It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WTC beyond Explosives

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 06:47 PM
Ok, let just imagine that the WTC buildings really were brought down with explosives.

The problem is, there is much speculation concerning how even with typical demolition cutter charges and explosives, such a collapse would still be rather difficult bordering on impossible.

One of the strong arguments for this is the sheer amount of force and energy required to completely pulverise a building such as wtc 1 and 2 to dust particles on the order of 30 - 300 microns wide in approx. 10 seconds flat.

Even with a natural collapse the amount of energy and force required to create such a dramatic annihilation simply does not appear to be present unless a large catalyst like a bomb/s exploding occured.

Doesn't anyone find that strange in itself, I mean were still debating over whether explosives may of been used, well then how could explosives make it possible that way?

I have heard a few theories concerning possibilities, which is where things get even more bizarre. It seems that it maybe too difficult to get the amount of convential explosives into a building, especially un-noticed, even if they could there would probably be several huge payloads per floor, and that wouldnt of gone un noticed. Not to mention the sheer amount of cutting charges that would have to be placed. I mean the wtc staff would be climbing over the all these demo boxes to get to their desks!

It baffles even the demo. experts, many of them acknowledge that it doesnt look like a convential demolition or a building collapse, well they are probably right, they would never of seen anything like it, what i believe we could be seeing is more like a complete and total eradication of a building and everything inside it through some unique explosive mechanism/s, or a cocktail of traditional devices coupled with an unknown payload.

A few theories have suggested that something a little more powerful than convential explosive charges could offer a reasonable explaination which i am currently enclinded to believe.

There is some evidence also to suggest EMP and raditiation was present at 'ground zero', which points a lucritive finger to you know what.

Here is an interesting read:

An EMP-type phenomenon blacked out cellular phones at the moment when the first (southern) tower started to 'fall down', at the exact moment when a small thermonuclear bomb was detonated. Even in electronic cameras and videos a strange afterglow was seen in the late phase of the 'collapse' of both of the towers. See Gehue plate 5

posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 08:06 PM

Originally posted by Insolubrious
I have heard a few theories concerning possibilities, which is where things get even more bizarre. It seems that it maybe too difficult to get the amount of convential explosives into a building, especially un-noticed

An absolute fact. The explosives cannot be gotten inside the building, they cannot be placed inside the center of the concrete where they will cause it to fracture. They cannot be distributed enough to avoid large gas jets that appear bomb like, making big holes in things and throwing stuff long distances.

The distribution issue is what has the demo experts baffled because it causes much finer breakage of concrete and that is easily seen. The reason why is they are not thinking that the buildings were built to demolish with the high explosive encapsulated in concrete, sealed until the day a small parafin plug is dug out and a blasting cap set next to the explosive. Distribution through the rebar grid is perfect and the amount, wall thickness and bar diameter can all be varied until the containment is maximum which makes a somewhat muffled explosion and more dust.

Here is how it had to have been done, right down to cutting charges built into the floors.

The nuke idea won't fly because of the fact there was an obvious delay all the way down, firefighters describe it with mimickery.

You can't delay a nuke.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Christophera]

posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 08:41 AM
I think i have heard a similar theory also, that when the buildings were initially built they had devices and a schema intergrated with the design in case they ever wanted/needed to demolish it. It sounds reasonable but i think that theory may of been debunked as there was little if no evidence to suggest so. Thats not to say its not possible. Infact its probably more possible than trying to prep the building after its been built. It would also serve a good explaination for the fine powdering of the building.

The nuke idea won't fly because of the fact there was an obvious delay all the way down, firefighters describe it with mimickery.

You can't delay a nuke.

Are you totally sure about that? I expect there has been many experiments and developments in terms of bomb tech. First time i heard someone suggest nuke i thought the idea was ludicrious too.

The reason for me going back to this is there is some pretty interesting physics that takes place with a hydrogen bomb that correlates well to observations made by at wtc. The suggestion is that its quite possible a mini hydrogen bomb utilizing tech. like bunker busting or similiar may of been used to penetrate the core. The idea is it was actually set off in the basement, making its way to the top of the building(!) and exploding at the top, allowing the building to collapse in on itself from the top down as we see. The device would of weakened the entire struture on is ascend, literally bringing the core to the point of evaporation in seconds where it tried absorbing all the radiation like a sponge that is given off.

What i like is the simplicity of this theory as if correct, then would make it a plausable technique to bring down a building with minimal amount of building prep, since it seems almost impossible to rig and use convential explosives. The radiation produced by such a device would give a reasonable explaination to the vaporising of the entire core:

Burning radiation is absorbed in steel so quickly that steel heats up immediately over its melting point 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F) and above its boiling point around 3000 C (approx. 5430 °F). In the pictures down below, super hot groups of steel pillars and columns, torn from wall by pressure wave, are sublimized. They immediately turn into a vaporized form, binding heat as quickly as possible. Bursts upwards, even visible in the picture below, are not possible for a gravitational collapse or for cutting charges which are used horizontally.

Also hydrogen bombs go hand in hand with radiation and EMP. So surely if there was such a bomb then we would be able to find evidence of radiation and EMP. Well apparently there is. Observations have been made of signature brown radiation clouds coming from the blast, gieger counter readings showing radiation (blamed on the planes, good scapegoat!) and even a localised blackout (EMP) was experienced in the proximity of wtc buildings.

Surely with convential explosives there would be no radiation or EMP and why would they of dubbed it a 'ground zero' site? Ground zero sites are the term used to describe a site where a nuclear explosion has taken place. I heard also the FBI knew of the radiation present which is why they kept their distance from the scene and left it to FEMA.


log in