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

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R

First of Chaos, WHERE did i mention in THIS thread it was the planes that caused the building to come down?

Ok, then enlighten me wise one, what do you believe brought down those buildings in such a fashion?

And secondly you are the joke here:

Chaos Theory

Why is that a joke? Seems like a perfectly reasonable thread to me. The only ones declaring it a hoax are the very people under suspicion, and IMO no evidence what so ever was presented to prove that thread a hoax. Oh, and if you liked that, you'll surely enjoy part 2 thoroughly, which can be found in my signature.

So, please do not come on here when you have NOT read my thread post and spout your rabble.

I read 90% of your thread, I just assumed because you don't think it was explosives, it must have been planes. I ignored the math part because it is pretty irrelevant. It's obvious no high explosives were used. There was probably a series of smaller explosions made to take out some key support beams, but the real damage was probably done by a type of thermite.

You should of been banned when you wrote that STUPID thread on the ATS conspiracy. We'll see.

You think I should be banned for submitting some information on an interesting conspiracy involving ATS itself, or for recounting some ATS history? Why? Because it involves the staff? You really have a thing for "authoritative" figures don't you? I guess that's why you so adamantly believe 9/11 wasn't an inside job.


Really, can't you do a little better at trying to act like you deal with facts, rationality, and sensibility, because it is clear you lack all those things.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
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.

You are deliberately comparing apples and oranges to gain false credibility. Yes, the towers withstood the massive destruction from the 1993 bombing...but then again the towers withstood the massive destruction from the aircract impacts too. It was the combined damage from the impacts and the burning fires that brought it down...or at least, is what the most logical theory is. The fire in 1975 is the exact same fallacy- how much damage from an airplane impact and thousands of gallons of aviation fuel dumped all over the place was there in that fire?

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

Oh, the irony. A day doesn't go by that one or another of you self declared truthers posts "irrefutable evidence" that has already been shown to be complete rubbish- no interceptors were scrambled, all the bomb dogs were withdrawn, Bush's cousin was in charge of WTC security, Cheney was in charge of NORAD, all the steel was taken away before it could be examined, seven hijackers were alive after 9/11, etc etc etc. Heck, the vast majority of you people haven't even read the 9/11 commission report...and yet that doesn't seem to stop you from denouncing it as a lie despite the fact you don't even know what the lies supposedly even are.

I'll be the first to admit the NIST and FEMA reports are just estimates on how the towers fell and cannot be relied upon as being absolute...but at least it has the benefit of not needing to make up paranoid horse [censored] of secret controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, and 10,000 sinister gov't ninjas to make it work.

So you're saying modern day technology can not take down buildings of that size, and yet that's what happened one hour after a plane hit the business? Gee, I guess the aviation business will replace the demolition building. Since now all you need to do to take a tower down is to fly a plane into it (except the empire state building of course), but just watch out for nearby buildings because that will also collapse into its footprint 7 hours afterward, but I guess that's the price you pay with aviation demolition inc.

p.s: just like rock and roll, the 9/11 investigation may take cat naps, but it NEVER SLEEPS

So you're saying modern day technology can not take down buildings of that size, and yet that's what happened one hour after a plane hit the building? Gee, I guess the aviation business will replace the demolition business. Since now all you need to do to take a tower down is to fly a plane into it (except the empire state building of course), but just watch out for nearby buildings because that will also collapse into its footprint 7 hours afterward, but I guess that's the price you pay with aviation demolition inc.

p.s: just like rock and roll, the 9/11 investigation may take cat naps, but it NEVER SLEEPS

Joshua Smith:
I decided this morning to dig deep into who was conducting the electrical
work during Scott Forbes claim of the weekend "power down" where
"engineers" were running cabling through out the floors in the
weekend prior to 9-11. And in research into some theories that those
"engineers" may have been wiring explosives (and/or other
things.)

1. Cabling electrical upgrades at WTC: 1993 article claims upgrades will
be a ten year project.

"...the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, the WTC's
owner, has decided to revamp the system with an electrical upgrade that
will take an estimated 10 years and $81 million to complete. The project
will involve extensive use of copper cabling.

The first step in the upgrade program will be to replace aluminum cables
with copper cables from the complex's power distribution center to
the 41st floor. Four transformers will also be replaced with copper wound
transformers.

Who was doing the electrical work?

Now you could say "oh, they really were just doing electrical work." But understand that your argument of "people would have noticed" is not as simple as you think it is. There are other articles that go into much more detail than this, but im not about to go and find them because you refuse to even think about it. So, you're thread is debunked. Using the context of the largest demolition in your thread, 10 years for the WTC in secrecy is completly logical.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Too bad that your commentary on lots of jet fuel is as stupid as a laser theory, for the 50,000 time, jet fuel does not burn or cause hotter fires than any other lit materials that were lighted, man you have some serious respect for the powers of this fuel, apparently it can weaken steel, help damage become far worse than before, and continue to burn for hours (apparently most of it didn't burn on impact, but just lit super slowly and kept increasing in heat...lol)

I am now truly scared of my kerosene hurricane lamps, not sure where to store them since if they catch fire somehow they will weaken and annihilate anything they are near.

And gravity scares me more than ever before as well, everytime i go into a building i am petrified that the trusters are right and buildings are designed to barely hold the weight in them, and that an earthquake or hot fires will cause the structure to explode in every direction and eject my body parts for 300 yards in every direction.

I had also better refine my beliefs about the strength of steel, and my friends steel company has been wrong since they started back in 1943, they had better take a look as well, since much lower temp furnaces are needed to manage the materials, and they should make more use of the amazing power of "kinetic energy". since all the previous knowledge of it was not accurate.

Wow this changes everything !

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R

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.

This thread isn't even worth my own words. So I'll use these and not apologise for them

Any one notice this persons screen name is Lucifer if you take out the numbers.....

If office fires were capable of demolishing a 47 storey steel building at free-fall speed then surelly all the demolition companies would have gone bust but non did cause they know thats impossible buddy

reply to post by MilzGatez


Yes i am aware of the internal core construction of the wtc. I read your link and the section on the collapse, seems like conjecture. I didn't see any science backing up the claims. Because there is disagreement on what failed it must be a CD? In pictures you can clearly see what the reports say, sagging floors and buckling walls directly at the point of the collapse. How did the super secret demolition ninjas know exactly where the planes would hit?

Originally posted by drock905
reply to post by MilzGatez

 

Yes i am aware of the internal core construction of the wtc. I read your link and the section on the collapse, seems like conjecture. I didn't see any science backing up the claims. Because there is disagreement on what failed it must be a CD? In pictures you can clearly see what the reports say, sagging floors and buckling walls directly at the point of the collapse. How did the super secret demolition ninjas know exactly where the planes would hit?

Well one doesnt need all that science and blahblahblah to back up a claim, to back up a claim ,you may only need an expert opinion or a few or like the 9/11 case, a few hundred experts opinions who wouldnt let anybody with power do any scare tactics nor give money to influence their knowledge and opinions to give out false information or leave out information aka suppressing information, Someone who researched and learned everything about a subject the best way he can and have years of experiences in the real world with all the knowledge he gain and put it to use then it comes down to the evidence to prove or disprove anything, now if the evidence doesnt show a solid fact to use then one can go to the next higher level step and do scientific studies. Now its up to you on who to believe... The Government and their goons or Independent experts who wants the real facts to be known and have nothing to hide... Unless the Government and their goons have that power and resources to stop ANY TYPE OF INFORMATION out.

So for the average man like myself, dont know about you.... We would research and study what the "experts" put out and also get into the subject like if we are in college taking the same courses of an "expert" to learn more about it so with that information we then can compare your claims you researched on your own, the claims of government and their goons information they put out and Independent researchers information.
Now this is the tricky part which you and some of you dont understand and refuse to deeply look is to weigh out the BS's (OS) information and from the real facts ("Truthers"), to the information you learned on your own about that subject and with a little bit of COMMON SENSE and LOGICALLY THINKING

Therefore, with that and what the witnesses who was there at the time that witness everything unfold heard BANG BANG BANG, BOOM BOOM BOOM way before the Towers even fell and was standing strong with just a big hole all the way on top with light fire which burnt out an hour or two on its own (Yeah there's pictures that can be used as evidence supporting it) and right just right and during the building started to fall and was going down there's witnesses and video/pictures showing what may look like something exploding out but cant and just couldnt hear those BOOM BOOM under the other Noises that the building was making when they were going down. Also, in videos and pictures you can see the top half tilting to the side but somehow, instead of fully tilting to the side it's position was fixed (hmm i wonder how) and just tilt back straight and just fall right straight down causing the top half going down hard on the bottom half with some help of something else creating less resistance to hold its structure(hmm could it be signs of CD) to making them go straight downnn but what also funny is how fast all that materials/debris just turned into dust on its way down. I didnt know those steals, esp those reinforce steal middle columns are that cheap that will just turn them into dust(yes, I know there were steal columns on the ground but how half those steal middle columns just vanished?) with any help of anything else? They should have been still standing up and showing as high to the point of impact (aka bottom half).

But You will just refuse to do your research and weight out the information you learn from other "experts" (OS BS or "Truthers") with what you know and with your common sense and logic in life.
And as far as people placing explosive without people noticing is called staying under your COVER, like Good Intentions mentioned in his reply with the source information, They were under cover as electrical workers, Hell, they could even been dressing up as janitor,
How you say? of course the government has more resources to pull it off. What average person,wait what kind of workers in the building was going in there thinking about a group of people dressing up as some kind of workers doing something bad prior to 9/11?
No one ever suspected anything strange or wrong doing during the days they seen new faces going up to an area that the average workers have no business in being there.
If you lived in a city like New York, you could be walking or doing something wrong in front of an undercover cop in plain clothes and not know he is a cop or if he was even looking at you in the first place.
So this is how these " secret ninja(government goons) " got in there quietly to do the deed. THEY BLENDED THEMSELF IN WITH WHATEVER MATERIALS THEY HAD ON THEM or had inside of the building, and oh yeah do you realize it was only open with workers during business hours 9 to 5... Who said they couldn't do their CD work late at night when everyone is home sleeping to go back to WTC to work the next morning?

Or is that impossible to do?

ok i'm not a truther,or claim to know all the details,but i know enough to know that the 9/11 report would insult a childs intelligence,so 1200 architects and engineers are wrong,and countless pilots are also wrong,some of the worlds best explosive experts are wrong,and its fair to say the american military are years ahead in technology,and being military i'm guessing explosive's would be there thing.

come on,honestly do you people really believe the official story,there's so many holes all the way through the story,you would have to be a blind idiot not to have question's,that are not getting answered,in fact there actively getting pushed under the carpet.

if there is nothing to hide then why not have a full Independent Public Inquiry,it's one of the biggest events of modern history,surely it worthy of a Independent Public Inquiry.

if this was a any other criminal investigation,it would be granted a retrial.

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R

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.

Firstly, I'm sure you exagerate the quantity required, over 2 tons per floor is pretty stupid...

But the fact is, IF it was a CD then they would of used cutting explosives to cut the main metal beams and let the weight do the work..Gravity is a great help...

Would be interesting to get an expert opinion linked on just how much material (explosives or thermite) it would have taken...

I think I'd be safe in saying it was nowhere near your ridiculous 272 tons...
BTW, where did you get that figure from??
You a demolition expert or something???

Let the dissinfo's roll..I know how many are here by Dave's stars.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

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.

BoneZ, I'm going to ask you again, did you ever actually read through NIST's final report in its entirety, or even skimmed through the important sections of the final report? Because I can totally tell with your comments that you have not.

Here is the link to the PDF of NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers, (specifically 1-6D

wtc.nist.gov...

PDF page 5, fourth paragraph of the page. Read that paragraph, and the next two, right on to page 6, and then recheck your comment to me. Cause apparently, I do know more than you when it comes to what NIST says. Cause of collapse: damage by plane, damage by fires. Oh yes and be sure to read on the pdf page 377 and the rest of that section, where they describe the "how" and "whys" of the collapse was initiated by aircraft impacts and fire damage. BoneZ, please do us a favor and actually read the NIST reports before you start looking like someone who is pretending to know what he is talking about, when in reality, you dont.

I see the trusses BoneZ, but that does not affect what I stated about them being the weak link in the design of this particular building. Light steel chord trusses are death traps in fires. I reccomend for you to look up what firefighters say about their use in buildings and their behavior in fires. It is just as relevant there as at the WTC.

That picture of WTC2 and that demolition picture, very interesting look a like, but waaaaay off what really happened.

Watch this video, and I want you to show me exactly where the detonations are of the demo charges, prior to any movement of the building down. I'm sure you still remember, that in a demolition, the charges explode first, THEN the building begins to move down, not vice versa.


Remember, the democharges go BOOM first, then the building moves. Big rule #1. also watching this video, explain how the demo charges managed to make the exterior columns to bend inward?

I would like to see which building that is being demoed in that poor side by side comparison. Maybe there exists a video of it? Case I have yet to see a building starting to fall over, before any demo charges go off.

reply to post by GenRadek

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

Watch this video, and I want you to show me exactly where the detonations are of the demo charges, prior to any movement of the building down. I'm sure you still remember, that in a demolition, the charges explode first, THEN the building begins to move down, not vice versa.

Remember, the democharges go BOOM first, then the building moves. Big rule #1. also watching this video, explain how the demo charges managed to make the exterior columns to bend inward?

I would like to see which building that is being demoed in that poor side by side comparison. Maybe there exists a video of it? Case I have yet to see a building starting to fall over, before any demo charges go off.

GenRadek,

Based on your rule system, the rule just before Big rule #1 is that sound waves travel slower than light waves. Count the number of seconds between when you see the collapse and when you hear the sound. I'm not a mathematician but even from 100 metres (from years at the athletic track) there is a noticable delay between seeing the starting gun smoke and hearing the report. From this video, the camera was at least 342 metres away but the sound and light start at the same time.

Go figure!

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
Too bad that your commentary on lots of jet fuel is as stupid as a laser theory, for the 50,000 time, jet fuel does not burn or cause hotter fires than any other lit materials that were lighted, man you have some serious respect for the powers of this fuel, apparently it can weaken steel, help damage become far worse than before, and continue to burn for hours (apparently most of it didn't burn on impact, but just lit super slowly and kept increasing in heat...lol)

...and for the 50,000 time, the towers were built of a design that wasn't used anywhere else, none of the other "steel structures that never fell becuase of fire" had an airplane crash into them and none of them had thousands of gallons of aviation fuel dumped into the structure. Noone is debating that this is the first time in history that a steel skyscraper fell from fire, so it's therefore not up for debate that something new happened that hadn't happened before. The debate is over what that "new thing that never happened before" actually is.

I'd rather go with one of the items on the list of brand new things that never happened before that we know definitely existed within the building, rather than some make believe hypothesis that you think *might* have been the cause, along with make believe evidence you conjure up in desperation as the criticisms mount. The NIST and FEMA reports may not be the most satisfying answer, but it's by far the least goofball answer.

I am now truly scared of my kerosene hurricane lamps, not sure where to store them since if they catch fire somehow they will weaken and annihilate anything they are near.

Dude, if you genuinely didn't know that kerosene is an accelerant, then you're going to have a pretty ugly surprise heading your way, one of these days.

Originally posted by Good Intentions
Now you could say "oh, they really were just doing electrical work." But understand that your argument of "people would have noticed" is not as simple as you think it is. There are other articles that go into much more detail than this, but im not about to go and find them because you refuse to even think about it. So, you're thread is debunked. Using the context of the largest demolition in your thread, 10 years for the WTC in secrecy is completly logical.

How the heck do you figure that HIS thread was debunked, and not yours? The NYPA didn't allow just anyone to come in off the street and wander around the building as they fancied. Any outside contractors coming in necessarily had to have had NYPA engineers supervising the project, which means the NYPA would have noticed right away whether people were wiring up suspicious packages throughout the building rather than replacing wiring. Forbes himself said the people doing the wiring weren't acting suspicious or were trying to hide anything they were doing, and they even announced it beforehand, so in my mind that settles the question on what the wiring job was. Who the heck is going to try to keep something secret by telling everyone what they're doing?

It just plain flabberghasts me how the conspiracy people simply will not give their beloved conspiracy stories up regardless of what information they're given. The original poster laid out proof that the wiring job wasn't a one time deal but rather an ongoing upgrade project, and yet they STILL are holding out hopes there's still a secret conspiracy in the mix, somewhere. "When it really isn't a conspiracy, it must mean it really IS a conspiracy" is a logical argument only to the conspiracy theorists, not anyone else.

reply to post by JohnJasper


Ah but John, you are correct about the sound delay, very good. However, in that case, can you point out the sharp cracks of detonation at all in that video? I mean how far was this camera from the complex? Now, compare it to this one:



Notice how far away and how long the delay is? We should have heard the detonations irregardless before or during the beginning the collapse. But we didnt, and no one picked up any sounds. The sound of detonations would be unmistakable over the sound of collapse.

Watch the WTC video, we should be hearing the detonations of the demo charges as the building is starting to move (to include the "sound delay") with those exterior columns bending inward. Remember, in a demo, the charges go boom first, then the building moves. Even with distance and time delay.



Even here, you can hear the charges, then the building comes down. The WTC, you should have seen and heard the same thing. But the WTC is already sagging and crumbling, before anything is heard until the collapse is underway. And even then its a growing rumbling sound, not the normal crack crack crack booom boom boom. This camera guy was not 5 miles away, but as you said, 342 meters away. The delay would not have been this bad to explain the sound. What about these firefighters:



Start from 3:28. Can you point out the sound of the demo charges prior to the sound of collapse? This was taken inside WTC North. They should have been the first to hear the demo charges going off. But no one notices anything until they hear a growing sound of rumbling, and its getting dark outside. Where are the sounds of detonation?



Same here, we have firefighters at the base, and if there were any sounds of detonation, they would have heard it first, and then looked up, not hear the collapse of the WTC first. Once again, there are no sounds of detonation seen or heard prior to collapse. And no, do not go back and dredge up the accounts of people hearing something go boom, as evidence of explosives. That is long dead. Also in my first video, can you point to me on the screen the actual detonations occurring before the exterior starts collapsing? You are suppose to see the charges going off, where are they? All I see is the side wall slowing pulling inward, with no charges seen or heard.

reply to post by GenRadek

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by JohnJasper

 

Ah but John, you are correct about the sound delay, very good. However, in that case, can you point out the sharp cracks of detonation at all in that video?

Why should I point out sharp cracks of detonation in this case? You presume that all controlled demolitions have to work exactly the same way but it's clear that both 1 & 2 were brought down in an unorthodox manner whether CD or miraculous collapse. There are clear images of detonations/squibs on several video sequences which you've no doubt "debunked" on several occassions so I won't bore you with them. Assuming that you've not been sleeping in your OS support duties, you know that they occurred during the collapse (or well before the collapse) and as such would have been lost in the demolition wave described by EMS Capt Frank D'amato as "loud thunder that didn't stop."

We know that there were charges going off such as those witnessed by Stephen Gregory, Assistant Commissioner, FDNY

A. No. I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, one of us talked to each other about it. I mean, I don't know this guy from a hole in the wall. I was just standing next to him. I never met the man before in my life. He knew who I was I guess by my name on my coat and he called me up, you know, how are you doing? How's everything? And, oh, by the way did you ... It was just a little strange.
Q. On the television pictures it appeared as well, before the first collapse, that there was an explosion up on the upper floors.
A. I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes. I don't know how far down this was already. I mean, we had heard the noise but, you know, I don't know.

(Apologies for long quote but couldn't be helped!)

I mean how far was this camera from the complex? Now, compare it to this one:

Notice how far away and how long the delay is? We should have heard the detonations irregardless before or during the beginning the collapse. But we didnt, and no one picked up any sounds. The sound of detonations would be unmistakable over the sound of collapse.

Yep! That's a standard CD and ditto for your other exhibit of a standard demo. The WTCs were not standard CDs nor were they gravity collapses caused by jet impact and fires. If they were gravity collapses AND there were some explosives going off, we probably would have heard them. But hold that thought for a moment.

Start from 3:28. Can you point out the sound of the demo charges prior to the sound of collapse? This was taken inside WTC North. They should have been the first to hear the demo charges going off. But no one notices anything until they hear a growing sound of rumbling, and its getting dark outside. Where are the sounds of detonation?

This video is more interesting but unfortunately has been clipped to exclude the critical earthquake timing of 12 seconds before the collapse initiated. Nevermind because all that you can hear at first is the tremendous roar working it's way down the building. The really interesting bit starts about 3:48 when you do start hearing the seperate explosions for each floor. No doubt you'll write them off as the floors being pulverized by the already pulverized floors from above (noting that the upper floors were made much tougher than the lower floors that they rested on - NOT!)

It's funny that you should include this video because it's one of the clearest views of the charges going off ahead of the "collapse" wave. By about 0:06, the "collapse" on the near side is approx 10 floors ahead on the right than on the left so please explain how that can happen.

Same here, we have firefighters at the base, and if there were any sounds of detonation, they would have heard it first, and then looked up, not hear the collapse of the WTC first. Once again, there are no sounds of detonation seen or heard prior to collapse. And no, do not go back and dredge up the accounts of people hearing something go boom, as evidence of explosives. That is long dead. Also in my first video, can you point to me on the screen the actual detonations occurring before the exterior starts collapsing? You are suppose to see the charges going off, where are they? All I see is the side wall slowing pulling inward, with no charges seen or heard.

Once again, you're building a strawman that says if it doesn't look like a standard CD then it's not a CD. You may think that eyewitness accounts of explosions and sounds of explosions don't count but I'm not interested in your opinion nor am I trying to convince you. I'm merely answering your questions to the best of my ability.

The documentary 911 Eyewitness clearly documents 9 pre-collapse detonations from 9:55 to 9:58 which could easily account for the wall pulling inward just prior to the main event. Here's where I remind you about how we would hear the explosions prior to the collapse as per your standard CD scenario. We certainly heard plenty of explosions even if the flashes weren't visible to us.

Just keep telling yourself that the small number of upper floors were able to pulverize the 80+ floors beneath them and then manage to pulverize themselves in their last dying breath.

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R

The Main problem with your theory is it would mean the Jews didnt do it. I dont think the Conspiracy Truthers can accept that.