Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

[Moving On]

I don't believe the tower demolitions were as difficult as some paint it to be. They didn't have to be universal or intricate as in a traditional CD.

I believe explosives would simply have been planted in the core columns only at certain levels, maybe corresponding to the squibs. Just as an assistance to gravity - not precision.

Each explosive would have been independently radio-controlled. No wiring at all.

Here is a 1986 patent similar to what I mean.

"Explosive charges are detonated by remote control in environments having high levels of extraneous electric and electromagnetic energy by providing a separate control unit for each explosive charge. The control unit accepts coded commands radio transmitted from a command unit and, if those commands meet with pre-set criteria, the control unit detonates the charge. Each control unit is connected to its respective explosive charge by electrical or optical conductors providing sufficient separation as to allow the control unit to survive detonation of the charge without damage."

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4884506.html

Please do not bother debunking the details of this device as I am not in a position to respond to the technical details.

Suffice to say that if each explosive had a separate remote control unit timed through a control board that provided a detonation sequence it could work.

So if every 100 feet or so up the building you had explosives in the core only at the most critical weight bearing columns that were independently, electronically controlled in a downward sequence it is conceivable.

I imagine they had inspection access points to the core columns. Somebody can elaborate if I am wrong. If it is true then you don't have people romping around all over the building laying wires and packing explosives in plane site. It would all be hidden.

The key to something like this would be simplicity and minimization. If you believe the building could fall in the manner it did from gravity and damage, I believe it could fall from some intentional destruction of the core only with a minimal number of explosives.

No matter where the planes hit, the explosives above and below would not be contingent on each other. After assessing the impact damage you could decide the detonation sequence in the control board of the explosions and have at it from a distance.

Newsday reports allege that the bomb dogs were only removed shortly prior to 9/11.

"The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed."

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-nyaler122362178sep12,0,1255660.story

So my guess is that my scenario would have happened over a 5 day period.

I don't know all of the debate over the power down situation on the 6th and 9th but it could be factored in. Maybe somebody can tell me which parts of that claim still stand if any.

 

[Moving On]

Russell,

Do you believe that two passenger jets crashed into the WTC towers?

With out a single doubt.

 

[R.Mackey]

I don't believe the tower demolitions were as difficult as some paint it to be. They didn't have to be universal or intricate as in a traditional CD.

I believe explosives would simply have been planted in the core columns only at certain levels, maybe corresponding to the squibs. Just as an assistance to gravity - not precision.

Be careful, Russell. This is gradualism in action.

If you're saying it would take "very few" explosives to bring down the WTC towers, how few? Why not zero?

If it was such an easy thing to do, i.e. you don't need all that much explosive, you're saying the visible effect -- the evidence -- of the explosives is also minor. So what evidence do you have that there were any explosives?

You may think you're making your case easier to prove by reducing the burden of proof on yourself, but you're not. What you are doing is arguing for the plausibility of the official theory.

 

[dirtywick]

I don't believe the tower demolitions were as difficult as some paint it to be. They didn't have to be universal or intricate as in a traditional CD.

I believe explosives would simply have been planted in the core columns only at certain levels, maybe corresponding to the squibs. Just as an assistance to gravity - not precision.

Each explosive would have been independently radio-controlled. No wiring at all.

Here is a 1986 patent similar to what I mean.



Please do not bother debunking the details of this device as I am not in a position to respond to the technical details.

Suffice to say that if each explosive had a separate remote control unit timed through a control board that provided a detonation sequence it could work.

So if every 100 feet or so up the building you had explosives in the core only at the most critical weight bearing columns that were independently, electronically controlled in a downward sequence it is conceivable.

I imagine they had inspection access points to the core columns. Somebody can elaborate if I am wrong. If it is true then you don't have people romping around all over the building laying wires and packing explosives in plane site. It would all be hidden.

The key to something like this would be simplicity and minimization. If you believe the building could fall in the manner it did from gravity and damage, I believe it could fall from some intentional destruction of the core only with a minimal number of explosives.

No matter where the planes hit, the explosives above and below would not be contingent on each other. After assessing the impact damage you could decide the detonation sequence in the control board of the explosions and have at it from a distance.

Newsday reports allege that the bomb dogs were only removed shortly prior to 9/11.


So my guess is that my scenario would have happened over a 5 day period.

I don't know all of the debate over the power down situation on the 6th and 9th but it could be factored in. Maybe somebody can tell me which parts of that claim still stand if any.

According to me and a bit of research, explosives wouldn't survive the building conditions. What kind of explosives would have been used, referencing specifically building seven where the explosives and detonation system have to survive 7 hours of intense heat? It's a given that the building in it's entirety wouldn't have been subject to these conditions, however in your simple and minimalist scenario most, if not all, of the detonation system would have had to survive for it to be successful (Based on that alone a simplistic bare minimum CD would have been a very poor approach as they had no idea if WTC7 would have been hit by debris, let alone how much and where).

Additionally, while a radio wave remote detonation system is interesting, the plasitc computer chip parts would far a far worse chance of surviving when most metals are melting.

 

[Moving On]

All of your theoretical "proof" of this and that is simply for argument sake. You just generate one non applicable analogy after another.

Talk the real world for once and ask yourself real questions.

COULD it have been done?

You don't think there are Special Operation explosives experts in militaries all over the world?

 

[WildCat]

I imagine they had inspection access points to the core columns. Somebody can elaborate if I am wrong. If it is true then you don't have people romping around all over the building laying wires and packing explosives in plane site. It would all be hidden.

I really doubt there was access to the core columns. They don't need maintenance, there's no reason to have access.

The key to something like this would be simplicity and minimization. If you believe the building could fall in the manner it did from gravity and damage, I believe it could fall from some intentional destruction of the core only with a minimal number of explosives.

How much explosives?

Newsday reports allege that the bomb dogs were only removed shortly prior to 9/11.

The report is wrong. In fact, one of the bomb-sniffing dogs was killed in the collapse.

So my guess is that my scenario would have happened over a 5 day period.

That's some quick work! And nobody noticed this?

I don't know all of the debate over the power down situation on the 6th and 9th but it could be factored in. Maybe somebody can tell me which parts of that claim still stand if any.

I don't think this has been corroborated by anyone. The only person to my knowledge who made this claim is Scott Forbes, I don't even know if he actually exists. You'd think someone else would have remembered power going out for several days, considering that the entire building was occupied 24/7 by tenants who like to have electricity.

 

[Moving On]

Be careful, Russell. This is gradualism in action.

If you're saying it would take "very few" explosives to bring down the WTC towers, how few? Why not zero?

If it was such an easy thing to do, i.e. you don't need all that much explosive, you're saying the visible effect -- the evidence -- of the explosives is also minor. So what evidence do you have that there were any explosives?

You may think you're making your case easier to prove by reducing the burden of proof on yourself, but you're not. What you are doing is arguing for the plausibility of the official theory.

Reality and theoretical abstracts are sometimes different.

I don't care what the name of an argument is.

If it could be done with no explosives as you claim it could be more certain with a few as I suggest.

Period.

 

[Garb]

All of your theoretical "proof" of this and that is simply for argument sake. You just generate one non applicable analogy after another.

Talk the real world for once and ask yourself real questions.

COULD it have been done?

You don't think there are Special Operation explosives experts in militaries all over the world?

I think you are making it seem like if it could be done, it was done...


Which doesn't make much sense to me. A man was murdered. The police could have shot him, so that must me that they must've done it.

 

[Moving On]

non of your probabilities were correct, or made with correct assumptions.

how many engineers in the united states believe 9/11 CT truth movement?

.000067 percent -- WOW, that means the CT ideas are null and void due to lack of sheer numbers.

This logic is backed up by JR and RP use of useless numbers, does US jump on this probabilities bomb?

if they can pull numbers from that special place, I can present a real number and use it as I wish. Was it .00067 or .000067, not sure but the CT guys can take their pick, even though it is an order of magnitude edge I would be giving them.

Those were not mine. I didn't bother linking you because it was from a CT site which is irrelevant to you.

It was to demostrate a possibility in the context of a discussion on probablility.

Talk reality.

 

[R.Mackey]

Reality and theoretical abstracts are sometimes different.

I don't care what the name of an argument is.

If it could be done with no explosives as you claim it could be more certain with a few as I suggest.

Period.

Dead wrong.

That's only true if you can precisely predict the state of the structure.

Here we are, five years later, after watching it happen, and we still have some uncertainty to its mechanics.

The kind of precision required in predicting the structure, impact, fire, and overall performance such that it could be reliably rigged with the minimum number of explosives simply does not and cannot exist. Yet you would have us believe it was done twice.

This argument is absolutely ridiculous, unless you can provide us evidence that there were explosives. You have not.

 

[qarnos]

All of your theoretical "proof" of this and that is simply for argument sake. You just generate one non applicable analogy after another.

Talk the real world for once and ask yourself real questions.

COULD it have been done?

You don't think there are Special Operation explosives experts in militaries all over the world?

Good question - COULD it have been done?

COULD a bunch of pissed of Muslims hijack 4 airliners?
COULD they have flown them into WTC 1 & 2 and The Pentagon?
COULD the passengers on 93 have fought back?
COULD the twin towers and WTC7 collapsed from impact damage and fires?

Do you accept these things as being possible?

 

[Skibum]

I believe explosives would simply have been planted in the core columns only at certain levels, maybe corresponding to the squibs. Just as an assistance to gravity - not precision.




So if every 100 feet or so up the building you had explosives in the core only at the most critical weight bearing columns that were independently, electronically controlled in a downward sequence it is conceivable.

Here's what I think is not logical with this scenario.
So you have the towers rigged every 100 feet or so designed to explode from the top down.

After the initiating event, what is the point of the explosives at the lower levels?

The charges go off to start the collapse, the top section drops through the first 10 floors and reaches the next level of charges, whats the point of those charges, you already have a huge mass moving downwards. Its already destroyed 10 floors, its still moving, sure its losing mass as debris spills off the sides but its replacing that mass as each floor gives way.

Basically your setting off an m80 in the center of a nuclear blast (not literally).

 

[uk_dave]

I don't believe the tower demolitions were as difficult as some paint it to be. They didn't have to be universal or intricate as in a traditional CD.

I believe explosives would simply have been planted in the core columns only at certain levels, maybe corresponding to the squibs. Just as an assistance to gravity - not precision.
.......................

........................
The key to something like this would be simplicity and minimization. If you believe the building could fall in the manner it did from gravity and damage, I believe it could fall from some intentional destruction of the core only with a minimal number of explosives.

No matter where the planes hit, the explosives above and below would not be contingent on each other. After assessing the impact damage you could decide the detonation sequence in the control board of the explosions and have at it from a distance.

Newsday reports allege that the bomb dogs were only removed shortly prior to 9/11.


So my guess is that my scenario would have happened over a 5 day period.

I don't know all of the debate over the power down situation on the 6th and 9th but it could be factored in. Maybe somebody can tell me which parts of that claim still stand if any.

Well now we're getting somewhere.

OK, so the explosives were only placed on the core columns and were not distributed throughout the tower, because all it needed was enough damage to let gravity take over.

Sooooo...why bother with the explosives?
I assume your answer will be that you do not believe the planes could have caused that much damage.
But bear in mind the towers were designed to accept a level of damage predicated upon a passenger jet hitting them. Also, while considering that, maybe give some thought to WHY that design required the plane to be virtually empty of fuel.

Now you also say that the explosives located in the central core correspond to where the 'squibs' are witnessed on the outer structure.
There is an obvious flaw in that claim.

So really we can discount the external squibs because the explosives are internal.

Now, we have a plot, whereby two planes are going to be flown/be allowed to be flown into the WTC towers at which point preplanted explosive charges are going to so damage the internal core as to initiate a collapse of the structure. And these explosive charges are radio controlled.

So, why take the risk of the plane not hitting where it is supposed to? One plane hit lower than the other, what if one had just grazed the corner of the tower?

You have accepted that passenger jets were crashed into the towers, and yet this chaotic act is then to be followed by a very precise demolition sequence planned and installed in advance of the plane crashing into the building, and with no gaurantee that the plane will hit where it is intended to hit.

And then, given that building codes in the US require fire protection to structural steel, that the engineers designed redundancy into the structure for the structural damage that would be caused by a smaller, slower passenger jet carrying very little fuel and that a larger, fully laden fast moving jet actually hit the towers, you STILL want to believe a complex plot involving a small amount of explosives?

 

[Parsman]

Russel, the towers could have been destroyed by the great spaghetti monster... "could" means nothing, all the evidence seems to point one way and the possibility of a conspiracy on the required scale keeping quiet for 5 days rather than 5 years seems somewhat remote.

 

[twinstead]

All of your theoretical "proof" of this and that is simply for argument sake.

Russell. This is what YOU are doing. You are using the bogus debate technique of suggesting that it only has to be possible to have happened.

I submit that although theoretically possible, the technical infeasibility of planting explosives and bringing 3 buildings down in such a way as you suggest is makes it less likely than the official story.

That's how investigations work. It would take some extraordinary evidence to shift the attention of the true experts around the world who have no problem with the official story towards the CD theory.

 

[Moving On]

According to me and a bit of research, explosives wouldn't survive the building conditions. What kind of explosives would have been used, referencing specifically building seven where the explosives and detonation system have to survive 7 hours of intense heat? It's a given that the building in it's entirety wouldn't have been subject to these conditions, however in your simple and minimalist scenario most, if not all, of the detonation system would have had to survive for it to be successful (Based on that alone a simplistic bare minimum CD would have been a very poor approach as they had no idea if WTC7 would have been hit by debris, let alone how much and where).

Additionally, while a radio wave remote detonation system is interesting, the plasitc computer chip parts would far a far worse chance of surviving when most metals are melting.

Maybe some of them didn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

Approximately 10:15 am. Somebody enlarged the watch on the guys hand as well as shadows.

The fire conditions were nowhere near universal in WTC 7. It is also interesting that there are fires in areas of the building sporadically on separate floors in areas away from the physical damage.

They address the proximity of previous explosions to the independent control devices on undetonated explosives in the patent article. The same would apply to fire.

Think about it.

By the way, which tower collapse was considered responsible for the damage to WTC 7 or was it both?

 

[WildCat]

Maybe some of them didn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

More firemen in on it Russell?

 

[jessicarabbit]

Could I remind people at this point that NIST haven't studied anything after the collapse started. So the idea that the collapse could be total from gravity alone is pure conjecture. Russells theory holds far more water.

 

[Moving On]

Well now we're getting somewhere.

OK, so the explosives were only placed on the core columns and were not distributed throughout the tower, because all it needed was enough damage to let gravity take over.

Sooooo...why bother with the explosives?
I assume your answer will be that you do not believe the planes could have caused that much damage.
But bear in mind the towers were designed to accept a level of damage predicated upon a passenger jet hitting them. Also, while considering that, maybe give some thought to WHY that design required the plane to be virtually empty of fuel.

Now you also say that the explosives located in the central core correspond to where the 'squibs' are witnessed on the outer structure.
There is an obvious flaw in that claim.

So really we can discount the external squibs because the explosives are internal.

Now, we have a plot, whereby two planes are going to be flown/be allowed to be flown into the WTC towers at which point preplanted explosive charges are going to so damage the internal core as to initiate a collapse of the structure. And these explosive charges are radio controlled.

So, why take the risk of the plane not hitting where it is supposed to? One plane hit lower than the other, what if one had just grazed the corner of the tower?

You have accepted that passenger jets were crashed into the towers, and yet this chaotic act is then to be followed by a very precise demolition sequence planned and installed in advance of the plane crashing into the building, and with no gaurantee that the plane will hit where it is intended to hit.

And then, given that building codes in the US require fire protection to structural steel, that the engineers designed redundancy into the structure for the structural damage that would be caused by a smaller, slower passenger jet carrying very little fuel and that a larger, fully laden fast moving jet actually hit the towers, you STILL want to believe a complex plot involving a small amount of explosives?

In my scenario where the planes hit specifically doesn't matter as long as it was higher up. The explosives are not connected by wiring. The detonation sequence could have been programmed after the plane damage occurred.

There is no problem with the squibs. The problem with the squibs is how does air that is compressed evenly in all directions single out a floor or a single window preceding the collapse by many floors? The other floors and windows were constructed of the same material and exposed to the same pressures.

Explosives are internal in a traditional CD but squibs go external.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4707898082309624249&q=southwark+towers&hl=en

Do these squibs and the spacing look familiar in the core destruction phase of the demo above?

Why bother with explosives?

1) Terrorism strategy recognizes the use of secondary devices. If you want to believe terrorists did it then maybe the USG is hiding the fact terrorists were able to conduct an operation inside the buildings even though they had before.

2) Because it made the event 10x more dramatic and removed the expense and hazard of manually destroying the towers from the impact point down later.

The other smaller buildings in the complex could be cleaned up from the ground. But the three tallest ones were the ones brought down in CD in my opinion.

 

[uk_dave]

Just as a matter of interest some (smoky) footage of WTC7 south

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3uUQt8bu6k