9/11 Controlled Demolition vs No Plane Theory

chainsaws

The conspirators supposedly went into the Twin Towers with great big rolls of detcord and rigged the building with explosives and NONE of the office workers said 'Hey pal, whaddya doin'?

Thousands of people were evacuated from the towers before they came down which means that thousands of them must have witnessed the demolition guys going floor to floor rigging their workplace?

None of the people on say floor 55 got talking to anybody on floor 56 or 54 and asked over the watercooler 'Say, Bob, have you seen these guys going around with great big rolls of cable?'

Penn

In fairness, with a building like that, regular maintenance works would probably be happening all the time, and its not like whoever installing the detcord would say it to them. They'd just say they're replacing faulty wiring or upgrading.

It's the actual explosives which would be most intrusive and raise the most questions. Walls taken apart, desks moved, repainting etc in order to place the explosives on the structural members.

The general workforce may not have questioned what was going on, but managers and supervisors almost definitely would have

chainsaws

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

In fairness, with a building like that, regular maintenance works would probably be happening all the time, and its not like whoever installing the detcord would say it to them. They'd just say they're replacing faulty wiring or upgrading.

It's the actual explosives which would be most intrusive and raise the most questions. Walls taken apart, desks moved, repainting etc in order to place the explosives on the structural members.

The general workforce may not have questioned what was going on, but managers and supervisors almost definitely would have

Surely the guy rigging the building would have talked? Hundreds of people would have been needed to plant all the explosives.
Now that the U.S. economy has tanked and if each of these guys got a few million in a suitcase tax free, they have probably lost all their investments by now and would want payback by breaking the story.
So where the hell are they?

Penn

I agree. I'm just saying that some elements of the controlled demolition story are plausible, but the vast majority and the most important elements in my opinion are not.

chainsaws

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I agree. I'm just saying that some elements of the controlled demolition story are plausible, but the vast majority and the most important elements in my opinion are not.

There's an old saying that two people can't keep a secret unless one is dead.

The conspiracy theorists expect us to believe that the U.S. government employs tens of thousands of people who are blindly obedient.

There is just no way in hell anyone would agree to orders to destroy the Twin Towers and kill thousands of their fellow citizens.

It's totally ludicrious.

You have to wonder that so many allow themselves to be taken in by such obvious nonsense.

I think it has more to do with people refusing to believe how vulnerable free societies are to terrorism and how paper thin American 'hyperpower' really is and how dangerous the world is despite our high technology and comfortable lives in the West.

It is comforting to believe in a conspiracy rather than face up to how exposed America was and still is to a gang of committed religious fanatics or anyone else perpared to immolate themselves in an attack.

enno99

chainsaws wrote: »

Surely the guy rigging the building would have talked? Hundreds of people would have been needed to plant all the explosives.
Now that the U.S. economy has tanked and if each of these guys got a few million in a suitcase tax free, they have probably lost all their investments by now and would want payback by breaking the story.
So where the hell are they?

295 employees & 60 contractors were killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks; they were working in Marsh's One World Trade Center offices located in the heart of the impact zone

Who were these 60 contractors?

How hard do you think it would be to have the guys who carried out the rigging to be in one place at the same time?

Brown Bomber

chainsaws wrote: »

Surely the guy rigging the building would have talked? Hundreds of people would have been needed to plant all the explosives.
Now that the U.S. economy has tanked and if each of these guys got a few million in a suitcase tax free, they have probably lost all their investments by now and would want payback by breaking the story.
So where the hell are they?

Assuming Controlled demolition:

a) They're probably dead and if they tried to speak out they would be dead.

b) 9/11 would 've been the greatest payday of their life. What need would they have to invest?

c) They would have been chosen for the job based on pschyological profiling on the basis that they would be least likely to talk.

d) If they did go on record of claiming responsibility no mainstream news outlets would touch it nor would the majority take it seriously. It'd be relegated to sites like this.

e) Why in the name of all that is good would they freely admit to mass-murder and terrorism when they have gotten away it?

Brown Bomber

chainsaws wrote: »

It is comforting to believe in a conspiracy rather than face up to how exposed America was and still is to a gang of committed religious fanatics or anyone else perpared to immolate themselves in an attack.

Religous fanatics who gamble, drink alcohol, go to strip clubs right?

Or just religious suicide hijackers who can't fly planes and some are still alive?

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

Look at it this way, many of those 'squibs' are like jets of material rushing out. An explosive is fast and furious, it won't cause a jetting effect like these. But air pressure certainly will.



http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/squib_timing.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/squib_enhancements.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/must_be_explosives.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/high_velocity_effects.html



I believe this proves my point above.



Seriously that video is so crap it could have been the New York Yankees on a flyby.



In a controlled demolition the charges go off before the collapse. But if these are explosives they are going off after a catastrophic collapse has begun. Which obviously makes it not like a controlled demolition.

I'm genuinely curious as to where the CT supporters think the air pressure build-up went to, a massive amount of air was being forced down into the building but somehow this didn't burst out anywhere?
It seems obvious to me that this air pressure would burst out, would do so violently and would look exactly like it does in the videos.

none of what you said or provided links for disproves controlled demolition. In fact all it does is provide an ALTERNATIVE hypothesis - one which I was already aware of.

Brown Bomber

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Damn. iPhone just ate my response when I was nearly done. I'll try a shorter version now.

With regards to setting off explosives on some walls before setting off the main explosives, I highly doubt it. I'm far from an expert in demolition, I generally plan for anything I design to stay up. But removing some load-bearing walls transfers the load to other members, which could cause failure, which could trigger an early collapse. If the building began to collapse before all the explosives were set off, they could trigger during the collapse, which could be noticeable. I'm not saying its not possible, I just see more disadvantages than advantages.

As for the wires, no, I cant tell the difference. And if electricians came in and started installing wires, I wouldn't question it. But my bosses would. If maintenance works are going to disrupt your workforce, there has to be a reason. The amount of work needed to not only install explosives on structural members (which could take upwards of a month), hide the evidence, hide all the wiring, and not raise suspicion, an advantage to the occupants of the building would be required. If they said thy had to do work on the wiring etc to upgrade servers or whatever, the servers would have to be upgraded, and it would have to have justified spending that time doing those works.

Not only that, but the building was occupied before the planes hit. I've only worked with explosives once (quarry, not building) but I don't think we were allowed mobile phones there. The amount of wireless devices and mobiles in that building possibly could have set the explosives off. Or at least the risk of doing so would be pretty high.

As I've said before, if they wanted to destroy the towers, fly planes into them. Fly 3 planes into each to make sure. If other CTs are true that the likes of remote control planes or even that the terrorists were allowed on the planes with weapons, do it right. If the towers are already collapsed by the time the other planes get there, hit other buildings.

But in my opinion, even if the towers hadn't collapsed. The fact that terrorists hit the buildings with planes could have been enough to warrant their later actions with the war on terror

I appreciate your detailed but simple explanations. It helps me visualise better.

I take your point about the sensitivity of the charges, something that troubles me too. Especially on the blasting caps but I can't rule out military technologyin this case.

I've been looking through some demolition journals and strategically demoloshing (through explosives) sections of the core structure prior to the final implosion phase is not uncommon.

Brown Bomber

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

In fairness, with a building like that, regular maintenance works would probably be happening all the time, and its not like whoever installing the detcord would say it to them. They'd just say they're replacing faulty wiring or upgrading.

It's the actual explosives which would be most intrusive and raise the most questions. Walls taken apart, desks moved, repainting etc in order to place the explosives on the structural members.

The general workforce may not have questioned what was going on, but managers and supervisors almost definitely would have

Check this out:

FROM JUN 6 2001

EurekaGGN, a full-service integrated communications provider, announced that its wholly owned subsidiary, Building Riser Access Management, or BRAM, will install an advanced fiber-optic and telecommunications infrastructure at the World Trade Center. The selection was made by New York Telecom Partners, a subsidiary of Concourse Communications Group, LLC. as part of a transaction with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the World Trade Center's current owner.


Through this undertaking, BRAM will provide a telecommunications infrastructure that will enable the more than 450 commercial tenants of the World Trade Center to have exceptional access to virtually unlimited broadband communications services.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is_44_47/ai_76297016/

Brown Bomber

enno99 wrote: »

If these buildings had to be rigged was there a certain time frame ?

Here is a case where a 17 story building was rigged in 96 hours.

At the request of Bechtel, Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s team mobilized to the site in less than 24 hours, prepared the central-core, flat slab, reinforced concrete structure in another 27 hours and put the balance of the building on the ground with absolute safety just 96 hours after the start of demolition preparations.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/services-emergency-services

enno99

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Check this out:

FROM JUN 6 2001


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is_44_47/ai_76297016/

More recent developments have used pulsed laser diodes to detonate initiators through fiber-optic cables, which subsequently fire the main charge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrotechnic_fastener

could this type be used or a modified version ?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

none of what you said or provided links for disproves controlled demolition. In fact all it does is provide an ALTERNATIVE hypothesis - one which I was already aware of.

Yea, it kinda does.

You argument is based on "A controlled demolition is the only explanation for X."
The X here being the squibs.
The simple fact that there exists an alternative explanation means the argument "a controlled demolition is the only explanation" is false.
And this is before we examine the fact that the non demolition explanation is a much better one and is way more likely.

Now even assuming that none of this counts, you are left with a puff of smoke during the collapse.
This is decidedly not the rapid sequence of loud and visible explosions before the collapse that are present in controlled demolitions.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Yea, it kinda does.

You argument is based on "A controlled demolition is the only explanation for X."
The X here being the squibs.
The simple fact that there exists an alternative explanation means the argument "a controlled demolition is the only explanation" is false.
And this is before we examine the fact that the non demolition explanation is a much better one and is way more likely.

Now even assuming that none of this counts, you are left with a puff of smoke during the collapse.
This is decidedly not the rapid sequence of loud and visible explosions before the collapse that are present in controlled demolitions.

Well no actually. Try to concentrate.

It's not that I actually discount it (pancake theory), it's a possibilty imo as is the controlled demolition hypothesis. I have doubts on both.

Brown Bomber

TWO SEPERATE WTC EMPLOYEES CONFIRM WTC POWER DOWN IN WEEKEND BEFORE ATTACK

Blank Czech

King Mob wrote: »

Yea, it kinda does.

You argument is based on "A controlled demolition is the only explanation for X."
The X here being the squibs.
The simple fact that there exists an alternative explanation means the argument "a controlled demolition is the only explanation" is false.
And this is before we examine the fact that the non demolition explanation is a much better one and is way more likely.

Now even assuming that none of this counts, you are left with a puff of smoke during the collapse.
This is decidedly not the rapid sequence of loud and visible explosions before the collapse that are present in controlled demolitions.

Ok so if it wasnt a controlled demolition answers these questions:


Why was the lobby blown out when the first plane hit?

Why were the support girders at the bottom of the rubble pile cut at a 45 degree angle with solidified molten metal on the edges?

Why was there molten metal still flowing at the bottom of the rubble pile weeks after the event?

Why were the temperatures so high weeks after the event?

Why can you see molten metal pouring from the side of one of the towers prior to collapse?

Why was there molten metal at all? Jet fuel, offices fires and a building collapsing do not create foundry conditions.

Why did fire fighters say they heard explosions, and not any explosions, explosions like a controlled demo ie. Bang bang bang bang bang bang bang.

Explain the seismic data

Why did building 7 just drop straight to the ground just like a controlled implosion.

How can you look at the footage of building 7 and not see that it AT LEAST LOOKS like a controlled demolition. It comes down identically to other known controlled demos.

King Mob

Blank Czech wrote: »

Ok so if it wasnt a controlled demolition answers these questions:

Why was the lobby blown out when the first plane hit?

Why were the support girders at the bottom of the rubble pile cut at a 45 degree angle with solidified molten metal on the edges?

Why was there molten metal still flowing at the bottom of the rubble pile weeks after the event?

Why were the temperatures so high weeks after the event?

Why can you see molten metal pouring from the side of one of the towers prior to collapse?

Why was there molten metal at all? Jet fuel, offices fires and a building collapsing do not create foundry conditions.

Why did fire fighters say they heard explosions, and not any explosions, explosions like a controlled demo ie. Bang bang bang bang bang bang bang.

Explain the seismic data

Why did building 7 just drop straight to the ground just like a controlled implosion.

I don't have to explain them, as they are all long debunked nonsense.
And most of them, especially the ones with molten Steel are in fact not features of a controlled demolition at all.

So instead of ending up with a wall of quoted posts, why don't you pick the most damning and incontrovertible evidence from that list and we can focus on that?

Blank Czech wrote: »

How can you look at the footage of building 7 and not see that it AT LEAST LOOKS like a controlled demolition. It comes down identically to other known controlled demos.

I looks like a controlled demolition in that a building collapsed.
WTC7 lacks all of the other features, notably the total lack of loud and very visible explosions in sequence right before the collapse.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well no actually. Try to concentrate.

So is the argument "a controlled demolition is the only explanation" still valid yes or no?

Divorce Referendum

Brown Bomber wrote: »

TWO SEPERATE WTC EMPLOYEES CONFIRM WTC POWER DOWN IN WEEKEND BEFORE ATTACK

30 hours to rig explosives to 2 110 storeys buildings and one 47 storey building. I dont know about that.

Brown Bomber

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

30 hours to rig explosives to 2 110 storeys buildings and one 47 storey building. I dont know about that.

Me neither. To be fair though it is not 30 hours/ 3 buildings it'd be 30 hours for EACH building and this would be working on the assumption that the detcord has been succesfully positioned in the concrete floors/ceilings covertly by agents under the cover of maintenance workers. So all that would be needed to be placed would be the charges on the central columns.

Blank Czech

King Mob wrote: »

I don't have to explain them, as they are all long debunked nonsense.
And most of them, especially the ones with molten Steel are in fact not features of a controlled demolition at all.

So instead of ending up with a wall of quoted posts, why don't you pick the most damning and incontrovertible evidence from that list and we can focus on that?

I looks like a controlled demolition in that a building collapsed.
WTC7 lacks all of the other features, notably the total lack of loud and very visible explosions in sequence right before the collapse.


So is the argument "a controlled demolition is the only explanation" still valid yes or no?

You see thats a card that is played way to often, there is hard evidence for controlled demo that is just ignored or fobbed off as "debunked".

YOU dont hear any loud explosions because YOU weren't there, there were plenty of eyewitnesses who seen flashes and heard explosions, but apparently they account for nothing nowadays. Firefighters saying that it started poppin out, floor by floor. There is video footage of explosions prior to collapse. Look at the way the towers came down, they looked nothing like a regular controlled demo. That was not an implosion, it was an explosion. What your seeing there are those buildings being destroyed from the top to bottom, unprecedented. There really is nothing to compare them to. Right the molten metal... How do you know molten steel has nothing to do with controlled demo, you dont. What about the thermite,thermate evidence, is that just "debunked" too?

If it wasnt a controlled demo, why were the girders cut in a controlled demo fashion? Why would they be cut at all?

Controlled demolition is the only explanation that fits the facts of the events.

meglome

Blank Czech wrote: »

Why was the lobby blown out when the first plane hit?

Was it?

Blank Czech wrote: »

Why were the support girders at the bottom of the rubble pile cut at a 45 degree angle with solidified molten metal on the edges?

You mean the picture of a angled cut which is very like the pictures of the guys using cutting torches. And even if that wasn't case thermite can't be used to make neat cuts like this and explosives wouldn't melt the metal like that.

Blank Czech wrote: »

Why was there molten metal still flowing at the bottom of the rubble pile weeks after the event?.

Well I'd safely say it was wasn't metal or a metal with a very low melting point. I'm not doubting that people thought they saw molten metal though. Pity those people had no expertise to be sure what it was or take a sample of it. My own guess is some sort of plastic.

Blank Czech wrote: »

Why were the temperatures so high weeks after the event?.

They weren't. I'm not sure what the relevance of this would be anyway. Thermite would burn off immediately and explosives would explode immediately, they wouldn't cause a very high temperature.

Blank Czech wrote: »

Why can you see molten metal pouring from the side of one of the towers prior to collapse?

A big building was on fire after being hit by a plane. Lots of things in the building could have caused this. It was worked out that there was a transformer in that spot which would explain it.

Blank Czech wrote: »

Why was there molten metal at all? Jet fuel, offices fires and a building collapsing do not create foundry conditions.

I doubt there was. And as I've already said what would this molten metal indicate?

Blank Czech wrote: »

Why did fire fighters say they heard explosions, and not any explosions, explosions like a controlled demo ie. Bang bang bang bang bang bang bang.

I don't doubt they heard explosions or what they thought were explosions. Big buildings being hit by planes and left to burn an' all that. But where are the recordings of these clear explosions? All the controlled demolition videos on the internet have clear as day explosives sounds, unmistakable sounds. They are not to be found at the WTC.

Blank Czech wrote: »

Explain the seismic data

But most of the scientists that looked at the data don't think there is a problem with the seismic data. Some do of course. But if the seismic data is showing explosives where are the recordings of the sounds from the numerous recordings?

Blank Czech wrote: »

Why did building 7 just drop straight to the ground just like a controlled implosion.

Because it had catastrophically failed obviously. But seeing as there are no explosives going off before the collapse then it's not like a controlled demolition at all. It also doesn't fall straight down, it falls to one side somewhat. The so called squibs are not so squib like when you look at the pictures the CT sites don't show for some reason.

Blank Czech wrote: »

How can you look at the footage of building 7 and not see that it AT LEAST LOOKS like a controlled demolition. It comes down identically to other known controlled demos.

You mean with the explosives before the collapse... so not like a controlled demolition at all then. I watched videos of a lot of control demolitions and the WTC is clearly not the same. Though to be fair the building collapses and that does happen in controlled demolition.

King Mob

Blank Czech wrote: »

You see thats a card that is played way to often, there is hard evidence for controlled demo that is just ignored or fobbed off as "debunked".

And who says I'm fobbing them off?
Aren't you just commiting the same sin you think I am?
Maybe I've investigated all of the claims?

Blank Czech wrote: »

YOU dont hear any loud explosions because YOU weren't there, there were plenty of eyewitnesses who seen flashes and heard explosions, but apparently they account for nothing nowadays. Firefighters saying that it started poppin out, floor by floor. There is video footage of explosions prior to collapse. Look at the way the towers came down, they looked nothing like a regular controlled demo. That was not an implosion, it was an explosion. What your seeing there are those buildings being destroyed from the top to bottom, unprecedented. There really is nothing to compare them to.

And as Meglome spend about half the thread explaining explosions do not equal explosives.

Blank Czech wrote: »

Right the molten metal.. How do you know molten steel has nothing to do with controlled demo, you dont.

Can you show a single explosive demolition that left molten metal?

Blank Czech wrote: »

What about the thermite,thermate evidence, is that just "debunked" too?

Yes it is. Very much so. But again can you show a single demolition that involved thermite?

Blank Czech wrote: »

If it wasnt a controlled demo, why were the girders cut in a controlled demo fashion? Why would they be cut at all?

Ok let's focus on this one first.
Can you please show some evidence for these cut girders?
I think I know which photo you are taking about but you might be using a different one/others.

Blank Czech wrote: »

Controlled demolition is the only explanation that fits the facts of the events.

Make a note of this sentence, it will important later.

Divorce Referendum

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Me neither. To be fair though it is not 30 hours/ 3 buildings it'd be 30 hours for EACH building and this would be working on the assumption that the detcord has been succesfully positioned in the concrete floors/ceilings covertly by agents under the cover of maintenance workers. So all that would be needed to be placed would be the charges on the central columns.

Three times the men then. Seriously though place the charges on the columns and then repair all the holes/mess they make in that time period. This a possibility but thats all it is without any prrof. There are lots of possiblities though. It could have been me that materminded the whole thing. Unlikely though:D

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Check this out:

FROM JUN 6 2001


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is_44_47/ai_76297016/

Interesting. I hadn't seen that before.

While I also saw your link about a group rigging a building to be demolished in 96 hours, the main difference is that that building wasn't occupied. Regardless of how many men they had, to install all the explosives and also have them concealed... it's just so unlikely. The numbers of people involved, the precision of the operation required. Like I said, why set the explosives at all? Hit it with a plane. Hit it with 2 planes. That'll do it.

Divorce Referendum

Blank Czech wrote: »

You see thats a card that is played way to often, there is hard evidence for controlled demo that is just ignored or fobbed off as "debunked".
.

To be fair to the lads the topics you mentioned have been discussed here many times and there are a number of rebuttals/debunks on the net that have not been answered. CTers have moved on to WTC 7 and seem to concentrate on that. Its pretty current considering that NIST released its final report not so long ago.

enno99

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Three times the men then. Seriously though place the charges on the columns and then repair all the holes/mess they make in that time period. This a possibility but thats all it is without any prrof. There are lots of possiblities though. It could have been me that materminded the whole thing. Unlikely though:D

No not if the charges can be placed above the ceiling while repairing the fireproofing which was happening on a regular basis then you have the fiber optic cables in place from the broadband upgrade maybe 30 hrs is ample time for the final fix

Divorce Referendum

enno99 wrote: »

No not if the charges can be placed above the ceiling while repairing the fireproofing which was happening on a regular basis then you have the fiber optic cables in place from the broadband upgrade maybe 30 hrs is ample time for the final fix

The columns are where the charges would need to be placed not the ceiling/ trusses. Broadband cables come on. Are they the same ones as the demolition companies use?. The realms of possibility are slipping.

enno99

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

The columns are where the charges would need to be placed not the ceiling/ trusses. Broadband cables come on. Are they the same ones as the demolition companies use?. The realms of possibility are slipping.

colums go through the ceilings

Divorce Referendum

enno99 wrote: »

colums go through the ceilings

No they dont. Do you actually have a clue how the towers were built?

Here is the column layout.







The core doesnt have a ceiling and there isnt one column going through the ceiling space from the core to the perimiter columns.

seannash

Lads in the interest of fairness im gonna throw out a possible theory for the explosives to "explain" the time needed to rig them.

Perhaps they only rigged 10 floors knowing that the weight of those 10 floors would bring down the towers in that pancaking way.
This may have given them enough time.


Now id like to say that i do not believe this theory or that they were brought down by explosives but i thought id throw out another theory for people to use

Penn

seannash wrote: »

Lads in the interest of fairness im gonna throw out a possible theory for the explosives to "explain" the time needed to rig them.

Perhaps they only rigged 10 floors knowing that the weight of those 10 floors would bring down the towers in that pancaking way.
This may have given them enough time.


Now id like to say that i do not believe this theory or that they were brought down by explosives but i thought id throw out another theory for people to use

I know what you mean, and I think it's something thats been mentioned before. The thing is, the flashes and 'squibs' which are seen by many to be one of the biggest arguments for a controlled demolition. These seem to occur on numerous, random floors throughout the building

seannash

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I know what you mean, and I think it's something thats been mentioned before. The thing is, the flashes and 'squibs' which are seen by many to be one of the biggest arguments for a controlled demolition. These seem to occur on numerous, random floors throughout the building

Yep totally agree,i was more answering the it would have taken ages to rig theory(which i still think is true)

Just throwing it out there for argument sake:)

enno99

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

No they dont. Do you actually have a clue how the towers were built?

Here is the column layout.







The core doesnt have a ceiling and there isnt one column going through the ceiling space from the core to the perimiter columns.

You are right in thinking I dont know much about the construction of the buildings
But given that columns are verticle I can presume your expertise is minimal also

This is a little more on the lines of what i was thinking

It should prove very worthwhile to ascertain the configuration of the crawl spaces between the floors of the North and South Towers.

Each of the floors consisted of 22ga. steel pans infilled with four inches of concrete.

These floors were supported by the 33" high steel trusses which "tied" the interior 'tube' and the central load-bearing 'tube' together.

Since it is unlikely that tenants would want bare asbestos-covered trusses running across their ceilings, and since light fittings, cable ducting, and other services needed to be provided across each floor, it must be the case that suspended ceilings were used, with a 33" minimum crawl space between the false ceilings and the underneath of the floor pans. These crawl spaces must have been accessible from the service areas of the central cores.

They would be ideal for accessing the internal surfaces of the exterior structure for placement of cutting charges; the trusses; the floor pans with their (later wholly pulverized) concrete, using multiple C-4 charges or similar; and the exterior of the steelwork of the central cores (for thermate or similar charges)

As for fibre optic cables check out bombers link earlier post 112

coupled with this type of tech or similar who knows ?

More recent developments have used pulsed laser diodes to detonate initiators through fiber-optic cables, which subsequently fire the main charge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrotechnic_fastener

A pyrotechnic initiator (also initiator or igniter) is a device containing a pyrotechnic composition used primarily to ignite other, more difficult-to-ignite materials, e.g. thermites, gas generators, and solid-fuel rockets. The name is often used also for the compositions themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrotechnic_initiator

I know very little about explosives either But i dont need to blow up three skyscrapers

chainsaws

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Assuming Controlled demolition:

a) They're probably dead and if they tried to speak out they would be dead.

b) 9/11 would 've been the greatest payday of their life. What need would they have to invest?

c) They would have been chosen for the job based on pschyological profiling on the basis that they would be least likely to talk.

d) If they did go on record of claiming responsibility no mainstream news outlets would touch it nor would the majority take it seriously. It'd be relegated to sites like this.

e) Why in the name of all that is good would they freely admit to mass-murder and terrorism when they have gotten away it?

a) So there are hundreds of people on standby to murder the hundreds of demolition guys who took down the towers if they ever open their mouths? And are there hundreds of people on standby to murder them and hundreds of people on standby to murder them and more on standby to murder them etc etc. That means there are thousands and thousands and thousands more people who must have inside knowledge about a conspiracy who haven't talked either.
Just how big is the conspiracy?????:D
If hundreds of demolition workers were being killed AFTER they exposed the 9/11 plot how would that remain hush hush.
That makes keeping a secret very hard doesn't it?

b) If someone broke ranks and exposed the inside job conspiracy plot wide open they would make far more money.

c) Least likely to talk? That means there would remain a chance that they would talk. The more people who are least likely to talk means that the chances of someone talking increases the more people are involved.

d) If the mainstream press got wind that the US government were behind the 9/11 attacks it would be reported. What journalist or newsman would not leap at the chance to break the story????

e) At least somebody would have ended up telling a friend or a wife or a priest or somebody because of pangs of conscience. The My Lai massacre and the Abu Graib scandal each were exposed when one guy went to the press with the story.

You haven't really put much thought into this have you?

Brown Bomber

chainsaws wrote: »

a) So there are hundreds of people on standby to murder the hundreds of demolition guys who took down the towers if they ever open their mouths? And are there hundreds of people on standby to murder them and hundreds of people on standby to murder them and more on standby to murder them etc etc. That means there are thousands and thousands and thousands more people who must have inside knowledge about a conspiracy who haven't talked either.
Just how big is the conspiracy?????:D
If hundreds of demolition workers were being killed AFTER they exposed the 9/11 plot how would that remain hush hush.
That makes keeping a secret very hard doesn't it?

b) If someone broke ranks and exposed the inside job conspiracy plot wide open they would make far more money.

c) Least likely to talk? That means there would remain a chance that they would talk. The more people who are least likely to talk means that the chances of someone talking increases the more people are involved.

d) If the mainstream press got wind that the US government were behind the 9/11 attacks it would be reported. What journalist or newsman would not leap at the chance to break the story????

e) At least somebody would have ended up telling a friend or a wife or a priest or somebody because of pangs of conscience. The My Lai massacre and the Abu Graib scandal each were exposed when one guy went to the press with the story.

You haven't really put much thought into this have you?

Your making shallow comparisons. You comparing what has been exposed to what hasn't been exposed which is obviously not established. Your wrongly assuming that they value human life. Besides there is no issue of conscience, whoever done it would consider it a necessary and legitimate military/intelligence action. If conscience was a factor Operation Northwoods would never have come so close to actuality. Where was the conscience when Israel attacked the USS Liberty?

This is what happens to real whistleblowers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu

Come back to me when ou've addressed this point

e) Why in the name of all that is good would they freely admit to mass-murder and terrorism when they have gotten away it?

Mick990

Hey Lads,

Not sure if this has been brought up before but i was thinking about the cotrolled demolition side of it and yes i agree it would take lots of men working around the clock lots of time to set it up, however that is assuming they used the explosives and techniques that are available today, could it be fair to say that there is a possibillity that the U.S. military could have designed something to do this type of job (obviously not this exact job but for blowing up buildings) just a lot easier and have not released it yet ??

Not sure what i think regards 9/11 really some things add up to me and some things don't , I'm just curious to see what people think regarding this

Penn

Mick990 wrote: »

Hey Lads,

Not sure if this has been brought up before but i was thinking about the cotrolled demolition side of it and yes i agree it would take lots of men working around the clock lots of time to set it up, however that is assuming they used the explosives and techniques that are available today, could it be fair to say that there is a possibillity that the U.S. military could have designed something to do this type of job (obviously not this exact job but for blowing up buildings) just a lot easier and have not released it yet ??

Not sure what i think regards 9/11 really some things add up to me and some things don't , I'm just curious to see what people think regarding this

It's something which has been considered. Especially with the whole argument of thermite which has never been used as part of a controlled demolition.

However, the trouble I personally find with theories like that is that if you have to assume that a new technology was used in order to fit the theory, then it isn't a good theory. While possible, it's highly improbable and is very difficult to prove. Another trouble with using a new technology for something like this is that it's a new technology, which means they may not be entirely sure if it would work or not. If 9/11 was planned by the US Governmnt etc, it really wouldn't be the time to be using experimental demolition techniques

wellsir

Please put 9/11 conspiracy debunked into google and get two sides of the story.

No plane theory is just bull, i suppose someone popped out of a black jeep and placed a burning jet engine on the corner of a nearby street?

Controlled demolition is bull, heat of fire weakened (not melted) steel sufficiently enough for it to structurally fail. No official report stated that the steel melted.
If it were a controlled demolition, do you not think the thousands of people working in the place for lets say two weeks (you would need more like 2 months) before 9/11 might have at least remebered the drilling and many men working on it?

Building 7 fell, stop using out of context quote.

The US government and intelligence agencies are just as incompetent as our lot, public servants with jobs for life, more concerned about their big houses than blowing up a buildings so that they can chase some oil.

If you ask me the 9/11 conspiracy is the conspiracy.

Brown Bomber

wellsir wrote: »

The US government and intelligence agencies are just as incompetent as our lot, public servants with jobs for life, more concerned about their big houses than blowing up a buildings so that they can chase some oil.

Yeah the CIA- exactly like the clerks in the revenue commission. Exactly why the US has budgeted 50 billion dollars foe black ops in 2010.

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]In the R-1 (research and development), P-1 (procurement) and O-1 (operations) budgets for 2010, just over $50 billion is listed for classified programs, the largest-ever sum. The Pentagon's "black" operations, including the intelligence budgets nested inside it, are roughly equal in magnitude to the entire defense budgets of the UK, France or Japan, and 10 per cent of the total. [/FONT]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a07d043ca-ceaf-4d4b-a260-7a4c0f59d581&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending

Brown Bomber

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Interesting. I hadn't seen that before.

While I also saw your link about a group rigging a building to be demolished in 96 hours, the main difference is that that building wasn't occupied. Regardless of how many men they had, to install all the explosives and also have them concealed... it's just so unlikely. The numbers of people involved, the precision of the operation required. Like I said, why set the explosives at all? Hit it with a plane. Hit it with 2 planes. That'll do it.

I agree with everything you've said the whole time but not to the point that it eliminates the possibility of explosive demolition.

My thinking can be best summed up by these short clips from this show. The PETN detcord would be placed in the concrete floors/ceiilings by teams posing as maintenace/upgrade staff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM_HyMbgZis

This would pulverise the concrete floor structure which would go off in sequence from top to bottom.

This video introduced me to cutting charges and kicker charges

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af3Idz-7eLw

The charges could've been placed on the central columns by the company (pure speculation) involved in the massive upgrade of the elevator system ACE Elevation.

Copyright© 2001 Elevator World, Inc. – Posted 2/20/01

At a time when new construction is dominating the market, ACE Elevator undertook what was perhaps, one of the largest, most sophisticated elevator modernization programs in the industry's history. This "towering" achievement took place at New York City's prestigious World Trade Center (WTC), with the completion of the first six members of the elite "Shuttle Fleet."


This project was originally intended to operate with the existing 275kW motor-generator sets that were specifically designed for the WTC project. However, both the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and ACE Elevator Co. Inc. had the collective vision of utilizing cutting-edge, solid-state-drive technology to replace the existing motor generator sets.

http://www.elevator-world.com/magazine/archive01/0103-002.html-ssi

More of a stretch again is that the charges could've been placed in the 30-40 hours of powerdown reported by WTC employees on the weekend prior to the attacks. Alternatively these hours could have been spent applying the finishing touches.

So the the detcord takes out the concrete floors and charges take out the central steel core with gravity taking down the outer perimeter

Some of the earlier explosions after plane impact could reasonably imo be attributed to charges stragically weakening the steel columns.

None of the above is the most likely case for controlled demolition or in fact of why the towers came down imo

seannash

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I agree with everything you've said the whole time but not to the point that it eliminates the possibility of explosive demolition.

My thinking can be best summed up by these short clips from this show. The PETN detcord would be placed in the concrete floors/ceiilings by teams posing as maintenace/upgrade staff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM_HyMbgZis

This would pulverise the concrete floor structure which would go off in sequence from top to bottom.

This video introduced me to cutting charges and kicker charges

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af3Idz-7eLw

The charges could've been placed on the central columns by the company (pure speculation) involved in the massive upgrade of the elevator system ACE Elevation.

Copyright© 2001 Elevator World, Inc. – Posted 2/20/01


http://www.elevator-world.com/magazine/archive01/0103-002.html-ssi

More of a stretch again is that the charges could've been placed in the 30-40 hours of powerdown reported by WTC employees on the weekend prior to the attacks. Alternatively these hours could have been spent applying the finishing touches.

So the the detcord takes out the concrete floors and charges take out the central steel core with gravity taking down the outer perimeter

Some of the earlier explosions after plane impact could reasonably imo be attributed to charges stragically weakening the steel columns.

None of the above is the most likely case for controlled demolition or in fact of why the towers came down imo

Brown bomber this is all just unsupported theory.
Yes you can say that maybe they were posing as maintainance men to rig the thing before the collapse but you have no evidence.

I can say that they have invisibiltiy suits supplied by the secret goverment organisation and were rigging it unbeknownst to people but its all just a theory.

Its all very well throwing out these theories on all the possibilities but when there not really supported with evidence(and seriously you know there not supported with evidence)

People still wont address the fact that the substance they claim to be found as the explosive(thermite) would be needed in vast quantities.
This needs stressing,it would have to be laid all over the floors and near impossible to conceal.

People are really clinging onto tiny details in this case.They will argue over the tiniest point in there argument but wont address some of the points that in return will render the other arguments pointless.

Also alot of people who have been on here for a while and have had these discussions still put out the same out of context quotes to back up there claims even though they know rightly well its been debunked.

I dont know how many times ive seen the fox report from the pentagon saying that no plane was visible even though these people know that if you look at the full report hes not talking about what that short snippet would have you believe.

I know its not you who does all these but putting out possibilities and loosely connecting them is just as bad.

Lets say it was rigged by "maintainance" men.who are they?
Why havent they come forward?
Why would they agree to do this?
Only a few companies would have the expertise and men who can do this,why would they incriminate themselves in this?

This prerigged theory has to be thrown out because there is absoplutely no evidence for it.
Yeah detcord might look like any of the hundreds of cables that run overhead but this doesnt prove anything,its all just speculation that adds fuel to these weak theories

milkybar kid wk

you lads are mad in the head have a cup of tea or something and relaxhttp://b-static.net/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Yitzhak Rabin

Milky kid wk banned for a week for trolling

chainsaws

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Your making shallow comparisons. You comparing what has been exposed to what hasn't been exposed which is obviously not established. Your wrongly assuming that they value human life. Besides there is no issue of conscience, whoever done it would consider it a necessary and legitimate military/intelligence action. If conscience was a factor Operation Northwoods would never have come so close to actuality. Where was the conscience when Israel attacked the USS Liberty?

This is what happens to real whistleblowers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu

Come back to me when ou've addressed this point

We know that the USS Liberty was strafed by Israeli jets because there is EVIDENCE. The US crew SAW the IDF jets make their strafing runs on the vessel. Men were killed and injured.
The Israelis could never say they didn't strafe the Liberty because there were Israeli cannon holes in the ship.

Mordechai Vanuna told the world that Israel had nuclear weapons and the world knows that Israel abducted him and jailed him.
Israel also assassinated Palestinian terrorist leaders for decades.
Again because there is EVIDENCE.
Israeli agents were arrested over the years after the killed people around the world.

The circumstances surrounding the Israeli reprisals after the Munich Olympics massacre were exposed by whistleblowers who told the world what they had done.

Today the Israelis openly admits it takes out terrorists using assassins.


There is no way the US government could mount mass murder of it's own citizens using presumably thousands of its own government employees in the military, intelligence services, law enforcement and scores of other agencies without the plot being exposed.

The conspiracy theory is simply ludicrous.

Brown Bomber

chainsaws wrote: »

We know that the USS Liberty was strafed by Israeli jets because there is EVIDENCE. The US crew SAW the IDF jets make their strafing runs on the vessel. Men were killed and injured.
The Israelis could never say they didn't strafe the Liberty because there were Israeli cannon holes in the ship.

Mordechai Vanuna told the world that Israel had nuclear weapons and the world knows that Israel abducted him and jailed him.
Israel also assassinated Palestinian terrorist leaders for decades.
Again because there is EVIDENCE.
Israeli agents were arrested over the years after the killed people around the world.

The circumstances surrounding the Israeli reprisals after the Munich Olympics massacre were exposed by whistleblowers who told the world what they had done.

Today the Israelis openly admits it takes out terrorists using assassins.

Thanks for telling me stuff I already know

chainsaws wrote: »

The conspiracy theory is simply ludicrous.

Yeah you've said, repeatedly.

take 3:

e) Why in the name of all that is good would they freely admit to mass-murder and terrorism when they have gotten away it?

chainsaws

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thanks for telling me stuff I already know


Yeah you've said, repeatedly.

take 3:

e) Why in the name of all that is good would they freely admit to mass-murder and terrorism when they have gotten away it?

Conscience. Money. Fame. Notoriety. Any number of reasons.

If there was a vast conspiracy plot the temptation to expose it is just too high.

Thousands of people would have had to be involved - leaving the conspirators wide open to being exposed - and at least one person would have come clean.

There would have at least been a shred of credible evidence wouldn't there?

There is no evidence of a conspiracy - almost 10 years after the 9/11 attacks! - and nobody as come forward and said 'I rigged the towers with bombs and I am exposing this conspiracy because the Bush administration led us into 2 wars and allowed robber bankers to cripple the world economy.'

Don't ya think somebody would have come forward?

Especially since for the conspiracy and conspiracy cover up to be possible, members of the FAA, NTSB, American Airlines, NYPD, FDNY, Port Authority, FBI, people who worked in the towers and military personnel who worked in the Pentagon and the news media, all of whom lost friends and/or family would have had to be in on the plot and sacrificed them for the success of the plot.

Divorce Referendum

enno99 wrote: »

You are right in thinking I dont know much about the construction of the buildings
But given that columns are verticle I can presume your expertise is minimal also

This is a little more on the lines of what i was thinking

It should prove very worthwhile to ascertain the configuration of the crawl spaces between the floors of the North and South Towers.

Each of the floors consisted of 22ga. steel pans infilled with four inches of concrete.

These floors were supported by the 33" high steel trusses which "tied" the interior 'tube' and the central load-bearing 'tube' together.

Since it is unlikely that tenants would want bare asbestos-covered trusses running across their ceilings, and since light fittings, cable ducting, and other services needed to be provided across each floor, it must be the case that suspended ceilings were used, with a 33" minimum crawl space between the false ceilings and the underneath of the floor pans. These crawl spaces must have been accessible from the service areas of the central cores.

They would be ideal for accessing the internal surfaces of the exterior structure for placement of cutting charges; the trusses; the floor pans with their (later wholly pulverized) concrete, using multiple C-4 charges or similar; and the exterior of the steelwork of the central cores (for thermate or similar charges)

As for fibre optic cables check out bombers link earlier post 112

coupled with this type of tech or similar who knows ?

More recent developments have used pulsed laser diodes to detonate initiators through fiber-optic cables, which subsequently fire the main charge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrotechnic_fastener

A pyrotechnic initiator (also initiator or igniter) is a device containing a pyrotechnic composition used primarily to ignite other, more difficult-to-ignite materials, e.g. thermites, gas generators, and solid-fuel rockets. The name is often used also for the compositions themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrotechnic_initiator

I know very little about explosives either But i dont need to blow up three skyscrapers

Yes i do know the coulumns are vertical, im a site engineer mate. And i do know about the crawl space between the suspended ceilings. My point is the columns do not just go up into the ceiling space like a normal steel framed building they are at the outer edge of the building and not easily accesible. Perhaps it should be very worthwhile looking at an actual photo of the crawl space and accertain how men crawled through such a tiny space in numerous floors with thousands of pounds of exlposives and then wired the explosives from the allegedly suitable broadband cables in 30 hours. Your concept of time is ridculous

The guys doing the fireproofing had weeks to do just one floor because it was so cramped.

enno99

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Yes i do know the coulumns are vertical, im a site engineer mate. And i do know about the crawl space between the suspended ceilings. My point is the columns do not just go up into the ceiling space like a normal steel framed building they are at the outer edge of the building and not easily accesible. Perhaps it should be very worthwhile looking at an actual photo of the crawl space and accertain how men crawled through such a tiny space in numerous floors with thousands of pounds of exlposives and then wired the explosives from the allegedly suitable broadband cables in 30 hours. Your concept of time is ridculous

The guys doing the fireproofing had weeks to do just one floor because it was so cramped.

Maybe 30 hrs is your concept of time

Obvisiously you dont read or dont understand the posts your replying to

Divorce Referendum

enno99 wrote: »

Maybe 30 hrs is your concept of time

Obvisiously you dont read or dont understand the posts your replying to

Obviously you dont know what the topic was about. You do realise your original post was replying to a response that i made to brown bombers video about two employees who said that the power was down for 30 hours over the weekend and security was apparently very lax giving time for a crew to supposedly place explosives.

Thats were the 30 hour time-frame came from. You obviously missed that or perhaps you are talking about a couple of months/years of lax security except guess what there is no proof of that. There is certain proof of 30 hours of it, i suggest you deal with fact and not fiction.

Im not sure you actually understand what you are talking about or suggesting.