Explosives on every floor?

[hack89]

What is the consensus on this board concerning where the WTC explosives were placed? Was it on every floor, every 10 floors or only on a couple of floors close to the impact area?

If on multiple floors - why? Why wouldn't explosives on only one floor do the job?

[JackRiddler]

1. Obviously there is no consensus "on this board"

And everyone speaks for their own precious self and no one else.

You're probably only trolling for hypotheses you can reject but...

If you're so interested in this question, why don't you look at all the available videotape yourself. Count how many floors are between the massive "advance squibs" shooting out of the buildings, at regular intervals, in each case far below (i.e., well in advance of) the main collapse wave?

From the visual evidence, it appears these large charges were set to go off first, at intervals of several floors, chopping the core in advance of the main wave. The latter appears to go floor-by-floor.

[hack89]

2. Your theory makes no sense..

why the need for such visible "squibs" on the outside of the building when all you would need to do is sever the internal central core columns well out of sight of video cameras?

You are in essence saying that the conspirators were smart enough to wire the towers for demolition without detection yet unable to figure out a way to hide visible signs of explosions.

There was no need to cut the outside columns unless you believe that the floors could have been solely supported by them.

Where you see squibs I see venting as the internal volume of the towers are quickly reduced to zero. You do agree that the air had to go somewhere and there would be visible evidence of it - don't you.

[JackRiddler]

4. So why are these so massive

And appearing multiple floors below the collapse progression?

Again, why don't you count the number of floors between these squibs for yourself - that is, if you're actually interested in anything other than the argumentative equivalent of posting a sign at the door that says, "Free Beer," while you wait behind the door to sock anyone who comes in with a hammer on the head?

[hack89]

7. Well,

what is the volume of each floor and how quickly did it collapse to zero? There was at least half a million cubic feet of air per floor that was vented in fraction of a section. You cannot account for that venting so you ignore it.

The floors did not collapse flat - the trusses failed at the central core and the floors collapse at one end first. Remember there were accounts of the external walls bowing inwards before the collapse which shows that the walls were being pulled inwards by the collapsing floors.

Again - it makes no sense at all to have massive, visible explosions when charges were only necessary in the central core. It was also not necessary to put charges on every floor - it makes absolutely no sense. Why increase the time, number of explosives and risk of discovery to wire hundreds of floors when only a couple of floors per tower was necessary?

[petgoat]

9. I don't see the need to wire anything;

wireless triggers would have simplified matters greatly.

You can't expect everything in this scheme to make sense. As Jack
points out--a lunatic scheme will have a few lunatic loose ends.

[hack89]

10. So I am suppose to accept that it makes no sense..

but believe it non the less? At least you are honest about it.

[spooked911]

21. Does the official 9/11 story make sense?

I think not.

That is why so many of us are skeptical.

What are you trying to accomplish here? Is your mind truly open to the idea that there was US govt complicity in 9/11?

[hack89]

24. Somewhat irrelevant..

in that proving the official story wrong does not prove any particular CT idea is right. Skepticism may be called for but to extend that to uncritical acceptance of any CT is not right.

[janedoe]

25. If our answers are "Somewhat irrelevant.."

Why should we waste our time responding to any question you ask?

If you are not open minded and/or think that being open minded is "Somewhat irrelevant.." here, I can only conclude that your posts are "Somewhat irrelevant.."

[hack89]

26. My point is ...

whether the official story is right or wrong is irrelevant when it comes to judging whether a particular CT is true. Surely you agree that any theory should stand alone without reference to the official story. A common attitude on this board is that "if the official story is wrong, then theory X must be correct." Surely you see the fallacy of that logic ?

I did not mean to imply that anyone's opinion is irrelevant - I has referring to a particular, limited case.

[spooked911]

27. what are you skeptical about regarding 9/11 then?

[hack89]

28. I feel that there was adequate warning beforehand...

to prevent the attacks but due to incompetence, bureaucratic inertia and corruption, warnings were ignored. I strongly believe that there are many government officials who should be in jail.

[janedoe]

29. You may be right. So, why do you think they aren't in jail?

Why do you think many of them were promoted after 9/11? Isn't it a really big risk to our national security to keep those same incompetent people in charge of our nations defenses? What if something like this happens, again? Do you think the results will be different?

Do you think the PATRIOT Act addressed this incompetence? I believe we were told that this PATRIOT Act was to make us more "secure." So, what does the PATRIOT Act cover with respect to incompetence in national security?

(a) If the PATRIOT Act addresses the incompetence that existed on 9/11, why haven't these folks been charged, tried, convicted... and sent away?

(b) If the PATRIOT Act does not address this incompetence, why doesn’t it? If this incompetence is what allowed the events of 9/11 to happen, isn't correcting this incompetence the most important issue for national security and for making us more "secure?"

At what level does this incompetence exist?

[petgoat]

30. "this incompetence the most important issue for national security"

good points, jane.

Hack "feels" that incompetence explains the failure to address the
warnings. But how does he know?

Has he considered that the institutions responsible for these
failures--the defense establishment and the current incarnation of the
executive branch--are those whose incompetence was necessary to the
success of the attacks and are also those who derive the greatest
benefit from that failure?

[pauldp]

32. So what about the omissions of the 911 Commission?

The $100,000 wire transfer to Atta from the ISI being left out of the report? The WTC7 collapse being left out of the report? P-Tech's connections to Al Qaeda being left out of the report, Able Dangers info being left out along with the testimony of so many intelligence agency whistle blowers? ...and the list goes on. Are we to believe these omissions are just more incompetence? I agree that un-vetted theories should not be embraced out of hand but is it not reasonable to conclude that these crucial omissions are indicative of a criminal coverup?

[petgoat]

31. " I am suppose to accept that it makes no sense."

hack, it makes no sense at a very minor level. "It makes no sense that
someone would be so thorough that, in ensuring demolition of a building
that was going to fall anyway, they should plant charges at the exterior
of the building and make visible squibs."

But hey, in spite of visible squibs they occupy the White House. And
when your theory is that warnings from 11 countries were ignored because
of incompetence, so what is wrong in postulating that the lunatics who
demolished the WTC did so in an excessively thorough, incompetent, and
lunatic way?

[janedoe]

34. Serial criminals often leave a "calling card" to show they were there.

Perhaps the squibs were the calling card of these criminals. They are so obvious to us that they seem to be a deliberate statement, as if bragging. After all, it was a brilliant plan, so why not retain bragging rights? The squibs, alone, are not sufficient to convict them of anything or to even prove who did it. But, the squibs could be a brash statement to say "See, what we did? We did it and we got away with it and you can't touch us. Na, na, na, na, na." That in itself can be intimidating. i.e. They are untouchable and we are powerless.

After 911, the koolaid drinkers were too terrorized to look back and review the events and even the photos. Terrorized koolaid drinkers are easy to control. It's the skeptics who can create a control problem. The skeptics will look back and review things. Without the squibs, the skeptics may work harder for a real explanation, trying to find a physical explanation that could preserve their idealism. Maybe they would push harder for a real investigation?

This doesn't mean that all skeptics will see the squibs and accept what they represent (explosives). Some skeptics may just not want to go there, resulting in denial. This denial may keep that group from looking any further. They put blinders on and go away.

Of the few remaining skeptics, who aren't afraid of what they find when they look, some will be intimidated by there powerlessness and just give up. As it happened, the squibs remind these skeptics that they have been defeated ...and are powerless (and should give up). Perhaps this takes care of the control problem for the majority of the non-koolaid drinkers. The last remaining skeptics are so few, they will be laughed off as nut cases and can be ignored or even "silenced," if necessary.

[Kevin Fenton]

37. Can't agree at all

To me the squibs say the operation was a complete screw-up. Therefore, I think the "911truth movement" might get somewhere pushing for a real investigation.

[philb]

13. Like this?

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/mushrooming.html

[JackRiddler]

8. So why are these ejection-phenomena so massive?

Why do they appear multiple floors below the collapse progression?

As each floor collapsed the air had venting routes right out the cracking windows, didn't it? Why should pressured air appear in the form of massive explosive squibs several floors below the collapse wave? Squibs that happen to EJECT LARGE SOLID CHUNKS AS THEY APPEAR?

Again, why don't you count the number of floors between these squibs for yourself?

That is, if you're actually interested in anything other than the argumentative equivalent of posting a sign at the door that says, "Free Beer," while you wait behind the door to sock anyone who comes in with a hammer on the head.

And I'm not among those who thinks the sociopaths capable of such acts - or of plundering the country openly as a crime family, or of ruling the Zeitgeist (like Rove) by the rhetoric and innuendo of the school bully - are in the least bit "smart." Sick, sociopathic behavior is not intelligent. Nor were the designers of Auschwitz intelligent, merely technically proficient.

It would require no real intelligence, if you had the right security pass or contract work as a cover, to wire the buildings. A team of military monkeys could do that. All they need is clearance.

You're making the absurd assumption that anyone in the offices would question the activities of authorized contractors or security personnel, which is total bullshit.

I also note that this "why weren't they noticed" defense is a psychological argument, nothing to do with engineering or explosives science or inherent physical impossibility.*

The more you grasp at straws...

(* Cousin to the old canards like, "no secrets were ever kept by our incompetent agencies who can't even tie their own shoelaces" or "murder on this scale would require a conspiracy of JILLIONS who would all march straight to the New York Times and the nearest Hollywood studio and SING SING SING for the FAME FAME FAME.")

[LARED]

16. Response

Why do they appear multiple floors below the collapse progression?

Because you are assuming the collapse progression was distributed equally. There is no reason to believe this. It is far more likely that the collapse progression was different for the floors, the core, and the outside perimeter columns. Simple deduction coupled with an understanding of how a tube in tube structure is designed and would pancake tells you that the floors would go first, building up pressure and debris as the core and perimeter columns failed.

The venting (commonly referred to squibs by CT'er) below the perimeter collapse line is simply air and debris (from the walls, ceilings, insulation, paper, etc) that is pushed out of the building forcefully from below this line.

In short the building acted exactly as expected.

[spooked911]

22. Are you serious?

Are you really arguing that a non-uniform collapse would lead to what we saw: an extremely rapid and symmetrical and straight-down global collapse?

Do you honestly believe this?
:wow:

[LARED]

35. This is a fundamental flaw in your view

of the collapse. That a non-uniform (a word subject to many meanings) collapse requires something different than what was observed.

The pancaking of the floors and the collapse of the perimeter columns did not occur simultaneously.

After the initiating failure. I would estimate there were somewhere around 5 to 10 floors inside the perimeter structure building pressure and debris before the perimeter walls pushed out. This explains the venting (commonly called squids by Ct'ers) below the perimeter collapse line and the large volumes of debris pushing outward.

[Kevin Fenton]

15. Bombers

You're right in that if the towers were destroyed by explosives as part of a false-flag operation, then this was done very badly - it could have been done with less explosives in less obvious positions.

However, I think the towers were prepared for demolition after the 1993 bombing, to prevent them collapsing all over Lower Manhattan in the event of another attack (I guess a determined bomber could have got past the flowerpots) - the 1993 plot was to collapse the North Tower onto the South Tower, which would then have fallen itself.

I guess the bombers had been sitting there reading magazines for several years when the planes hit and that they were pretty surprised by it. But not half as surprised as they were when they were told to try to make the collapse look "natural".

I guess if it were properly planned in advance, they'd remember to knock the right tower down first.

[pauldp]

3. Well you're right, he was just looking for hypotheses to reject

They probably cut the steel just long enough to fit into the trucks that had to haul them away so quickly.

[hack89]

5. You you have no real response to my post...

no surprise.

[pauldp]

6. If there is anything like a consensus on this board it is that

there is a coverup of 911 going on and that's about it. Absent a true investigation and subsequent discovery there will be no consensus on such details.

[spooked911]

23. What sort of response would you like?

How on earth would we know how they set up the explosives?

It could have been done a hundred different ways.

Give us a break.

[spooked911]

11. Why do you care?

[philb]

12. Majority of firemen in position said there were explosions; but

they didn't say they were on every floor.
A lot of their statements were consistent with squib explosions all around the building on several floors(or the windows exploded out all around those floors). The videos showing squib explosions show them about every 4 floors. But some of the firefighters reported ground level explosions and other isolated explosions, not necessarily all when the building came down or even just before. Many reported WTC2 exploding and coming down in stages, separated by a significant time lapse.

http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html


New York Policemen had similar reports:
http://www.flcv.com/nypolice.html

[Kevin Fenton]

14. How much explosives?

Lots.

My memory of the main squibs is that they were every ten floors or so. If explosives were only on one or two floors, this would obviously knock the towers over, but there would be a lack of control over which way they fell - they might hit other buildings, etc. IMHO the bombers' main aim was to bring the towers straight down. If the spacing were greater, you might get 20-floor pieces falling where they shouldn't and tonking a good chunk of Lower Manhattan.

[philb]

19. They did hit other buildings when they fell; They had large steel

beams and big debris go a long way. They fell on and demolished several buildings in the complex. WTC6, 5, 4,3,2
Though the parts of those buildings that weren't hit by big building structure remained standing and they had major fires- to a larger extent than any of the buildings that fell.

WTC1 even had some large debris go as far as WTC7; more than a block away with other buildings in between.

Firemen especially described the top of WTC2 toppling after a set of squibs just below. But WTC1 was closer to most of the other buildings that were on the north side of the complex. And it did some toppling also. According to some firemen reports. It was hard to see the exact pattern of the fall in the huge explosive cloud that was dispersed in all directions and obstructed further view. But the pattern on the ground of the debris indicates something about the fall pattern.

It appears that other than the top, most of the fall was pretty much an implosion and pretty symmetric. But I don't think that was true of the tops.

Though it does appear that the tops exploded after starting to topple. Both up and out.

[MercutioATC]

17. I think they were placed in Trenton, NJ.

Planted explosives had nothing to do with 9/11, IMO.

[petgoat]

18. "Planted explosives had nothing to do with 9/11"

Brian Clarke walked down from the 84th floor of WTC2. He saw flames,
but no big fires. He stopped on the 33rd floor to phone his wife and
phone 911 about some injured people who needed evacuation from a higher
floor. He left the building and when they were four blocks away his
friend said he thought it was going to fall. Clark said "no way!
Those are steel structures."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html

The firemen on 78 didn't see any big fires. They said there were two
isolated fires they could "knock down". I've seen no pictures of any
raging inferno--the only one I've seen is the hell-hole in the Pentagon.
There's no core steel showing heating above 250 C. Now NIST spends $20
million modeling the initiation of collapse, but doesn't bother to model
the collapse. We have the firemen talking about explosions. We have
the news media talking about explosions. This just looks more and more
peculiar the more I learn about it.

[philb]

20. Somewhat similar in WTC1- survivor from 90th floor describes WTC1

LIEUTENANT GREGG HANSSON FDNY
WTC1
we took another rest at the 27th f loor. I questioned t h e guy from t h e 90th floor , who said it was a plane. That's when I first realized that we had a plane up there . He said there was a fireball on the 90th f loor and a lot of smoke on the 90th floor.
He stated to me that he believed everyone from the 90th floor had gotten out. The conditions in the stairway were absolutely clear. There was no smoke whatsoever. Then we continued our way up again, eventually reaching the 35th floor
Then I heard a mayday given over the command channel to evacuate the building. A couple people, civilians , indicated to me that there was an elevator that was working at this time.

[Christophera]

33. DISINFO CODE §663: Promote The Impossible To Distract From The Possible.

What we saw was a continous series of detonations of not just floors.

It is impossible to "place" explosives, as you would "place" a bag of grocerys and get this effect



The explosive energy will simply reflect of the hard surfaces and blow out the windows. The explosives, in the case of concrete must be placed inside the concrete or be OVERLOADED by 300% MIN. to cause pulverization even in closer proximity. The appearance of that is totally different.

Steel must have either a shape charge reflector or be loaded on opposing side with perhaps 20 times per pound MORE than concrete.

These values are approximate but give you an idea of what it actually takes to pulverize or other wise demolish steel or concrete structures. And recall that there were no large pieces of concrete at ground zero, only sand and gravel. You saw/see demo grapples working not concrete breakers.

[philb]

36. apparently not much in lobby of WTC2; since some in lobby survived

see Fireman ROBERT LAROCCO statement