Engineers Reveal Hard Evidence of Explosive Demolition at World Trade Center

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

The jetliner hit near the top of the building. If this was a controlled demolition, the bombs would have been planted at the bottom. There's no help you're gonna get out of that. Furthermore, the months and months I described for smaller buildings were operations conducted by professionals who do this sort of thing all the time. It's not as though there's some super secret crack government team that somehow can place explosives faster than any other humans on the planet. It's a very deliberate, meticulous, careful process.

Bottom line, you can't just say "I think it's not". That's not a valid rebuttal. As I said, it takes several months to properly rig up a single smaller building when the demolition workers are working around the clock and with free reign over the building. Yet we're being told that it took only a couple weeks to rig up two 110-storey skyscrapers. That's not something that you can just sweep under the rug by saying the equivalent of "nuh-uh" when someone challenges its plausibility.

[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.

GabuEx

The jetliner hit near the top of the building. If this was a controlled demolition, the bombs would have been planted at the bottom. There's no help you're gonna get out of that. Furthermore, the months and months I described for larger buildings were operations conducted by professionals who do this sort of thing all the time. It's not as though there's some super secret crack government team that somehow can place explosives faster than any other humans on the planet. It's a very deliberate, meticulous, careful process.

Bottom line, you can't just say "I think it's not". That's not a valid rebuttal. As I said, it takes several months to properly rig up a single smaller building when the demolition workers are working around the clock and with free reign over the building. Yet we're being told that it took only a couple weeks to rig up two 110-storey skyscrapers. That's not something that you can just sweep under the rug by saying the equivalent of "nuh-uh" when someone challenges its plausibility.

Suppose you knew where the planes would hit the buildings, and how much destruction they would do on your own. Can you account for that variable?

[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

The first flight of the B-52 was in 1952. What on Earth are you talking about.

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

The first flight of the B-52 was in 1952. What on Earth are you talking about.

There was a B-25 Mitchell that struck the Empire State building due to fog. But, the Empire State building is a totally different design from the WTC twins.

[QUOTE="DucksBrains"]

[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...jun_aka_pekto

The first flight of the B-52 was in 1952. What on Earth are you talking about.

There was a B-25 Mitchell that struck the Empire State building due to fog. But, the Empire State building is a totally different design from the WTC twins.

Actually, probably the two biggest factors leading to the survival of the Empire State Building were that the plane was not intending to crash into the building, meaning that it was not going at full speed when it hit the building, and that the plane was low on fuel since it was lost. The planes that crashed into the WTC were going full steam ahead and had full tanks of jet fuel, having just taken off.

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

67gt500

Not the same thing, a B-25has a length of 16.1m and awingspan of 20.6m. A 767 has a length of 47.6m and awingspan of 47.6m. Also the B-25 was lost in fog, so wasn't going that fast; however even if it was going full speed that would be 275mph. The 767s that hit the WTC was going around 500mph (with full fuel tanks)

[QUOTE="Diablo-B"]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.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.

So why isn't this being broadcasted exactly? I'm interested in seeing this evidence (I'm open minded and curious)guitarshr3dd3r

How timely.

[QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"]So why isn't this being broadcasted exactly? I'm interested in seeing this evidence (I'm open minded and curious)Person0

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"]So why isn't this being broadcasted exactly? I'm interested in seeing this evidence (I'm open minded and curious)guitarshr3dd3r

Out of how many millions of architects and engineers in the world? I'm sure a sizable percentage can be said about people who believe in the fake moon landing (perhaps much more still) and even until recently the flat earth theory.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[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

The jetliner hit near the top of the building. If this was a controlled demolition, the bombs would have been planted at the bottom. There's no help you're gonna get out of that. Furthermore, the months and months I described for larger buildings were operations conducted by professionals who do this sort of thing all the time. It's not as though there's some super secret crack government team that somehow can place explosives faster than any other humans on the planet. It's a very deliberate, meticulous, careful process.

Bottom line, you can't just say "I think it's not". That's not a valid rebuttal. As I said, it takes several months to properly rig up a single smaller building when the demolition workers are working around the clock and with free reign over the building. Yet we're being told that it took only a couple weeks to rig up two 110-storey skyscrapers. That's not something that you can just sweep under the rug by saying the equivalent of "nuh-uh" when someone challenges its plausibility.

Suppose you knew where the planes would hit the buildings, and how much destruction they would do on your own. Can you account for that variable?

How exactly do you control rigging explosives in a building and making sure that they do not detonate when they are hit by huge planes? How do you even know exactly where the planes are going to hit?

[QUOTE="67gt500"]

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

Chaos_HL21

Not the same thing, a B-25has a length of 16.1m and awingspan of 20.6m. A 767 has a length of 47.6m and awingspan of 47.6m. Also the B-25 was lost in fog, so wasn't going that fast; however even if it was going full speed that would be 275mph. The 767s that hit the WTC was going around 500mph (with full fuel tanks)

[QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]

[QUOTE="67gt500"]

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

spliff_man

Not the same thing, a B-25has a length of 16.1m and awingspan of 20.6m. A 767 has a length of 47.6m and awingspan of 47.6m. Also the B-25 was lost in fog, so wasn't going that fast; however even if it was going full speed that would be 275mph. The 767s that hit the WTC was going around 500mph (with full fuel tanks)

I think they actually DID do that, it simulated the fire and everything. I think I saw it on Discovery but can't remember, it was a few years back.

[QUOTE="spliff_man"][QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]

Not the same thing, a B-25has a length of 16.1m and awingspan of 20.6m. A 767 has a length of 47.6m and awingspan of 47.6m. Also the B-25 was lost in fog, so wasn't going that fast; however even if it was going full speed that would be 275mph. The 767s that hit the WTC was going around 500mph (with full fuel tanks)

howlrunner13

I think they actually DID do that, it simulated the fire and everything. I think I saw it on Discovery but can't remember, it was a few years back.

[QUOTE="howlrunner13"]

[QUOTE="spliff_man"] Can't they just get the blueprints for wtc, implement it into a physics engine, add the plane, repeat what happened and let it render the sequence of events. Would that give it any credibility?spliff_man

I think they actually DID do that, it simulated the fire and everything. I think I saw it on Discovery but can't remember, it was a few years back.

Sorry, can't really remember but I think it showed that certain structural beam supports were weakened by the crash and then further weakened by the fire which then collapsed and the rest of the building followed because of the weight of the collapsing floors.

Something like that. (that may or may not be entirely wrong) :P

[QUOTE="spliff_man"][QUOTE="howlrunner13"]

I think they actually DID do that, it simulated the fire and everything. I think I saw it on Discovery but can't remember, it was a few years back.

howlrunner13

Sorry, can't really remember but I think it showed that certain structural beam supports were weakened by the crash and then further weakened by the fire which then collapsed and the rest of the building followed because of the weight of the collapsing floors.

Something like that. (that may or may not be entirely wrong) :P

[QUOTE="howlrunner13"]

[QUOTE="spliff_man"] What was the conclusion of it all? If you rememberspliff_man

Sorry, can't really remember but I think it showed that certain structural beam supports were weakened by the crash and then further weakened by the fire which then collapsed and the rest of the building followed because of the weight of the collapsing floors.

Something like that. (that may or may not be entirely wrong) :P

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[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

The jetliner hit near the top of the building. If this was a controlled demolition, the bombs would have been planted at the bottom. There's no help you're gonna get out of that. Furthermore, the months and months I described for larger buildings were operations conducted by professionals who do this sort of thing all the time. It's not as though there's some super secret crack government team that somehow can place explosives faster than any other humans on the planet. It's a very deliberate, meticulous, careful process.

Bottom line, you can't just say "I think it's not". That's not a valid rebuttal. As I said, it takes several months to properly rig up a single smaller building when the demolition workers are working around the clock and with free reign over the building. Yet we're being told that it took only a couple weeks to rig up two 110-storey skyscrapers. That's not something that you can just sweep under the rug by saying the equivalent of "nuh-uh" when someone challenges its plausibility.

Suppose you knew where the planes would hit the buildings, and how much destruction they would do on your own. Can you account for that variable?

[QUOTE="Samurai_Xavier"]

1,270 architects and engineers is a pretty large number. This is definitely going to be interesting.

comp_atkins

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[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

The jetliner hit near the top of the building. If this was a controlled demolition, the bombs would have been planted at the bottom. There's no help you're gonna get out of that. Furthermore, the months and months I described for larger buildings were operations conducted by professionals who do this sort of thing all the time. It's not as though there's some super secret crack government team that somehow can place explosives faster than any other humans on the planet. It's a very deliberate, meticulous, careful process.

Bottom line, you can't just say "I think it's not". That's not a valid rebuttal. As I said, it takes several months to properly rig up a single smaller building when the demolition workers are working around the clock and with free reign over the building. Yet we're being told that it took only a couple weeks to rig up two 110-storey skyscrapers. That's not something that you can just sweep under the rug by saying the equivalent of "nuh-uh" when someone challenges its plausibility.

Suppose you knew where the planes would hit the buildings, and how much destruction they would do on your own. Can you account for that variable?

I already accounted for that variable. :? The jetliners hit near the top of the buildings. In controlled demolitions, the bulk of the explosives are placed at the bottom, hence why buildings look like they fall directly down when the explosives are detonated. A plane smashing into the top of a 110-storey skyscraper is not going to affect the efficacy of explosives placed at the bottom in any way.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

The jetliner hit near the top of the building. If this was a controlled demolition, the bombs would have been planted at the bottom. There's no help you're gonna get out of that. Furthermore, the months and months I described for larger buildings were operations conducted by professionals who do this sort of thing all the time. It's not as though there's some super secret crack government team that somehow can place explosives faster than any other humans on the planet. It's a very deliberate, meticulous, careful process.

Bottom line, you can't just say "I think it's not". That's not a valid rebuttal. As I said, it takes several months to properly rig up a single smaller building when the demolition workers are working around the clock and with free reign over the building. Yet we're being told that it took only a couple weeks to rig up two 110-storey skyscrapers. That's not something that you can just sweep under the rug by saying the equivalent of "nuh-uh" when someone challenges its plausibility.

GabuEx

Suppose you knew where the planes would hit the buildings, and how much destruction they would do on your own. Can you account for that variable?

I already accounted for that variable. :? The jetliners hit near the top of the buildings. In controlled demolitions, the bulk of the explosives are placed at the bottom, hence why buildings look like they fall directly down when the explosives are detonated. A plane smashing into the top of a 110-storey skyscraper is not affect the efficacy of explosives placed at the bottom in any way.

This is correct in a demolition the building can be as damaged as possible, not going to affect how the explosives work. No matter what anyone says I REFUSE to believe those attacks were orchestrated with such efficiency and precision by a couple of men who live in caves.spliff_man

Efficiency and precision? The planes were hijacked by some guys with boxcutters, and from what I know they didn't even know that their attack on the WTC was going to bring the whole buildings down.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Suppose you knew where the planes would hit the buildings, and how much destruction they would do on your own. Can you account for that variable?

spliff_man

I already accounted for that variable. :? The jetliners hit near the top of the buildings. In controlled demolitions, the bulk of the explosives are placed at the bottom, hence why buildings look like they fall directly down when the explosives are detonated. A plane smashing into the top of a 110-storey skyscraper is not affect the efficacy of explosives placed at the bottom in any way.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I already accounted for that variable. :? The jetliners hit near the top of the buildings. In controlled demolitions, the bulk of the explosives are placed at the bottom, hence why buildings look like they fall directly down when the explosives are detonated. A plane smashing into the top of a 110-storey skyscraper is not affect the efficacy of explosives placed at the bottom in any way.

spliff_man

They were not just a couple of men who live in caves. It isa world wide terror network, they bombed the World Trade Center in 93, afew embassies in Afirca in98,the USS Cole in Yeman in 2000, as well as other attacks around the world, that is the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

[QUOTE="spliff_man"]This is correct in a demolition the building can be as damaged as possible, not going to affect how the explosives work. No matter what anyone says I REFUSE to believe those attacks were orchestrated with such efficiency and precision by a couple of men who live in caves.GabuEx

Efficiency and precision? The planes were hijacked by some guys with boxcutters, and from what I know they didn't even know that their attack on the WTC was going to bring the whole buildings down.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="spliff_man"]This is correct in a demolition the building can be as damaged as possible, not going to affect how the explosives work. No matter what anyone says I REFUSE to believe those attacks were orchestrated with such efficiency and precision by a couple of men who live in caves.spliff_man

Efficiency and precision? The planes were hijacked by some guys with boxcutters, and from what I know they didn't even know that their attack on the WTC was going to bring the whole buildings down.

[QUOTE="spliff_man"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Efficiency and precision? The planes were hijacked by some guys with boxcutters, and from what I know they didn't even know that their attack on the WTC was going to bring the whole buildings down.

Vaasman

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="spliff_man"]This is correct in a demolition the building can be as damaged as possible, not going to affect how the explosives work. No matter what anyone says I REFUSE to believe those attacks were orchestrated with such efficiency and precision by a couple of men who live in caves.spliff_man

Efficiency and precision? The planes were hijacked by some guys with boxcutters, and from what I know they didn't even know that their attack on the WTC was going to bring the whole buildings down.

The plane didn't vaporize into thin air. :? They found wheels and a fuselage consistent with the type of plane that was said to hit the building.

And of course there was no wing penetration; the wings were ripped off when they collided with a column and the ground. Planes are built to be able to be lifted in the air; that means they need to be as light as possible.

[QUOTE="Vaasman"]

[QUOTE="spliff_man"] What about the pentagon, the whole plane just managed to vaporize into thin air? All there was left was a hole in the building, no signs of wing/tail penetration.. right =/spliff_man

So you want me to believe someone just snuck a bunch of blown up plane parts into the building and crash site, and nobody noticed?

[QUOTE="spliff_man"][QUOTE="Vaasman"]Read this thread plz, several pictures of plane fragments found at the pentagon site have already been posted.

Vaasman

So you want me to believe someone just snuck a bunch of blown up plane parts into the building and crash site, and nobody noticed?

[QUOTE="spliff_man"]This is correct in a demolition the building can be as damaged as possible, not going to affect how the explosives work. No matter what anyone says I REFUSE to believe those attacks were orchestrated with such efficiency and precision by a couple of men who live in caves.GabuEx

Efficiency and precision? The planes were hijacked by some guys with boxcutters, and from what I know they didn't even know that their attack on the WTC was going to bring the whole buildings down.

Every time I think about how it was done with box cutters I can't help, but think how it's a shame that the people in the planes didn't fight back harder. Whenever I'm on a plane I alway think about how if a terrorist was on it I would find a way to fight back. Grab a pillow or a suitcase or something. Anything would be better than just listening and accepting what they told me to do.Serraph105

Well of course you think that now, but that's the thing: at the time of the attack, it was generally accepted that if someone hijacks a plane, then they have demands, and that your life as a hostage is probably not in danger if you just don't do anything to put it in danger. Post-9/11, people do fight back against attempted hijackings, because they now recognize that that's untrue.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]Every time I think about how it was done with box cutters I can't help, but think how it's a shame that the people in the planes didn't fight back harder. Whenever I'm on a plane I alway think about how if a terrorist was on it I would find a way to fight back. Grab a pillow or a suitcase or something. Anything would be better than just listening and accepting what they told me to do.GabuEx

Well of course you think that now, but that's the thing: at the time of the attack, it was generally accepted that if someone hijacks a plane, then they have demands, and that your life as a hostage is probably not in danger if you just don't do anything to put it in danger. Post-9/11, people do fight back against attempted hijackings, because they now recognize that that's untrue.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="spliff_man"]This is correct in a demolition the building can be as damaged as possible, not going to affect how the explosives work. No matter what anyone says I REFUSE to believe those attacks were orchestrated with such efficiency and precision by a couple of men who live in caves.Serraph105

Efficiency and precision? The planes were hijacked by some guys with boxcutters, and from what I know they didn't even know that their attack on the WTC was going to bring the whole buildings down.

oh dear god....so there saying it took them 10 years to come up with these findings...???:|

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Efficiency and precision? The planes were hijacked by some guys with boxcutters, and from what I know they didn't even know that their attack on the WTC was going to bring the whole buildings down.

spliff_man

[QUOTE="spliff_man"][QUOTE="Serraph105"] Every time I think about how it was done with box cutters I can't help, but think how it's a shame that the people in the planes didn't fight back harder. Whenever I'm on a plane I alway think about how if a terrorist was on it I would find a way to fight back. Grab a pillow or a suitcase or something. Anything would be better than just listening and accepting what they told me to do.Serraph105

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

The jetliner hit near the top of the building. If this was a controlled demolition, the bombs would have been planted at the bottom. There's no help you're gonna get out of that. Furthermore, the months and months I described for larger buildings were operations conducted by professionals who do this sort of thing all the time. It's not as though there's some super secret crack government team that somehow can place explosives faster than any other humans on the planet. It's a very deliberate, meticulous, careful process.

Bottom line, you can't just say "I think it's not". That's not a valid rebuttal. As I said, it takes several months to properly rig up a single smaller building when the demolition workers are working around the clock and with free reign over the building. Yet we're being told that it took only a couple weeks to rig up two 110-storey skyscrapers. That's not something that you can just sweep under the rug by saying the equivalent of "nuh-uh" when someone challenges its plausibility.

Serraph105

Suppose you knew where the planes would hit the buildings, and how much destruction they would do on your own. Can you account for that variable?

There has never been a news story in the national press anywhere near the magnitude of what a 9/11 government conspiracy implies. We have no precedent for this sort of thing. I think this would be way too big for the press. IF it was a conspiracy, and the national press felt that they had some credible evidence of that, and THEN decided to come out with such news, it would send the nation into a state of chaos. Any confidence that citizens have left in the government would be gone. The press knows this, as should anybody with a head on their shoulders. The US government wouldn't even let 2 of the major automakers go belly-up, because they knew that the hit to the economy would be so huge that it would cause civil unrest. Now imagine the civil unrest that would ensue if Katie Couric came on the nightly news and told everyone that the US government had helped to destroy the twin towers and killed thousands of American citizens in the process. There would be a large-scale revolt.

There was an explosive demolition, buildings don't just collapse from being on fire. I've seen many large buildings on fire and they have never collapsed.

There was an explosive demolition, buildings don't just collapse from being on fire. I've seen many large buildings on fire and they have never collapsed.

joshrocks2245

[QUOTE="joshrocks2245"]

There was an explosive demolition, buildings don't just collapse from being on fire. I've seen many large buildings on fire and they have never collapsed.

MushroomWig

The world trade centers :o

[QUOTE="joshrocks2245"]

There was an explosive demolition, buildings don't just collapse from being on fire. I've seen many large buildings on fire and they have never collapsed.

MushroomWig

1)Having a plane large plane crash at 500mph (knocking off the fireproofing on the steel supports) helped bring it.

2) There had been buildings that fallen due to fire. Don't be a sheep and blindly follow the conspiracy theorists.

Another thing, How would the goverment get the demolition charges in the World Trade Centers. It would of taken a very long time with a huge amount of people to bring it down. it would of been pretty much impossible to go unnoticed.