Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

[Architect]

Will,

Tall buildings are not prewired and primed for demolition. Trust me, I'd remember putting it on the drawings.......and how would we hush it all up? Hell we work in an industry so litigous that we'd only do it if there was a BS EN anyway!

 

[Blue Mountain]

No, it sounds quite reasonable and prudent and I don't know if other buildings are wired this way or not, that's not my concern and neither is the potency of the explosives.

Why do you ridicule the logic of having a mechanism for making safe a very tall building that could devastate its surroundings? You may not like the idea or find it distasteful but it would preserve a lot of real estate and lives if it were in place. A controlled collapse enacted prior to a potentially devastating free collapse is logical and humane.

Buildings are engineered not to fall down catastrophically. Fires in almost all high-rise buildings are locally contained and in general do not present a threat to the structural integrity. The WTC was the most dramatic exception: fires spread out across pretty much the entire floor area, with several floors on fire.

Second, it is very strange to assume that the WTC was brought down in a "controlled" demolition by explosives, given the extensive damage it did cause. For example, WTC-3 (the Marriott Hotel) was destroyed by the collapse of WTC-1 and-2, killing two employees, two guests and several firefighters. Video evidence shows WTC-7 sustained a direct hit from a massive plume of debris from WTC-1 (or was it 2?) as it went down. So if 1 and 2 were brought down by a controlled demolition to prevent damage to other buildings, the strategy failed miserably.

Third, why on earth would you design a building in such a way that it's basically a bomb ready to go off? A very common method of detonating explosives is by sending an electical pulse through wires connected to detonators. Huntsman can correct me on this if I'm wrong (and I possibly am), but having tons of explosives just ready to blow through an existing network of detonators and wiring could be tripped simply by a maintenance worker accidentally sending a charge through the system, or even a power surge from the local hydro utility. Who in his right mind would write an insurance policy for such a building?

The whole idea just seems perposterous to me.

 

[Hellbound]

Huntsman can correct me on this if I'm wrong (and I possibly am), but having tons of explosives just ready to blow through an existing network of detonators and wiring could be tripped simply by a maintenance worker accidentally sending a charge through the system, or even a power surge from the local hydro utility. Who in his right mind would write an insurance policy for such a building?

The whole idea just seems perposterous to me.

Well, there's electric and non-electric. Electric is wires, and could be set off by somebody, say, accidentally cutting through both an electrical wire and the detonator wire. The blasting caps use volatile explosives, and are sensitive. Speaking of which , they don't survive long (sahort shelf life), something someone should point out to Mr. Loony-concrete-core.

Non-electric uses MDI (Modern Demolition Iniation). This is basically a plastic tubing, lined on the interior, that will transmit a shock wave down the length. Also detonator cord could be used, but that's gone pretty much out of fashion (det cord on your foot would take off your toes...MDI is safer). However, detonator cord is sensitive to heat and fire (one short circuit or one cord too close to an HVAC and boom). MDI, while not likely to explode, IS likely to fail. Like all plastics, it becomes more brittle with age and tends to crack. Also, specific to MDI, the interior coating inside the tubing can fall off with too much handling, making a "break" in the line. Finally, any moisture in the line will stiop the transmission and cause the system to fail.

Anyway, C-4 is what's called a secondary explosive: relatively stable and safe under most conditions. You can burn it, jump on it, chew it, twist it, throw it, and it isn't going to go boom. To make it go boom, you need a detonator, which is a small explosive that produces extreme shock and heat pulse. These primary explosives, however, are likely to be set off by static electricity, a stray spark, heat, flame, and anything else. To give an idea, gunpowder can be used as a primary explosive for a detonator (a round with the bullet removed can be crimped over your initiation system). So, things such as shorts, sparks, excess heat, local fires, etc, could set them off. If they happen to be in that block of C-4 at the time...

 

[dirtywick]

Third, why on earth would you design a building in such a way that it's basically a bomb ready to go off? A very common method of detonating explosives is by sending an electical pulse through wires connected to detonators. Huntsman can correct me on this if I'm wrong (and I possibly am), but having tons of explosives just ready to blow through an existing network of detonators and wiring could be tripped simply by a maintenance worker accidentally sending a charge through the system, or even a power surge from the local hydro utility. Who in his right mind would write an insurance policy for such a building?

The whole idea just seems perposterous to me.

Additionally, if that were the case, a stray bolt of lightning could cause the whole tower to come down, and in a building that tall it's a very real possibility.

 

[skunkrider]

So if 1 and 2 were brought down by a controlled demolition to prevent damage to other buildings, the strategy failed miserably.

That's the point. They were not brought down with the intention to save the surroundings. They were brought down to implement a persistent trauma into the people's minds.

What do you think would the day have looked like
if "only planes had crushed into the towers and firefighters had extinguished the fires, with only few casualties and repairable damage to the towers"?

It would have looked like any other "conventional" terrorist attack, and it would not have looked like a reason to unleash hell in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[Hellbound]

Additionally, if that were the case, a stray bolt of lightning could cause the whole tower to come down, and in a building that tall it's a very real possibility.

Well, to be fair, buildings that tall typically have extensive lightning rod coverage, that direct charge through specific pathways into ground. Not sure of the details on the WTC, but it's likely. The Empire State building gets hit something like 100 times a year.

 

[Hellbound]

skunkrider:

Just a quick question.

Do you think an explosive charge of 6,000 lbs. (that's 3 tons) would be enough to bring down a building like the WTC towers?

 

[twinstead]

That's the point. They were not brought down with the intention to save the surroundings. They were brought down to implement a persistent trauma into the people's minds.

Which of course was also Al Queada's goal, was it not?

 

[dirtywick]

Well, to be fair, buildings that tall typically have extensive lightning rod coverage, that direct charge through specific pathways into ground. Not sure of the details on the WTC, but it's likely. The Empire State building gets hit something like 100 times a year.

That's true and I'm sure WTC was adequately protected, but lightning is also very unpredictable and sometimes strikes where it's not expected to.

 

[skunkrider]

I consider Al Qaeda, El Kaida, El Kaeida (sorry, I read the English, Dutch, German and many other spellings...) a big bubble...

like BBC with "The Power Of Nightmares" can explain better...

or a false-flag-operation, like "Who Killed John O'Neill?" can explain better as well =)



of course, 3 Tons of explosives will not bring down the tower.
I didn't read where anybody said that.

For instance, the Dutch demolition expert (you know him well - the one who considered and consideres WTC 7 a "perfectly controlled demolition")
said that it might be possible in one day to wire WTC7 with 40 people, all working neatly and perfectly at the same time.

In the same show, a claim is raised that it would take a year or more to wire the Twin Towers.

Do you consider that realistic, too?

WTC7 was like 40% of the height of the towers, and of course there are two of the towers, but it supposedly takes 180 times longer to wire a tower than WTC7 ? Sorry, that doesn't quite go into my head.

 

[Hellbound]

That's true and I'm sure WTC was adequately protected, but lightning is also very unpredictable and sometimes strikes where it's not expected to.

Also true

 

[The_Fire]

That's true and I'm sure WTC was adequately protected, but lightning is also very unpredictable and sometimes strikes where it's not expected to.

Besides, even adequate lightning protection spills over some residual current. A year or so ago, my appartment complex (2 floors with a lightning rod on the roof and wires to make the lightning pass on the outside of the building without touching it) were hit by a nighttime lightning storm. Sounded, and looked, like a nuke-strike up front and personal. Scared the heck out of me.
Parts of our LAN, which are distributed though routers mounted between roof and indoor hallway ceiling and were never directly hit, managed to burn out, taking several netcards and more than a couple of metres of cable with it.

ETA: Huntsman: Would a spillover like that be enough to setoff a charge?

 

[Hellbound]

of course, 3 Tons of explosives will not bring down the tower.
I didn't read where anybody said that.

Nobody said that, I was just asking because I'm going somewhere with this.

Why do you think 3 tons couldn't do it?

In the same show, a claim is raised that it would take a year or more to wire the Twin Towers.

Do you consider that realistic, too?

Not really. It isn't nearly long enough.

WTC7 was like 40% of the height of the towers, and of course there are two of the towers, but it supposedly takes 180 times longer to wire a tower than WTC7 ? Sorry, that doesn't quite go into my head.

Both towers were also larger in area per floor than WTC 7, and had a different build structurally.

But we aren't talking about how long it would take to wire them with free access, all equipment on hand, and the buildings empty, doing a quick-n-dirty set up where you don't have to worry about covering your tracks or doing it precisely. We're talking about people sneaking into the parts of the building that aren't occupied at night, avoiding security guards, businesses that were still running, employees, maintenence workers, etc...covering up the tracks where they cut through walls and floors to access the structural members in order to place charges, avoiding anyone seeing large trucks full of tools, people, and C-4 driving into the building, etc, etc, etc.

So yes, I find one to two years entirely unrealistic. Five years is probably pushing the envelope. And frankly, no matter how long and how much care was taken, I still find it highly unlikely that it could be done wihtout ANYONE, none of the hundreds of building occupants each night and weekend, none of the securoty cameras or guards, none of the hundreds of workers that would be required...none of these would notice anything, or let something slip.

Frankly, if they could pull this off, then it doesn't matter. They have enough power that there isn't anything you could do, even if you were right.

Sleep tight

 

[Hellbound]

Besides, even adequate lightning protection spills over some residual current. A year or so ago, my appartment complex (2 floors with a lightning rod on the roof and wires to make the lightning pass on the outside of the building without touching it) were hit by a nighttime lightning storm. Sounded, and looked, like a nuke-strike up front and personal. Scared the heck out of me.
Parts of our LAN, which are distributed though routers mounted between roof and indoor hallway ceiling and were never directly hit, managed to burn out, taking several netcards and more than a couple of metres of cable with it.

ETA: Huntsman: Would a spillover like that be enough to setoff a charge?

Yes it could.

But your wiring inside the house is connected to external lines, and is a likely source for spillover to go to (because it has a circuit back to the power station...provide a route to ground). Electrical demolition cables would not be connected into the power grid, and could be insulated and isolate to a degree. Of course, the more you want to protect it, the more obvious it will be these aren't standard equipment should anyone notice them (and the more likely they are to be noticed).

It's a possibility that lightning would set them off, but not a garauntee.

 

[The_Fire]

Yes it could.

But your wiring inside the house is connected to external lines, and is a likely source for spillover to go to (because it has a circuit back to the power station...provide a route to ground). Electrical demolition cables would not be connected into the power grid, and could be insulated and isolate to a degree. Of course, the more you want to protect it, the more obvious it will be these aren't standard equipment should anyone notice them (and the more likely they are to be noticed).

It's a possibility that lightning would set them off, but not a garauntee.

Ah...That would explain it. Thanks.

 

[Belz...]

That's the point. They were not brought down with the intention to save the surroundings. They were brought down to implement a persistent trauma into the people's minds.

Speculation.

What do you think would the day have looked like
if "only planes had crushed into the towers and firefighters had extinguished the fires, with only few casualties and repairable damage to the towers"?

It still would've looked like the most daring terrorist attack ever, and people would still be asking questions about government involvement. The towers didn't "need" to go down unless you assume your conclusion.

It would have looked like any other "conventional" terrorist attack, and it would not have looked like a reason to unleash hell in Afghanistan and Iraq.

More speculation. You don't know if it would've been reason enough. Also, why was afghanistan so important ? Don't you agree that the Taliban and terrorists had to be removed from there ?

I consider Al Qaeda, El Kaida, El Kaeida (sorry, I read the English, Dutch, German and many other spellings...) a big bubble...

Then please explain their existence, their bombings, etc. It's not like 9/11 was the first time.

WTC7 was like 40% of the height of the towers, and of course there are two of the towers, but it supposedly takes 180 times longer to wire a tower than WTC7 ? Sorry, that doesn't quite go into my head.

Are you saying that it would've taken 2 days to set up building 7 for demolition ? A FIFTY storey building ?

 

[The_Fire]

Somehow I feel a great deja vu on skunkrider......

 

[Bell]

Somehow I feel a great deja vu on skunkrider......

You know that deja vu actualy are real memories, erased by the gubmint? Sometimes they don't do their jobs quit well (friday afternoons mostly).

 

[Architect]

You know that deja vu actualy are real memories, erased by the gubmint? Sometimes they don't do their jobs quit well (friday afternoons mostly).

Don't. You'll just start poor Chris off again, and he's seriously unwell....

 

[Christophera]

Am I a key person ? You said I was conditioned.

You not condtioned to that degree, but you are conditioned. If you were not conditioned you would be responsive to raw evidence and reason and when unable to explain what this is or why the steel core columns are not seen, you would aquiese and admit that the steel core columns probably not exist.