The Proof Is In The Core

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta
Griff..But HOW was it rigged?

So you don't believe the controlled demo/bombs theory?
So much for the squibs. But how does severing a verticl column cause a building to collapse in such a manner. How does thermite cut horizontally? If a gap of say 1/2"or 1" was produced by being cut away by thermite how does this cause such a collapse?

I like how you try to derail this with "HOW was it rigged." Let's answer the the rest of the questions first as "HOW it was rigged is addresed in many other threads. Simply put... ACCESS.

1. He does believe in controlled demo... just using incendaries instead of explosives. READ vushta. Can you differentitiate between the two?

2. Severing the CORE VERTICAL COLUMS would remove minimally 50% of the support and cause total, vertical collapse pulling down the building from the inside.

3. Thermite cuts in whatever direction the shell/charge is "shapped" to cut in. Do some research.

4. Cutting a support column in half, at an angle (suppose 45 degrees)... even a 1mm wide cut, could/will cause it to "slide off" and remove 100% of it's ability to support ANYTHING.

Your questions are lame and I do not know why I even answer you.

[edit on 10-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

...uhhh...appearantly lost my reply..not the first time...I'll repost it later.

Originally posted by Griff
Here's a simple calculation regarding the "squibs".

I used P1V1/T1=P2V2/T2 This is the Combined Gas Law

Assuming temperature stays the same...we could use temperature defferentials if need be....maybe another calculation when I'm done here. This leads us to.

P1V1=P2V2

I have started with a total volume of 1830730 m^3. This assumes all air in the building including core. One story has 16643 m^3. So the volume decreases by 16643 m^3 every floor that "pancakes" on the remaining floor. Also assumed in this calculation is that NO air is lost while the volume of the building decreases (pancakes).

Here is an excell spread sheet calculating the pressure of each floor after the floor above has "pancaked".
[...]
Notice that after 110 stories, the pressure is at 2 atmospheres. I used atmospheres because it doesn't matter. I could have converted to pascals if i wanted but since all designations stay constant, it doesn't matter.

So, at 50 stories we have 1.02 atmospheres of pressure. Is that enough to stream across a whole floor and break a window and cause "stuff" to fly out 100 + feet horizontally? I doubt it. Remember that this calculation takes into account that ALL the air would be compressed. Something to think about.

Nice, Griff.

33 feet (deeper than any civilian pool I've heard of, my bad) of water is 2 atm.

In my complete lack of knowledge of pressure from combining gases, I'd pile one floor's air into another floor's air and just assume that it was 2 atmospheres, double normal atmosphere, but apparently this was a very faulty assumption.

But regardless, even that shows that you would only have much less than 2 atm when some 5 or so floors fail and a squib comes out over twice as far down. That's not enough pressure, either, and I was giving enormous advantages to the official theory.

Originally posted by billybob
griff, i would agree that thermite alone COULD have done it, but i KNOW that explosives were used. in my 'faster than freefall' thread, i proved it.

This thread deserved a lot more attention than it got. Probably the most damning evidence of explosives I've ever seen on ATS.

[edit on 10-7-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Slap Nuts


If you think the CEO cannot get whatever he wants in a company... QUIETLY, you are dead nuts wrong. Of course he would get off the board before the actual incident.

Well, I say this from actual experience. The CEO does not have operational control of the kind required to rig a building with explosives. I have almost no contact at all with the CEO of my company, other than announcement emails from time to time. Now if Marvin Bush was the site manager at WTC, you might have a point. A site manager could hide things from the people above him, but a CEO has to work the other way.

But that's all beside the point, as Marvin Bush was on the board of directors, a position with almost no direct operational control. They just hand down the policies that others implement.

en.wikipedia.org...

Edit: that's funny Bsbray, i thought billybob's thread was one of the silliest peices of evidence presented. Different strokes i guess.

[edit on 10-7-2006 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by Slap Nuts


If you think the CEO cannot get whatever he wants in a company... QUIETLY, you are dead nuts wrong. Of course he would get off the board before the actual incident.

Well, I say this from actual experience. The CEO does not have operational control of the kind required to rig a building with explosives. I have almost no contact at all with the CEO of my company, other than announcement emails from time to time.

you live in an illusion.

when the CEO says jump, everyone jumps, whether or not he was talking specifically to them. who hires the site manager? if the CEO says to the human resources person, HIRE THIS GUY, there is no argument. that is the guy who gets hired. the CEO could easily handpick a team of demolition experts to be 'security guards'. ex-seals, say. or mossad guys. really, the CEO needs only handpick the human resources person, and that person could take it from there.

you people are dancing on thin branches, these days. you will say ANYTHING to try and make it all okay.
well, it's not okay. people are dying every minute of every day because of the compounded LIES .

i say if science has determined that people MUST die, in order for the survival of the species, let's start with politicians and lawyers.

last one into the volcano is a rotten egg.

Ok billybob, but from my personal experience with CEO's that is not the case. Maybe the CEO at your company is constantly micromanaging and doesn't trust his VP's or regional managers, or do you not have any experience with a CEO?

Seeing as how I have real life experience with the CEO of my company, and it sounds like you don't have any experience with any CEO, I would be more careful about telling people they live in an illusion.

Especially if your just going to make things up.

Not that it really matters, since Marvin Bush was not the CEO, he was on the board of directors and therefore had practically no operational control.

[edit on 11-7-2006 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Ok billybob, but from my personal experience with CEO's that is not the case. Maybe the CEO at your company is constantly micromanaging and doesn't trust his VP's or regional managers, or do you not have any experience with a CEO?

Dude, if you want something in particular, you only have to "micromanage" once. I don't see what the argument is about.

Not that it really matters, since Marvin Bush was not the CEO, he was on the board of directors and therefore had practically no operational control.

]

That Bush held such a high position in the company at all is a good indication. You can't be completely certain of the the actual dynamics of management in that company, or who was really in charge of what, at what level, during which period of time. You wouldn't necessarily have to be at the top, and it wouldn't necessarily be Bush himself clearing the trojan horse of an engineer team. Bush may have just held huge financial sway for the company and was only in on it in that he was the failsafe. This isn't really a thing you can debunk; too many variables you can't be sure about on too many levels.

You can't be completely certain of the the actual dynamics of management in that company, or who was really in charge of what, at what level, during which period of time.

But you can?

I don't have to. Put that into context with the rest of the post, Vushta. The whole point is that management wouldn't have had to have been straightforward. There would be levels, and it would be a more complex affair than simply everyone knows or else it didn't happen.

Things can be slipped in, and no one would know (besides those orchestrating it).

Calling in cable upgrades, core maintenance, etc. etc. etc., over months or even years, and how many people are actually going to be standing over these guys keeping close watch over what exactly it is that they're doing?

How can we know that the very guys brought in to do the work even knew exactly what they were doing? For example, you know they make explosive slurry, right? And did you know that fireproofing also comes in a slurry? Bring in a team and tell them to spray on all this slurry fireproofing onto the steel, while in reality it's an explosive. Done deal. The guys have no idea what they just did. The manager might not even realize it. That's only an example. Use your imagination; anyone helping to orchestrate this thing would've definitely had to use theirs, and I bet you there are some creative minds in military intelligence. Not many people would have to be in the know at all.

[edit on 11-7-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't have to. Put that into context with the rest of the post, Vushta. The whole point is that management wouldn't have had to have been straightforward. There would be levels, and it would be a more complex affair than simply everyone knows or else it didn't happen.

Things can be slipped in, and no one would know.

The context is that M. Bush was on the board of the Compensation Committee, but that is besides the point. There were many many people involved in various security duties in the WTC. To try to state that this one guy on the compensation committee had the power to corrupt and demand involvment of ALL people in mass murder, is the stuff of movies and comic books and simply yet another deflection from dealing with having to present any actual evidence of any kind....Look..YOU"RE on the staff of security, would you accept being forced to be party to mass murder of almost 3000 people..many of whom you may possibly know and like for daily exposure to their coming and goings?

Don't say "But you wouldn't have to know what was going on"..Bull..you work in security. A sudden change of pattern would naturally arouse suspicion.............but I see I'm getting sucked into a deflective diversion and a riff about M.Bush is about to insue about what could have happened if THIS happened...and then maybe THEY caused THAT to happen while those guys did something else to distract..........The guy was on the Compensation Board.

Anyway..would you be so easily and willingly pulled into a mass murder plot?

Originally posted by bsbray11
That Bush held such a high position in the company at all is a good indication.

A good indication of what? That he bought a bunch of stock? Or was put on the board of a company because of his wealth and connections? Maybe he was actually qualified for the position.

You can't be completely certain of the the actual dynamics of management in that company, or who was really in charge of what, at what level, during which period of time. You wouldn't necessarily have to be at the top, and it wouldn't necessarily be Bush himself clearing the trojan horse of an engineer team. Bush may have just held huge financial sway for the company and was only in on it in that he was the failsafe. This isn't really a thing you can debunk; too many variables you can't be sure about on too many levels.

Well if that's the case, then why is brought up again, and again, as if there was some relevance. You say that we can't be certain, yet you seem to be certain that there was something for Bush to be in on, and that he was in on it.

You also left out this possibility, maybe Marvin was on the board of directors and yet had nothing at all to do with 9-11.

But of course theres too many variables and we can't be sure of anything.

Except that he was somehow in on it because of his last name.

Rigghhhht.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't have to.

[edit on 11-7-2006 by bsbray11]

But thats exactly what you're doing.

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't have to.

But thats exactly what you're doing.

and what, exactly, are you doing?

you are waving your hands frantically, trying to disuade anyone from believing that planting bombs was possible.

it was not only possible, but it was a piece of cake, if the higher ups at the security company were in on it.
a team of fifty guards would be more than sufficient to let ANYTHING happen in the towers.

'who will guard the guards themselves?"

marvin bush doesn't HAVE to be in on it. it is just OBVIOUS that the bushes are a high crime and misdemeanor family, and his presence implicates him, because of the other evidence(which only those not afflicted with 'the blind spot' can't see). they were nazis. secret police. war presidents. oil barons. bankrupters of savings and loans companies. inside traders. the 'conflict of interest' meter is WAY off the scale.

if only the guards had decided they would wire the buildings, they could have done it. that means, it's not impossible.

p.s. leftbehind, i have 'real CEO' experience, ....a real top 500 type, even. they are not lego blocks. they are individuals. all different.

[edit on 11-7-2006 by billybob]

and what, exactly, are you doing?

you are waving your hands frantically, trying to disuade anyone from believing that planting bombs was possible.

No.. I'm not waving anything. I'm calmly sitting here waiting..appearantly in vein.. For any..ANY explantion of how the buildings could have been rigged with no one noticing, and not one of you 'truthseekers' can give ANY explanation as to how it could have been possible without notice...Please..no feigning ignorance to what the word "how" means.

it was not only possible, but it was a piece of cake,

GREAT!!...Then explain away, I'm all ears.

a team of fifty guards would be more than sufficient to let ANYTHING happen in the towers.

Where did you get that number? 50? how about 40?...maybe 55?? Golly..would they also have to know what they're doing? That still doesn't explain why no one else would notice.

marvin bush doesn't HAVE to be in on it. it is just OBVIOUS that the bushes are a high crime and misdemeanor family, and his presence implicates him, because of the other evidence(which only those not afflicted with 'the blind spot'). they were nazis. secret police. war presidents. oil barons. bankrupters of savings and loans companies. inside traders. the 'conflict of interest' meter is WAY off the scale.

And we're off!...powder the acrobats..cue the howler monkeys...engage the kiliope

if only the guards had decided they would wire the buildings, they could have done it. that means, it's not impossible.

So just any 'ol body can rig a building for demo?

bye, vushta. perhaps i will talk to one of your other sock puppets in the future.
i am through with 'vushta'. you attempt to waste my time with an absolute zero counter argument. you only shift and dance and guffaw in a smoke mirrors 'magic show', with nothing tangible to offer.

i have WAY better opponents to deal with. science types (ie. rational).

goodbye.

*plonk* (that means you've joined muaddib in my very small 'ignore' bin. have a nice life)

Mabie

Charges Placed In WTC Towers When Built?
By Robert L. Parish Sr.
1-21-4

The downing of the Twin Towers and other buildings of the complex where done by (Planned Implosions).

I was working at Kirkwood Commutator in Cleveland, Ohio from 1974 to September 30th, 1998.
We had an Industrial/Refill Department that large commutators from 1 foot in diameter to 20 feet in diameter were made.
A commutator is the circular switching device on an armature shaft that (commutates), switches the electrical current that flows thru the windings of the armature coils of an electrical motor.
It is the thing that the brushes ride on that the current flows into an electric motor that energizes the field coils that causes the motor to rotate. The commutator switches the current from coil winding to coil winding that causes the motor to rotate.

I was the metrologest, gage technician who set and calibrated all the measuring devices in the plant for over 18 years.

We had a team of consultants hired by Otis Elevator to supervise and inspect all aspects of those commutators we produced for those motors. That were being made for the largest ever Twin Towers going up in Asia. Otis Elevator had the elevator contract for providing the elevators. The lead consultant engineer would always come into my gage calibration lab to watch and inspect my setting up and calibration of gages for measuring the components we were producing for the assembly of those motors. Most people who worked in the tool room, screw machine and industrial/refill departments knew (because they were making the parts) that we were manufacturing 4 or more very large commutators. But, they did not who the customer was or who they were for. Or what application they would be used in. Most of the other people in the plant had no knowledge whatsoever about was being made. All they did was make this part of something they had prints and shop orders for.

On day, as the lead consultant engineer was in my lab talking just about "stuff", I asked him, "Sometime in future, in 50 years or so, how are these Twin Towers are going to be taken down as tall as they were going to be and as tight as land is in a crowded city, without causing fast destruction to other buildings?"

He was standing upright. He outstretched his right arm with his palm down. And said, "Bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam" as he lowered his hand down one imaginary floor at a time. All the way down to the floor. I knew that we had to certify these commutators to be able to operate continuously for 50 years without service or repair as our part of the contract. He explained that as the buildings are being built, explosive charges are being incorporated into the structures at key floor joint locations. So, that when the first charges are set-off at the top floors, they will take that floor down to the next. And the charges at that floor will take it down to the next floor. This will continue all the way down. The Twin Towers will come straight down like a stack of pancakes. When the buildings get old and no longer useful or profitable to have and maintain, all it will take is a phone call to take them down.

So, you see, Jeff, no one had to sneak into the buildings of the WTC in New York and plant charges during a terror drill or a practice fire drill. They were already there...built into the buildings when they were constructed, just waiting for the call to detonate; waiting for the day when the buildings were no longer profitable to keep and maintain for whatever economic reasons of their owners and controllers.

The jet airliners crashed into each one on the Twin Towers and, thirty minutes later, the phone call was made and the first tower was taken down...and then the second tower was taken down. By the way, the other buildings of the complex were going to be a liability and no longer of use. So a phone call was made and they went down as well.

SLIDESHOWS.
Ground Zero Slide Show: The Destruction

Ground Zero Slide Show: The People

Ground Zero Slide Show: The Clean Up

Ground Zero Slide Show: Ground Zero at Night

So the building was built with explosives already in it? Now I have heard some far fetched ones, but that certianly takes the cake. That's a smart design. All they need is a bad fire to set off the explosives and teh whole thing comes down. And of course all the workers who built the buildings must have all been on it too. Not to mention the evidence would have been discovered in the investigation.

And is thereproof that the WTC was no longer profitable? Because there are much easier ways of going about it. Somehow I doubt the standard business plan is to simply blow up buildings when profits drop. If that was the case we'd have a lot more building sbeing hit by planes and then collapsing.

Originally posted by snoopy
All they need is a bad fire to set off the explosives and teh whole thing comes down.

Some explosives can't be initiated by common office fires, like C4. Neither can thermite. They would have to be initiated by something else, a detonator.

And of course all the workers who built the buildings must have all been on it too.

The the post above, the employees mentioned had no idea what they were working on, but kept working anyway for obvious reasons. There are anomalies in the oral history from the guys that built the WTC, about floors being evacuated before each floor slab went down for security purposes, and this causing delays in the construction. The same guys building the rest of the towers were apparently not also the ones laying substances into the floor trays with security clearances. Christophera could probably give you more info on this.

Not to mention the evidence would have been discovered in the investigation.

The government-sanctioned investigations? If they were truly reasonable investigations then I doubt so many people would have so many bones to pick with them, and so much information would be excluded, and questions unanswered.

So, you see, Jeff, no one had to sneak into the buildings of the WTC in New York and plant charges during a terror drill or a practice fire drill. They were already there...built into the buildings when they were constructed, just waiting for the call to detonate; waiting for the day when the buildings were no longer profitable to keep and maintain for whatever economic reasons of their owners and controllers.

This fellow and you could get togeather and blow the lid off this whole thing.What are you doing on the computer?That is another whole huge group of people in on a conspiracy created,I assume,before the one on 911.I think Occams getting dull here.But, if you really knew this was a "fact" finish this madness.I am glad no one had that secret number for" the call" by accident.

Originally posted by Griff
Here's a simple calculation regarding the "squibs".

I used P1V1/T1=P2V2/T2 This is the Combined Gas Law

Assuming temperature stays the same...we could use temperature defferentials if need be....maybe another calculation when I'm done here. This leads us to.

P1V1=P2V2

I have started with a total volume of 1830730 m^3. This assumes all air in the building including core. One story has 16643 m^3. So the volume decreases by 16643 m^3 every floor that "pancakes" on the remaining floor. Also assumed in this calculation is that NO air is lost while the volume of the building decreases (pancakes).

Here is an excell spread sheet calculating the pressure of each floor after the floor above has "pancaked".

I have been shown that my calculations are completely wrong. I think my excel spreadsheet handicap got in the way. I'm glad WeComeInPeace did his homework and pointed out my error.

The new spreadsheet should be

Story Volume Pressure

110 1830730 1
109 1814087 1.009174312
108 1797444 1.018518519
107 1780801 1.028037383
106 1764158 1.037735849
105 1747515 1.047619048
104 1730872 1.057692308
103 1714229 1.067961165
102 1697586 1.078431373
101 1680943 1.089108911
100 1664300 1.1
99 1647657 1.111111111
98 1631014 1.12244898
97 1614371 1.134020619
96 1597728 1.145833333
95 1581085 1.157894737
94 1564442 1.170212766
93 1547799 1.182795699
92 1531156 1.195652174
91 1514513 1.208791209
90 1497870 1.222222222
89 1481227 1.235955056
88 1464584 1.25
87 1447941 1.264367816
86 1431298 1.279069767
85 1414655 1.294117647
84 1398012 1.30952381
83 1381369 1.325301205
82 1364726 1.341463415
81 1348083 1.358024691
80 1331440 1.375
79 1314797 1.392405063
78 1298154 1.41025641
77 1281511 1.428571429
76 1264868 1.447368421
75 1248225 1.466666667
74 1231582 1.486486486
73 1214939 1.506849315
72 1198296 1.527777778
71 1181653 1.549295775
70 1165010 1.571428571
69 1148367 1.594202899
68 1131724 1.617647059
67 1115081 1.641791045
66 1098438 1.666666667
65 1081795 1.692307692
64 1065152 1.71875
63 1048509 1.746031746
62 1031866 1.774193548
61 1015223 1.803278689
60 998580 1.833333333
59 981937 1.86440678
58 965294 1.896551724
57 948651 1.929824561
56 932008 1.964285714
55 915365 2
54 898722 2.037037037
53 882079 2.075471698
52 865436 2.115384615
51 848793 2.156862745
50 832150 2.2
49 815507 2.244897959
48 798864 2.291666667
47 782221 2.340425532
46 765578 2.391304348
45 748935 2.444444444
44 732292 2.5
43 715649 2.558139535
42 699006 2.619047619
41 682363 2.682926829
40 665720 2.75
39 649077 2.820512821
38 632434 2.894736842
37 615791 2.972972973
36 599148 3.055555556
35 582505 3.142857143
34 565862 3.235294118
33 549219 3.333333333
32 532576 3.4375
31 515933 3.548387097
30 499290 3.666666667
29 482647 3.793103448
28 466004 3.928571429
27 449361 4.074074074
26 432718 4.230769231
25 416075 4.4
24 399432 4.583333333
23 382789 4.782608696
22 366146 5
21 349503 5.238095238
20 332860 5.5
19 316217 5.789473684
18 299574 6.111111111
17 282931 6.470588235
16 266288 6.875
15 249645 7.333333333
14 233002 7.857142857
13 216359 8.461538462
12 199716 9.166666667
11 183073 10
10 166430 11
9 149787 12.22222222
8 133144 13.75
7 116501 15.71428571
6 99858 18.33333333
5 83215 22
4 66572 27.5
3 49929 36.66666667
2 33286 55
1 16643 110
0 0


I feel like an idiot because I wasn't taking into account the change in pressure per floor...duh.

As you can see, it makes a very big difference. Like I said, I'm not a gasses expert so don't murder me for my mistake.

It still shows that it would take half the tower to get to twice the normal air pressure. It doesn't start jumping up until the very last floors.

Now the question is: At what pressure does it take to have these "squibs"? Because it took at least 55 floors to even get to twice normal atmospheric pressure.

Anyway, my bad. Thank you WeComeInPeace for pointing out my error.