Thermite and explosives

Anok -

Obviously there will always be vacancies in large commercial buildings. The typical construction in them are somewhat light renovations. Nothing structural for the most part. What would be difficult is to have vacancies in all the appropriate spaces where charges will most likely be needed. I havent heard any tennants talk about having to move their offices ....things like that. Think about the time it would take...how many offices to be vacant. It would take YEARS to get access to certain offices where charges would be needed.

I do realize there would be possible ways to get into some offices....but seriously the amount of explosives we are talking about....and the amount of thermite needed...Dude, its really not making much sence here.

I do realize there would be possible ways to get into some offices....but seriously the amount of explosives we are talking about....and the amount of thermite needed...Dude, its really not making much sence here.

Oh yes but of course it only took an airplane impact and isolated fires, huh?

Point I was making is they could have easily hid their work, who cares that construction is normally light? Again more irelevance.

Maybe it did take years? So what? I don't really care how long it took, or how it was done at all really. It's not at all relevant AFAIK. It's a question that can't be answered by anyone but those who were involved.

The physics is enough to convince me that some other force was used on those buildings, what it was I can't tell ya, but it wasn't fires and it wasn't 757's alone. The physics totally contradict that.

And instead of answering the physics anomalies, you focus on irelivant opinions and theories that can't be answered by either side. The typical poster that we've been 'debating' with for the last 4 yrs, you have nothing new to offer that we haven't heard a billion times already. You're waisting your time mate cause people are waking up.

And I can't wait for you to prove me right, I'm waiting for your reply...

[edit on 26/11/2006 by ANOK]

ANOK ~

I'm not the one that needs to PROVE anything. You have the NIST report, the FEMA report etc... I have listed at least 50 DIFFERENT Engineers that have done papers outlining WHY the towers fell. ALL of these have been PEER REVIEWED!

You have incredible claims of thermite...nanothermite....Bombs going off PRIOR to planes impacts. Where is YOUR proof? All you have is a few seconds of a delay from a seismograph and FAA loss of radar contact. ONE witness in the basement that was actually quite a hero from what i read.

You say it that there is NO WAY the planes could have dropped these buildings... YOU provide YOUR theory that is PEER REVIEWED and accepted! IF you can...you will be a national hero.

Im not here to PROVE anything...I just thought since we are all here to find the TRUTH, lets weed out the stuff thats is easily refuted.

I DO think there should be another 911 Investigation. We all know it was flawed. This does not neccessarily mean that nukes and thermite were used as a way to demolish the WTC.

Instead of getting angry with me, lets agree that we disagree. I will NEVER be able to prove you wrong 100%. There is NO way I can. Nor can you prove that the NIST, FEMA, and other engineers are wrong.

Thanks

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
It only takes a lot of work and man hours if you are worried about hitting other buildings nearby,

No.

It would take a lot of work and man hours to wire any building that was 100+ stories with acreage of square footage.

Changing light bulbs in either tower would require a lot of work and man hours.

Was there maintenence done in the building? I'm sure there was. However it is very hard to hide things like wrapping explosives around exposed columns, drilling into columns to plant explosives, or even wrapping hypothetical super-nano-thermato charges around exposed columns.

Any task involving most of the floors of either building would require massive work and man hours.

Especially if you are going to do this:

Without anyone noticing.

Well for 1, building 7 was not 100s of stories. Second, the builidng was gutted by fire and had structural damage, it would not take much to bring it down just a few well placed beam cutters would do the job.

Maybe you could prove your theory of what happened if you could show the FBI reports, without those reports you do not know what actually happened.


[edit on 26-11-2006 by ULTIMA1]

From Ultima: Well for 1, building 7 was not 100s of stories. Second, the builidng was gutted by fire and had structural damage, it would not take much to bring it down just a few well placed beam cutters would do the job.

Maybe you could prove your theory of what happened if you could show the FBI reports, without those reports you do not know what actually happened.

Ok Ultima...so the terrorists that planned this attack (government or Bin Laden) Would have known that when the towers collapsed that the debris from WTC1 would cause enough damage to allow them to "bring it down just a few well placed beam cutters?"

Does that make ANY sence? Or am i missing something?

Originally posted by CameronFox

Ok Ultima...so the terrorists that planned this attack (government or Bin Laden) Would have known that when the towers collapsed that the debris from WTC1 would cause enough damage to allow them to "bring it down just a few well placed beam cutters?"

Does that make ANY sence? Or am i missing something?

What are you talking about ? What would lead you to believe that they knew ahead of time that debris would hit the builidng. I have said nothing about it being planned by the government i am just trying to find out the truth of what happpened, because thier are holes in the official story.

As stated by reports and by Silverstein the incident commander made the choice to bring down the building. It would not make any difference if the debris hit the building or not, if the incident commander made the choice to bring it down thats his chioce. Also its kind of strange that debris hit the builidng being at the very edge of the range of the towers.




[edit on 26-11-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Ultima, you said...

"Well for 1, building 7 was not 100s of stories. Second, the builidng was gutted by fire and had structural damage, it would not take much to bring it down just a few well placed beam cutters would do the job. "

Are you saying the charges were placed AFTER the collapse?

Originally posted by CameronFox
Ultima, you said...

"Well for 1, building 7 was not 100s of stories. Second, the builidng was gutted by fire and had structural damage, it would not take much to bring it down just a few well placed beam cutters would do the job. "

Are you saying the charges were placed AFTER the collapse?

No, i am saying they were planted when the incident commander decided to bring the builidng down as stated by reports and Silverstien. It would not be hard since its been stated from FEMA that thier was no fires on the ground floor.

Are you saying that charges were placed before the fires ?????

[edit on 26-11-2006 by ULTIMA1]

WOW....so the FDNY brings demolition charges to fires? Or...was there a demolition scre standing by ready to "pull it?" Either way...i think you will find it hard to get support for this claim

Originally posted by CameronFox
WOW....so the FDNY brings demolition charges to fires? Or...was there a demolition scre standing by ready to "pull it?" Either way...i think you will find it hard to get support for this claim

There were demolition crews there, like Controlled Demolition Inc. If you remember they are the ones that were witnesses to the molten steel in the basements of the buildings.