WTC Was Demolished By Explosives!

[Maiden]

No, it can obviously happen that way by complete accident. Why do we even bother spending so much time rigging buildings when it's obvious they will implode on themselves naturally with just a fire?


In the RICO lawsuit being filed in Pennsylvania (Rodriguezvs.Bush et al), it's stated that there was a "power down" condition on the weekend of the 8-9th, for a "cabling upgrade," in which the power, along with the security cameras, were out.

exactly my point. you wouldn't go through all that work. Especially when:
a. you are going to implode the what might be the tallest building ever in #7 at 47 floors
b. you are going to implode a building almost 3 times that tall in #1
c. do one more at a 110 floors in #2
d. do it all without anyone having a clue about whats going on or
e. elimination everyone that did have a clue and
f. do it in a time frame of 48 hrs. when the cameras are turned off.
g. oh, and fly a couple of airplanes into the buildings so it looks like something else caused their collapse.


i get your point about questioning the "official" story, I do. But suggesting that the buildings were brought down with explosives is akin to saying we have a maned space flight to Pluto leaving tomorrow.

[Pooinyourmouth_needmerge]

Take your left hand and dump a pile of baby powder in it, then with your right hand, slap it down swiftly on your left.

What just happened?

Did someone rig explosives in the palm of your hand when no one was looking?

[Uaintseenme]

Take your left hand and dump a pile of baby powder in it, then with your right hand, slap it down swiftly on your left.

What just happened?

Did someone rig explosives in the palm of your hand when no one was looking?

:lol:

[MKJ]

Take your left hand and dump a pile of baby powder in it, then with your right hand, slap it down swiftly on your left.

What just happened?

Did someone rig explosives in the palm of your hand when no one was looking?

fucking register a new account or summat, cock. its not going to be merged any faster by having such an obnoxious billboard in your nick

homo *kiss*

[Pooinyourmouth_needmerge]

fucking register a new account or summat, cock. its not going to be merged any faster by having such an obnoxious billboard in your nick

homo *kiss*

Don't change the subject damn it. Some government agency seems to have placed some explosives in my left palm and all you can worry about is my user name.

[MKJ]

fucking register a new account or summat, cock. its not going to be merged any faster by having such an obnoxious billboard in your nick

homo *kiss*

Don't change the subject damn it. Some government agency seems to have placed some explosives in my left palm and all you can worry about is my user name.

they also seem to have added a kabillion characters to your ubb account!

[Nightshade]

No, it can obviously happen that way by complete accident. Why do we even bother spending so much time rigging buildings when it's obvious they will implode on themselves naturally with just a fire?

Exaggerating a bit here, aren't we? Simple physics tells us that it's logical for a massive building to fall straight down in its own footprint due to the great inertia it possesses. Controlled demolitions are executed to ensure that it happens that way.
You say your dad worked in demolitions, then you should know just how many explosions would be seen in taking down a building the size of WTC1 or 2.

[R00k]

The collapses were not 'precise'

http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm

DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”?
No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site

There's nothing precise about the way any building falls, especially one that's 110 stories tall. I'm not trying to say that their collapse had no effect on any surrounding buildings or people. The precision is in the way charges are placed, so buildings over 1300 feet tall don't crush cars, homes and businesses for hundreds of feet around them.

As has been mentioned already by others who disagree with me, this was the largest building ever demolished in history, if in fact it was demolished. There is no way that even professionals could have prevented all damage to neighboring buildings and other things nearby -- especially since there was no warning to anyone in the vicinity, as there usually is with demolitions.
I don't really understand how this contradicts my arguments.

DID THE TERRORISTS PLANT ANY BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS IN ADVANCE TO GUARANTEE THEIR DEMISE?
To our knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. Analysis of video and photographs of both towers clearly shows that the initial structural failure occurred at or near the points where the planes impacted the buildings. Furthermore, there is no visible or audible indication that explosives or any other supplemental catalyst was used in the attack.

To their knowledge, "there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion."
There is also no evidence whatsoever to support the official assertion, so I don't believe this detracts from my questions, or gives any more credence to the official version one way or the other.

Also there were many professionals (including demolition experts) who worked on the removal of debris who were actually tasked with identifying different debris etc. They haven't reported evidence of demolition.


http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc2.htm

Project Managers from all five primary demolition contractors that worked to clear the World Trade Center site in New York appeared together for the first time recently to answer questions and relate their experiences in a compelling seminar at the National Association of Demolition Contractor's (NADC) 30th Annual Convention in Orlando, Florida USA.

Several hundred delegates attended the highly anticipated "no-question-is-off-limits" Q&A session. Speakers included David Griffin Jr., Vice President of D.H. Griffin, Inc. and Demolition Consultant for the Ground Zero site, Mike Richman of Gateway Demolition, Ed King of Mazzocchi Wrecking, Jon Manafort of Manafort Brothers and Dennis Dannenfelser of Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal. Each firm was responsible for one quadrant of the site's cleanup during the six months after 9/11.

it was Dannenfelser who provided some of the most compelling observations. Having spent months coordinating retrieval efforts at the Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island, he spoke of working closely with the FBI and other agencies in developing various types of debris filtering machines, including one that could recognize small amounts of "human material" for DNA identification. He also spoke of retrieving, "about 10,000 pieces of the airplanes, which I kept in a pile by my truck for safekeeping."

So what happened to the airplane parts? Surely if they had been investigated or even kept, then the government would have said so, to get everyone off their backs. A coordinator saying he kept them in a pile by his truck doesn't seem very convincing to me.

Were any of the family members at this meeting? Was it a public event?
(sorry I haven't had a chance to read it yet, aside from what you've posted, but I will)

[R00k]

So are you saying that if these building had collapsed "naturally" without some sort of boost from explosives that there would be no such "ring of debris?" You have no way of knowing this. It is not possible to come to that conclusion logically.

It could have sent a lot of random debris flying in a lot of different places, sure. But there's no way it could have produced a complete and unbroken ring of outward flying debris that size, 5 to 10 stories below where the floors were impacting. That's impossible.

[Fender]

Why not? What makes that impossible? Hell... what makes that even unlikely? I'd actually take the other side and say that seeing behavior different than this from a collapse regardless of how/why it collapsed is damn near zero.

[R00k]

It's amazing how you and I see different things.

What I see is the beginning of collapse. The debris is being forced out from below by the dynamic weight of the floors above which have begun to fall. The exterior of the building finally buckles from the pressure of the debris which is being forced down and outwards.

That doesn't make sense to you?

I found the video using my good pal google.

edit: look at the first 2 seconds of the video, before the 'explosions' happen. You can actually see the corner of the building collapsing.

Yes, I totally see the beginning of the collapse in the first 2 seconds, and I agree that that part looks pretty much like a normal collapse.

But for the next 2-3 seconds, if you follow the ring of debris down with your eyes, you see something entirely different and unexpected happen: there is a flat spot in the wall right below the ring where there is no damage across the entire facade on that floor or two, but then right below that, you see a sudden outward shot of another ring form, while the part just above it is still undamaged.

Why would the buckling you describe skip at least an entire floor uniformly like that?

[R00k]

I understand that. But do you personally have a belief as to what made the towers collapse? Do you simply not care?

Do you think the victims' families shouldn't care? Or do you think they should accept the dubious conspiracy theory of Bush-appointed politicians, even though you wouldn't necessarily accept it?

I'm not a civil, mechanical or structural engineer. My best frame of references is a few mech/civil engineering courses I had to take in college. The best I can do is believe the experts. The professor emertus of structural engineering at MIT among dozens of other in the field engineers have stated that the heat in the building was hot enough to degrade the steel enough to allow a collapse to happen. And yes, I've read some of the "debunking" of those statements/theories. The best they can come up with is something like "look it happened differently here!" That's not sufficient. The complexity of this system is nearly incomprehensible and its behavior under circumstances such as this is completely unpredictable. Standard chaos theory.

I can understand that stance.

But if you believe the experts who state that it was hot enough inside to melt steel, would you not also have to believe the many experts who have stated the opposite is true?

I don't buy the chaos theory model on such a macro scale, personally. Sure it explains the unpredictable behavior of particles on a quantum scale, and it is true that a lot of things in an event this chaotic can't be explained (I learned about that sort of freak occurrence when my house was ripped up by a tornado) -- but it still cannot defy basic laws of physics.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

i give up

[Pooinyourmouth_needmerge]

Like I said early on, I won't argue with conspiracy nuts. They simply wont listen. Their mind is made up and no one can sway it.

[R00k]

My point is that the official story is a conspiracy theory, and it is no more plausible than this one, by any stretch of the rational mind.

[R00k]

Like I said early on, I won't argue with conspiracy nuts. They simply wont listen. Their mind is made up and no one can sway it.

haha, and u r a fat nerd!

:icon27:

[Dave]

A PLANE FLEW IN TO THE FUCKING BUILDING

amen

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

My point is that the official story is a conspiracy theory, and it is no more plausible than this one, by any stretch of the rational mind.

the official theory on the wtc 1 and 2 collapse is way more plausible than your theory imho

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

although i'd believe that the government let the attacks happen

[Nightshade]

Important distinction here that cannot be overlooked: The experts in question are not saying that the fire was hot enough to melt the steel. They said that it was hot enough to cause sever degredation of the strength of the steel.

[R00k]

No, it can obviously happen that way by complete accident. Why do we even bother spending so much time rigging buildings when it's obvious they will implode on themselves naturally with just a fire?

Exaggerating a bit here, aren't we? Simple physics tells us that it's logical for a massive building to fall straight down in its own footprint due to the great inertia it possesses. Controlled demolitions are executed to ensure that it happens that way.
You say your dad worked in demolitions, then you should know just how many explosions would be seen in taking down a building the size of WTC1 or 2.

Louie Cacchioli, was one of the first firefighters to enter the South Tower as it burned. A 20-year veteran of the fire department, Cacchioli told People Weekly: 1
I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.

*************

Eyewitness Neil deGrasse Tyson recounted his recollection of explosions at the onset of the collapses in an e-mail he sent to his family on the day after the attack:
I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion. 3
...
As I dress for survival: boots, flashlight, wet towels, swimming goggles, bicycle helmet, gloves, I hear another explosion followed by a now all-too familiar rumble that signaled the collapse of WTC 1, the first of the two towers to have been hit. I saw the iconic antenna on this building descend straight down in an implosion twinning the first.

*************

The video 9/11, The Greatest Lie Ever Sold contains several excerpts of video reports in which witnesses describe what they saw and heard. In the first, a reporter gives the following account:
The chief of safety of the fire department of New York City told me he recieved word of the possibility of a secondary device: that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place and according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted within the building.

*************

The third excerpt, a man in talk-show format panel states:
I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions -- three thuds -- and turned around to see the building we just got out of tend to tip over and fold in on itself.

*************

The final clip shows a man in a hospital bed, with a video banner reading "AMERICA RESPONDS". He states:
and all of a suddend it sounded like gunfire -- you know, bang bang bang bang bang -- then all of a sudden three big explosions.

*************

Other accounts are in the form of video records. One is of firefighters recalling detonations in the South Tower, in a firehouse discussion:

fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out ..
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ...
fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin'
fireman3: Just ran up west street.
fireman1: Then you just sort of ... this cloud of s___
just chasin' you down
fireman4: Where did you go?
fireman3: Just ran up west street.
fireman2: You couldn't outrun it.
fireman1: You couldn't outrun it.
fireman4: So what did you do?
fireman2: I jumped behind a battalion car,
I hid under the car, I was waitin' to die.

Those are just some.

It would be very hard to see any explosions at all, considering how far away everyone had to get from the buildings. Everyone had their backs to them and were at a dead run.
But people heard them, and the FDNY firemen who were working that day are under a gag order.

[R00k]

Important distinction here that cannot be overlooked: The experts in question are not saying that the fire was hot enough to melt the steel. They said that it was hot enough to cause sever degredation of the strength of the steel.

Yes, 80% degradation is the official line.

[Dave]

I watched the official theory unfold live on televion in full color and from multiple camera angles and saw all the "evidence" that's reliable. Now do I choose to believe testimony from Joe Expert on Indymedia or Professor BigBrain of MIT?

[Fender]

So you don't think thousands of tons of concrete and steel impacting in near freefall on a concrete and steel floor would create a "low rumble" or a "boom" or "bomb" or "explosion" naturally? Come on. Those are simply accounts of people caught up in the moment that really have no education or frame of reference to make those claims. Every single person that survived could say it sounded like a bomb and that still wouldn't mean a thing. The amount of energy released in the collapses was simply amazing. Of course it is going to sound like an explosion.

[R00k]

What about the fire in the North Tower in 1975 that firefighters said was "like fighting a blowtorch," and burned for more than 3 hours?

They didn't even need to replace a single steel beam, even though there were no sprinklers in the building at the time, and flammable insulation and lack of fireproofing in the plenum allowed the fire to spread to upper floors?

It takes sustained exposure to high heat to change the temper of steel, but any big fires in the towers were gone in less than an hour. You can tell from the black smoke that there were still some small ones smoldering, but black smoke also says they were severely oxygen-deprived, and not nearly as hot as a jet-fuel fire can get.