Help Me Please ! "Controlled demolition" Issue ...

[medienanalyse]

I am not an expert in demolishing things or houses or other big buildings. The last explosion which I orchestrated is decades ago in school.

So i ask all the experts for explosions - and I guess here is a nest of them - how a "controlled demolition" takes place.

Starting in the ground cellar rooms, as Rodriguez said.
Then we have the missile out of the pod.
Bingo! The plane joins with its extra explosion.

Now we admire phase two. Rodiguez and the firemen tell us what they heard: explosions all over the building, some here, some there. Not by gas in the small kitchens and for sure not by falling concrete like simple minds as I am suggest.

Finish: a deries of explosions where the crash of the towers starts, not concrete platforms blasting out the fires which were ongoing since one hour as simple m....

All in all we notice one hour full of explosions. Here and there, up and down.

How the hell could they controll that ? My simple mind says one explosion could have incended all the other bombs too. It says a lot more, but I stick on this topic now. And please do not spoil this thread with photos. We have seen them all.

[Grateful for Hope]

1. A question

what if what took place were a series of "uncontrolled" blasts?

Just a thought here.

[mirandapriestly]

31. Incorrect labels,

are easier to refute, dontcha know.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

2. This site, by REAL experts, addresses many of those questions.

ImplosionWorld.com is a site by and for proffessional building demolition experts. It is by guys who do that sort of thing as their job. They know what to actually look for, instead of guessing.

http://www.implosionworld.com/news.htm#1

In the center, about 1/4 of the way down look for this link: Click here to read the paper. It will take you an adobe 11 page paper. It covers the two towers and Bldg 7.

[Carefulplease]

3. Direct link...

http://www.implosionworld.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

The paper was also discussed here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=106251&mesg_id=106251

[BootinUp]

10. This looks quite credible

thanks for the link.

[Sinti]

4. Check out Controlled Demolition's web site.

I must stress that I think "controlled demolition" is totally the wrong term to use when referring to the WTC event. However...

The guys from Controlled Demolition say it best themselves.

A two thousand ton skyscraper collapses like a house of cards, crumbling in on itself - a waterfall of well-fractured steel and concrete debris. It lasts only seconds, and buildings within a few meters stand untouched. The very essence of Controlled Demolition, Inc. is in our name: CONTROL.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/


Thermally stable explosives from Los Alamos Labs can handle temps over 480F. They don't say how much over, however.

"Our inorganic primaries, including the four new families, can be manufactured to be insensitive to light and moisture, sensitive to initiation but not too sensitive to handle and transport. They are thermally stable at more than 480˚F, chemically stable for extended periods, devoid of toxic metals such as lead, mercury, silver, barium, or antimony, and free of perchlorate," she said.

http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php?fuseaction=home.story&story_id=8661

Then there are thermally stable explosives that are only detonated by electrical pulse within a specific voltage range. These would be the ones I would use to get the job done. They offer the best chance of not being detonated accidentally.

An exploding foil initiator for operation with perforating gun assemblies or other equipment placed in a well borehole is set forth. This device utilizes a foil bridge adjacent to a flyer layer and a barrel having a central bore. When the foil bridge is vaporized, a disk is cut by the bore, and is directed through the bore of the barrel, traveling at a high velocity to deliver impact against a secondary explosive. The secondary explosive is formed of BRX explosive which is a pellet of explosive material of 1,3,5-trinitro-2,4,6-tripicrylbenzene. Detonation is accomplished with a high voltage, high current pulse of substantial voltage amplitude of about 1100 to not more than about 2000 volts.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5431104.html

:shrug:

It could have been done, we have the technology. I still think "controlled demolition" is the wrong phrase, because it brings to mind the perfect felling of a tall building from the bottom, kink down the middle, right into its footprint. This was more "explosive demolition". It looked like they were blown up, rather than carefully crumpled. Don't know if this was helpful... I'm not an expert. I don't think we have any genuine demolitions experts here.


Edited to add:

Regarding the bit in the basement reported by Rodriguez, whom I personally have no reason to doubt is speaking the truth to what he experienced. I would absolutely want to blow out some of the bedrock embedded columns before blowing anything else. If you do not, when you blow the attached pieces higher in the building they will send tremors and you will get a lot of low level but still noticeable seismic activity. You definitely don't want that, it's just too much of a fingerprint.

They had to knock them out anyway, to get the building down. If I recall correctly, when the bombing happened in '93 they were amazed that it didn't do more damage, and the statement was made that the reason it didn't was because it was "only the basement", i.e., they didn't have any explosives on higher floors, thank god.

High rises, generally, are built so that if a fire happens on one floor it doesn't travel. If you've ever lived in one, you know this. The floors are concrete, concrete is just not very combustible. It holds it to the floor it started on. They have to do this, or high rises would just be too dangerous to live in. It takes a long time to walk down 20 flights of stairs, let alone 80. So the expectation of the fire moving through multiple floors, to floors unaffected by the crash, was likely not present.

I find it interesting that all the firefighters report that the windows on the ground floor (street level) of the North Tower were broken. They walked through the windows, didn't have to open the door. Yet, somehow, on the 84th floor, quite close to the plane impact floors, the windows were intact. The people up there had to break them to let air in the building, and let some smoke escape. This is very strange to my mind.

[RedSock]

17. 1993

If I recall correctly, when the bombing happened in '93 they were amazed that it didn't do more damage, and the statement was made that the reason it didn't was because it was "only the basement", i.e., they didn't have any explosives on higher floors, thank god.

What I recall is that the truck with the explosives wasn't parked in a good spot to create serious havoc. It was a mistake. If it had been parked in a different spot, something very horrific could have happened.

Anyone else remember this or have some evidence for it?

[Sinti]

19. Both things have been said, and apparently both are true

They apparently didn't use their sharpest tools for this one. Gratefully, evil is usually also stupid - otherwise it would probably win more often than not.

The truck that lay against a wall in the parking garage was entirely too weak to do the job, and just succeeded in blowing a big hole beneath it. The cyanide gas, instead of blowing across the city in a fearsome tidal wave of death, instead was obliterated in the heat of the explosion.

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/wtc/

The lack of collapse in higher stories was one reason why the 454 kilogram bomb detonated in the underground garage of the World Trade Center in 1993 failed to destroy the building.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1281

[greyl]

5. Going further, why the planes?

Why make it more complicated than necessary?
The bush cabal could have been certain of getting 75% approval from the moron citizens of the US without going to so much risk as to fake 4 (or even 1) hijackings, plus prepping multiple buildings for "controlled demolition".

If it was an inside job, why not one bomb, or one plane, with a clear trail of planted evidence to the Mid-East countries "they" wanted to invade? Was the shit argument for invading Iraq part of the nefarious plan?

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. First, they wanted a made for TV - Shock & Awe event

Second, they don't want people to think bombs were used because that opens up all kinds of cans of worms, from who could get their hands on such weapons to the liability issues involved. That's why they built the myth about hijackers taking over 4 planes with nothing more then box cutters. If they used bombs or guns to take over the planes the airlines would have been liable for the passengers deaths. Same things with the buildings, if it came out that bombs were used then the insurance companies would be liable because obviously someone was able to breach security.

Third, the kind of missiles and/or weapons used in the attack would be traceable to someone. If it was an inside job, then guess who id would be on them? This is why in Iraq when we couldn't find Saddam's 'stockpiles' or WMD's, that we couldn't just plant some ourselves and blame Saddam. This is why so much effort was put into avoiding an investigation all together, then when that didn't work, making sure any investigation was as limited as possible. The NIST investigation was very careful not to even think about the possibility that bombs and explosives were used. They took the official story and they tried to support it, while ignoring anything that might point in any other direction.

[petgoat]

8. If the purpose was terrorism, aircraft were far more effective

symbols than exposive charges. Aircraft are everywhere. Could Kansans be made
to fear the notion of swarthy men with boxcutters planting explosives in their
grain elevators? No. But they could be made to feel fear every time an airplane
flew over, which is several times a day.

It would be like planting a deadly disease in mosquitos or house flies. The ubiquity
of the threat makes it more effective.

[medienanalyse]

11. sad, so sad

“First, they wanted a made for TV - Shock & Awe event”

My guess is you are right. And there is nobody on this world who would doubt this basic evaluation.


“Second, they don't want people to think bombs were used”

And now the fun part starts. The perpetrators (whoever they are) do not want that people understand how shock and were produced ?
Why ? A bankrobbery with a lot of guns but nobody shall see that the teller has a knife at his guts ?

“because that opens up all kinds of cans of worms”

Very correct again. Starting idiotic bomb explosion theories hides the one and only question: WHO OPENED THE SPACE FOR THE TERROR, where were the fighter jets ? A question directly leading to government responsibilities. Instead people are looking for bomb devices nobody has seen and will ever see because they never existed. And those who planted them will stay in the dark too. Because they never existed too.


“the liability issues involved”

That shows the narrow minded approach of the “controlled demolition” theorists.
“America is under attack” and “war on terror” which means directly war in several countries with cost of immeasurable lifes and tens of billions of dollars per year, oil dependencies on the other hand.
And here somebody argues with liability issues. Why not with the impression of the skyline of Manhattan for tourists and the tourism industry ?

[BootinUp]

12. I wanted to start a thread

asking why not a nuke or a dirty bomb. You cracked me up with the "shit argument for invading Iraq" comment.

[tinrobot]

33. Going even further...

The buildings failed at or near the aircraft impact sites, very close to the fires. If there were explosives, it brings up these questions:

-- How were the explosives planted? In what offices were they planted? Who had access?

-- How did the planes hit the exact part of the building where the explosives were planted?

-- How did the wiring to the explosives survive the impact/fire?

-- Explosives are rarely stable at high temps, why didn't the fire destroy the charges?

-- How were the charges triggered when the building was so damaged?

[medienanalyse]

6. Maybe I Did Not Make Myself Clear Enough

When I said I am no expert I did not suggest to be made an expert. I am not interested in opportunities and possibilities and abilities and technical details.

I do understand that it is possible to radio signals. I heard about different explosives to blast different materials. I know about empty flats.

I repeat: “All in all we notice one hour full of explosions. Here and there, up and down.”

What is the sense of that ? Why not the big bang in one time (even when it would be necessary to do it at several places). If it were explosions why did they make them look so uncontrolled ? Why did the need a plane ? Why did they risk the demolition –mechanivally – of all the upper implanted explosives when shaking the building for one hour from the ground upwards ?

Why not just a repeated 1993 with better placed bombs? Did the perpetrators try to simulate a pancake fall after the plane impact ? Why?

And again: I am very impressed about the expertise of Mr. Rodrigues. He was able to differ distinctively between

- bomb in the ground rooms

- falling elevators

- explosions in the cafeterias

- bombs in the empty flats

- missile explosion

- plane impact

- kerosin explosions

- falling concrete


and all this just only by sound. Imagine he had seen all that: what a witness !

[Sinti]

13. What is the sense of that?

Why not the big bang in one time

If they did them all at once, it would have created too much of a fingerprint. They blew out the beams connected to bedrock first, then had an explosion here and an explosion there, it's not really noticeable to the outside viewer. It's only people actually in the buildings who reported those earlier explosions. Then the final series of explosions that took the building down were more easily covered by the smoke/dust cloud that was created.

They probably had an explanation in mind before the event took place, then you just kind of plant the idea in someone's head. If you ask FEMA and NIST, "why did this building suffer structural failure and experience progressive collapse, and what can we do to make buildings safer in the future," rather than "What happened that made these buildings fall? Was there any chance of explosives?," they will only look into the questions about structural failure and progressive collapse, and not even entertain the idea of explosives.

Why did the need a plane?

Well, both shock and awe and cover. Plane hijackings are the ME terrorist's MO. I believe it kept the international community from looking into it. No one even questions whether or not it's a ME terrorist when a plane is hijacked, it's assumed. It's like one serial killer copy catting another serial killer, if they catch the one, they'll never look for the other, no matter how much the one protests that it wasn't him. Just blowing the building up would have caused much more investigation, both here and abroad.

Why did they risk the demolition –

If you watch 9/11 the documentary by the Naudet brothers you can see the people on the street just are not that shocked/terrified by the planes hitting the buildings. It's outrageous yes, and they're taken aback by it, but they're just not that freaked out, not like after the buildings fall.

Imagine if only 50 people died? How many wars are you going to start over that? How much carte blanche does * get? Not much, he just looks like more of a damn failure for letting us get attacked. When the buildings came down and all those people were killed even people who hated * hated the terrorists more, and most were behind him all the way with going into Afghanistan to get them. It created a much greater shock to the psyche, which was necessary to facilitate the extreme change that we've seen since.

[petgoat]

14. The buildings had to come down. That's the only way

the event stands as something people will remember a thousand years.

Had they remained standing, they would have been a symbol of endurance,
the hijackers just kamikaze flies. Only through collapse could they
become symbols of the fragility of civilization, and its vulnerability
to religious lunatics with box cutters.

[BootinUp]

15. I guess Osama and friends agreed.

[RedSock]

16. New Yorkers

If you watch 9/11 the documentary by the Naudet brothers you can see the people on the street just are not that shocked/terrified by the planes hitting the buildings. It's outrageous yes, and they're taken aback by it, but they're just not that freaked out, not like after the buildings fall.

That's New Yorkers for you, not fazed by anything. Celebrities arging in the middle of the street? Someone taking a dump in a subway car? Planes flying into the city's talllest buildings?

Just a quick glance and we continue on our way.

[Sinti]

18. Ain't it the truth, and god bless 'em!! :) n/t

[BootinUp]

9. Howstuffworks has covered this

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm

from the article:

The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.

[rman]

20. If one explosion would set of other charges, then CD would not be possible

in general. So your assumption that "one explosion could have incended all the other bombs too" is obviously mistaken. Though admittedly, there's a difference between "could have" and "would have" - but then again "could have" is no basis for any conclusion.

[medienanalyse]

21. Big ???

"So your assumption ... is obviously mistaken."
"could have" is no basis for any conclusion"

Pardon me - I do not understand your point.

My point is
- that one explosion could have incended all the other bombs too.
- or: some of the other bombs
- or mechanically disengaged other bombs

Whatever. To spread the alleged controlle demolition over one hour
with a lot of imponderabilities - including the point of impact, kerosine
dripping here and there - cannot be in the sense of a controlled
demolition. Just the arguments retold here by CD-theorists turn
against themselves. If it were bombs then not controlled. If not
controlled then senseless to bring the towers down. But this could
have been anticipated by the alleged perpetrators. So it was
senseless to plant bombs because in the end it would have been a
"good luck" game.

Take it al together: every single event fits into the pancake theory and
the focus stays on the planes. There is no "need" for a CD theory
except to take the focus off the planes and off air-policing and off
from government "failures".

The deep sense of the CD theory -willingly or for sure 99% unwillingly - is to support the Bushist fairy tales.

[rman]

22. Interesting how you turn the whole argument upside-down.

For all i know your purpose here is to support the Bushist pancake fairy tale.

[Andre II]

23. Given the fact

that medienanalyse wrote one of the best books on 911:
presented much evidence for Hanjour, Jarrah and Atta having doubles
deconstructed the official explanation for the lack of Air defence
pointing again and again the finger to the strange pattern of all
people in charge doing exactly nothing on September 11 (especially Rummy)
I'm afraid I clearly have to disagree with your judgement on him.
His point is much more
why do so few researchers care about
lack of air defence
the lies about the identities of the alleged hijackers
and the absence of any decision taken by any high up.
Each single issue suffice to prove that 911 was an inside job.
Just have a look how few people around here care that it can be proven
without a shadow of a doubt that Atta and Al Shehhi had doubles!

[rman]

24. To spread disinfo, one needs credibility with the target group. nt

[medienanalyse]

25. The Bushist Pancake Theory

A wonderfull expression.

"To spread disinfo, one needs credibility with the target group. nt"

Another wonderfull saying. I am not going to spead my merits. I just take these two uttered words above:

1. Bushist pancake theory ? Since when ? Where did Bush ever tell that theory ? And especially to what avaail ? What would be the sense ?
In comparison: what I attack and what I said above are REAL Bushisms - "war on terror", "islamist attackers" and the funny UAL93-hero story.

But as Andre II already said: those who are interested in never seen bombs of never known perpetrators are the same people who are not at all interested in the real Bushist world, in his allegations, politics.


2. "spread disinfo" is obviously said to mark me. Just tell me where I spread disinfo. I ask logical questions and I do not get answers.

WHO "spread disinfo" ? Those who point on bombs nobody has ever seen just only as a conclusion of a kind of fall of a skyscraper which is not explainable to them because they never investigated in the architecture.
It is disinfo to lament about temperatures of kerosine and melting points of steel because not only kerosine burned and because steel gets weak even in the cold, breaks without any heat and so on.
Disinfo is the "pod" story which obviously was mysterious enough to please the public like a fairy tale.

Again: my questions are not info and not disinfo, they are questions. And the believers who fight to support their homemeade religion are unable to answer them.

[rman]

26. It's getting increasingly unclear whether you have "questions" or whether

you have a point to make.

You assert that one demo charge going of would set of other charges - even though that doesn't happen in official CD's. You also assert that this point supports the pancake theory.
The only actual questions in you OP seems rhetorical; "How the hell could they control that?" The implied answer asserts your point that there was no CD.
When someone opposes your conclusion, or provides answers to your questions that don't fit your conclusion, you accuse them of supporting Bush fairy tales.
It seems to me that you already know the answers to your questions.

[medienanalyse]

27. Wonderfull answer ...

"You assert that one demo charge going of would set of other charges - even though that doesn't happen in official CD's."

Such is the way of arguing I alway meet and met here.

-First: No. I said COULD.

- Second: "that doesn't happen in official CD's." For sure it should not. My question was how such a CD team can ENSURE under THESE circumstances that it does not ? How could they ever ensure dripping kerosine did not set off devises? Mechanical ruptures did not disable devices ?

How the hell could they ensure that if it were a "official CD" as you call it ?



"The only actual questions in you OP seems rhetorical; "How the hell could they control that?"


Tell us please what is rhetorical in this question. And ANSWER it if you can.


"The implied answer asserts your point that there was no CD." No. Only if you have no answer. But then we get a conclusion which you just do not like. That is what i call religion. Pure belief.


"When someone opposes your conclusion, or provides answers to your questions that don't fit your conclusion, you accuse them of supporting Bush fairy tales."

I have no problem if somebody opposes my CONCLUSION. Have your oponion or religion and be happy. I am waiting on answers to very clear questions like the above one. If you have no idea what I mean coogle for "Enschede" ( a dutch city) "firecrackers". A factory in that city exploded - one firecracker after the other - and the city did not look like a CD. It looked like war afterwards.


"It seems to me that you already know the answers to your questions."

It seems angain. What about taking it as if. Qkay, medienanalyse is a damned Bushist and already knows the answers. And now ? Does it mean you have no arguments anymore only because this SEEMS to you

[medienanalyse]

28. Nada Mas

para expectar ...

[mhatrw]

29. Only WTC-7 resembled what is traditionally called "controlled demolition."

WTC-7 imploded very neatly in its own footprint.

The WTC-1 & WTC-2 towers exhibited what many think were explosively "assisted" collapses.

[whistle]

30. WTC-1 and WTC -2 subterranean ruble remained hot for weeks

...according to clean-up crew management. Some reports have been made that there was glowing red hot metal that could be seen throughout the basement levels and that this was a clear indication that thermal explosives had been used. Yet no testing was allowed to establish just what had caused this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1858491.stm


http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html


video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero:

http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv .

[Carefulplease]

32. "Yet no testing was allowed"

What makes you think that investigators were denied access to these particular metal samples?

[medienanalyse]

34. and do not forget your own expertise on the "expert"

here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=110375&mesg_id=110433

additionally:
everybody may feel free to grab some grams of the concrete dust which was spread over Manhattan and can be found there for sure still nowadays and can bring it into a laboratory to find "explosives" in the chemical ingredients.