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

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Thanks, New Age. Anyone who looks at that picture of the north tower after the 'impact', and continues to say that it collapsed because it was weakened by fire should be ashamed of themselves. This has gotten completely out of hand, and this 'new guy' is anything but. He's just another front for dis-info, but they are losing control of the argument and his team is weakened.

reply to post by dillweed

They should also watch the video (and bring a stopwatch), which I added

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
This image will give you a sense for the length of undamaged structure for the north tower (which was destroyed from top to bottom to within about three or four seconds of ABSOLUTE FREE FALL. 95 floors: one, two, three, four.)

Re: the south tower tipping point

South Tower Tipping and Disintegration:

If the North Tower's antenna drop was anomalous from the perspective of the official theory, the South Tower's collapse contained an even stranger anomaly. The uppermost floors--above the level struck by the airplane--began tipping toward the corner most damaged by the impact. According to conservation-of-momentum laws, this block of approximately 34 floors should have fallen to the ground far outside the building's footprint. "However," observe Paul and Hoffman, "as the top then began to fall, the rotation decelerated. Then it reversed direction [even though the law of conservation of angular momentum states that a solid object in rotation will continue to rotate at the same speed unless acted on by a torque" (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 34).
And then, in the words of Steven Jones, a physics professor at BYU, "this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air!" This disintegration stopped the tipping and allowed the uppermost floors to fall straight down into, or at least close to, the building's footprint. As Jones notes, this extremely strange behavior was one of many things that NIST was able to ignore by virtue of the fact that its analysis, in its own words, "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached" (NIST 2005, p. 80, n. 12). This is VERY convenient because it means that NIST did not have to answer Jones's question: "How can we understand this strange behavior without explosives?" (Jones, 2006).

This behavior is, however, not strange to experts in controlled demolition. Mark Loizeaux, the head of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said:

"By differentially controlling the velocity of failure in different parts of the structure, you can make it walk, you can make it spin, you can make it dance . . . . We'll have structures start facing north and end up going to the north-west." (Else, 2004)

Once again, I would like to thank them, the OS crime of the century defenders (can you imagine having all the info and then with awareness, continuing..?), for advancing the cause of truth and historical justice. Their activity serves the cause well and they ought to know that. ie: I would not have had the opportunity to present this, nor readers view it, absent the OP.

reply to post by lunarasparagus


Incorrect , you are ignoring your own question but not including WTC7 ..WHy because you know 7 proves that there was a controlled demolition ..SO you want to focus only on the towers where its hard to prove either way what really took them down , very clever idea to call it derailing but i believe it is you who is derailing the entire event .....The answer to all of your questions is quite simple , does the US have some of the most advanced weaponry on earth and is it not possible that some form of highly advances explosive was used YES .(Is that what happened i do not know but when we are talking about such a giant unknown is not anything possible ) ..In the end it does not matter how much we argue , the truth is out of our grasp , IN MY HEART i beg that there is no conspiracy and i side on the fact that the towers fell do to structural failure . In my mind however i know there is more to all this ..SO OP did you make this post to reveal the truth or bury it more...

reply to post by essanance

The sheer height of the twin towers and the speed with which they were destroyed lends them perfectly to a proof that only a CD could have resulted in the destruction observed, you're wrong about that.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I never stated that i believed either way please re read my comment i gave scenarios but i stated i dont know for sure

It’s like a new set of travelers coming upon the same dead horse. They can’t resist beating it with a stick.
They have been beating buildings 1-2-7 for ten years now.

And what piece of new evidence has ever come to light? Nothing!
The only new thing to come forward is the number of people making money off the topic of 911.

If you want your name to be remembered through out history, come forward with firsthand proof.
If you want your monetary future secured for your lifetime, come forward with firsthand proof.

All we have is speculative websites concerned with ‘hit counts’ tied to downstream income and charlatans traveling between paid conventions.

What does it tell you when ambulance chasing lawyers are silent? Where are all the wrongful death suits? They’ll sue over a hot cup of coffee from a fast food chain. Look at the name they could make for themselves!
Who ever heard of Johnny Cochran before OJ?
Are we to believe lawyers don’t want to make a name off of 911?

Are the people on conspiracy websites smarter than lawyers?

There is NO evidence of a conspiracy!

But in 6 weeks a new set of travelers will happen by and beat the same dead horse.

reply to post by lunarasparagus


OK, I'll give it a shot. I dunno how good my explenations are going to be but here goes nothing.

1-When controled demo's happen they use electronic switch boards. Depending on the demo, the switch board is conected in sequence to have a better control of whatever sections are to be demolished first.

2-Let's say the charges were built in for arguments sake. They could of been embedded in the concrete surrounding the columns. And again, the switch boards can be controled very precisely. They can start and finish the explosions where ever they want if set up that way.

3-No sound? That's a good question. It could be anything from ambient sound and wind direction muffling the sound of the explosions to no explosions at all. Who really knows.

4-Here's a Top Down Demo does it look familiar? It kind of does to me.

5-Well, if you look at the demo's track records, they're pretty darn good. So statisticly speaking the odds were in their vafor.

Ok, this is a quick explenation. I'm not trying to debunk or proove anything. Just trying to contribute to the thread.

Peace

reply to post by Varemia


blamy! what are the changes!

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by Limbo
Even with outer structure intact it still would not fall freely yeah? (Or am I missing something)?

That is correct. It would not fall freely. It would fall at near free fall speeds. The falling floors impart momentum to the floors that they are tearing loose.

OOPS!!!

The conservation of momentum just disappeared.

The energy lost needed to break the connections just disappeared.

This propaganda physics is just so cool.

psik

Originally posted by essanance
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

I never stated that i believed either way please re read my comment i gave scenarios but i stated i dont know for sure

unfortunately this makes you appear as if you cannot come to conclusions...like you do not even know which brainwashing to pick.

secondly to even have the ability to believe these buildings are not being utterly destroyed and turned to nothingness by non-gravity driven forces shows what cartoons have done to the masses.

Originally posted by samkent

The only new thing to come forward is the number of people making money off the topic of 911.

I find this a bit funny. Who is really making money off 9/11 here, the truth movement or the war movement? Who makes more, a relatively unpopular 9/11 truth site, or say, a company that builds jets, tanks and bombs? Are truthers profiting from this, or is it the people that sent us into the wars as a result of? I challenge you to show one group or entire organization related to 9/11 truth that has made even 1% of 9/11 profiteer Larry Sliverstein. That is just one individual who made billions. I'll bet the entire 9/11 truth movements so called "profits", as you call it, would not even crack 1% of what that one individual made.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


I tried disassociating WTC 7 from towers 1 & 2 and got very little response on ATS. To this day, I am sure the government will eventually come forward and admit it was destroyed on purpose to protect classified secrets, thereby deflating the conspiracies around towers 1 & 2.

Here's that thread for posterity: www.abovetopsecret.com...

On point and for balance. Here's a video showing that steel heated from jet fuel will lose strength and fail.

This is such a fast growing thread and I want to throw in this link, in case its new to some members:

Direct Energy Weapon

Especially take a look at the cars section....
Dont want to derail or something, just for your information

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

I cannot believe you seriously think there aren't people who can do nefarious deeds and keep their mouths shut.

That's not what I said, is it? Look at what I wrote - I said that there are extraordinarily few people who would lie about the death of a loved one for cash. To base a plan on the notion that 100 per cent of people will do that 100 per cent of the time, just so long as the price is right, is in my opinion seriously far fetched.

If one of the insiders came forward -- how long would they LIVE and which media organization would cover it?

That's a different question. You presuppose that there are people willing to kill indiscrimanetly for money and I suspect that's true. But what if one of them thought they could make some more money by selling the story - to Russia, who would love a stick to beat the US with, for example, or to an islamic country. What would stop them doing it? They are obviously mercenary in nature. And there are countries where they could get safe haven fairly easily.

I suppose you have another fifty guys who will kill them. But who watches them to make sure they aren't going to waver? Another fifty cold-blooded killers? And so on and so on.

Most of the rest of your post is pretty irrelevant, really, although this --

Whether or NOT 9/11 was an inside job or not -- we are on the road to an absolute Oligarchy, and I consider Bush, Cheney, Hank Paulson and so many people in charge traitors to this country and humanity. The corruption of our country couldn't be any worse than if they attacked us on purpose, or finally there was blowback for the millions of deaths in the name of corporate profits. We commit atrocities on a monthly basis in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq -- so WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL?

-- I rather agree with. Despite the hyperbole.

Saying the Bush/Cheney government would never do such a thing is laughable.

Except I didn't say that. My thoughts about the impossibility of 9/11 being "an inside job" have little to do with the venality of those in charge.

And saying it's "impossible because someone would talk" -- kind of ignores all the stuff like rigged elections that you have to ignore.

I remember seeing rather a lot about rigged elections in the MSM!

But I'm not just saying it's impossible "because someone would talk" (although I think it highly likely that someone would). I'm pointing out that basing a plan on the notion that thousands of people - and there would be thousands if you include the connections of the families and the complicit media on top of those who actually carried it out - would remain silent seems to me inoridinately, indeed unbelievably, optimistic.

And when one considers that the people you are relying on to be silent are by definition amoral scum, I think it's hard to believe they would keep their mouths shut. Or that you could base any plan on relying on them to do so.

reply to post by lunarasparagus


I will never be 100% sure about the official story or the conspiracy theories. I will however admit that it looked like controlled demolition. And the Pentagon hit looked like a cruise missile hit but that's up for debate.

I guess we will never know for sure.

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart

I find this a bit funny. Who is really making money off 9/11 here, the truth movement or the war movement? Who makes more, a relatively unpopular 9/11 truth site, or say, a company that builds jets, tanks and bombs? Are truthers profiting from this, or is it the people that sent us into the wars as a result of? I challenge you to show one group or entire organization related to 9/11 truth that has made even 1% of 9/11 profiteer Larry Sliverstein. That is just one individual who made billions. I'll bet the entire 9/11 truth movements so called "profits", as you call it, would not even crack 1% of what that one individual made.

Except the war profiteers would make money whether they caused it or not. Whereas the Truth Movement sites need the notion of a conspiracy to continue to keep making cash. So the relative sums aren't really as important as what they reveal about the activities of the people involved. In the former case, not a lot. In the latter, plenty.

reply to post by samkent


And what if some of us are "TRAVELLERS"
How does Your racist comments assist in any way?
Gravitor

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by Limbo
Even with outer structure intact it still would not fall freely yeah? (Or am I missing something)?

That is correct. It would not fall freely. It would fall at near free fall speeds. The falling floors impart momentum to the floors that they are tearing loose.

OOPS!!!

The conservation of momentum just disappeared.

The energy lost needed to break the connections just disappeared.

This propaganda physics is just so cool.

psik

It's the billiard ball principle.

Newtons cradle.

Drop an anvil on a pine board supported at the ends. let me know how much the anvil slows down. Better yet, put your foot under it.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
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

edit on 5-12-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)

Well. Thanks for the detailed analysis. That settles it. No need to think about this anymore!

OP, you say that you "have an open mind". Don't let it fall out. You posit that the "amount of explosive needed would have been enormous". By that statement you acknowledge the structural integrity of the twin towers. If such an enormous amount of explosives would be needed, how can you believe that the two towers could have collapsed without the introduction of a massive amounts of energy? After all, virtually every structural element of those buildings was pulverized and the concrete components were reduced to dust.

The twin towers' cores would not have collapsed as occurred on 9-11-2001 without the introduction of additional energy into the process. This has been shown time and again by well qualified analysts. One could accept some degree of collapse of the floors radiating out from the core, but not the core itself. The perps made a big mistake in failing to realize that collapsing the towers' core structure would raise many questions about what happened.

The perps went too far. It wouldn't do to have those unsightly building cores remain standing after the other portions of the towers were destroyed, now would it? What a mess that would have been to deal with. Or did they go too far? We shall see. They've gotten away with it for a full ten years so far, with incalculable collateral damage. I hope they're all brought to justice, together with their aiders and abettors, before they all die, and are punished accordingly, including stripping them of all assets and distributing all their assets to their victims around the globe. One can only hope.

reply to post by lunarasparagus


I will try to answer you questions. I have no expertise in the fields of demolition. I'm just going on common sense and information I have learned during my own investigations.

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?

Modern explosives can be detonated by wireless remote control. If it was controlled demolition they would have had over an hour to check which explosives were still intact and re-configure the order of detonation. I could assume that a computer program could calculate the best way to accomplish the demolition.

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.

Some of the explosives would not have survived enough to be detonated and perhaps were ignited by the planes impact and/or subsequent fires. Thermate / thermite are believed to be one of the explosives are unique. There is video of what appears to be molten metal falling from the towers before they fell. This could be a result of the explosives being ignited by the impact.

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?

Small blasting caps would be sufficient enough to ignite the explosives and no one could hear explosives near the top of the towers from the ground. Once the towers were falling there was enough noise to diguise the lower level explosives.

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?

There are many techniques used to collapse a building being demolished. I assume that if it was a controlled demolition that the people who planned it would have made a few backup plans.
Here are few quick examples of buildings being demo from top down

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 doubt they would have rested assured that all would go perfectly. The risk was obviously worth the reward. The evidence of molten metal and explosive residue found in the debris is something they didn't account for. They destroyed as much evidence as they could after the fact. They hauled away the debris and melted down steel beams before independent examinations could take place.

Personally I can not say without a doubt that it was or wasn't a controlled demolition. But the existing evidence I have seem and the many other factors surrounding the events of that day and the subsequent official version of what happened. Have me very suspicious and leaning towards believing the theories of controlled demolition. The official story has too many holes and important factors left out.