how do you think the towers were brought down?

[sabbat hunter]

i think it was mainly due to the planes hitting the towers, destroying a good portion of the exterior walls which carried the main part of the weight of the building. the government wasnt involved due to LIHOP or MIHOP but actually were incompetant, and still are to this day. the real cover up IMHO is the incompetance that allowed 9/11 to happen and how it probably have could have been prevented fairly easily if our current regime wasnt asleep at the switch.
also i dont think the madrid skyscraper fire is a good comparison because i think the planes hitting the towers damaged the support for the buildings that didnt happen in madrid in the same way.
WTC 7 i think fell due to the kerosine/diesel fuel tanks catching fire and perhaps exploding taking out the beams.
i do not think that silverstein is so stupid to as have said "pull it" over an open channel and meant blow it up. i think he was saying screw it. it is coming down no matter what we do, stop fighting it and avoid injuries.

the real cover up in 9/11 is incompetance.

so how do you think it happened? please more details than MIHOP and LIHOP. were there explosives on board the planes? in the buildings, etc

[orleans]

1. who is silverstein and what are you talking about with the "pull it"

line over an open channel. can you please explain? i don't know what you're referring to. thanks.

[sabbat hunter]

3. larry silverstein

is the owner/manager of the WTC site. he reportedly said "pull it" over an open fire department channel in reference to WTC 7

[orleans]

5. so what was he referring to?

i found this:
"In the documentary Silverstein makes the following statement;

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
http://www.infowars.com/audio/PullIt.mp3 Thanks to Sir Dave 'tmo' Soule for transfering this from the video to an MP3 file. "America Rebuilds", PBS Home Video, ISBN 0-7806-4006-3, is available from http://shop.pbs.org/products/AREB901/.> "

http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm

after reading the quote when he's referring to the terrible loss of life i'm thinking he meant to stop any further attempts to put out fires or rescue the building.

that would be in the line of thinking with "terrible loss of life". not "screw it! blow the building up".

[greyl]

20. True. nt

[Eikon]

2. Due to planes?

How does a building that tall hit the ground in 10 seconds? Are we to believe that not a single floor offered any amount of resistance whatsoever?

[sabbat hunter]

4. due to the design

of the towers 95% was air. once a great number of support collumns were taken out by the planes the remaining columns werent designed to carry the load. plus the fire weakened the remaining columns. (note you do not need to melt steel for it to lose its peak integrity, even a slight degredation can effect how much weight it can support.

how do you think the towers came down.
im serious here folk. i want to see opinions from others.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

just a bit of facts to back up my thoughts.

peace
david

[dailykoff]

6. Here's the problem with the plane theory:

There were 47 immense steel core columns on each of 110 floors in each of the two towers. The plane engines might have taken out two core columns per tower, though the NIST estimates around 10. That still leaves 5,160 core columns per tower that would each have had to fail in 10 seconds to produce the complete disintegration we saw on 9/11.

There's simply no way that fires could have accomplished that. That leaves explosives--a lot of explosives.

[LARED]

8. Just out of curiosity

do you have any knowledge of how steel buildings are constructed or how a steel structures function?

[dailykoff]

I learned everything I know from reading your brilliant posts.

Happy now? :eyes:

[sabbat hunter]

22. im serious

so dont be sarcastic please and no personal attacks

how do you think they came down?

[dailykoff]

23. Sure. It seems pretty clear

that the buildings were demolished with explosives, as I mentioned above. Exactly what type and where they were placed is hard to say, but my guess is that a good number of core columns--let's say around 500, or roughly 10%--were wired with some kind of remotely detonated military grade explosives. They started taking out core columns as soon as the planes hit, and then set off the grand finale when the top sections started to tip over.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabbat hunter]

9. the israeli involvment theory

has been pushed mainly by antisemetics.

[AntiFascist]

10. What if they were sabbateans?

:)

[sabbat hunter]

11. lol

:P

then i will hunt them down
:P

[rman]

19. it wouldn't be Israelis involved exclusively

According to the deeper CTs, operatives from different nationalities were involved. Following you accusation of antisemitism, that CT is being pushed by anti-muslimist-anti-semitist-anti-americanists, anti- and then some.

Nationality here is only relevant in the context of identification of individuals - not as a basis for motive.

This also means it is inaccurate to say the "the government (of whichever nation) did it" or "the intelligence community did it". There's every indication that it was done by "elements within" governments, the global intel community, and the global corporate/financial community.

[AntiFascist]

35. Great post....

also it wasn't too long ago I recall reading that Israel was on the verge of a civil war over various issues. Notice that we have our own cultural war in the US, and the "rift" in various US intelligence agencies reflects this. It would make sense that there are various rifts in the intelligence agencies of other nations as well, although anyone acting to execute the 9-11 plot must be the extreme of the extreme.

[mirandapriestly]

12. Not the official version, probably controlled demolition..

Something to do with lasers, Guided missile? Bunker buster with shaped charges? Shaped charges are actually used to demolish buildings I have read. They are really fast and can be guided by laser..
Bunker busters need to enter at a 90 degree angle, which then "planes " needed to do and the firebomb comes just after impact.
Wish I knew why the cars were exploding, on fire..

The first one shows the laser light (I think) before the plane impacts. The second one shows multiple laser lights...

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit4/911.wtc.2.hit.laser.msnbc.wmv

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtcfire1/newlaser.php

[sabbat hunter]

13. unfortunately

i dont speak danish (Some of the pages are in danish
bunker busters come in from the top of the bunkers. plane loaded with fuel definately could equal firebomb.

is there a translation for all the pages of that website so i can read it all?

[Make7]

14. From their home page:

Welcome

This site will be translated into english. For now it's written in danish.

http://www.terrorize.dk

However, I think it has said that for quite some time.

IChing says he can read Danish. Perhaps you could send him a private message ( ) and see if he can translate parts of it for you.

- Make7

[mirandapriestly]

15. well, bunker busters are meant to bust through bunkers and earth

the problem is I don't
think that they are meant to go through steel & glass, but a lot obout them sound good.

[rman]

21. cars exploding, on fire

as far as i know the burned cars all had in common that they were engulfed by the dust resulting from by the collapses.
The pyroclastic-flow like behavior of the dust (fluid-like motion and intense 'cauliflower' turbulence) can be explained by high temperature of the dust. Which indicates use of explosives of some kind to bring down the buildings. Thermite explosives is a good candidate because it doesn't so much explode but rather burns very quickly and very hot (2500c). 2500c is enough not only to melt steel (explaining the pools of molten steel in the basements) but is in fact hot enough to evaporate steel (explaining the many 'dust trails' on falling debris). This seems to be the only way to quickly cause total structural failure of the steel core columns (unless you assume the core was made primarily of concrete).

[mirandapriestly]

16. The "missile/bomb on plane" photo

laugh all you want at the missile idea, but there IS something there and there WERE laser beams (as nutty as it sounds, they DO exist, that is what is used for guided missiles, large and small) on the wtc.
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1185

[LARED]

17. Oh noooooo, it's the

[mirandapriestly]

25. Oh, nooooo, it's...

Lurid

[LARED]

26. I've been called a lot of names but never

lurid.

[rman]

18. Was this originally posted in GD?

If posted in this forum, i can't imagine you don't know how most here think the towers were brought down.
Instead of rehashing all that's been said on the subject over the past years, i suggest you browse this forum to catch up.

[HamdenRice]

24. sabbat hunter and other skeptics -- can you answer this?

While I am inclined toward believing that at least WTC 7 was brought down using some form of demolition, I don't think that is the key to LIHOP or MIHOP. There is such an abundance of evidence of government complicity in 9/11, that it is very difficult for me to understand how anyone cannot see this at this point. I will give you one example of a documented fact that is inconsistent with any explanation of 9/11 other than MIHOP. Since you are a MIHOP/LIHOP skeptic, let me ask you to explain how this fact is consistent with a pure incompetence theory.

This is an excerpt of a post I made in another thread:

<quote>

For example, is everyone aware that the financer of the 9/11 plot was the head of Pakistan's ISI, Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad? And that Gen. Ahmad flew to DC on 9/6 to meet with his Pentagon, CIA, National Security Council and State Dept counterparts? That he was meeting with Porter Goss for breakfast as the planes flew into the towers?

This was reported not in some alternative press, but in the Wall St. Journal.

So how can completely close minded believers in the official conspiracy theory like IanDB process that kind of information: The man who paid for Mohammed Atta's expenses, including flight school lessons, was meeting with Goss, the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, who was a former legendary CIA operative, and who happened to represent the Gulf Coast area of Florida where Atta was in flight school, and who would be appointed head of the CIA as a result of 9/11.

And the journalist who reported this in the Wall St. Journal, Daniel Pearl, just happened to be kidnapped and to have his head cut off in Pakistan by the ISI operative who carried out the transfer of funds to Atta for Gen. Ahmad.

Just coincidence? One of those darned things?

Oh, come on.

And you think we LIHOP/MIHOPers believe in impossible things?

<unquote>

When you add to this, the documented fact that Goss acknowledges the meeting and added that they were discussing "terrorism emanating from Afghanistan" at the breakfast, and that across town, Bush's father was meeting with the brother of Osama bin Laden, at a board meeting of the Carlyle Group, which stood to gain billions of military contracts as a result of 9/11, how does a skeptic like you process this? Just one of those darn coincidences? Were Goss and Bush sr displaying incompetence by meeting with the financer of 9/11 and the brother of the mastermind of 9/11 on the morning of 9/11?

Please explain.

[HamdenRice]

28. Chirp .... chirp .... chirp..... Incredible silence from 9/11 skeptics

like sabatt, iandb and Lared.

[sabbat hunter]

31. i was

i was digging out my car thru 2 + feet of snow and cuddling with my gf. things a little more important than posting. especially the second part ;)

personally i think that conspiracies are nearly impossible. someone involved is bound to talk (before after and during the event). the scale of this would have to involve thousands of people. too many to have a valid workable conspiracy.

i think this administration had proved over and over again how incompetant they really are. i dont think anyone has an arguement against that.
* ignored a report "bin laden determined to strike within the US" . Clinton informed bush that al qaeda was a real threat and * ignored him.
Rice didnt even know who they were prior to coming into office.

this is one of the most corrupt, incompetent regimes in the history of the US. that is why 9/11 happened.
since then * has taken advantage of 9/11 to feed his corrupt buddies but he has screwed even that up. just look at the disaster in iraq.

peace
david

[HamdenRice]

45. Could you respond to the facts in my post?

I asked the skeptics to respond to specific well documented facts and square them with pure incompetence theory.

As for your ideas about conspiracies, I think this idea has permeated the MSM, but simply is not true. Everytime a publicly traded company decides to make an offering, hundreds of people -- lawyers, accountants, investment bankers, secretaries, paralegals, copy machine operators, etc. -- have to work together in absolute secrecy.

In other words, conspiracies are routine in business and government.

Moreover, it would take no more than three or four people to pull off LIHOP, and perhaps a dozen to pull off MIHOP.

[Jose Diablo]

27. I think it happened like this

The core of the buildings consisted of 47 steel box tubes, this cannot be proved right now due to 'lost' drawings. Anyway, at some time prior to 9/11 these core tubes had thermite placed inside through holes drilled and false 'fire alarm' control panels placed over each access hole that hide the magnesium ignitors inside each core tube. Each of the core tubes had about 1.5 cubic yards of thermite within that sifted down to the lowermost part of each steel center support tube.

After the planes struck the towers, the thermite was ignited remotely. Almost instantaneously, each of the core supports melted at the bottom, this would be close to the bedrock, and the core lost its support. But the buildings still were supported by the outside vertical steel panels. Think of it as a tall cylinder. As the core tubes crashed into the bedrock a large seismic shock was sent and recorded in the bedrock upstream. Also as the core dropped it snapped the spandrel plates supporting each of the horizontal floor supports to the core support.

The top 3rd of the tower snapped off the core supports and crashed down through the center of the cylinder. Each tower collapsing within it's footprint, more or less.

[mirandapriestly]

29. That is interesting

I have read that explosives could have been built into the towers - do you have a source for the idea?

[Jose Diablo]

30. As I said, I think

No source, just trying to fit things together and come-up with a theory of how it could have happened. BTW, thermite would not be considered an explosive as the gas produced would not be high velocity, like an explosive. It is hotter than hell though, thus fully able to melt 4 inch thick steel plate that make-up the box tubing core.

What I really wonder, is if the tubes were hollow all the way to the top. I keep coming back to pictures I saw where the core was stuck-up in the air after the collapse and then, poof, those steel spires just turned to dust.

What else but extreme heat can cause steel to 'rust' in an instant like that. Thats what really troubles me about the collapse, the steel turning to dust. That and the very large seismic spike right at the beginning of the collapse.

Somewhere on the net there are the seismic graphs, and you can see the initial spike is what, 6-7 orders of magnitude larger than the actual 'pancaking'. Something happened to trigger the 'pancaking'. And whatever it was, it was closely coupled to the bedrock. That places whatever happened, at the bottom of the buildings.

Then there is the pictures of steel slugs getting pulled from the rubble that was still glowing red to bright yellow. How can this be, unless something heated the steel that hot at the beginning. I hear people say the the energy of the collapse heated the steel. I say BS. I have personally seen a crane fall 25 stories and it didn't melt. It busted the street up and flattened a car, but no melted steel.

There is no way to account for the melted steel. At least I haven't heard a good explanation.

The only way I can account for whatever evidence is there, is thermite in the sub sub sub sub basement.

[mirandapriestly]

41. Good thinking, I will read up on thermite. NT

[Jose Diablo]

32. Also, I am not implying the tower was built to come down

What engineer would do that. That idea, to me, is beyond the pale because I wouldn't build any building with explosives in it. That idea sort of diverts attention from the possibility that the thermite was placed inside the core after it was built and before the attack. I'd say shortly after the 2000 election when it was sure the plan was on.

The airline attack was a plausible reason for the towers to come down. But the towers were brought down, for 2 purposes. Economic because they had to come down anyway due to corrosion in the aluminum/steel sheathing and their fasteners around the outside of the tower.

And secondly, to create a Pearl Harbor to justify a 'new' enemy for our country. The cold war ended, and there was no justification to continue to spend what we were spending on the military.

All the information about NORAD standing down, about the put options trading right before 9/11 doesn't make sense, unless some people right here in the good old USA knew it was coming down and had to help it along. Those yokels that hijacked those airliners were played. Fact is, I think only one of the hijackers in each plane was a suicide jockey. They rest thought they were going to Africa, or someplace like that.

It's also interesting that one of the airliners was missing a hijacker. How come 19, and not 20. Somebody missed a flight. Could it have been the designated suicide jockey? Maybe thats why that one out in Pennsylvania had to be shot down. Wouldn't want any witnesses now would we? I think that one in Pennsylvania was supposed to be for the Capitol building, and Congress. Are there there any records of which Congress critters were in the Capitol building and which were away? Traveling on some 'needed' business away from DC.

[sabbat hunter]

34. this is

the first i have heard of that the towers HAD to come down due to corrosion in the sheathing and fasteners. and i am a NYer.

the manhattan and williamsburg bridges are about 100 years old and they are still standing. i find it odd that a building that was standing only 30-40 years HAD to come down due to corrosion. any links for that?

[Jose Diablo]

36. Over the last couple years

there has been a lot of discussion about a lot of things concerning 9/11. As for links about the towers needing to come down and the cost to put steel mesh around the building, also the asbestos that would be in the air, etc. etc. all this has been discussed in this forum, ad nauseum.

As with most things concerning 9/11, hard data cannot be proved. I would suggest a search of the archives. It's in here someplace.

I seem to remember when it was posted, somebody claimed to be involved in a meeting where he was sworn to secrecy, but nonetheless did talk about it. But had to remain anonymous. That sort of BS.

What is needed, are the original and as-built drawings. It is like every bit of hard data that could point out what happened, if it was not the 'official' explanation, all that information has been scrubbed. All we are left with, is the things that support what the 'officials' say.

The deal is, if it could have been proved, it would have already. We aren't ever gonna know the truth for sure. But you did ask what I thought happened, and now you have my best guess based on the things that are left, after cutting away everything that does fit the 'official' explanation. The unexplained heat, the seismic signature and those 'rumors' about how the towers were not at all in 'good' condition.

Edit: Let me add one more thing. Within this forum are some of the finest minds in architecture, engineering, fluid dynamics, physicists, chemists, air traffic control. You name it, whatever discipline, it is here. And the conclusions are, it's undecided.

[Make7]

37. It's called galvanic corrosion.

Here's the first post that I found concerning this:

 nonny (267 posts)

Wed Jan-12-05 07:32 PM 
Response to Original message 

 10. 9-11 served a multitude of purposes -- By Karl W. B. Schwarz

Pop goes the Bush mythology bubble
Part 3: 9-11 served a multitude of purposes

By Karl W. B. Schwarz

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/121704Schwarz/121704schwarz.html

snip--

Out of the blue, a new source came forward with information that in 1989 there was a plan being designed and priced to put up scaffolding, take the WTC towers down and rebuild them. The reason stated was not only asbestos related, but also because of a considerable design flaw in the WTC towers involving galvanic corrosion resulting from direct contact of dissimilar metals. In this instance, the heavy exterior aluminum panels were reportedly directly connected to the steel superstructure of the WTC towers. The price in 1989 was reportedly $5.6 billion to do this demolition and rebuilding to correct what would be a serious design flaw.

If that is the case, there would have been rapid and very damaging corrosion to the steel superstructure due to a process that is called galvanic corrosion. The Statute of Liberty had to be repaired for that same reason where the copper exterior had over time come into contact with the iron skeleton structure inside that makes the shape of the monument, so the process can occur in structures standing in air.

Evidently someone did not want to spend $5.6 billion (1989 dollars) to tear the WTC towers down and rebuild them properly, without the asbestos and without the defect that would rapidly deteriorate the superstructure of the building.

snip--

 

There are two problems with this theory:

1. There was a layer of vermiculite between the steel perimeter columns and the aluminum facade.
2. Galvanic corrosion would make the aluminum corrode, not the steel.

I believe this theory was retracted by Mr. Schwarz after someone pointed out that he had the direction of the corrosion reversed.

So - this seems unlikely to be a contributing factor for destroying the World Trade Center towers.

- Make7

[dailykoff]

38. Wasn't the vermiculite inside the columns?

This isn't terribly clear but I think the NIST report labels the crosshatching in the left figure as asbestos.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dailykoff]

43. Very instructive, thanks.

Interesting that there's no mention of granualar vermiculite at all.

[Make7]

49. There certainly doesn't seem to be a consensus regarding ...

... the material used for fireproofing the perimeter columns or how it was applied. (As well as many other aspects of the construction of the WTC.) I've seen the perimeter column fireproofing described elsewhere as a spray-on coating containing vermiculite and asbestos.

- Make7

[mirandapriestly]

42. for economic reasons, the building owner would prefer the insurance money

to the expense of getting rid of asbestos, etc. Silverstein DEFINITELY made out like a bandit. He would have been dealing with a loss otherwise. I have read this many times, the information is there. I don't think there was a city order to have them come down, they eventually would have had to come down because of their cost exceeding their profit is what is meant.

[sabbat hunter]

44. the port authority

the port authority owns the buildings not silverstein. Silverstein just managed them for the PA. with a 99 year lease. i think they not him would be responsible for the asbestos as it was applied while they still directly managed them.

[Jose Diablo]

48. "the port authority owns the buildings not silverstein"

Are you sure? I seem to remember discussions about how the port authority transfered ownship and responsibilities for maintenance/security to privatize the WTC back in the 90's.

Rudy was a Republican you know and it would not be stretch for a Republican to make the whole thing more efficent. After all, private corporations can do things more efficently than government, or so they say.

[sabbat hunter]

50. Guiliani

Guiliani has nothing to say over the port authority. it is a dual state agency ran between NY and NJ.

silverstein basically has a 99year lease on the site.

[Jose Diablo]

53. Does the 99 year lease convey 'ownership' in the sense of

loss of use being insurable?

[sabbat hunter]

54. yes

in fact there was a long court battle whether the 9/11 was 2 seperate terror attacks or just one attack. (after 1993 written into the insurance that silverstein took out was a clause about terror attacks)

[Jose Diablo]

57. Motive

And again we come back to method.

It's a mystery all right. Who gains?

[sabbat hunter]

60. not silverstein

the costs to rebuild the WTC may exceed the amount he received in insurance money. each day those costs rise while his settlement money remains the same.
he also is having trouble filling the buildings up with new tenants, which also costs him money.

makes no sense why he would want them down. he loses money. that is the bottom line for a developer like him.

[Jose Diablo]

62. Ah, but what of the asbestos

will the company that made the asbestos be forced in any way to pay compensation for polluting the air as it would have if the sheathing had been stripped from the WTC during a 'normal' correction for a mistake made in selecting asbestos during the initial construction.

I am reminded of experiences I have had, where floor tile needed to be stripped and new flooring put down before placing new equipment in an industrial environment. You know, the entire area had to be enclosed and anybody within had to wear respirators. All the waste was hauled to a place for special processing.

I wonder if Cheney has any ties to the company that originally made that fireproofing/insulation material. Would that company be liable if it came out that the insulation and fireproofing needed to be replaced. And if the port authority was the one to say, 'do this', would this company be able to resist, like they would if the terrorists took the building down.

I wonder what potential liabilities the asbestos industry is facing, if it became common knowledge of the number of people that have died and will die from the lung disease asbestos causes.

Do you think Cheney could have a motive?

I don't think Silverstein had anything at all to do with 9-11. I think this 9-11 is Cheney's deal all they way, through and through. When I said economics was one motive for bringing down the WTC, the economics wasn't about Silverstein, it's about the asbestos industry.

[mirandapriestly]

69. then why did he get the insurance money? nt

[sabbat hunter]

70. because he is running

he runs the site. for the PA.

it is also why the PA, silverstein and the families of those who died in 9/11 are fighting over what will be built

[mirandapriestly]

71. No, The WTC was owned by Silverstein

Private businessman Larry Silverstein's $3.2 billion purchase of the World Trade Center is finalized, giving him de facto ownership with a 99-year lease of the building. It is the only time the WTC has ever changed hands. It was previously owned by the New York Port Authority, a bi-state government agency. After 9/11, Silverstein attempts to get $7 billion in insurance for the 9/11 destruction of the WTC towers. In late 2004, he will be tentatively awarded $2.2 billion, double what insurance companies offered to pay him. A judge also makes a ruling that keeps open the possibility he could eventually receive as much as $6.4 billion.

(from Cooperative Research)

[rman]

40. Doesn't explain complete failure of the *entire* core

Clearly the core 'broke' apart at practically every floor level, starting at upper floors and progressing downward, regardless of what exactly caused it to do so.
If the core first failed at basement level, then the weight of the entire tower would be carried by the perimeter columns (the outside wall) at street level, which were not designed to carry that load - it would have caused the towers to collapse at basement/street level first.

[Jose Diablo]

47. Maybe, not sure if the outer load bearing walls would collapse at street

could somebody with a slideruler run the numbers to see if the outer shell would stay intact long enough to not buckle if the inner core dropped say, 4-5 feet as the supporting cross beams in the bedrock melted from thermite placed inside the box tubing core. Please, reference the above link to get the dimensions and layout of the outer shell. I'd do it myself, but I am not smart enough.

Thats something for the structural engineers in here to chew on.

[rman]

55. It would still leave the core mostly intact

It's there for all to see that the structure fails floor by floor.
Each floor includes a length of core, so the core to failed floor by floor.

I don't see how taking out the lower part of the core could cause that.

Also i don't see why demo charges would have been planted in the basement but not in the rest of the tower.

[number6]

33. with Thermite charges

Thermite on main support structure in 6 sub-level floors

[dchill]

46. Two for two!

With a 100% success rate, I think demolitionists should team up with airplane scrap yards and forget about the expensive and time-consuming controlled demos. Just remote a scrap-quality big jet anywhere into the building and presto! Instant footprint-size rubble heap. Yeah! And evidently it doesn't even hurt air quality...

[Ezlivin]

51. No, no, no! WTC 1, 2 and 7 were SPECIALLY constructed to collapse

Other steel-framed buildings in the world are built completely different. For instance, the Empire State Building was hit by a plane and it did not fall.

WTC 7 was engineered to fall straight down in its own footprint after some damage. It was not a design flaw, it was a safety feature.

Engineers are now investigating methods of construction that will allow them to demolish a building into its footprint just by setting a trash can ablaze on one of the floors.

[dchill]

59. How about just a switch...

they can hit when they're leaving for the last time? (Last one out - get the lights!)

[we can do it]

68. Did You Forget The Sarcasm Icon?

[dchill]

72. Do you really think...

he/she needed it? :)

[we can do it]

73. Well - NO

:rofl:

[rman]

56. The best part is that most of the building turns to dust that floats of

in the breeze. So there's less debris to clean up, it's much cheaper then traditional demolition. I bet it's very good for the economy.

[Kevin Fenton]

52. Demo

You wrote "destroying a good portion of the exterior walls which carried the main part of the weight of the building."
Actually,
(1) The exterior walls did not carry the main part of the weight of the building. They carried most of the loads applied to the building, but not most of the gravity loads - the wind loads placed on the building were greater than the gravity loads (this is one definition of a skyscraper). According to NIST, the exterior walls carried about half of the gravity loads, but I doubt they really know for sure.
(2) Whether a "good portion" was destroyed was debatable. 35 (WTC 1) and 33 (WTC 2) of the 236 exterior columns were severed, accounting for about 8% of the building's gravity load-bearing structure. There are some claims core columns were severed, but even if you take out 10 core columns (which NIST does in its severe case scenario for WTC 2), then 80% of the building's structure remains. There's no actual proof any core columns were severed.

If you ask me, the plane debris severed elevator cables and the overpressures created by the falling cars set off charges in the elevator shafts, making the building unstable. So they blew it up.

[rman]

58. "plane debris severed elevator cables"

Are you saying that setting of the demo charges was accidental, or that the planners counted on plane debris to cut elevator cables so that the falling elevator cars would set of the charges?


Neither seems very plausible to me;

Most of the elevators shafts were shorter then 1/3 the height of the towers.

- If accidental, then there were demo charges planted but the planners of 9-11 did not plan on having the buildings collapse.

- If intentional, then the planners did leave a lot to chance.

Radio control detonation seems far more likely.

[Kevin Fenton]

61. Answers

I'm saying that the initial explosions by explosives were caused accidentally and I'm sure Osama was surprised by it. Subsequently, the other charges were set off on purpose.

Yes, most of the elevator shafts were shorter than 1/3 of the height of the towers.

There was a freight elevator (50A, it served both the impact zone and the basement) around floor 20 when American 11 hit, it subsequently fell 15 floors and the two guys inside got out. As far as I can tell the lobby and basement explosions were coming out of this shaft.

[rman]

63. Why were other charges set of on purpose?

If what you say is true it would have damaged the core somewhat, but most of the core columns would not have been damaged.
What kind of explosives did you say were used?

[Kevin Fenton]

64. I have no idea what sort of explosives were used

Although, many explosives can be set off by overpressures.

And yes, the core would have been damaged somewhat, but most of the core columns would not have been damaged.
Put yourself in the bombers' shoes: there was no way to determine how many charges had gone off "accidentally" or how this would affect the towers' stability - wouldn't it be better to be safe than sorry?

If you don't like the accidental explosions (whether caused by overpressures or something else), I think you have only tho options:
(1) The lobby and basement explosions really were caused by jet fuel flowing into them (you can combine this with charges set off later or say the fall was "natural");
(2) The bombers decided to set a few charges off in the basement when the plane hit, just to make the demo even more obvious.
Neither of them is particularly attractive.

[rman]

65. Who are the bombers? "terrorists", US govt?

Or what?

If it was the govt then they could have checked, and warned people.

Are you saying M.E. terrorists planted and detonated the charges?

[Kevin Fenton]

66. Bombers

The bombers would be working for the government (whether directly or indirectly) in the NOC programme (or equivalent). The purpose of planting the explosives would be enable them to destroy the towers in the event of a more successful repeat of the 1993 attack - i.e. if a tower were badly damaged it could be destroyed using the pre-planted explosives, thus preventing it from falling on anything else (i.e. the other tower or a good chunk of Lower Manhattan).

Planting the explosives was illegal, I really doubt anyone about to commit mass murder (even partly by mistake and arguably for the greater good) would advertise the fact in advance by warning everybody.

[rman]

67. So there's no connection between terrorists and government

in your theory?

[Kevin Fenton]

77. Doubts

I have doubts about four areas of the official version of 9/11:
(1) How did the 3 WTC buildings fall over;
(2) How did 3 of the planes manage to hit their targets? 1, maybe 2, OK. But three? They weren't that good;
(3) Given the US set of competing agencies gathering raw data (aka the "intelligence community") knew some attacks were coming, knew of at least some of the hijackers and conducted a major disruption campaign against Al Qaeda in the summer of 2001, how come they missed the hijackers?
(4) It really looks like United 93 was shot down.
There is some other minor stuff as well.

I don't think there's any connection in the terrorists and the government in 1 and 4, although there might be a connection (probably an indirect one) in 2 and 3.

[rman]

78. So no general connection re the 9-11 plot,

only a possible connection regarding certain aspects of it.

I suppose you disregard the claims made by Sibel Edmonds and Indira Singh regarding general collaboration between elements within the US govt and corporate world on the one hand, and Saudi govt and corporate world on the other hand?

Can you show me any evidence of WTC3 having fallen over?

[Kevin Fenton]

79. This and that

I haven't looked at Indira Singh in any detail yet - it's on my list of things to do. AFAIK Edmonds talks mostly about Turkish stuff - can she even speak Arabic that well? In any case, I need no convincing that the US govt- and corporate world is in bed with the Saudis (btw, the Price of Loyalty by Ron Suskind is an absolute must on this).

I didn't say WTC 3 (the Marriot Hotel?) fell over, I said the 3 (three) WTC buildings fell over, meaning 1, 2 and 7.

[rman]

80. Sibel speaks Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani

That's information which has retroactively been declared state secret by Ashcroft.

Before she spoke about Turkey Sibel spoke (and is still speaking) about the connections between 'the US govt and -corporations', Saudis and terrorism.


SE: ..."When you think of al-Qaeda, you are not thinking of al-Qaeda in terms of one particular country, or one particular organization. You are looking at this massive movement that stretches to tens and tens of countries. And it involves a lot of sub-organizations and sub-sub-organizations and branches and it's extremely complicated. So to just narrow it down and say al-Qaeda and the Saudis, or to say it's what they had at the camp in Afghanistan, is extremely misleading. And we don't hear the extent of the penetration that this organization and the sub-organizations have throughout the world, throughout their networks and throughout their various activities. It's extremely sophisticated. And then you involve a significant amount of money into this equation.

Then things start getting a lot of overlap-- money laundering, and drugs and terrorist activities and their support networks converging in several points. That's what I'm trying to convey without being too specific. And this money travels. And you start trying to go to the root of it and it's getting into somebody's political campaign, and somebody's lobbying. And people don't want to be traced back to this money."
-- Sibel Edmonds
http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

=========

..."once this issue gets to be investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally," revealing the content of the FBI intercepts she heard indicates that recognizable, very high-profile American citizens are linked to the 911 attacks.

..."There is direct evidence involving no more than ten American names that I recognized," further revealing that "some are heads of government agencies or politicians--but I don’t want to go any further than that,"
-- Sibel Edmonds
http://www.fathers.ca/fbi_cover-up.htm

[Kevin Fenton]

81. Thanks for the quotes

I agree with all of that - I don't even think it's very controversial.

[rman]

84. It means there's an Iran-Contra like affair re 9-11

You may think it's not controversial, but it sure is criminal, and it implies a rather big and serious conspiracy.


"Who is really behind PTECH is the questions. I asked that of many intelligence people who came to my aid as I was being blacklisted, and I was told, "Indira, it is a CIA clandestine op on the level of Iran-Contra."
And I have reason to believe this because Care International that was mentioned in one of the slides is a renamed version of Alkhifah which was the funding arm for WTC '93. Prior to Alkhifah it was called Maktab Al-Khidamat, which is the funding arm for the Afghani Mujahideen. It was how the monies got to Osama bin Laden through the Pakistani ISI."
-- Indira Singh, testimony at the 9-11 Citizen's Commission.

PTECH is a small corporation that makes highly advanced "business-blueprinting/risk-management" software with surveillance and intervention capabilities, used by many US govt agencies and large corporations. Also PTECH is financed by Saudis with connections to financing of terrorism.) There's every indication PTECH (now "GoAgile" www.goagile.com) is being protected by the US govt/govt agencies.

"We have agent Robert Wright of the Chicago FBI, who’s giving congressional testimony, and, umm, he stands on the steps of the Capitol, bursts into tears, apologizes to the 9-11 families, the victims, that he didn’t do everything he could to prevent 9-11 from happening, that his investigations were repeatedly shut down. And I almost fell over, because he announced that his investigation was the investigation into Yassan Khadi, the same Sheikh Yassan Khadi who was the money man behind Ptech. And, umm, you could not ask for a more direct connection to 9-11 than that."
-- Indira Singh, testimony at the 9-11 Citizen's Commission.


Sibel Edmonds and other Whistleblowers Group
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=344

[mirandapriestly]

74. Shaped Charges are small missiles which contain thermite

and DU (and other stuff). They are also laser guided. They can be shot from helicopters and, I think, shoulder launched. THEY ARE USED IN BUILDING DEMOLITIONS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge

There were definitely lasers on the wtc that day:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtcfire1/newlaser.php

video I've never seen that some guy shot from his apartment window. You can see some major laser action happening on the tower THAT IS NOT BEING HIT. Like when people were distracted by the hit. so, watch the front building on the corner you can see the lasers!
Scroll to bottom of the page:

http://www.bodyatomic.com/video.html

(Oh and the helicopter sneaking off after the hit.)

[mirandapriestly]

75. Notice on the third video

http://www.bodyatomic.com/video.html

this one. A helicopter leaves the scene after the plane impact and after each tower begins to collapse. Those are edited out of the CNN vid of the same hit from the same angle, I'll dig up. Also notice that where the plane "comes out" there was a blinking laser flash AHEAD OF TIME, that was not from the plane it was from something that was PLANTED THERE.

[rman]

76. That's not accurate

Shaped charges are routinely used outside of missiles.

As you say: shaped charges are used in building demolition - which is not usually done by means of missiles. Thermite to is used in building demolition if steel beams have to be cut.

I've never heard of thermite used as a payload in missiles. Also i doubt there's much of a point making a shaped charge out of thermite. Thermite isn't really an explosive, it burns very rapidly and very hot.

As to lasers being "clearly visible" - even laser *beams* being visible: all i see is some flashes, definitely no laser "beams". It's not conclusive evidence of laser.

[mirandapriestly]

82. What's not accurate?

I don't pretend to know a lot about this, I'm just an internet "sleuth", and maybe I'm getting a little out of control, but basically what I said is true & possible.

"Shaped charges are frequently used as warheads in anti-tank missiles (guided and unguided)"
and
(This is on shaped charges & demolition):
"They are also used to demolish large obsolete structures by precisely placed and progressively timed cutting charges with the intent of causing an inward collapse that confines the debris to the structure's footprint. Shaped charges find their most numerous application in the petroleum industry, in particular in the completion of oil wells, in which they are used to perforate the metal casing of the well at intervals to admit the influx of oil."

(magnesium =thermite)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_chargeMAGNESIUM INCENDIARY CONE - The jet formed by this cone is
less penetrating than that formed by the copper cone but it is a less powerful initiator of detonation. It is used to penetrate even thick-walled shells or bombs and ignite the explosive or pyrotechnic filling. In this application it is much less likely to cause inadvertent high order detonation than other, more conventional, charges. It thus provides a reliable means of bringing about a “low order” deflagration event. The usual explosive load for this purpose is between 30 and 40g.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/bullets2-shaped-charge.htm

[rman]

83. then it's just the way you phrased it;

"Shaped Charges are small missiles"

versus

"Shaped charges are used as warheads"

[mirandapriestly]

85. Yeah, you're right, but the basic idea

that shaped charges are used in demolitions and can contain thermite is true.

[rman]

86. Yes -

Thermite demo specifically to cut steel. I don't think it works particularly well on for instance, concrete.