Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

There are a number of firemen statements where they realized that the building had severe structural damage and elected not to try and fight the fire, well before the building collapsed.

The argument over semantics goes on and you've missed the point. Every single allegation made in this thread has been so thoroughly debunked, what difference does it make what he said?

It's clear that the more outspoken of you controlled-demolition conspiracy believers aren't willing to admit it when you're wrong. No biggie. I know plenty of people just like you in my everyday life at the office. Cool.

Don't be swayed by insignificant things like physics, facts, and common sense. You get your groove on.

This is the last time I'll comment in this thread, because any fool who reads it (38 pages at this posting) will be able to see the truth for themselves... that this is one of the most far-fetched, unbelievable, and IMPOSSIBLE conspiracy theories ever.

[edit on 1/5/2006 by AlphaMail]

Alpha, I'm pretty sure most of us could post something of that nature.

The hard part is backing up with evidence and/or justifying what you're saying.

As the WTC fell, the caps disintegrated. And yet the buildings fell as the same rate of speed, into thicker and stronger columns, despite huge decreases in the amount of driving weight.

Now you can spout off about how bad our physics is all you want, but if you seriously think that there was no 3rd source of energy and those towers were still able to pull that off, you're just embarrassing yourself. Anyone here with a bias only towards facts, would realize straight up that there's a problem there. It isn't even a matter of debate, really.

But I suppose, as long as you can rant with a 'tude...

How much do you suppose it would cost to build a ten story building and fly a remote controlled 727 (full of jet fuel) into it?

Hopefully, this wont be my last post.

There are easier ways to test the government's claims.

See this thread. It asks for a reproducible model, any reproducible model, that meets 5 challenges. Those challenges simply require a structure with a 6:5 aspect ratio that's able to withstand 100 mph winds undergo a progressive collapse, and eject the same proportion of material within the center of gravity still within the footprint.

Those 5 challenges were all met by the WTC Towers when they fell. Again, any model that can complete the 5 challenges presented by Jim Hoffman and listed on that thread will prove that the WTC collapses were at least possible. So far, it hasn't been proven that they were even possible. That is to say, there is no evidence to support the principles the government has put forward.

The models can be as big or little as you'd like, made out of any materials.

Originally posted by bsbray11
That is to say, there is no evidence to support the principles the government has put forward.

Actually there is plenty of evidence to support the government's claim regarding the collapse. There is no evidence to support the demolition theory.

No evidence of explosive residue.

No evidence of an opportunity to line the buildings with explosives.

No believable motive to crash planes into the building and use explosives.(excessive by any standards.)

No reason to believe that NIST, ASCE, and countless structural engineers are wrong about the collapse.

In fact I find it interesting that the same people who say that NIST is lying through their teeth, have no problem quoting their figures.

It is disingenous to demand evidence to an opposing theory without providing proof of your own.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Actually there is plenty of evidence to support the government's claim regarding the collapse.

From a footnote in an executive summary of the NIST Report:

The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.

In the whole, massive report, they don't even freaking try to describe how the buildings fell in whole, and even tell you that outright in the above quote.

Did you even know the NIST report said that?

Did you know they haven't even tried to explain the collapses beyond the failure of a single floor?

It is disingenous to demand evidence to an opposing theory without providing proof of your own.

My thoughts exactly. The demolition theory is the opposing theory, so the officially-embraced theory should have something going for it in the first place, shouldn't it?

So let's see the evidence, man. As Howard has said, "Put up or shut up." And let's not forget, "What's a matta? Chicken?"

Get crackin'!

Originally posted by bsbray11
Alpha, I'm pretty sure most of us could post something of that nature.

The hard part is backing up with evidence and/or justifying what you're saying.

Matter of fact, I made plenty of good points earlier in this thread that you believers declined to address because it was easier to attack my low post count on ATS.

Here's one... if explosives were planted in ANY of the WTC buildings for a controlled demolition, why didn't the collision of the jets set any of them off? And why didn't the fires that raged afterward set off a chaotic and unpredictable chain reaction of explosions? We have fireproof demolition charges I guess? Like I said - common sense, physics.

I've seen this question posed several times in this thread, and not one of you has addressed it.

Originally posted by AlphaMail
Here's one... if explosives were planted in ANY of the WTC buildings for a controlled demolition, why didn't the collision of the jets set any of them off?

C4 is an extremely basic explosive and would not be set off during the impacts. Nor would it be set off during the fires. C4 can be thrown directly into fires and will not explode.



C4 is detonated by a separate device, such as a detonator or blasting cap, usually consisting of the same sort of materials as the C4 itself, except in different amounts, which would produce high enough temperatures upon its detonation, to detonate the C4 itself.

Office fires, or combustion of a large amount of jet fuel (and btw, you'll find that more jet fuel does not mean hotter ) would not be hot enough to detonate the C4. Hydrocarbon fires generally don't burn very hot at all, unless they're around special conditions, like pressurized or pre-heated air, etc.

More on C4. Or do a Google search yourself, if you don't like Wikipedia.

And again, C4 is a very basic explosive. You'd be surprised how convenient things are in the real world, away from whatever conceptions you may take away from Hollywood movie explosions and what-have-you.

And why didn't the fires that raged afterward set off a chaotic and unpredictable chain reaction of explosions?

Same as above. Certain explosives can be thrown right into fires and won't do squat.

We have fireproof demolition charges I guess? Like I said - common sense, physics.

Err, it's more a matter of chemistry than physics, isn't it? Your common sense was also wrong.

I've seen this question posed several times in this thread, and not one of you has addressed it.

Probably because it's been discussed in many other threads, dude. Use the search feature.

Wrong BSB. I was baiting you to see if you know as much as you claim to know, and you've just ruined your own credibility.

I have personally worked with C4 in the course of my work and I can tell you, it explodes quite easily when exposed to fire, when suddenly "pinched" with enough force and velocity, or impacted hard enough by hot objects.

Matter of fact, in college my roommate and I improvised a blasting cap out of a firecracker and a little gas, and we created a crater 18 inches deep and 30 inches across by detonating some C4 with it.

There is not a demolition explosive ON THE PLANET that could have withstood those fires and impacts.

You must have been using a bad mixture of RDX. Other chemicals are added in to make the RDX require higher temps to explode, just as plasticizers are added to make it 'malleable' or etc. It wouldn't be hard to lower the amount of RDX mixed in, and add desensitizers, now would it?

And don't you think the military would be a little more careful with this than some guys playing around in their back yard?

en.wikipedia.org...
www.howstuffworks.com...

Ah, nvm. Check this out: emmaf.isuisse.com...

Look at step 7 below RDX creation.

RDX can be desensitized with mineral oil and lecithin, where the mixture is 88.3% RDX. Again, if you lower the amount of RDX, what could you expect? If C4 was not made with such desensitizers I doubt it would really need a detonator cap in practical usage, eh?

[edit on 6-1-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by AlphaMail
There is not a demolition explosive ON THE PLANET that could have withstood those fires and impacts.

If the planes we're hijacked by Arabs and then re-hijacked by Cheney's wargame bunker via remote control and headed straight to a GPS point, they could easily leave explosives out of the floors that were designated for impact.

Also, the government have agencies designed for creating explosive technology for weapons and hundreds of other uses. It would be unwise to think the common mans items would be used, making exposure and identification much easier for the amatuer researchers. Here's one: www.darpa.mil...

Rumsfeld himself admitted on Sept 10th that the Pentagon had lost track of $2.3 trillion and the area hit contained Pentagon budget material which was lost in the 'attack'. That's a lot of potatoes to just go missing, how much would they need to develop specialised explosives, based off existing explosive technology already under development that could later be reworked for a military or even market use?

Never say never.

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
If the planes we're hijacked by Arabs and then re-hijacked by Cheney's wargame bunker via remote control and headed straight to a GPS point, they could easily leave explosives out of the floors that were designated for impact.

Then why did the collapse obviously initiate in the damaged area?

Because the plane damage was enough to start the collapse. As far as the total collapse thereafter, I'm not sure if there was enough energy. But as far as the initial collapse of both towers, then I'd say there was enough energy.

The anomalies regaurding the rest of the collapse are intriguing to say the least.

The initiation of WTC2 did look very natural, with the initial tilt and all. They would've had to have helped the steel along, I think, as there was nowhere near enough damage from the impacts, and the fires really were pathetic. But the beginning phases looked fine, up until the vertical collapse began.

They need conscription and they need the patriot act sooner than later so they'll do it again.

When manhatten falls again and every city behind
The cup of wrath will be filled
The jokers behind it who imprison mankind
Will be screaming loud for revenge
They'll conscript your sons they'll gag your mouth
They'll tie your hands and your feet
They'll ask you again "have you something to say?"
Then if you do it's Guatanamo bay
They’ll build round the world a high prison wall
And trillions by them will be killed
But their days are counted They are but a few
So they’ll destroy all they can to the end
They don’t care for them and they don’t care for you
They care not for children at all
And all who kling to them to save their own lives
Will surely share in their fall.
The true King is the Fool and the King he just is
Accepting all things in true love
This is the infant the child and the one
Bringing heaven to earth from above
The placenta once powerful From memory gone
As we enter the home of our birth
Come now children and gather around
Where everywhere bright eyes and full bellies are found.
Music and laughter ring through the night
Love gives vision where there was no sight.

Originally posted by Valhall
Okay, let me be real clear, since I don't have the patience to stick with arguing like Howard does, that running the numbers myself, analyzing the damage photos myself, and using my own educated brain - without knowing what NIST claims - this is what this engineer believes:

I leave you to your servitude.

Because it appears you are enslaved to your own obsession; your own dogma, and will not listen to reason.

That was the biggest bunch of balderdash I have ever read. You claim skills in engineering that are immediately called into questions when you ignore the simple physics of the freefall. It looks like the bigger the avatar and backgrounds here the bigger the bogus claims fly.

Your "idea" of how the buildings imploded was shot down years ago. This is like a fruity loop back to the pancake Valhalla. Isn't it time the old stale conspiracy theory that was abandoned by the government be put to rest and the investigation into the 2000+ murders in NYC that day commence?

Originally posted by bsbray11
The initiation of WTC2 did look very natural, with the initial tilt and all. They would've had to have helped the steel along, I think, as there was nowhere near enough damage from the impacts, and the fires really were pathetic. But the beginning phases looked fine, up until the vertical collapse began.

I could agree if we ignore the large explosions. But even ignoring those explosions, if it had fallen over with the initial tilt would have not been such a travisty of physics. Watching it "disintigrating" into its still standing half, which then proceded to go down perfectly straight is an incredible magic show to say the least.

Have you viewed this free online thing at google?

With all the attention to this subject being tossed around in the media lately, I thought I would bump this thread up again as it contains a great deal of research into the controlled demolition theory. There's 38 pages here so it is quite a read but well worth the investment of time to look over.
It's a shame it took years to finally get these questions circulating in the mainstream media, and I would like to add a personal thanks to Charlie Sheen, if he follows ATS at all, for taking the heat to bring this up.

I believe it.

I've also followed the reports of the tower collapses, and right from the start, I knew something wasnt right.

You've got your facts straight. Those who are attempting to debunk and are claiming they have debunked this conspiracy, havent.

I know the non believers are certainly not engineers. Myself, and my colleagues all studied the trade center construction plans, as they were different from most buildings of its generation. We also independantly formulated how a structure of its type 'should' have collapsed due to structural failure at the points in question.

The structure failed at the base of the building.

And no, a 2.3 quake cannot be caused by a commercial liner impacting the building... especially at that altitude. The neat thing about steel is its maleable, but maintains its structural properties. This makes steel structure an excellent damper for impact tremors. Its why a bashing crane can only knock the concrete off a steel structure, and the steel structure itself has to be torn away.

The planes themselves weighed a very tiny fraction of what the towers themselves weighed. Hence the impact of plane hitting tower < tower hitting ground. The towers hitting the ground didnt even measure 2.3. So obviously the 2.3 measurement came from a much more powerful impact closer to ground level. If it were near the top of the building the impact would have resonated and dampered throughout the steel structure.

The towers were only dropped once the smoke and ash made it near impossible to see the lower portions of the tower. The perfect time to detonate those explosives.


The problem with the way it came down, was in the event of structural collapse, the way the frame was built would have caused the top portion to actually topple on an angle toward other buildings. The frame was an exo-skeleton system. Meaning the outer walls were supporting the structure, not a central columb like most buildings (Which is what makes it so interesting to study). In this type of structure, the instant one supporting wall fails, the stress is released from the remaining walls immensly, causing them to remain there and guide the above sections outward away from the center of gravity of the building.

The problem with this is, if the structure failed due to the plane's impact, the structure would have come down on top of other surrounding buildings, causing ALOT more damage, and most likely killing many survivors who had just escaped.

Imploding the base support columbs causes the building to drop vertically, as you saw in the video. As ALL supporting columbs are destroyed at once, disallowing any remaining structures to divert the buildings weight from falling vertically.


Try this. Take a box, any box so long as it has weight, and prop it up on four pencils. Those pencils represent the supporting columbs. (Add cardboard for wall support if you wish). Now knock ONE support pencil out. What happens? The remaining pencils guide the box to fall to the side instead of downwards. Probably crushing any little paper people you've made out of boredom.

If you swipe your hand across the supports, or knock them out at the same time any other way, the box will fall vertically.

Its a VERY basic model of how the collapse should have occured, but the math follows some similar concepts.


So why did the explosion occur?

Easy.

Sacrifice those still trapped to save those who have escaped by dropping the buildings vertically.

Not an easy call to make.

But whoever made it, had a quick thinking engineer at his side.

Its not a coverup because they are evil people... its a coverup because they feel you will sleep better at night not knowing.

Whover had to make that call wont be sleeping well.

I know that for sure.

[edit on 29-3-2006 by johnsky]