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

But don't you see?? You're saying that it would take too much TNT to destroy the towers, so you're saying it happened without TNT (or other demolition explosive), how the heck can that be? Gravity did it on its own then???

Also, the destruction of the twin towers was not a perfect demolition, it just had to bring them down, so that argument can go out the window.

I don't see what all your calculations have to do with a CD, if anything they argue that to get the building down, there HAD to be explosives of some sort otherwise there wouldn't be enough energy to bring them down.

reply to post by kiwifoot


Why did there have to be explosives in there to bring them down? Why couldnt it have just been massive structural failure from impact and fires, combined with gravity? After all, there seemed to be more than enough potential energy in those towers to have them collapse as they did. .

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R

I would have to say your thread title is misleading to say these least.
You have not disproven the WTC were not brought down by demolition in your OP.
Perhaps, you feel your opinions out weigh science, however many of us are only interested in the proven science that proves you are wrong. Defending the OS might be your beliefs but there is plenty of credible evidence and journals online that prove you wrong.

You can believe in anything you want and that is your freedom to do so, however don’t expect people with years of research underneath them on the subject you talk about to go along with you.

Many experts agree the only way that can explain the demise of the WCT is demolition, why I say this is because no other explanation can stand up to rigour scrutiny and real science however, demolition does. Remember the NIST Report was proven a fraud years ago by science. So, the government does not have any science to support their claims much less their silly pancake theories.

Oh wow, the Truthers begin calling OP out even though he didn't claimed he supported the OS in the first post.
Presumptuous much?

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

As in poorly designed death traps which just happened to withstand a rather large bomb in the lower parking lot in 1993 and also withstood a hotter than hell fire (described as "fighting a blow torch") which lasted for three hours in 1975 and spread over six floors. Yep...great common sense being used there.

"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."

Are you talking about the same potential plaintiffs who jumped all over the Government's settlement checks, signing away their rights to any future wrongful death lawsuits? And by the way, why did the Government pay out these settlements, instead of the designers/builders/owners of the Towers paying them?

And since (according to you) the buildings' designers are liable, has the Government subrogated against the buildings' designers to recover what they paid out in claims for 9/11? Or is the Government suddenly in the business of paying out huge sums of money for other people's screw ups?

You know, it would help to know something about insurance law and how the legal system works before you start talking smack.

Originally posted by Segador
Oh wow, the Truthers begin calling OP out even though he didn't claimed he supported the OS in the first post.
Presumptuous much?

Er dude, check out this guys previous threads:

A factoid that could be the undoing of the 9/11 conspiracy!!

Is this 9/11 nonsense going to ever go away? ZERO eveidence but still pushing on!

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Oh was there a 767 inside the WTC at that time too in the 1970s fire?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R

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.

This is completely nonsense’s where do you come off giving the odds that it is “astronomical”??

A computer generated program can give many ways of destroying the WTC. This is "basic physics" your silly ideas and opinions are absolutely ridiculous, if that was the case as you describe then man couldn’t have gone to the moon.

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
Right, lets put this to bed once and for all.

Yes, why don't we. This thread here automatically debunks anything you have to say.

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
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.

Irrelevant straw-man.

I can turn that right back around and say: what are the odds that 3 steel-structured highrises on the same day fell due to fires, something that's never, every happened before in history?

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
The tallest building world record for a controlled demolition is the following:

Continued irrelevance.

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
Now, even WTC 7 was 20 stories higher and nothing like that had ever been tried.

Yet more continued irrelevance. Just because it was "never tried" before doesn't mean it can't happen.

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
ITS too perfect and the chances of three perfect demolitions of that size when NEVER been done before is astronomical.

Actually, it's not astronomical. We have the means and the technology to bring those buildings down with explosives. Just because those size of buildings have never been done before, again doesn't mean it's not impossible.

But, what is astronomically improbable is the collapse of not one, not two, but three steel-structured highrises on the same day.

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
I am saying that this scenario is not that possible. I am just saying that CD explosives were NOT used.

And the link I posted at the beginning of this post debunks your "theory".

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
Truthers are still walking around saying Explosives were used to bring down the buildings and that a CD company was used.

Nobody has said a CD company was used. There are plenty of people in the military that have demolitions and explosives experience.

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
Those with their sarcasm, are just a bit to dim to look at this for themselves and need to follow everyone else.

That's a BS cop-out. It would appear that you are the one that hasn't looked at anything. I've been researching the WTC and controlled demolitions for many years. For you to accuse people of not looking at anything for themselves is blatant ignorance and misinformation.

Originally posted by okbmd
Those towers were designed and built with radically new and unproven architectural concepts .

Wrong answer. The towers were at least the third buildings to incorporate the tube-structure design.

The Dewitt-Chestnut apartment building, completed in 1963 was the first:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6a6892e90582.jpg[/atsimg]


The John Hancock tower was the second, completed in 1969:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/432dfcb11c9e.jpg[/atsimg]


And most other supertall skyscrapers since the 1960's have incorporated the tube-structure design.

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

Do you have any proof? How you can just blatantly call the engineers liars is beyond belief.

Originally posted by okbmd
They lied , plain and simple .

Is that what you're doing nowadays to help you sleep at night? Just flat-out calling the architects and engineers all liars so that you can remain in denial and believe your fantasies?

Originally posted by okbmd
A little research is probably in order , to see how many other buildings were built on this design

I've already shown above that most other supertall skyscrapers since the 1960's have the tube-structure design.

Originally posted by okbmd
The towers were death traps

That's your own disgusting, baseless opinion.

Originally posted by okbmd
I'm willing to bet that this design will never again be employed in the construction of a highrise .

Yet it has and continues to be employed. Again: most supertall skyscrapers since the 1960's have employed this design.

Originally posted by okbmd
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 .

Except the original lead engineer (John Skilling) who's firm designed the towers, is no longer with us. So, he couldn't be lying because of that ridiculous "theory". And as far as Leslie Robertson is concerned, he was a right-hand nobody at the time and was invited to help with the WTC project.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
They'll say the people in NIST and FEMA are lying

At least NIST, anyway. This proves they are lying:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by GenRadek
Why did there have to be explosives in there to bring them down? Why couldnt it have just been massive structural failure from impact and fires, combined with gravity?

Because there wasn't "massive" structural failure from the impacts. NIST even said that in their report. And as far as fires, well you know all about history and steel-structured highrises, so I don't need to go there.

You must have missed this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by _BoneZ_


What type of tube were those buildings designed with? Were they all with light steel trusses as the floor support in the WTC?

I dont remember seeing similar WTC style floor trusses supporting the John Hancock during construction of the floors or the building.

I do see large stel I-beams though:
img299.imageshack.us...

The problem with WTC was that they used light steel cord trusses in the design, not steel I-beams, which would have stood up much better to the fires, and even the impact. That must not be overlooked, in tryiing to simplify the events.

Also there wasnt massive structural failure? Well then golly gee, why does NIST mention the darn buildings collapsed when the structures failed?? (Funny you only mention impact, when I distinctly mentioned impact AND fires. Cherry pick much?) You mean having the top 30+ floors tilting over in one piece not a signal of massive structural failure? Or having 10+ floors moving downward as one not massive structural failure? And i watched that horrible video in that thread, and wont go into whats wrong with its premise.

And again, Bonze, I dont understand how you can say that NIST didnt say there was massive structural failure, when they do analyze the whole thing, and come to the conclusion that indeed, impact and fire were the causes of the massive failure. The collapse itself has the building telescoping into itself. You can see how the top descends into the building and the exterior columns peel back like a banana. Why was there no "jolt"? Because the energy and force of the floors moving downward was far too great for the columns and connections immediately below to withstand such a great overload of dynamic forces.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Also there wasnt massive structural failure? Well then golly gee, why does NIST mention the darn buildings collapsed when the structures failed??

They mention the buildings collapsed because the structures failed due to fire. Fires were the reason all 3 WTC towers collapsed, according to NIST. But you already knew that, or should.

Originally posted by GenRadek
The problem with WTC was that they used light steel cord trusses in the design

That's only partially accurate:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1be8ffb1d7a3.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by GenRadek
You mean having the top 30+ floors tilting over in one piece not a signal of massive structural failure?

You mean like this?:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/379570d95fd1.jpg[/atsimg]


Yeah, that's been accomplished with controlled demolitions before, just like on 9/11.

Originally posted by GenRadek
And i watched that horrible video in that thread, and wont go into whats wrong with its premise.

Yeah, I didn't think any of you skeptics could come close to disproving that engineer.

Originally posted by GenRadek
I dont understand how you can say that NIST didnt say there was massive structural failure

15% damage to the structure in the impact zones is not massive structural damage. It isn't even close. You have a poor definition of the word "massive". Words that describe 15% damage could be "minute", "minor", "minimal", just to name a few.

Well I read half of the first page and cant read the rest.. I wanna go outside but to those who says the Towers arent meant to get hit by multiple impacts then can you please call this guy and try to debate with him about it(if he isnt dead)... I think , well I KNOW he knows more about the Towers then ANYONE OF US IN HERE ...


www.youtube.com...

And So what its on youtube... look at its original source... HISTORY Ch. and from the person who knows better than us about the buildings.

www.grandtheftcountry.com...

www.legacy.com...

^^According to the above website... If you go see for yourself, that he died in 2001... I would like to do more research on this but dont have the time now. But with a quick search, I couldnt find NOTHING about his death.. Dead or Alive? and quite interesting if you go to the oldest post... it first start in Oct of 2001, May someone fill me in if they know? well fill us all in..

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Well i'm off of this, I'll come back and read the rest of this thread.

And Also that clip is from History Channel's special on the construction of the World Trade Center which was completed before the September 11, 2001.

Could be bought on Amazon.com
www.amazon.com...

Editorial Reviews From the Back Cover For a time, its towers were the tallest buildings on earth, and The World Trade Center-an engineering marvel-came to symbolize American prosperity and strength. Recalling a more innocent era, this new production from THE HISTORY CHANNEL was filmed just months before the towers' tragic demise and subsequently enriched with heartfelt reflection from host Harry Smith. "World Trade Center: In Memoriam" charts the history of the towers' construction, revealing the controversies, decitsions and innovations that surrounded the project, and-through interviews with those who proudly and ambitiously dreamt, designed and built the complex-examines the monument as both architectural achievement and cultural icon. What emerges is not ony a tribute to a building, but an inspiring and intimate story of the birth and growth of an American symbol.

Also, Here is the very special quote of Larry Silverstein. Can Anyone say "Pull It"?



Also real quick check out this site
killtown.blogspot.com...
Quote about the link...

For those who still question what Larry Silverstein meant when he said "pull it" when talking about the collapse of the WTC 7, Jeff from PumpItOut.com called demolition experts Controlled Demolition, Inc (CDI) and asked them what "pull it" means in demolition terms. This is what CDI told him:

And if you dont believe that.. try calling one of them CDI dudes yourself

So please "debunkers" maybe you should check out that special they gave on TV and learn about the Towers first.. As it was stated.. that show was done wayyy before 9/11 so dont come with it was edited or any lame excuses even through they released it in 2002 which for me is odd as to why they never showed it before 2002 like in 2000/1999 but maybe they did?... Thank you, Have a Great Night ATS'ers :-)

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by kiwifoot

 

Why did there have to be explosives in there to bring them down? Why couldnt it have just been massive structural failure from impact and fires, combined with gravity? After all, there seemed to be more than enough potential energy in those towers to have them collapse as they did. .

There seems to be quite a lot of evidence that Structural Integrity failure could of brought the towers down.

Here is a fact some truthers do not know OR choose to ignore.

The WTC buildings were only designed to take the impacts from one Boeing 707 to each building at the time of completion in 1974. They weren't designed to take the impacts of a Boeing 757 and a 767, which were much larger, faster and carried more fuel loads than the Boeing 707. The WTC buildings could take multiple impacts from smaller lightweight planes, but never multiple impacts from Boeing's 707s, 757s and 767s.

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by kiwifoot

 

Why did there have to be explosives in there to bring them down? Why couldnt it have just been massive structural failure from impact and fires, combined with gravity? After all, there seemed to be more than enough potential energy in those towers to have them collapse as they did. .

There seems to be quite a lot of evidence that Structural Integrity failure could of brought the towers down.

Here is a fact some truthers do not know OR choose to ignore.

The WTC buildings were only designed to take the impacts from one Boeing 707 to each building at the time of completion in 1974. They weren't designed to take the impacts of a Boeing 757 and a 767, which were much larger, faster and carried more fuel loads than the Boeing 707. The WTC buildings could take multiple impacts from smaller lightweight planes, but never multiple impacts from Boeing's 707s, 757s and 767s.

But excuse me, what you failed in your post is a Source... So where is that source at? :-)

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R

There seems to be quite a lot of evidence that Structural Integrity failure could of brought the towers down.

What evidence? Besides your opinions do you have any sources to back your claim?

Here is a fact some truthers do not know OR choose to ignore.

How about an internet source for your information? Or is there something you don’t want us to see about the source?

You’re wrong and here is why:

[color=gold]The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate Towers should have remained standing on 9/11

“The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1, 200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings… [color=gold]The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure. The design concept is so sound that the structural engineer has been able to be ultra-conservative in his design without adversely affecting the economics of the structure.”[3]

Like many modern structures and buildings, the WTC Towers were over-designed to withstand weight distribution in the event of structural damage. According to calculations made by the engineers who helped with the design of the Twin Towers, “all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.”[5] As well, “Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.”[6]

“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. [color=gold]There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed…[color=gold] The building structure would still be there.”[14]

“[color=gold]The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”[25]

“The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks, spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability…”O’Sullivan consults ‘one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’ [color=gold]He is told there is ‘little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.’”[7]

One of these hypothetical examples was put to the test in the 1993 WTC bombing. This attack prompted more discussions about the safety of the WTC towers. In response to these concerns, WTC building designer John Skilling explained that they “looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… A previous analysis carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers [color=gold]would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.”[8]

www.nowpublic.com...

Your opinions have no bearing when it comes to these experts and the original building designers. Or are you just going to ignore these facts as well.

reply to post by impressme

Your opinions have no bearing when it comes to these experts and the original building designers. Or are you just going to ignore these facts as well.

The Man who built the Twin Towers

Leslie Robertson, direct quote:

We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.

And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two.

www.bbc.co.uk...