IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Collapse Hypothesis

billsmith
post Apr 19 2009, 09:11 AM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 12
Joined: 27-March 09
Member No.: 4,218



theThis is not exactly an integrated collapse theory ut it contains a few components that could fill in a few blanks.
We were arguing on a forum a week ortwo back about the fireproofing upgrade in WTC1- apparently only on the floors where the plane went in or ones that showed excessive amounts of fire. I call this 'extra fireproofing' rather than a 'fireproofing upgrade'.
You see I think some of the core columns had nano thermite sprayed INSIDE them. Drill a hole, charge the column and spray on however many layers you like. Fill it even. The extra fireproofing may have been to stop the jet fuel igniting the thermite prematurely as nano-thermite ignites at only 430 degrees C. The extra-thick fireproofing may also have acted as 'lightproofing' against the characteristic bright glare of the ignited thermite.
THis might have ocurred in an entire column from bottom to top- all 1300 feet draining the molten steel down into the basements. If this happened with many selected columns there might be hundreds or even thousands of tons of molten steel in the basements which could explain why it stayed molten for months and why there was so little steel on the ground outside after the
collapse.

The steel that poured out of WTC2 might point to a similar process going on there.. Also this would explain the hundreds of tons of thermite that would have been needed to provide such an even distibution of unreacted thermite chips in the WTC dust.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 19 2009, 05:34 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I think that the twin towers were built with the intention of bringing them down in the future.
Though this sounds like a far out possibility, the technology was there at the time of construction. It has been eluded to, in this forum, that if the central cores were made out of steel box beams, the buildings would have had a great deal more oscillation in the wind then they had ever recorded. In fact, because they were only held at the base, and were 110 stories tall, supposedly constructed mainly of steel, the oscillations of the towers would have been much greater than recorded.
This leads one, to the possibility that the cores, of the buildings were reinforced concrete "tubes"
If they were, the reinforcement (re-bar) could have been coated with thermite or something similar, before the towers were even built.

Nano-particles have been around
long before nano-technology.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
billsmith
post Apr 20 2009, 05:46 AM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 12
Joined: 27-March 09
Member No.: 4,218



QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 19 2009, 11:34 PM) *
I think that the twin towers were built with the intention of bringing them down in the future.
Though this sounds like a far out possibility, the technology was there at the time of construction. It has been eluded to, in this forum, that if the central cores were made out of steel box beams, the buildings would have had a great deal more oscillation in the wind then they had ever recorded. In fact, because they were only held at the base, and were 110 stories tall, supposedly constructed mainly of steel, the oscillations of the towers would have been much greater than recorded.
This leads one, to the possibility that the cores, of the buildings were reinforced concrete "tubes"
If they were, the reinforcement (re-bar) could have been coated with thermite or something similar, before the towers were even built.

Nano-particles have been around
long before nano-technology.


\Yeah....the miltary always get the best stuff first.
Still I think we have to look seriously at the possibility of the hollow columns being filled or partially filled with nano-thermite. In the real world the only way steel will stay molten for months (despite them pumping what one fireman described as 'a lake of water' ) is if there is a hell of a lot of it- like thousands of tons, Plus it explains how the dust had such an even distribution of live thermite chips. THere had to be tons of the stuff, but no problem if you use the space inside the columns.

This post has been edited by billsmith: Apr 20 2009, 05:48 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 20 2009, 10:19 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



It would be difficult to get into every column with 100rds of tones of anything.

There is another heat source that will heat up steel for weeks,
that leaves elevated levels of tritium, and tends to vaporize steel,
and liquefy concrete.

I don't think any amount of thermite can do this.

The thermite wasn't the only cause of the demolition, just a part of it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
billsmith
post Apr 20 2009, 10:36 AM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 12
Joined: 27-March 09
Member No.: 4,218



QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 20 2009, 04:19 PM) *
It would be difficult to get into every column with 100rds of tones of anything.

There is another heat source that will heat up steel for weeks,
that leaves elevated levels of tritium, and tends to vaporize steel,
and liquefy concrete.

I don't think any amount of thermite can do this.

The thermite wasn't the only cause of the demolition, just a part of it.


Not really. They would have to ensure that the coulmns had any holes covered over wirh small welded plates. Then it would simply be a matter of drill a hole and pump the nano-thermite in. Even one 12 foot section would hold an awful lot.

If all this steel was melted down into the basements which appears to be possible that would also explain the huge rush to get rid of the steel that was left before nybody noticed how little there really was on the surface.'China' became the explanation but myself?....I think that 'China' was really in the basements.I think it might even still be there. Who has the equipment for detecting a large magnetic anomaly ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 20 2009, 11:07 AM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



We have evidence of thermite in the dust,
elevated levels of tritium in the ground water,
guns encased in molten concrete from building 6!
metal spheroids in the dust, this could be the condensate of vaporized steel.

Thermite will melt steel but is not hot enough to vaporize it.

Thermite charges could be more easily be fastened to the outside of a beam.
as compared to the complex task of drilling and pumping, resulting in the same effect.

Even the design of the core has been questioned.
The cores could have been made of concrete,
this would have made it very difficult to get the thermite next to the re-bar inside the concrete, after it was poured.

This leads me to believe that for the amount of un-reacted thermite left in the dust, must have been coated on the re-bar at the time of construction.

And begs the question, when was the type of thermite found in the dust made? Was the technology to make nano-thermite around in the late 60s, before the twin towers were built?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post May 19 2009, 03:30 AM
Post #7





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 20 2009, 11:07 AM) *
Thermite charges could be more easily be fastened to the outside of a beam.
as compared to the complex task of drilling and pumping, resulting in the same effect.

Even the design of the core has been questioned.
The cores could have been made of concrete,
this would have made it very difficult to get the thermite next to the re-bar inside the concrete, after it was poured.


I'm about to make some comments related to construction, so pls allow me qualify my experience for clarity. I'm a builder (retired), i've never built high-rise, but its not a foreign language. Now it happened that a civil engineer friend quizzed me a few weeks ago on that same concrete column proposal, he sent me a link asking 'what did i think'. I told him I thought the guy running the site, (CB) was a psych-ops project, disinfo. Becuase on first impression the site looked hinky, so i did a thorough check on all his sites, internic registrations, etc (he's located in California), and it didn't pass the smell test. A few days later, by coincidence i came across the source of the image the site author used, and it originated with the BBC, on a 9/11 NEWS program explaining what might of happened in the 'collapse'. Someone had created an artists impression of concrete columns and some kind of steel tubes inside. It was very strange. I'm 99.9 percent sure no construction elements like that existed at WTC and I'm doubly sure the image was created for that broadcast.

As for the re-bar, can you be thinking of re-bar perhaps in the 4 inches of light-weight floor concrete? If so, I don't think they used re-bar in the floors. I saw a drawing somewhere, and seems they used just steel decking panels with 'V' channels. All re-bar does is prevent concrete expansion (cracking), its not structural in any way in floors, so it would have added a lot of excess weight. They mixed in a serious amount of asbestos for light-weight properties.

As for the unexploded chips Neils Harrit and crew found in the dust, he holds out the observation that its most likely a military contract-lab designed exotic chemical compound, probably circa mid 1990's.

The simplest answer is probably more likely, they installed the explosives sometime over 3 months, after the new owner took the building over, and revised the insurance policy to collect 5 billion. If you read Hoffman's proposed blasting scenario, there about a hundred tons of (mostly) building 'upgrade' materials used ( installed as upgrades and building/tenant improvements). When the amazed Danish TV host asked Neils Harrit how did they possibly get all that material into the area, Harrit replied, 'on Pallets'.

As for how and when, I think Scott Forbes story should be considered.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 20 2009, 12:20 AM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Hmm, concrete columns, covered up as steel beams...
original plans hidden from the public, the possibility of
the concrete cores having been built with thermite coated re-bar,
the whole construction of the twin towers, predetermined
to be demolished, at the push of a button in the then distant future,
before their construction even began...

There are a lot of posts here, discussing these concepts,
and a lot of evidence, ...er... not denying it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post May 20 2009, 04:27 AM
Post #9





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (lunk @ May 20 2009, 12:20 AM) *
Hmm, concrete columns, covered up as steel beams...
original plans hidden from the public, the possibility of
the concrete cores having been built with thermite coated re-bar,
the whole construction of the twin towers, predetermined
to be demolished, at the push of a button in the then distant future,
before their construction even began...

There are a lot of posts here, discussing these concepts,
and a lot of evidence, ...er... not denying it.



Ok Lunk, i'll formally be the first to deny it. (wink)

But let's not drown the potential for good discussion in argument, for argument's sake. You have this notion that the Port Authority pre-designed a demolition ( with a button) back in 1966. I think such a notion belongs (dare i say it) in a latter-day James Bond movie, but then I've had some very wild ideas myself. So let's press on to see what we can agree on. We can hash out structural concrete elements later.

Meanwhile, take a look at this ground zero photo from the pinned resources in this forum. I just noticed something interesting on the core column (the column cut on the angle); notice where it appears NOT fully melted, at the back 9" to 12" inches or so, on both long sides and the 12" furthest away side of the column it seems was not cut (but ripped). It looks like the uncut metal was later sheared off by force, and on a somewhat irregular line generally following the angle of the partial (24" to 26" length) column side cut.

To me this visual (unless mine eyes deceive) suggests they might have cut (some of) the core columns partially but not sliced clean through, in order to weaken them and maybe used a charge (or not) to kick them out on collapse initiation. The uncut metal would probably be enough to hold the column in place (tacked). What do you see?

Cheers!
Jim

Notes: core column size at base has been estimated here as 12"wide x 36"deep x 2" thick



This post has been edited by JimMac: May 20 2009, 05:54 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post May 20 2009, 05:05 AM
Post #10





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



One aspect of this demolition that I now have a much more clear appreciation for is the concrete floor removal. This aspect has always fascinated me greatly, even intuitively before i understood what i was in fact truly seeing. After looking at the videos of the collapse a few hundred times, with a particular focus on the particle-slurry blown OUT of each floor in stages, i finally got the Zen of what they were trying to accomplish. In time lapse, they were disassembling the building, layer by layer, as you would build it, only backwards.

First they harvested all the concrete and asbestos flooring (together with gypsum wall board ) in one fell swoop pulverized it and blew it out into the neighbour's property. That was about 53% of the mass of the building removed in 1/10th of second per floor. How ingenious. To do this they needed the core to hold, until the moment after the floor-wide (evenly, uniformly broadcast) explosion, fully expelled an acre per floor of 4" concrete and harmful asbestos (the real super big demo permit problem) into the air; at which point the core column structure could be made to fail. (had to be made to fail, section-by-section, floor-by-floor a 1/4 second above that action. (separate, independent wave of explosions for the core, how tricky is that!...to keep the trailing wave of explosive materials intact surviving the first wave of explosions.)

If the concrete flooring was 53% of the mass of the building, and the concrete was 40% lightened by asbestos fiber, think about how much asbestos went into the air that day, blown off the property in 10 seconds.

As far as commercial crime goes, this must go down as the biggest AND most clever in history, making Capone and the Joker both look like pikers.

This post has been edited by JimMac: May 20 2009, 05:51 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 20 2009, 08:34 AM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I remember hearing a report of somebody overhearing a discussion of the towers being brought down a year before it happened, in a graveyard.

Controlled demolition can take months in preparation.

I think it is reasonable to conclude that the planes had nothing to do with the collapse of the towers, other than to create a smoke screen, to hide the initiation of the demolition.

This was a top down demo. However, an explosion was heard from the sub-floors, prior to the first plane impact, by the janitor.

Engineers like to build things with at least 3X maximum load capacity.
So, the towers must have been somehow weakened before the collapse.

I have been trying to find out if there was more steel in the construction,
than was taken away after the demolition. I have not yet seen much data on this.

As there are many signs of mini nuclear devices having been used, too, which would have boiled away some steel.
And spherical iron remnants were found in the dust,
could this be from something hotter than the thermite reaction?

Then I heard about the theory of the concrete core.
This would explain why, the total amount of steel taken from the site of the WTC, was not fully reported, as it would be considerably less, if the cores were really made from concrete and re-bar.

The evidence of thermite doesn't mean that that was the only demolition material used.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post May 20 2009, 03:23 PM
Post #12





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (lunk @ May 20 2009, 08:34 AM) *
I remember hearing a report of somebody overhearing a discussion of the towers being brought down a year before it happened, in a graveyard.

Controlled demolition can take months in preparation.


Have you read Jim Hoffman's plausable demo theory? (i'm starting to sound like a broken record )
Please check it out here: A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario
QUOTE
This was a top down demo. However, an explosion was heard from the sub-floors, prior to the first plane impact, by the janitor.


Agreed, sublevel exposions 6 to 8 sec before the first aircraft impact were heard and felt by several witnesses in the bsmts of WCT1 and not only by janitor William Rodriquez. Some men were even injured, thrown to the ground etc. But who knows what these were about. For example, Rudy Gulianni and crew were looking for gold reserves which had reportedly been stored in a vault. I think at least one Canadian bank lost a few hundred million (hearsay is). So how much gold was stored? In how many vaults? How much was recovered? We will never get these answers. But, we have to always keep in mind this was a criminal operation. I'm guessing that the demo management was not oblivious to the bullion treasure vaulted in the bsmt.
QUOTE
I have been trying to find out if there was more steel in the construction,
than was taken away after the demolition. I have not yet seen much data on this.


Nor will anybody ever I suppose (see the data). However, take a step back and look at ground zero photos, and in particular the size of the rubble pile. Look at the visual evidence. There is a giant rubble pile of mostly steel (no concrete) which stands a few levels above grade on the day after 9/11 (see fireman flag raising photo). Including the below-grade 7 sub-levels, the rubble pile was about 10 stories high, mostly steel and other metal parts, material that survived the floor-by-floor pulverisation (which we clearly see in the 10 seconds of demolition to have occured). Perimeter columns were blown outside the building footprint (as we cleary see in the take-down). So what is left is a one acre pile (in height 100' plus) of mainly steel column debris. That's a lot of steel debris, steel mainly related to the 47 core columns, each formerly standing 1360 high plus the miscelaneous debris of 99 elevator cores and whatever else survived the waves of exposions downward.

QUOTE
As there are many signs of mini nuclear devices having been used, too, which would have boiled away some steel.

Evidence of a nuclear exposion is news to me. I submit this idea of nukes is evidence of more psych-ops ideas that do not fit the reality and are intended to obfuscate the picture. Look at the towers coming down, floor by floor. Does this look like a nuclear blast to you?

QUOTE
And spherical iron remnants were found in the dust,
could this be from something hotter than the thermite reaction?


Steve Jones and Neils Harrit have published a scientific paper which address the tiny spheres and how they were created. They did lab experiments and simulated their creation. Its not a mystery.

QUOTE
Then I heard about the theory of the concrete core.
This would explain why, the total amount of steel taken from the site of the WTC, was not fully reported, as it would be considerably less, if the cores were really made from concrete and re-bar.


This theory is bunk. You should investigate Christoper Brown and his web site. http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html. This guy really disturbs me, because he a fraud and he is the source of this mis-information on the net. I can't believe how many people get sucked into his BS. BTW..the images he used are borrowed from a BBC news documentary which is also bunk. My guess is Chris Brown is on the dark-ops payroll, under the '9/11 obfuscation' chart of accounts.

Other than footings, concrete was not used as a structural element in WTC construction. Footings would have been gigantic and require truck load upon truck load of pre-mix.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 20 2009, 06:07 PM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I was really disturbed when I first watched building 7s demise, on youtube.
Before that I thought only 2 towers were brought down by airplanes, on 9/11.
Then suddenly, I knew, the entire event was, a planned in advance, demolition.

After that I started to notice the huge disinformation campaign, to derail any
serious investigation, which only makes sense, if it was a planned demolition.

The other thing that I have noticed is the number of 9/11 spokes people who seem to come out of military intelligence, which is where the disinformation would be coming from, for all these things to have happened.
So I have to view anyone in this category as suspect.

Ah, yes, the nuke theory:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4731051210315608217

-elevated levels of Tritium in the ground water after 9/11.
-radiation hot spots found around the demolition.
-recorded sounds of long, huge, rumbling, explosions during the demolition.
-power outages, possibly caused by electro-magnetic pulses (EMP), from mini-nukes.
-molten concrete, that "flowed like lava" in building 6 encasing guns in the police museum.
The giant hole in the roof of building 6 that went all the way down inside, that had no debris in it?!



The proven use of thermite, by prof. Jones,
belittles these implications, who seems to deny anything nuclear.
...Even going back to the days of cold fusion!

I found all this, extremely disturbing.

Sort of made me want to turn my mind to music:

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

lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post May 20 2009, 08:06 PM
Post #14





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (lunk @ May 20 2009, 06:07 PM) *
Ah, yes, the nuke theory:
lunk


Editing this post...got my photo links mixed up

(Wrong photo pasted...looking)

This post has been edited by JimMac: May 20 2009, 09:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 20 2009, 09:58 PM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I guess the question is,
that we know, that thermite was used,
but if they used that, then we must conclude,
that it was a planned controlled demolition.
If this is the case, what was to stop them from using
other demolition devices?

...and not tell us.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post May 23 2009, 02:40 AM
Post #16





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



I did find the WTC drawings online. On bsmt level five, bottom level, the drawing schedule has a detail for footings. The elevations (hand written) are hard to read, but the detail is to scale. The concrete footings were specified to be about 40" in height above the grade of the finished floor, and apparently bear on solid bedrock below, at what elevation i don't know. So in other words the footings would be anchored to the bedrock with ties. The steel columns were fastened to the footing somehow, no detail on that, probably on another drawing. Anchor bolts, shoe-plate, whatever they used it would be common practice for 1966.

On the same detail, the architect spec's the use of fire brick on the steel column surface, 5" thick. The brick work is just ordinary masonary brickwork, only using fire brick, as you would in a chimney. They probably plastered over that to create a finish.

There are no details on the relative height of the footing, but i am guessing that it was about 6 to 8 feet in height, or more. That being the case, they probably dumped a few thousand truck loads of material into the hole after the footings were built, and brought up the grade, compacted the fill then poured a 6" to 8" floor (on top of the fill material and of course also around the base of each footing, leaving 40" of footing above grade to support steel colums). There were lots of concrete pads specified in the same drawing. Mechanical room stuff probably, and maybe even a future bank vault, one beefed up floor area room was specified as 'records room'.

What does this have to do with anything? i'm not sure. But that's what I found. If you want the drawing links, i'll post them later. (closed all browsers at the time and didn't bookmark)

This post has been edited by JimMac: May 23 2009, 02:51 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 23 2009, 11:24 AM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



The whole WTC was built in a "bathtub" was surrounded by a waterproof retaining wall, or the hudson river would flow in.
..Not sure about building 7, was that outside the "bathtub"?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post May 25 2009, 03:03 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



While I do believe that the "powers that be" had probably decided to switch America's #1 enemy from the Soviet Union to "radical Islamic terrorism" for numerous and very broad reasons around the time the Trade Towers were being built (Zbiggy Brzezinski talked Carter into funding the Mujahedeen to lure the Soviets into the Afghan war in '79 I think), and I know that the Trade Towers were a Rockefeller endeavor, but I really find it hard to believe that the towers were constructed with demolition built-in. Maybe they were, I have no idea, but when I get an urge to do something I want to do it now. I can't imagine planning something 30 years in advance ... and how sure could they have been that it would have worked, 30 years later??? And what advances in technology would they have forgone to rely on 70's technology? - I am highly skeptical of that theory, for the record.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post May 25 2009, 05:37 PM
Post #19





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



QUOTE
. . . (I) really find it hard to believe that the towers were constructed with demolition built-in.
. . . . . . . .
I am highly skeptical of that theory, for the record.


I agree.

You give good reasons why it would not be feasible or desirable to pre-position demolition apparatus.

Perhaps the best possible compromise view is that the planning or design of the building contemplated that some day, eventually, these massive constructions would have to be razed. So their structure in some way was designed to accommodate that, or there was some planning for where to place charges. But it is far fetched to think that apparatus was built in.

Who knows what advances in demolition the future might bring? *Some say* that the planes, "hot jet fuel fires" and suspension of the laws of physics and other sciences actually demolished the buildings in a novel and unexpected way that the designers could not have foreseen.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: May 25 2009, 05:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post May 25 2009, 07:19 PM
Post #20





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ May 25 2009, 05:37 PM) *
I agree.

You give good reasons why it would not be feasible or desirable to pre-position demolition apparatus.

Perhaps the best possible compromise view is that the planning or design of the building contemplated that some day, eventually, these massive constructions would have to be razed. So their structure in some way was designed to accommodate that, or there was some planning for where to place charges. But it is far fetched to think that apparatus was built in.

Who knows what advances in demolition the future might bring? *Some say* that the planes, "hot jet fuel fires" and suspension of the laws of physics and other sciences actually demolished the buildings in a novel and unexpected way that the designers could not have foreseen.


(Trust me on this), Architects do not give the slightest, faintest thought to how their crowning achievements will be one day be torn down. On the contrary, they imagine them to provide a sense of immortality to their creators. And if the impossible idea were somehow to apply in the case of WTC, they would need to bring in a team of demo engineers to advise at the planning stages. And to build such a structure using 'explosive' and therefore dangerous materials, even if it was done covertly, would be next to impossible. The idea is beyond far fetched. It just didn't happen.

Its true that professional people did think for at least a decade on how to demolish the buildings (legally on behalf of the Port Authority) but the covert action that eventually did occur was planned well in advance, maybe even five to ten years in advance by the people that eventually gained control of the buildings with that purpose in mind. They had a plan when they set up Larry Silverstein as the new owner, because he is a front man asset. He has backers.

Here's an interesting little tid bit from wiki: In 1989 Larry Silverstein proposed to members of the Israeli government that a Free-Trade zone should be created within the Negev region of Israel. The project ultimately failed, however it enjoyed popular support amongst leading Israeli political figures. (Silverstein was very connected)

This post has been edited by JimMac: May 25 2009, 07:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd October 2019 - 03:09 PM