Explosions underneath the WTC Towers b4 they collapsed

Originally posted by bsbray11


What would prevent someone with this technology from rigging a building with explosives, and then having the explosives detonate backwards -- from the top down -- to make the building appear as if it's just falling straight down onto itself?

OK...assuming they rigged the building with no one the wiser and did the top down demo starting from the floors of impact.

How in the heck did they arrange for aircraft at high speed, one of them in a turn no less, to hit precisely at the right place to coordinate with the position of the uppermost explosives charges?

That is a neat trick even an airshow pilot would be proud of, much less an inexperienced low time hijacker - those guys must've gotten 144 virgins as a reward

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

They have video clips there.

Fireman: "There's a bomb in the building - start clearing out"..."We got a secondary device in the building"

And more.

Originally posted by Phoenix
How in the heck did they arrange for aircraft at high speed, one of them in a turn no less, to hit precisely at the right place to coordinate with the position of the uppermost explosives charges?

Thermite isn't expensive, and you could cover a series of floors, and just hit within those floors anywhere you'd like.

From there, you just trigger (electronically or via computers, etc.) the explosives a few floors below the impacted ones, after the thermite has finished eating support away from the impacted floors.

www.bcrevolution.ca...


hahah DUHH read that page. Chief fire officer said to a reporter about bombs...fire fighters said about bombs... people in the building said about bombs...

Did you even bother to look around before posting your comments?? I believe a fire chief if he says bombs. They are highly trained experts, not amatures. He says bombs, I believe him 100%.

As for the planes. they could of hit any where and they still would of fell the way they did. That was one rigged pony show.

Really not gonna go further on this one.You are relying on simile,out of context and flat out lying with that page.If you think for one minute a member of the NYFD,that was there ,really believes this ,I doubt he would be alone.373 heroes died that day ,PAL!These guys were brothers.Go into a NYFD house and tell them you believe, their brothers to be complicit by not screaming at the top of their lungs.You won't make it out of the station.You will be laughed to death or beaten.I won't recommend my choice.Cool!

Nuff Said!Done with this one.Next.

Your speech and mannerisms are like a ten year old child with a ghetto chip on each shoulder. There is film footage of these said fire fighters STATING the said explosions were going off AROUND them - look it up and you will find it easy enough!

As for the explosions in the basement, heres a link thats very interesting indeed - includeds high res images of the seismic data.

www.bcrevolution.ca...

read it and leave the ghetto speak for another time please - im an adult and educated and expect to be spoken to like one thank you very much. You may disagree and thats fine, but your way of arguing is childish.

Deny Ignorance, do not pander to it.

Sorry, trying to find June Cleaver to translate your last post.I will get back to ya.


Copasetic?

Originally posted by GSA
As for the explosions in the basement, heres a link thats very interesting indeed - includeds high res images of the seismic data.

www.bcrevolution.ca...

From your link:

Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers actually hit the ground.

None of the experts have ever claimed that the seismic waves peaked before the towers actually hit the ground. That is a claim made by Christopher Bollyn, a highly biased and non-technical blog author.

”There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

source

seismograph image (graph 2)

Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

Originally posted by Satyr

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Therefore it would actually have been remarkable if the building hadn�t collapsed. In addition, there are some indications that the fire may have ignited the diesel fuel tank of a back up emergency generator.

Being how there had NEVER EVER been a single instance of any steel framed building collapsing due to fire, I'd say that's a pretty far fetched theory. I've also read that that particular building was made with more steel than almost any other building. There's no way it should've came down, even if it was 100% gutted by fire. Why didn't the other buildings, which had even worse fires, collapse? Do some research on this. You'll be quite amazed at the sheer size of the beams alone.

On September 11, WTC 7 collapsed totally. It is suggested below that this collapse was exclusively due to fire. No significant evidence is offered to back up this suggestion (after all it is only a suggestion). It should be emphasized that WTC 7 was neither hit by an aircraft nor by significant quantities of debris from the collapse of the twin towers. It is also widely claimed that WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed mainly due to fire. I emphasize, that before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. However, on September 11, it is claimed that three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed mainly, or totally, due to fire.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...
www.whatreallyhappened.com...





[Edited on 5-26-2004 by Satyr]

What amazes me is that people are still passing along this urban myth from that conspiracy site despite it having been debunked so long ago.

yes there have been other steel buildings that have collapsed due to fire and fire only. And none of the other buildings that that tabloid site uses were of the same design. They all had fire fighting on them, and none of them had severe structural damage. None of them had the sprinkler systems and the fire proofing blown away.

This notion that the WTC should have stood even if it was completely gutted by fire is such a big lie that it's absurd even non-experts could fall for it. yet they do. paper after paper is written by engineers and scientists that prove exactly why it fell. Yet that is overridden by someones uneducated concept of how buildings should work fueled by conspiracy web sites who profit from getting web hits and have no validity in any claims they make simply by lying, and pointing out fires that have nothing in common with the WTC.

If people would read more than just conspiracy sites they would see how they have been so duped by these con jobs. Of course it's going to seem convincing if you only read those sites. but once you read all the stuff they edited out or changed to make their case, it's a different story.

For example, saying that WTC 7 was not hit by debre is simply a lie. 20 stories of the building were torn out by falling debre. that's a fact that proves they are lying right there. Those same sites even show pictures of that damage that they claim doesn't exist. And of course saying no other steel building has collapsed due to fire is also another simple lie. Not a distortion, but a plain lie. Saying it shouldnt fall if it was 100% gutted by fire is 100% a lie.

So if one wants to base their opinion on sources that knowingly lie, then I guess that's their loss.

Haha yes, WTC 7 was not in anyway a controlled demolition. It didn't look like a controlled demolition and the diesel fires brought it down. Right.

Am I the only one who can see that the two claims:

“No other steel framed building has collapsed due to fire”

and

“it looked like a controlled demolition,”

are fundamentally contradictory?

Even if we ignore the facts that both claims are false, as snoopy points out above, you still have to deal with the convoluted logic behind them. i.e: If no other steel building has ever collapsed due to a fire, then how do you know that that is not what it is supposed to look like?

Originally posted by snoopy
yes there have been other steel buildings that have collapsed due to fire and fire only.

Steel skyscrapers is the argument. Fire has never caused severe enough damage to the structure of any skyscraper to cause anything more than a localized collapse.

This notion that the WTC should have stood even if it was completely gutted by fire is such a big lie that it's absurd even non-experts could fall for it.

It wasn't completely gutted by fire. That's the problem.

paper after paper is written by engineers and scientists that prove exactly why it fell.

Can you provide some of these papers that prove why they fell?

NIST's report suggested truss failures by the evidence of buckling perimeter columns, but fails to show enough of these buckled columns to justify a collapse based on their own figures for safety factor ratings of the columns. The report similarly fails to positively link the buckling with sagging trusses.

NIST also fails to analyze the global collapses, focusing instead on how the first floors to fail might have failed.

FEMA's report was only an early sketch of what NIST suggested.

Greening's paper has been outright debunked by experiments by Professor Jones, proving that pouring molten aluminum onto steel rust does not initiate a 'natural' thermite reaction.

Bazant and Zhou, published two days after the attack, was, as one might expect from such an early release, full of bad number juggling (the most important of which was apparently done, based on unknown sources, but not disclosed in the paper), logical fallacies, and unsupported assumptions upon the states of the buildings.

I've yet to see a single paper supporting anything resembling the official story that proves a damned thing.

For example, saying that WTC 7 was not hit by debre is simply a lie. 20 stories of the building were torn out by falling debre. that's a fact that proves they are lying right there.

I'm not sure who's saying no debris hit the building (debris hit a lot of other nearby buildings that didn't collapse, too, you know), but if that massive hole is a fact then why not post some pictures of it?

You like to use a lot of straw men, too. If a floor was 100% gutted by fire (which none were -- not even close), I don't think anyone's going to argue that it wouldn't have failed. But when you have a floor that's been about 15% "gutted" by the impacts, and little to no visible additional damage from fire (including the alleged buckling from truss sag), a floor is not going to fail.

Why can't you understand this?The other buildings that stood had firefighting on going untill it ,the fire,was put out.No one said"pull".These buildings were amazing to stand as long as they did.That would be cool to add to the Con.Buildings stood too long,Defied physics.LOL LOL LOL.Well someones undereducated guess at it anyway.


"These Are Not The Droids You're Looking For"

there were bombs.

the radio reported it LIVE ON THE SCENE. MANY NETWORKS.

also, many EYEWITNESSES reported it, and were later placed under GAG ORDERS(firemen) not to talk about it.

the molten metal has only been satisfactorily explained by BOMBS.

there were bombs.

anything else is WRONG.

No you only claim there were bombs!Ok.and some other simili,out of context NadaThere is no. pardon the pun,concrete evidence.No argue'en about semantics,was a joke!Look up explosions and simili while you iz at it.Next up.....Molten Metal.No proof !!!!!!!Lots of melting something yes!Proof of what it was from pics,........... ZERO!There was molten metal dicovered it is called,Drum Roll Please.....,Aluminum!

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Am I the only one who can see that the two claims:

“No other steel framed building has collapsed due to fire”

and

“it looked like a controlled demolition,”

are fundamentally contradictory?

Even if we ignore the facts that both claims are false, as snoopy points out above, you still have to deal with the convoluted logic behind them. i.e: If no other steel building has ever collapsed due to a fire, then how do you know that that is not what it is supposed to look like?

Your logic's a little off, Howard.

It would've been contradictory if it were 'no other skyscraper has collapsed due to fire' and 'buildings collapsing due to fire don't look like that'. That would be a contradiction.

But we know what demolitions look like, regardless. Demolitions have caused skyscrapers to fall.

Hope that clears things up for you.


PS -- Why are we feeding the trolls, BillyBob?

Originally posted by bsbray11
PS -- Why are we feeding the trolls, BillyBob?

i thought we were feeding the good employees of the CIA's 'division five'?

what are 'trolls'?

quote: PROBABILITY OF DRILL AND TERROR ATTACK COINCIDING BY CHANCE(london bombing) (10yr mean):
One chance in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Do you not get the joke in that math or page ingeneral.Come on folks that is Tom Foolery ,and you are falling for it.Bad in means bad out.Those inputs are made up.Good Try.Hey ,keep the"faith".Ever done any statistics?Same deal you can make things look absurd easily.Bad in put.Bad!

[edit on 19-7-2006 by Duhh]

I've been studying the seismographic data relating to WTC 1 and 2 collapses for some time and I have never really been able to get my head completely around it but I just recently had a revelation thanks to a professor friend of mine at a university (who want's to remain anonymous) and believe it or not.. Howard Roark.

Howard, remember way back when we we were going around the bush debating the seismographs showing the 2.1 (roughly) spike "during" the collapses and you talked about the "trampoline effect" whereas the ground began to "spring back" after the weight of the towers was "removed" as the collapse started thus causing ground waves to show up? I didn't discount this trampoline thing completely.. (At least not inwardly) but I could not really rationalize or account for the energy that would be needed quickly to create such a spike of the amplitude and SHORT duration that it was. According to you Howard (and the official story) the building collapsed progressively unloading the weight off the ground "INCREMENTALLY".. Standing on the premise of Howards 'trampoline theory' how could such a spike be created if the load of the buildings was taken away incrementally? My answer is it couldn't BUT.. what if the something happened at the base of the buildings? Read on as I will expound further. Recently after watching this video again a revelation struck me...
Watch it again:

youtube.com...

(Plenty of other places to watch it)

Also, read here about witness testimony:

www.911truth.org...

Shaking Ground before the Collapse

As we saw earlier, some people in the towers reported that there were powerful explosions in the basements. Such explosions would likely have caused the ground to shake.
Such shaking was reported by medical technician Lonnie Penn, who said that just before the collapse of the south tower: “I felt the ground shake, I turned around and ran for my life. I made it as far as the Financial Center when the collapse happened.”24

According to the official account, the vibrations that people felt were produced by material from the collapsing towers hitting the ground. Penn’s account, however, indicates that the shaking must have occurred SEVERAL SECONDS BEFORE the collapse.

Shaking prior to the collapse of the north tower was described by fire patrolman Paul Curran. He was standing near it, he said, when “all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet. . . . The next thing we know, we look up and the tower is collapsing.”25

Lieutenant Bradley Mann of the fire department, one of the people to witness both collapses, described shaking prior to each of them. "Shortly before the first tower came down,” he said, “I remember feeling the ground shaking. I heard a terrible noise, and then debris just started flying everywhere. People started running." Then, after they had returned to the area, he said, “we basically had the same thing: The ground shook again, and we heard another terrible noise and the next thing we knew the second tower was coming down."26

What I believe now is that the building's core was "disconnected" at the base causing the 2.X spike on the seismograph. (I believe this was done using thermite or thermate) Of course a few seconds later the building started to collapse. Why did the building still stand a few seconds after the core was "disconnected"? because the weight was being transferred to the perimter collumns and structure which of course would take a few seconds... (Remember people talking about "creaking and groaning and crackling" right before the buildling fell? It's obvious that the perimter collumns and structure could not hold up the building so it collapsed from the center out. The core of the building was falling pulling the outside in.. The core and the exterior structure were in essence "fighting" with each other with the core falling and pulling the perimeter (which was trying to remain standing and rigid) in as it went. This would explain perfectly the free fall AND the complete and utter destruction, shredding and pulverization of the building and content materials.

So Howard.. The trampoline theory does hold up.. just not in your favor.

Interestingly at the beginning of this thread this was stated:

DaRAGE
btw...the towers actually rose intot he air just a moment b4 they went down (a helicoptor caught it)

This makes perfect sense if the "cores" were quickly disconnected from the ground thus completely unloading their share of the building weight (Again, I say quickly) they were holding.

Fascinating indeed.

DaRage, could you post some links or information concerning the building "raising up" just prior to collapse as I'm not really sure I see it in the afformentioned video..

I propose that the box collumns of the 'core' were cut before the building collapsed using thermite or thermate. The collumns being cut caused explosive failures which I feel could account for alot of the testiomy concerning "crackling, pops, explosions" and what not. As the core fell 'inside' the perimeter it would cause all the unexplained phenomenon associated with the collapses.

Anyways, you guys get the gist of where I'm going with this.


The biggest problem I have is correlating the timing between the video of the shaking and the 2.X spike on the seismograph as the timing of the video is obviously an issue. Any help from anyone here would be appreciated.







[edit on 23-7-2006 by TxSecret]

BillyBob
the molten metal has only been satisfactorily explained by BOMBS.

We are mostly on the same page but I would be careful with correlating molten metal with just bombs.... with thermite and thermate? this is most likely and I believe the cause of any molten metal that was involved on 911. (And I mean metal that was completely MELTED to the point that it was liquid.. NOT just softened enough so that it was easier to bend) So get that straight.

Like I was saying earlier, it's more than possible that some of the explosions that were heard, felt during 911 were indeed caused by explosive failure of supporting collumns with massive weight being on each of them.

Oh and btw.. Building 7 is a no brainer and I refuse at the moment to debate that with anyone. Building 7 WAS a controlled demolition and it's unlikely anyone will ever sway my thinking on that one and if there is something wrong with building 7 there is something wrong with ALL of it.

Buildings 1 and 2? I'm still open so let me have it.




[edit on 23-7-2006 by TxSecret]