The TWIN towers were not brought down by CD explosives on 9/11

Right, lets put this to bed once and for all. Firstly, lets look at some facts. What is the probability of 3 perfect demolitions on 3 buildings in the same day when nothing near the height of those buildings had ever been imploded in a controlled demolition in HISTORY. EVER. NEVER.

The TWIN towers are 1368 FT TALL. 110 stories and 3.12 times higher than anything else ever attempted in HISTORY. FACT.

The tallest building world record for a controlled demolition is the following:

The building was the J.L. Hudson Department Store standing erect at 439-foot tall and 26 stories. Now look how long it took for the Controlled Demolitions Experts to set the building with explosives and cord and all that stuff.

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took TWENTY FOUR days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

The Hudson Building “It took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives…” James Santoro – Controlled Demolition Incorporated

MY source


Now, even WTC 7 was 20 stories higher and nothing like that had ever been tried. So when we talk about the TWIN TOWERS never has it ever been attempted. WTC No 7 was 570 ft. (47 stories) 1.3 times the height of the J.L. Hudson.

So are we saying that on that fateful day of 9/11 all three of the WTC's that fell were so perfect even though it has been done before. ITS too perfect and the chances of three perfect demolitions of that size when NEVER been done before is astronomical.

Here is a list of world record Implosions just for you too look at.

World record implosions

Here is the Masses of the WTC's

WTC's masses


So, lets look at the look. On 9/11 three separate buildings were razed to perfection, one being 131ft taller than the world record and the other two minus their antennas were 929 feet taller than the world record EACH.

Does this seem plausible?

Lets look at the amount of explosive needed to take down the twin towers.

Each floor had a load rating of 100lbs per square foot so for arguments sake let assume that they were each at only half capacity = 50lbs per square foot. To find the KE - Kenetic Energy we need to take the top and bottom floors and use them as an example. Using the top floor as the main example we will then divide by two to get the average per of the two then times that by 110 floors. Remember KE = 1/2mv^2

208ft x 208ft = 43,264 square ft

50lbs per sqft x 43264 squft = 2,163,200LBS = 981,211KGS of extra weight per floor.

Each building = 450,000,000 / 110 floors = 4,090,909 KGS per floor

That means total mass per floor is 4,090,909 KGS + 981,211 KGS = 5,072,120 KGS per floor.

Now taking that the velocity of impact was 90.4 m/s that means that:

KE = (90.4m/s) ^2) /2 x 5,072,120 KGS = 20,725,088,521 Joules

Now divide by two = 10, 362, 544, 260 Joules per floor x 110 floors = 1, 139, 879, 868, 600 Joules (1.1 trillion)

So convert that to TNT

1 ton of TNT is equal to 4, 184, 000, 000 Joules

So, that mean we would need 272 tons of TNT (1,139,879,868,600J divided by 4,184,000,000J/T)

Wow, thats a mother load right there. Thats a quarter kilo-ton.

Does this sound reasonable to anyone that each of the Twin Towers needed that much TNT. How did they do this. Revert back the the worrld record and see it took them 24 days straight to do that one. Now imagine this for the twin towers at three times the height and two of them plus the 47 story WTC7.

Just these figures alone are cause for question.

you are correct. it makes much more sense that two planes, hit two buildings and three of them fell almost perfectly. Officially put to bed. I would like to thank you for ending this debate once and for all.

that was a bit rude, sorry. While I don't claim to have any idea at all what really happened, the fact that there are so many inconsistencies in the events that took place on that one day, leads me to believe that perhaps the 9-11 commission didn't get all of the facts 100% correct. I don't think it will be "put to bed" any time soon. Look back at the conspiracies that have been proven correct. They are just now coming to light after years and years. Gulf of Tonkin, USS Liberty, And coming soon to a theater near you, JFK assassination.

to me, this arguement is ridiculous. you will believe that 2 plane crashes brought down 3 steel skyscrapers, but cannot believe they perhaps they only used a fee explosives to cut certain braces to allow the pancake to occur. absurd. coccoocc common seseese sense... please.. you can have all your "sources" and wht have you, but it didnt happen how you think...

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
Right, lets put this to bed once and for all. Firstly, lets look at some facts. What is the probability of 3 perfect demolitions on 3 buildings in the same day when nothing near the height of those buildings had ever been imploded in a controlled demolition in HISTORY. EVER. NEVER.

Nicely put, and I'm giving you a star for your post. The fact is, if these conspiracy people have reason to believe the towers couldn't have come down from the plane impacts and the fires, fine, I can accept that...but don't just turn around and substitute as an alternative scenario something that's not only more improbable, but outright ridiculous I.E. lasers from outer space, secret controlled demolitions, nukes in the baement, and the like. It's like saying strong currents wouldn't be enough to cause an expert swimmer to drown, therefore the swimmer must have really been killed by invisible UFOs from the planet Glorbzoig 7. It's introducing conspiracies solely for the sake of introducing conspiracies.

Here's a wild, way out theory- suppose the towers were poorly designed and were death traps waiting to happen from day one? Yeah, it's a boring conspiracy, but it's still a conspiracy.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


you obviously cant distinguish between disinformants, young kids, and those who really look into it. the only laser theory i heard was laser guided planes, which honestly, is more plausible then the amount of explosives the OP says would have been needed to bring down the buildingd. and once again, ridiculous to think 2 planes brought down 3 buildings as perfectly as a CD.

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R


The TWIN towers are 1368 FT TALL. 110 stories and 3.12 times higher than anything else ever attempted in HISTORY. FACT.

The Twin towers were 1368ft tall. Fact.

You are saying that CD wasn't possible simply due to logistics? Many of us believe that collapse due to fire of 3 buildings is even more improbable.

If odds and probability are to be considered then the OS simply cannot be true. The odds of everything happening on 9/11 the way the OS describes it are overwhelmingly against it.

And where did the thermite residue come from?

Your argument is filled with self-serving, arbitrary assumptions.

Firstly, the destruction of WTC1 & 2 were NOT conventional controlled demolitions. They could not be, because it would have too obvious as such if the towers had fallen from the bottom instead of from the top, floor by floor. Instead, it had to look as though the towers collapsed from the point of impact. This meant simulating a pancake collapse. Unfortunately for those who carried this out, some explosives detonated prematurely many floors below the falling level of destruction, making it obvious what was happening (except of course to those who keep themselves in denial with their brains switched off).

Secondly, the assumption that the towers had to wired in the conventional way that buildings are when demolished is plain wrong. It would NOT have taken weeks to prepare them because all that was needed was for teams of men masquerading as electricians to go into the towers a few days before 9/11 (such as was reported by Scott Forbes, who worked in the South Tower):
nwopodcast.com...
and plant explosives in areas hidden in areas inaccessible to office workers. These explosives were then detonated by radio signals hundreds of yards away.

So please make credible assumptions when making arguments against the demolition of the towers on 9/11.

How to win an argument on a forum:

1. Create a strawman.

2. Demolish the strawman.

3. Pat yourself on the back and acknowledge your success.


Fact: The towers, three of them, came down.

Fact: Boeings didn't do it.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Here's a wild, way out theory- suppose the towers were poorly designed and were death traps waiting to happen from day one?

There you go again Dave , using common sense in a 9/11 discussion , what are you thinking ?

Anyone who has did any amount of serious study into the design and construction of the towers would find plenty of people who had concerns about the safety and structural integrity of the towers , even BEFORE they were erected .

Those towers were designed and built with radically new and unproven architectural concepts . And , for those who fall back on the arguments of "they were designed to withstand impacts from planes" , stop and think about what an assinine argument that is .

Those towers WERE NOT designed to withstand any impacts from aircraft , I don't care how many leslie robertsons you quote .

The engineers and architects DID NOT physically test any theory about the effects of an airliner crashing into these future buildings . I challenge anyone to prove otherwise . Just because it looks good on paper , does not guarantee that it will meet your expectations in an actual event .

They tested the effects of the buildings' ability to sway in the wind , they NEVER built any sort of mock-up that tested the effects of an airliner impact .

Their conclusions were based on charts and graphs , no physical tests were conducted to prove those charts and graphs .

The only conspiracy here , if there is one , is that the designers and engineers did not actually PROVE the buildings would withstand impacts from planes , they did not PROVE the buildings would withstand the effects of raging fires , they did not actually PROVE those buildings would be structurally sound when and if they were subjected to these events .

They lied , plain and simple .

I challenge anyone , show me proof of physical tests that were conducted that concluded the towers would withstand the impact of an airliner .

Show me where physical tests were conducted that proved the box-columns would retain their structural integrity after being subjected to raging fires .

Show me physical tests that were conducted that proved the lightweight floor joists would not be compromised in the event of an impact and fires .

They lied . If anyone should be held liable , it should be those who lied about the safety issues involved in the design and construction .

If there is any sort of cover-up involved at all , this is where it will be found .

A little research is probably in order , to see how many other buildings were built on this design , and how many of those buildings have been renovated since 9/11 . That might be interesting .

The towers were death traps . Period . I'm willing to bet that this design will never again be employed in the construction of a highrise .

This is kinda hypocrytic..

You're saying controlled demolition COULDN'T of bought all three of the buildings down perfectly

BUT

Two planes hitting two of them, bought all three of them down perfectly...

... right...

reply to post by okbmd


thats all well and good oklahoma, but what about 7? Another radically designed death trap? you love pointing out that huh? your sig is so sweet. thanks again ok for being so wise and considerate of those whos lives were lost.

Dear OP,

The official story is bull sh!t.

I hope you entertain openly the other side of the debate, as it has been my experience that the majority of intelligent people I have met question the events.

You don't have to believe that they were brought down by controlled demolition.

But you do have to understand that people who study physics will have questions about how NIST and the government claim the event went down.

Its simple really, all the government has to do is go over their facts in an open debate with the other side's facts.

I hope you will be proven correct(not sure how it could happen...), but again it has been my experience that fellow intellectuals and scholars do question our authoritative government which has consistently lied and taken away our freedoms to support an international banking and corporate cartel of white collar criminals.

Especially many people I have met abroad(like outside of the continental united States) do not have a patriotic tendency to view the u.S. government and therefore are much more open to the idea that Bush and Cheney and their whole lot are evil S.O.B.'s...

So good luck in your truth-seeking, and I wish your side luck - because luck or a parallel universe is the only way I can see that side of the debate winning!

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Here's a wild, way out theory- suppose the towers were poorly designed and were death traps waiting to happen from day one?

There you go again Dave , using common sense in a 9/11 discussion , what are you thinking ?

Anyone who has did any amount of serious study into the design and construction of the towers would find plenty of people who had concerns about the safety and structural integrity of the towers , even BEFORE they were erected .

Those towers were designed and built with radically new and unproven architectural concepts . And , for those who fall back on the arguments of "they were designed to withstand impacts from planes" , stop and think about what an assinine argument that is .

Those towers WERE NOT designed to withstand any impacts from aircraft , I don't care how many leslie robertsons you quote

THIS!!! It just amazes me just how intellectually dishonest the conspiracy people are getting, in the defense of the conspiracy claims. They'll say the people in NIST and FEMA are lying becuase the architects all say the towers could withstand a plane impact. How do we not know the opposite isn't true, that NIST and FEMA have it right and the original arcitects aren't lying? It seems to me that the odds that two or three architects won't want to admit they skimped on the design so it'll require less materials and have the lowest bid are a lot higher than several hundred engineers, eyewitnesses, computer modelers, etc., are all part of some sinister gov't scheme to murder innocent people. Besides, the conspiracy people obviously don't seem to need even a microbe of evidence to make their own claims that someone is lying so why should I?

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R


It is not possible to develop A-Bomb in complete secrecy; hence it is not possible to develop A-Bomb. While the premise is (was) true, the assumption is (was) false. OP argument is not valid syllogism.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

It seems to me that the odds that two or three architects won't want to admit they skimped on the design so it'll require less materials and have the lowest bid are a lot higher than several hundred engineers, eyewitnesses, computer modelers, etc.,

Exactly , the original architects and engineers are obviously going to say the towers were designed to withstand impacts from planes , for the very obvious reason that they are terrified of 3,000 wrongful death lawsuits that could be filed in civil court , once negligence is proven .

Isn't it curious that not one of them has come forward with absolute proof that the towers were , in fact , designed to withstand impacts from a plane ?

Building designers , architects , engineers , and even building owners could be held liable for the towers collapsing . Why is it that no one has focussed on this aspect ?

Why is it that at least one of the airlines (that I'm aware of) was successfully sued , yet no one has brought litigation against the architects , engineers , and owners ? Or have they , and I'm just unaware of it ?

Business owners are sued for damages all the time when people are injured or killed in their buildings . Why was this any different ?

As I said earlier , if indeed there is a coverup , this is most likely where it would be found .

Lets for a moment stop and say "ok the buildings themselves were faulty and couldn't handle a plane strike and fires". What about building 7 then? It was only hit with debris and had fires on two floors. So those three buildings were all faulty as hell, yet managed to stand through the years. But magically the only three buildings owned by Silverstein collapsed? There were many other buildings TOTALED by falling debris, some even impaled with debris, yet they didn't just pancake down on themselves nice and neat, falling into almost 30ft sections like 1, 2 and 7.

No buildings before or since have done this. So.... this is why people have questions.

My biggest question, why was the steel removed and sold off so quickly. Sure I can understand the clean up but your telling me that steel couldn't have sat in the salvage yards until SOME form of investigation was undertaken on it? No it was sold off to China and India almost as fast as those towers fell. Why?

Originally posted by Kailassa
How to win an argument on a forum:

1. Create a strawman.

2. Demolish the strawman.

3. Pat yourself on the back and acknowledge your success.


Fact: The towers, three of them, came down.

Fact: Boeings didn't do it.

yes, it is a classic way of making a truth movement look bad. Some people's egos are really that weak to do such a thing.

What Im saying people is that CD would be highly improbable.

I did not mention in THIS thread that two planes brought down 3 buildings. READ.

I am saying that this scenario is not that possible.

I am just saying that CD explosives were NOT used. Truthers are still walking around saying Explosives were used to bring down the buildings and that a CD company was used.

Those with their sarcasm, are just a bit to dim to look at this for themselves and need to follow everyone else.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

THIS!!! It just amazes me just how intellectually dishonest the conspiracy people are getting, in the defense of the conspiracy claims.

Wow! If anyone is being “intellectually dishonest” it is people defending the OS proven lies. People searching for the truth, are not liars! Many of you lump all Truthers and innocent people who even sit on the fence concerning 911 in one barrel, as you just demonstrated. Apparently many of you debunkers cannot distinguish the different between fantasies, disinformation, and credible science.

They'll say the people in NIST and FEMA are lying becuase the architects all say the towers could withstand a plane impact.

That is not the only reason and you have to know that, Science proves the OS is a lie when it comes to prove the demise of the WTC, why don’t you read it sometimes, perhaps then you will realize some of you have been attacking the wrong people.

Many Truthers are not here because of a “belief system” they only support the proven facts and nothing else. Care to prove me wrong?

I do not believe in the government OS
I do not believe in lasers beams used from outer space.
I do not believe in Judy’s Wood conspiracy theories.
I do not believe in pod people, or pods on invisible airplanes.
I don’t believe any laser weapons were used to bring down the WTC as you always claim.
I do not believe in MSN or any network News since it has been proven they lie most of the time.
I do not believe in the Easter bunny either.
I do not believe in everything I read from those dam fools truthers web sites as you always claim.
I do not believe our whole government and military was involved in 911 as you always claim.
I do not believe it took thousands of people secretly conspiring to do 911, as you always claim. Just a handful of experts were only needed and everyone working on a need to know basics.

I do not support wild conspiracies theories unless they can survive riggous scrutiny and be proven by science.

I am also subject to change my mind, when I see scientific facts and credible evidence.

How do we not know the opposite isn't true, that NIST and FEMA have it right and the original arcitects aren't lying?

Because science proves NIST is wrong.

It seems to me that the odds that two or three architects won't want to admit they skimped on the design so it'll require less materials and have the lowest bid are a lot higher than several hundred engineers, eyewitnesses, computer modelers, etc., are all part of some sinister gov't scheme to murder innocent people.

Now look who is making up wild, insane, conspiracy theories, Looks like the pot calling the kettle black to me.

Besides, the conspiracy people obviously don't seem to need even a microbe of evidence to make their own claims that someone is lying so why should I?

This is a completely untrue GoodOlDave and you know it. I do not understand why some of you come here if conspiracy theories bother many of you this bad. This is a conspiracy website we all are entitled to our opinions However, none of you are not entitle to use the ATS forums to attack and insult people because some of you do not believe in conspiracy theories. Many of you are not going to change people minds or convince the people the OS is all true by constantly insulting and ridiculing people who want to discuss 911 issues.

If some of you believe in the OS so bad then consider it your truth, and let us have our discussions without your snide, insulting, remarks.