Engineers Reveal Hard Evidence of Explosive Demolition at World Trade Center

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="67gt500"] Right, IF that damage is delivered in the form of properly applied explosives..67gt500

[QUOTE="DanC1989"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] It wasn't just the fire though.....it was affected by debris.

7557119a-b0b4-411f-8473-9ab0e1e5a8cc1.03.01Wasdie

It tipped because unlike the two towers which were hit directly and thus vibrations ran through the entire core towards the top, weakening the internal structures, the vibrations came from the ground on one side, weakening the bottom supports instead of the core supports of the buildings. This woudl weaken one side more than the other which woudl cause it to top.

Also the WTC towers had a stronger exo-skeleton to them.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="67gt500"] Right, IF that damage is delivered in the form of properly applied explosives..67gt500

[QUOTE="67gt500"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No. Explosives are not needed. There are other ways a building can be damaged.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="DanC1989"] Of course..but by what? :P I wouldn't really have an qualms with the WTC collapses if it weren't for this one, not many buildings collapse from fire damage. And then if this one was pre-planned then obviously it brings the rest very much into question as they were the catalyst for its collapse. Look up Barry Jennings.DanC1989

[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

No even remotely close to the same thing. Watergate was not even close to what happened on 9/11. We would be talking about the supreme commander of our armed forces, his aids, and numerous other government agencies participating in the cold-blooded murder of thousand of US citizens in the middle of NYC. Watergate is nothing compared to this.

hartsickdiscipl

Leading to the reporting getting his or name forever ingrained in history as the person who discovered it. The fame that would come along with such a huge discovery is too much to believe at least one reporter wouldn't run the story.

Assuming that said reporter had the interest to view all of the evidence, had the backing of his or her superiors, and wasn't under threat of death, yeah.. I would agree.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="DanC1989"] In that case why did it collapse into its own footprint?DanC1989

It tipped because unlike the two towers which were hit directly and thus vibrations ran through the entire core towards the top, weakening the internal structures, the vibrations came from the ground on one side, weakening the bottom supports instead of the core supports of the buildings. This woudl weaken one side more than the other which woudl cause it to top.

Also the WTC towers had a stronger exo-skeleton to them.

[QUOTE="67gt500"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No. Explosives are not needed. There are other ways a building can be damaged.comp_atkins

you act like man made things are indistructable...this is from 1940.....small breeze and the right amount of vibration......and viola....destruction.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnwOmni-Slash

I don't quite get what you're trying to say, WTC7 pretty much collapsed straight down when maybe it shouldn't have? And WTC's 5 and 6 still stood despite being closer and therefore (more than likely!) more badly damaged by falling debris. About conspiracy theories, I despise them as much as anyone else..some people see one in everything that happens. All I'd like to see is a fair (ie independent!) and proper investigation. Alas..that shall never come to fruition.DanC1989

Actually the ones closest would be a lot more safe depending on the kind of wave the buildings produced. Different kinds of waves may have a different ripple effect. The whole WTC complex wasn't on solid ground, it was in NYC which has a labyrinth of tunnels. All of those factors play into it.

Why does when a pea-sized pebble gets kicked up and throw onto my windshield while going 60 mph sometimes bounce off and other times shatter the whole thing? Weird physics things man.

[QUOTE="DanC1989"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

It tipped because unlike the two towers which were hit directly and thus vibrations ran through the entire core towards the top, weakening the internal structures, the vibrations came from the ground on one side, weakening the bottom supports instead of the core supports of the buildings. This woudl weaken one side more than the other which woudl cause it to top.

Also the WTC towers had a stronger exo-skeleton to them.

comp_atkins

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="67gt500"] Other than Tsunami, tornado, mudslide and hurricane have you ever even heard of a building being completely razed by anything OTHER than carefully applied explosives?67gt500

you act like man made things are indistructable...this is from 1940.....small breeze and the right amount of vibration......and viola....destruction.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnwOmni-Slash

This is also from the 40's....

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="67gt500"] Other than Tsunami, tornado, mudslide and hurricane have you ever even heard of a building being completely razed by anything OTHER than carefully applied explosives?67gt500

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="67gt500"] Other than Tsunami, tornado, mudslide and hurricane have you ever even heard of a building being completely razed by anything OTHER than carefully applied explosives?67gt500

A B-52? It was actually a B-25 which is a MUCH smaller and slower plane than a fully loaded 757 which hit at greater speeds. Also it was not carrying a full load of bombs nor did it have the amount of fuel. They also were able to put out the fire.

if a B-52 hit the building... I doubt the results would be the same.

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"]you act like man made things are indistructable...this is from 1940.....small breeze and the right amount of vibration......and viola....destruction.. 67gt500

This is also from the 40's....

Also, here's a fun fact about AE911Truth - one of their "Engineers of the month" or whatever was some guy called Bjorkman, who posted on the JREF forum under the name Heiwa, referring to his company. He made several outrageous claims, including a "bathroom scale experiment." - "Climb up on a ladder and jump onto a bathroom scale. *Ignoring the little spike*, the weight readout will be the same as if you just stepped on." Yes, that really discredits Bazant, doesn't it?

[QUOTE="DanC1989"]I don't quite get what you're trying to say, WTC7 pretty much collapsed straight down when maybe it shouldn't have? And WTC's 5 and 6 still stood despite being closer and therefore (more than likely!) more badly damaged by falling debris. About conspiracy theories, I despise them as much as anyone else..some people see one in everything that happens. All I'd like to see is a fair (ie independent!) and proper investigation. Alas..that shall never come to fruition.Wasdie

Actually the ones closest would be a lot more safe depending on the kind of wave the buildings produced. Different kinds of waves may have a different ripple effect. The whole WTC complex wasn't on solid ground, it was in NYC which has a labyrinth of tunnels. All of those factors play into it.

Why does when a pea-sized pebble gets kicked up and throw onto my windshield while going 60 mph sometimes bounce off and other times shatter the whole thing? Weird physics things man.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="67gt500"] Other than Tsunami, tornado, mudslide and hurricane have you ever even heard of a building being completely razed by anything OTHER than carefully applied explosives?67gt500

[QUOTE="67gt500"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"] how many other 100 story+ buildings in history with the same structure have been struck by aircraft flying nearly 500mphcomp_atkins

I think it's quite possible that there were explosives planted, as a means to control the fall of the building in emergency situations, ie, they always had explosives there, and just used it to make sure the buildings didn't collapse on the surrounding buildings. However, I don't think people would actually want to do business in the WTC if they knew the building could be remotely detonated at any time, and after 9-11 they definitely didn't want people thinking they blew it up as part of a conspiracy. If there was any kind of cover up, it'd be something like that.

Myself and many others saw the planes hit the towers and destroy them...There was no explosion at the Foundation of the buildings.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="67gt500"] Buildings have been struck by aircraft without collapsing... A B-52 slammed into the Empire State building in 1945... it's still standing...67gt500

[QUOTE="67gt500"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"] apples and oranges... aircraft flying much slower. building is of different construction and it was not a b52 it was a b25 which is much smaller than a modern jet airliner. comp_atkins

Well, if the 'hard evidence' that this group claims to have, is sound and withstands scrutiny then maybe there will be some revelations about the event... real evidence always speaks for itself...

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="67gt500"] B-25 yes - I typo'ed, and I thank you for pointing that out... incidents like this prove that tall, free-standing structures like 'skyscrapers' can take massive damage including hard, sudden impact(s), explosions and fire without being razed to the ground... did the impacts and fires alone from the 9/11 event cause the buildings to collapse? I don't know - I'm neither an architect nor and engineer. I'm saying that architects and engineers are the only credible source we have with respect to what actually happened. Their opinions should carry more weight than a group of politicians who know nothing about architecture and engineering...67gt500

Well, if the 'hard evidence' that this group claims to have, is sound and withstands scrutiny then maybe there will be some revelations about the event... real evidence always speaks for itself...

i agree, which is why politicians were not the ones doing the actual investigations...comp_atkins

Well, if the 'hard evidence' that this group claims to have, is sound and withstands scrutiny then maybe there will be some revelations about the event... real evidence always speaks for itself...

Evidence seems fairly solid.

Nobody finds it odd how fast they took away most the steel from the site before investigators were even able to see it?

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="67gt500"]

Well, if the 'hard evidence' that this group claims to have, is sound and withstands scrutiny then maybe there will be some revelations about the event... real evidence always speaks for itself...

67gt500

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"]In reality I think the only thing the govt probably could have done that they didn't was to shoot down at least one of the planes.....but I think no-one had the political set to do it......and while that is GWs fault....I don;t think any president today would make that dicision either..the media backlash would have been horrific...Wasdie

You said it perfectly. The person would get run out of office with people saying "I know of 100 better ways of solving that problem than you"

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"]In reality I think the only thing the govt probably could have done that they didn't was to shoot down at least one of the planes.....but I think no-one had the political set to do it......and while that is GWs fault....I don;t think any president today would make that dicision either..the media backlash would have been horrific...limpbizkit818

You said it perfectly. The person would get run out of office with people saying "I know of 100 better ways of solving that problem than you"

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

You said it perfectly. The person would get run out of office with people saying "I know of 100 better ways of solving that problem than you"

F1_2004

fail. the link does not show hard evidence.

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

You said it perfectly. The person would get run out of office with people saying "I know of 100 better ways of solving that problem than you"

F1_2004

The attacks where not predicted.

Of course attacks are expect. Look at the Christmas bomber. That guy got a bomb onto a plane in post 9/11 America and because he is an idiot, they failed to go off. Attacks are going to happen. But no one in their right mind really expected terrorists to use planes as weapons in 2001. That stuff just does not happen.

[QUOTE="F1_2004"][QUOTE="limpbizkit818"] People don't fly planes into buildings. When planes get hijack the criminals always have a ransom. 9 times out of 10 they land the plane after negotiation. No one in there right minds, before 9/11, would think something like this would happen. Even if Bush wanted to, I have a feeling it would have been way to late to shoot them down. America was not ready to handle an attack like this.

limpbizkit818

The attacks where not predicted.

Of course attacks are expect. Look at the Christmas bomber. That guy got a bomb onto a plane in post 9/11 America and because he is an idiot, they failed to go off. Attacks are going to happen. But no one in their right mind really expected terrorists to use planes as weapons in 2001. That stuff just does not happen.

So you would surely assume this is completely false without even reading it? You seem to be a little too confident about what you're seeing as fact and conspiracy.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

PS2_ROCKS

No it doesn't. It uses high school introductory level physics to determine impulse rates, the change acceleration, not taking into account the equivalent figures for internal structural collapse, nor does it account for the rates of which deceleration would occur for undamaged floor. You can't assume what level of total deceleration occurred from exterior pictures of a non-rigid body. The number of assumed variables is simply mind blowing. In all honesty, the paper is not a conclusive nor an even remotely authoritative analysis. It most certainly doesn't disprove the main theory by any stretch of the imagination.

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

[QUOTE="F1_2004"] There were some reports that showed that such an attack was predicted, if not expected!F1_2004

The attacks where not predicted.

Of course attacks are expect. Look at the Christmas bomber. That guy got a bomb onto a plane in post 9/11 America and because he is an idiot, they failed to go off. Attacks are going to happen. But no one in their right mind really expected terrorists to use planes as weapons in 2001. That stuff just does not happen.

News and such states the contrary? No it does not. I am not sure what you're even talking about at this point.

Look:

Dawson's Field Hijacking

Air France Flight 8969

TWA Flight 847

That's what happens when planes get hijacked. No one flies them into buildings. You really think this country had pilots sitting on standby waiting to shoot down a hijack commercial aircraft? The CIA did not think this would really happen. No one did. Sure everyone expects sometype of attackand wants to be prepared, but there is no way our country was ready for 9/11. Again, I am not following what you're trying to say.

Oh no, not this again.

I don't give much credence to conspiracy theories cause they are a dime a dozen. There are people out there who believe everything that happens is part of some master plan to destroy/take over the world.

I will mention one thing that was very odd and always bothered me. My mother used to work in the WTC for over 7 years. About 4 to 3 weeks before 9/11 they did 2 things that they had never done before. In an effort to improve the "safety" of the buildings in cases of fire they were working on the interior of the complex installing various components through out the building to make it more resistant to fire so if a fire did occur on one of the floors it would be contained and not spread. Then out of the blue they started having fire drills, something they had never done until the weeks prior to the attack. I remember my mother talking about how her out of shape co-workers were on the brink of collapse after the drill was over. It seems rather odd and a little convenient that they would hold the first ever fire drills and section off various sections of the building for "fire proof" installations just prior to the attacks. Or maybe its was just incredibly lucky good timing.

Those fire drill practices did end up saving a number of my mothers co-workers. Thankfully my mother was late for work that day and never made it to the buildings. By the time she made it out of the train station the 2nd plane had just hit.Diablo-B

This is VERY interesting to me. I watched a show on the History Channel recently that included several interviews with people who escaped the towers. They too spoke about the fire drills that had just started prior to the attack. I didn't hear anything about the work to make the building more "resistant to fire" though. If that's true, there's your opportunity to plant some explosives. I'm not saying that it proves anything, simply that it answers the question of when the explosives that many claim went off in the building might have been planted. It really doesn't take that much to take down a big building, as long as they're planted in the right spots.

This is VERY interesting to me. I watched a show on the History Channel recently that included several interviews with people who escaped the towers. They too spoke about the fire drills that had just started prior to the attack. I didn't hear anything about the work to make the building more "resistant to fire" though. If that's true, there's your opportunity to plant some explosives. I'm not saying that it proves anything, simply that it answers the question of when the explosives that many claim went off in the building might have been planted. It really doesn't take that much to take down a big building, as long as they're planted in the right spots.

hartsickdiscipl

Not really. Buildings much smaller than the WTC take months upon months to lay down enough explosives in the right places to take them down, and they can do so openly and with free reign over the entire building. The idea that they could have planted enough explosives to produce a controlled demolition to take down the entire WTC in such a short time, and in secret no less, is just ludicrous.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

This is VERY interesting to me. I watched a show on the History Channel recently that included several interviews with people who escaped the towers. They too spoke about the fire drills that had just started prior to the attack. I didn't hear anything about the work to make the building more "resistant to fire" though. If that's true, there's your opportunity to plant some explosives. I'm not saying that it proves anything, simply that it answers the question of when the explosives that many claim went off in the building might have been planted. It really doesn't take that much to take down a big building, as long as they're planted in the right spots.

GabuEx

Not really. Buildings much smaller than the WTC take months upon months to lay down enough explosives in the right places to take them down, and they can do so openly and with free reign over the entire building. The idea that they could have planted enough explosives to produce a controlled demolition to take down the entire WTC in such a short time, and in secret no less, is just ludicrous.

You think it is, I think it's not. Just because companies usually take much longer to plan and take down smaller buildings doesn't mean that it couldn't be done in less time, and with fewer explosives. Besides, if this was a conspiracy involving a semi-planned demolition, it wasn't exactly a textbook operation judging from from the destruction around the tower. Once again this is a big IF.. but IF the conspirators knew that they would also have the help of the jetliners hitting the buildings to take them down, they wouldn't necessarily need to rig the building the same way they would if they didn't have planes helping them out.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

This is VERY interesting to me. I watched a show on the History Channel recently that included several interviews with people who escaped the towers. They too spoke about the fire drills that had just started prior to the attack. I didn't hear anything about the work to make the building more "resistant to fire" though. If that's true, there's your opportunity to plant some explosives. I'm not saying that it proves anything, simply that it answers the question of when the explosives that many claim went off in the building might have been planted. It really doesn't take that much to take down a big building, as long as they're planted in the right spots.

GabuEx

Not really. Buildings much smaller than the WTC take months upon months to lay down enough explosives in the right places to take them down, and they can do so openly and with free reign over the entire building. The idea that they could have planted enough explosives to produce a controlled demolition to take down the entire WTC in such a short time, and in secret no less, is just ludicrous.

Whatever, it takes 1 minute 30 seconds flat. Otherwise the bombs go off before you leave the building while your buddies look back at you with teary eyes while driving away from the cops. Haven't you ever seen a movie?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

This is VERY interesting to me. I watched a show on the History Channel recently that included several interviews with people who escaped the towers. They too spoke about the fire drills that had just started prior to the attack. I didn't hear anything about the work to make the building more "resistant to fire" though. If that's true, there's your opportunity to plant some explosives. I'm not saying that it proves anything, simply that it answers the question of when the explosives that many claim went off in the building might have been planted. It really doesn't take that much to take down a big building, as long as they're planted in the right spots.

hartsickdiscipl

Not really. Buildings much smaller than the WTC take months upon months to lay down enough explosives in the right places to take them down, and they can do so openly and with free reign over the entire building. The idea that they could have planted enough explosives to produce a controlled demolition to take down the entire WTC in such a short time, and in secret no less, is just ludicrous.

You think it is, I think it's not. Just because companies usually take much longer to plan and take down smaller buildings doesn't mean that it couldn't be done in less time, and with fewer explosives. Besides, if this was a conspiracy involving a semi-planned demolition, it wasn't exactly a textbook operation judging from from the destruction around the tower. Once again this is a big IF.. but IF the conspirators knew that they would also have the help of the jetliners hitting the buildings to take them down, they wouldn't necessarily need to rig the building the same way they would if they didn't have planes helping them out.

Something with the scale of the 9/11 project would require significant amounts of timing and explosives. And considering the excellent job they've done covering the whole conspiracy, it would be a top notch professional job.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

This is VERY interesting to me. I watched a show on the History Channel recently that included several interviews with people who escaped the towers. They too spoke about the fire drills that had just started prior to the attack. I didn't hear anything about the work to make the building more "resistant to fire" though. If that's true, there's your opportunity to plant some explosives. I'm not saying that it proves anything, simply that it answers the question of when the explosives that many claim went off in the building might have been planted. It really doesn't take that much to take down a big building, as long as they're planted in the right spots.

hartsickdiscipl

Not really. Buildings much smaller than the WTC take months upon months to lay down enough explosives in the right places to take them down, and they can do so openly and with free reign over the entire building. The idea that they could have planted enough explosives to produce a controlled demolition to take down the entire WTC in such a short time, and in secret no less, is just ludicrous.

You think it is, I think it's not. Just because companies usually take much longer to plan and take down smaller buildings doesn't mean that it couldn't be done in less time, and with fewer explosives. Besides, if this was a conspiracy involving a semi-planned demolition, it wasn't exactly a textbook operation judging from from the destruction around the tower. Once again this is a big IF.. but IF the conspirators knew that they would also have the help of the jetliners hitting the buildings to take them down, they wouldn't necessarily need to rig the building the same way they would if they didn't have planes helping them out.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Not really. Buildings much smaller than the WTC take months upon months to lay down enough explosives in the right places to take them down, and they can do so openly and with free reign over the entire building. The idea that they could have planted enough explosives to produce a controlled demolition to take down the entire WTC in such a short time, and in secret no less, is just ludicrous.

xaos

You think it is, I think it's not. Just because companies usually take much longer to plan and take down smaller buildings doesn't mean that it couldn't be done in less time, and with fewer explosives. Besides, if this was a conspiracy involving a semi-planned demolition, it wasn't exactly a textbook operation judging from from the destruction around the tower. Once again this is a big IF.. but IF the conspirators knew that they would also have the help of the jetliners hitting the buildings to take them down, they wouldn't necessarily need to rig the building the same way they would if they didn't have planes helping them out.

I didn't say that. I never said that I support the 9/11 truth movement.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

You think it is, I think it's not. Just because companies usually take much longer to plan and take down smaller buildings doesn't mean that it couldn't be done in less time, and with fewer explosives. Besides, if this was a conspiracy involving a semi-planned demolition, it wasn't exactly a textbook operation judging from from the destruction around the tower. Once again this is a big IF.. but IF the conspirators knew that they would also have the help of the jetliners hitting the buildings to take them down, they wouldn't necessarily need to rig the building the same way they would if they didn't have planes helping them out.

hartsickdiscipl

I didn't say that. I never said that I support the 9/11 truth movement.