Explosions underneath the WTC Towers b4 they collapsed

KrazyIvan
I am not questioning you, or anyone else for that matter. But Isn't it possble to blow up a structure, without destroing the sub structure. Wouldn't it be similar to what they do to old ballparks and stadiums?

ThermoNuke

I seen the building fall from the top, but it also looked like a total collapse from below. Initially I took it as stress on the building, but the bottom fell out real weird. Almost like on Cue.

Just question to help stimulate the conversation.

freeworld, did you see the video with the firefighters? what did you think?

www.thewebfairy.com...

[Edited on 26-5-2004 by Smokersroom]

Didn't see that, and I can't view it as I am at work right now. do you care to summarize it for me? Or is there a transcript available? I am interested in hearing what they had to say.

Originally posted by Djarums
Hi!

Will those of you there in person that day please raise your hands?

Oh ok that's what I thought.
I was.
There was no mysterious wacky earthquakes. There was creaking, there was bending steel, there was items falling, cracking, dropping, banging. All sorts of movement that would be expected with such stresses on the frame of 110 story buildings.

Give the needle graphs and papers a rest please. So tired of having these things rehashed again and again with the same thing. No, aliens didn't swallow the WTC, no, satan's face wasn't visible in it in person (unless you're a reporter for the Weekly World News), and No, mysterious underground detonations did not take place before they fell. Perhaps what you are confusing it with is structural movement and damage.

Let it be already.

What happened to building 7 then? How did that one just happen to burn and collapse? Nothing even hit it, apparently.

Are you absolutely sure nothing hit it? I am pretty sure that I saw somewhere that the building was struck by burning debris from the plane crash. (not sure which one). It was definitely struck by debris from the falling towers.

At any rate, because of the damage to the local water mains, the fire fighters were unable to effectively fight the fires, so they burned unchecked in that building for seven hours. That is a long, long time for a building to burn. With the water mains damaged, the sprinklers were out. Passive building fireproofing is only good for a maximum of four hours. 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.

the impacts of both planes were recorded when they flew into the buildings !
the twin towers came down later on due to the two inpacts !

as you can see on the video how the towers came down then it is obvious !!

some find it funny to post on purpose false stories !

Yes explosions went off at the bottom of the World Trade Center too because the planes by themselves could not have made the towers collapse.

1. They ould be false
2. Various interaction(sewer, people, volcanic, plates) can effect the process of writing that data, therefor reading it
3. It makes sence SOMETHING like this could have happened, but probably, anyways, NOT Al Quada linked.

the floors started to drop on each other from the spots where the airplanes had impacted,exploded and the fire had ruined the metal structures.it was because floor after floor came on each other the entire
towers came down due to the weightpressures by each shock a floor did.
the pressure and the weight of the entire collapse was enormous and ofcourse the basements on the twin towers were cruched too.
water & gaspipes exploded in the proces.

[Edited on 26-5-2004 by NOGODSINTHEUNIVERSE]

Originally posted by DaRAGE
Check out the link for the story.

Seismic graphs dont lie.


www.indymedia.org...


The seizmograph of the WTC is very wierd. A spike measuring an earthquake of 2.1 and 2.3 were made just b4 the two different towers went down.

These spikes are thigns that are able to let scientists know that a nuclear bomb has gone off underground...usually. But well it seems that some kind of explosion went off under the towers just b4 they went down....b4 any debris hit the ground...

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

So explosions at the base were made.

The towers WERE bought down intentionally...and not jsut by terrorists...

A) Its Seismograph not either of the spelling you used two sentences apart from each other, bad spellers usually are at least consistantly bad.

B) Yes seismographs are used to observe subsurface blasts, but are also used for many civil and geologic projects as well. A seismic section in fact uses a small "source" blasts like, oh say, dynimite to image the subsurface

C) This is New York City, what could possibly create vibrations on the scale of 2.0, oh I dont know... traffic, construction, or maybe the friggin subway that ran right underneath the dang building. Im so tired of these conspiracy theories. We did not kill 3,000 of our own citizens to distract the country.

D) Why do I know all this, read my bio, Im a geophysicist...

Have a nice day

-Z Out

Originally posted by AD5673
Yes explosions went off at the bottom of the World Trade Center too because the planes by themselves could not have made the towers collapse.

Uh, the planes did not cause the towers to collapse. At least not directly. The heat from the burning jet fuel/furniture/aircraft/people, etc. after the impact weakened the structural steel.

here is an interesting clip from one of the conspiracy advocates. Too bad it shows just the opposite of what he is claiming. Watch the columns buckle and the top of the building come crashing down.

QUOTE:
btw...the towers actually rose intot he air just a moment b4 they went down

i don't buy this !

Zsandmann, I think that the problem is that the people who are putting forth the theory of underground blasts simply do not know how to read a seismograph.

Even with no training in reading a seismograph, I can at lease see that you have to account for two different scales.

There is no �Spike� look at the inset for the seismic trace shown with an expanded time scale.




Sorry about the margins.

i actually remember watching the news on uk tv when just before they collapsed the reporter had said there was an explosion at one of the towers at the bottom , cant remember the channel etc , just remember it stood out at the time and then got forgotten

I laso remebered hearing that truck bombs were going off in Washington.

There may be a plausible explanation on why a 2.0 tremor was recorded even though the main debris had not hit yet.

The building I work in has a 100 lb. per square foot rating, it includes 80 lbs for "deadload" (structure and walls) and 20 lbs for "liveload" (furniture, people)

I'm not sure of the footage of each WTC floor but assuming around 25,000 sq/ft per floor you can estimate that the individual floor weighed 2,500,000 lbs each.

Add the 25 or so floors above the impact zone and you have a weight of 62,500,000 lbs or 31,250 tons.

Drop 31,250 ton of weight even the height of one standard floor (15') onto the existing core structure and it will be instantly transmitted to the foundation and thence into the ground.

I have not even factored the velocity component so the force transmitted would have been much greater than just the deadweight figure.

All of this would happen just as someone observing the building first began to detect the motion of collapse but well before visible debris struck the ground.



Did some reading on one of the civil engineering sites and found that the floors are 40,000 feet, you do the math.

[Edited on 28-5-2004 by Phoenix]

Originally posted by Phoenix
There may be a plausible explanation on why a 2.0 tremor was recorded even though the main debris had not hit yet.

Phoenix, look at the seismograph posted above. Please point out to me where you see evidence of a 2.0 tremor before the impact of the main debris.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Phoenix, look at the seismograph posted above. Please point out to me where you see evidence of a 2.0 tremor before the impact of the main debris.

I'd be interested to see the seismo,
but you cannot remote-link images from Fortune City.
IOW, no pic is showing up.

Try uploading it to your ATS upload space and editing?

-B.

my mom was on the train directly below the towers, no explosions - this is BS

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]