowed the upper levels to come crashing down.

I can't remember which tower, north or south, but one of the towers, you can see the top twist and basically start to slide off. This is the video that started me on the quest to prove all the 911 truthers to be idiots. Because, that's exactly what should have happened.

The structure should collapse towards the weak point, which would be the impact.

Now, according to physics, if the top half of a building is collapsing down into itself, the lower half has to offer resistance, meaning, it has to slow down the top half. This didn't happen. Both towers came down almost into their basements, and building 7 did down straight down into it's basement.

The speed at which the upper floors were able to travel through the lower half of the structure, the parts that were not damaged, indicates that the lower half offered very little resistance. This simple doesn't make sense if the buildings were damaged at the top by impact and fire.

As well, jet fuel is mostly kerosene and burned off in the initial bright orange fireballs. The fires that continued to burn produced thick black smoke, which indicates a fuel starved fire.

Fire burns it's fuel and moves on, creating uneven heat distribution. It is extremely unlikely for an office fire to create melted steel columns over an entire floor evenly. Again, this indicates that a footprint collapse was unlikely.

For me, it's not any one of the unlikely things, it's all of them together. I'd sure love the official story to be true, would make the world a much simpler place where you can trust your government to tell the truth, and trust your allies not to attack you.

honestly, I don't even see the point talking about it much anymore, we aren't getting new information, you aren't convincing me the OS is correct and I'm not convincing you that it isn't.

I guess it still makes for interesting threads until it regresses into name calling.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
This is the best source I have found that reviews the case for controlled demolition:


Google Video Link


As for the building falling down instead of side ways, they where big buildings and would have done a lot more damage and cost to fix the city up. Saying that you think it is suspicious to be a controlled demolition because it looks like a controlled demolition sounds a bit lost. It is great to keep asking questions as it is a tough one, but don't lose sight of logic too much.

As for any explosives when the plane hit, a few may have gone up in the close vicinity as the plane exploded and the fireball went up. But it is clear that not enough to trigger a complete collapse prematurely exploded. If any did they would have been masked with the plane blowing up. Wireless detonations can also be used, cost a bit more but it is well established technology.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

So why does this make me question the idea of controlled demolition on 9/11, because I don’t understand why they would deliberately make it look like a controlled demolition. Why not have the building’s collapse onto their right or hand side. Why did they not make it look like a more “random” or “messy” collapse

Common Sense you applied....... hmm.

Lets see, the buildings were designed to absorb Multiple plane hits (that means many) , so to get the achieved goal,
(New Pearl Harbour) , the buildings had to fall.
The OS side will tell you the Impacts shook off the Fireproofing , and the fuel weakened the Structures to a point
of the ...neat and tidy collapse.

But in the case of building 7, no impact , no fuel fire so fireproofing remained effective, BUT ALAS , it fell too.

You see, using your COMMON SENSE approach, I dis-proved the OS in less than 150 words.

Common Sense is fun.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Have you ever been to new york? If the world trade center fell on its side itd take out so many other buildings its be ridiculous....

In fact one conspiracy theorist told me that every large tower in every city is permanently rigged with explosives incase of terrorist attack for fear of taking out block after block in an uncontrolled collapse, that this was done after the first attempt to destroy the world trade center. Im not sure i believe that one but it would explain a lot...

By the way, watch the towers fall again. When the first building came down, its top infact started falling to the side. Then something seemed to correct its course and make it fall straight down at freefall speed. My theory is there were no explosives above the plane. Infact i think only two or three floors had explosives at all, to blast them outta the way.

By the way falling at freefall speed requires a couple of stories be blasted iut of the way under the collapsing portion.

My biggest question for the official theory is if the plane is pretty much annihilated, how does the hijackers passport fall out onto the street? In fact, why would it be assumed to be the hijackers passport? Also, why didnt chairs and office supplies fall into the street? Wheres the chairs and desks?

edit on 19-6-2012 by phroziac because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


They wanted a "New Pearl Harbor" as stated in the PNAC documents.

in order to muster support for their planned slaughter, terror & torture of brown people
living in oil-rich nations (and to increase bases near China).



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


If you "think" it about it further, the planes would not mess up any cables. First and formost, technology allows for remote wireless detonation.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 





So why does this make me question the idea of controlled demolition on 9/11, because I don’t understand why they would deliberately make it look like a controlled demolition. Why not have the building’s collapse onto their right or hand side. Why did they not make it look like a more “random” or “messy” collapse



Because demolition is the easy way to do it...and you don't need make it look like anything...it is what it is, and you just put your spin on things. And why not?

How many people believe the planes brought them down, even though it resembles CD? The tactic obviously works. Most people believe what authorities tell them, no matter what it looks like. If it was an inside job, they wouldn't worry much about appearances....they knew the story will be whatever you tell it to be.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
I find that this shows the "why" best to me.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 





Add to that, a double insurance payout because each plane was considered a separate terrorist attack, and you have plenty of reasons to bring them down.

You might want to read the wiki on the insurance.
It took 6 years in court to get the insurance to pay more than one instance (attack). Even then they setteled on less than double.
Plus LS did not recieve the money directly. It all went into rebuilding. Plus he has paid his 100+ million yearly lease payment every year even though he has no tennants paying him.

Still think he planned it?



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


He just needed to be first in line to rebuild. This is where the money is...construction. Insurance is an additional pocket candy.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
I think the ironic part about the "collapse" is that the moment the firefighters reached the impact zone of the South Tower and concluded there were more than controllable small pockets of fire, the building began to fall only moments later. If the controlled demolition theory is true, this could possibly explain why the South Tower was brought down first. If firefighters began to report back how controllable the fires were and began extinguishing them, then the dramatic impact through the media would nowhere near have been as strong. OSers..I said if as in hypothetically speaking. ::waits for an OSer to jump out from behind with a shank::

My question that I have though, is it standard procedure for firefighters to communicate with a building owner? The way I see it, aren't firefighters going to do whatever they can to put out the fires and assure the safety of those in the area? Why is LS telling them to "pull it"? Were there even any firefighters inside WTC 7?
edit on 19-6-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Destroying the towers was for creating "right" psychological impact in the public. The towers standing, firefighting and successful rescue operation would have created a wholly different and maybe more peaceful mind set.

The towers were doomed before. They had to be demolished to small parts in the air, because they were standing on this delicate Bath Tub, which had to be saved from shattering.
The resulting impact level was within "industry standard" 2.1 and 2.3 Richter scale – same number that CDI produced with their Seattle Kingdome demolition.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join