For the "truthers", my 2 cents on the "conspiracy"

[TheSuaveOne]

Ok, I am new here, so I haven't had a lot of time to dig through all of the posts on 9/11 here so I figured I would start my own thread on what I "know" about building demolition.

As an architect, I have been part of the process to a couple of building implosions. Here's where the 9/11 conspiracy theories lost me from the start. There is no way possible for the buildings that fell to have been demolished via planted explosives, not without eyewitnesses to the setup of the explosive devices and their miles of demo chord that would have been required to detonate them.

The only way you can implode a building is to destroy the metal skeleton of the structure, this is done with explosive charges set into a well configured design of column placement through out the building, from the foundation up. Each of these charges are tied together with demolition chord and set to a single bank of detonators.

In the twin towers, there would have been weeks if not months of set up to do this. Each of the columns would have had to have its column cover removed, and any fireproofing removed from the area that the charges were placed. This isn't something that would be hidden from the public, or something that could be done in the evening and put back together before the next working day. The next step is to set the demo chord...the miles and miles of demo chord to connect the charges so that they could be triggered at a specific, well planned time for each charge so that the building could fall properly. This chord would have been strung and visible to the public. There has not been a single eyewitness report of this, in addition to the fact that the videos of the lower lobby during the fall of the towers clearly shows no such demo chord in place.

I have heard by some that the chord wasn't necessary today since there are remote frequency detonators. The problem with this is, it just isn't possible in those types of buildings. There would be too much static generated by the shell of the building to assure a perfect detonation of every charge for the buildings to fall the way they did.

I know this is hard for some of you to believe...but it's true. There was no huge conspiracy by our government or the building owner to drop the towers on 9/11, no matter how many times you tell yourself it had to be a conspiracy.

I'm more than willing to debate this subject all you want. I have a heavy duty flame retardant suite on, so feel free to flame away.

-TSO

 

[Douger]

OK. I'll begin !
You are an architect.
You don't know jack shit about demolition and it's very likely you can't even change the blades on a planer.
STFU
OH !
Have a lovely day !

 

[candycorn]

Ok, I am new here, so I haven't had a lot of time to dig through all of the posts on 9/11 here so I figured I would start my own thread on what I "know" about building demolition.

As an architect, I have been part of the process to a couple of building implosions. Here's where the 9/11 conspiracy theories lost me from the start. There is no way possible for the buildings that fell to have been demolished via planted explosives, not without eyewitnesses to the setup of the explosive devices and their miles of demo chord that would have been required to detonate them.

The only way you can implode a building is to destroy the metal skeleton of the structure, this is done with explosive charges set into a well configured design of column placement through out the building, from the foundation up. Each of these charges are tied together with demolition chord and set to a single bank of detonators.

In the twin towers, there would have been weeks if not months of set up to do this. Each of the columns would have had to have its column cover removed, and any fireproofing removed from the area that the charges were placed. This isn't something that would be hidden from the public, or something that could be done in the evening and put back together before the next working day. The next step is to set the demo chord...the miles and miles of demo chord to connect the charges so that they could be triggered at a specific, well planned time for each charge so that the building could fall properly. This chord would have been strung and visible to the public. There has not been a single eyewitness report of this, in addition to the fact that the videos of the lower lobby during the fall of the towers clearly shows no such demo chord in place.

I have heard by some that the chord wasn't necessary today since there are remote frequency detonators. The problem with this is, it just isn't possible in those types of buildings. There would be too much static generated by the shell of the building to assure a perfect detonation of every charge for the buildings to fall the way they did.

I know this is hard for some of you to believe...but it's true. There was no huge conspiracy by our government or the building owner to drop the towers on 9/11, no matter how many times you tell yourself it had to be a conspiracy.

I'm more than willing to debate this subject all you want. I have a heavy duty flame retardant suite on, so feel free to flame away.

-TSO

It has been supposed/alleged/stated (whatever adverb you want to use) by me that an impact of a Boeing 767 or a Boeing 757 would have disloged the planted explosives.

It has been supposed/alleged/stated (whatever adverb you want to use) by me that to plant explosives, you'd have to saw through floors, walls, conduit, piping, utilities, cables, or--at the very basic least--move furniture to plant the things.

What do you think about my susspositions/allegations/statements?

 

[hjmick]

Way to fucking go, Suave, way to go...

 

[TheSuaveOne]

it's very likely you can't even change the blades on a planer.

What do you mean? An African or European planer?

-TSO

 

[slackjawed]

Too many points of logic for the truthers suave, one of them will be on soon to post a bunch of utube vids to show you why logic simply doesn't work on the 911 story.
If it makes too much sense and is the logical conclusion it cannot be true and there MUST be a government conspiracy. If it is the most far fetched thing you have ever heard, and includes a government conspiracy, then and only then is it true.
welcome to the board

 

[TheSuaveOne]

It has been supposed/alleged/stated (whatever adverb you want to use) by me that an impact of a Boeing 767 or a Boeing 757 would have disloged the planted explosives.

It has been supposed/alleged/stated (whatever adverb you want to use) by me that to plant explosives, you'd have to saw through floors, walls, conduit, piping, utilities, cables, or--at the very basic least--move furniture to plant the things.

What do you think about my susspositions/allegations/statements?

1. Yes, some of the charges could be dislodged by the impact or the explosion. check

2. Yes and no, elevator or service shafts could be used to tie the charges together from floor to floor, but if that route wasn't used, yes, saw cuts in the floor slabs would need to be made to inter connect the numerous charges from floor to floor. check

-TSO

 

[slackjawed]

If your interested in a real conspiracy, see my thread entitled 'prepare to meet your midget masters'.
Now that is scary stuff. I have utube videos and pictures, so you know it's true.

 

[TheSuaveOne]

Too many points of logic for the truthers suave, one of them will be on soon to post a bunch of utube vids to show you why logic simply doesn't work on the 911 story.
If it makes too much sense and is the logical conclusion it cannot be true and there MUST be a government conspiracy. If it is the most far fetched thing you have ever heard, and includes a government conspiracy, then and only then is it true.
welcome to the board

The other thing I like to point out is, if the Bush administration couldn't keep small leaks about CIA black ops secret...how could they have prevented the leaks from taking place from a conspiracy that would have included hundreds if not thousands of people involved or at least saw evidence of the devious plot?

-TSO

 

[Sunni Man]

The twin towers were of a unique design. So there is no history of what will cause catastropic failure.

But building #7 was of conventional design.

Over the years there have been conventional buildings like Building #7 catch fire in various countries around the world.

And NEVER has one collasped. EVER.

And no, Building #7 wasn't hit by the towers as they fell.

 

[Fizz]

african planers are non-migratory.

the truth is the twoofers will simply call you a super secret government agent since you dont agree with them. that will allow them to simply disregard anything you say.

meanwhile, they will post lists of a small minority of the population that agrees with them in order to mask their feelings of loneliness, incompetence and helplessness.

 

[Fizz]

The twin towers were of a unique design. So there is no history of what will cause catastropic failure.

But building #7 was of conventional design.

Over the years there have been conventional buildings like Building #7 catch fire in various countries around the world.

And NEVER has one collasped. EVER.

And no, Building #7 wasn't hit by the towers as they fell.

is there a contest going on to see how many things you can get wrong in a single post that i should be aware about?

 

[TheSuaveOne]

The twin towers were of a unique design. So there is no history of what will cause catastropic failure.

But building #7 was of conventional design.

Over the years there have been conventional buildings like Building #7 catch fire in various countries around the world.

And NEVER has one collasped. EVER.

And no, Building #7 wasn't hit by the towers as they fell.

Actually, I didn't say the only thing involved in their collapse was fire, only one of the contributing factors.

And yes, building 7 was hit by debris from the twin towers causing structural damage.

-TSO

 

[hjmick]

The twin towers were of a unique design. So there is no history of what will cause catastropic failure.

But building #7 was of conventional design.

Over the years there have been conventional buildings like Building #7 catch fire in various countries around the world.

And NEVER has one collasped. EVER.

And no, Building #7 wasn't hit by the towers as they fell.

I would post a link to the Popular Mechanics article concerning WTC7/debunking the 9/11 bullshit conspiracies, but it would serve no purpose as you already know the "truth" so arguing further would be a waste of our time.

 

[creativedreams]

Ok, I am new here, so I haven't had a lot of time to dig through all of the posts on 9/11 here so I figured I would start my own thread on what I "know" about building demolition.

As an architect, I have been part of the process to a couple of building implosions. Here's where the 9/11 conspiracy theories lost me from the start. There is no way possible for the buildings that fell to have been demolished via planted explosives, not without eyewitnesses to the setup of the explosive devices and their miles of demo chord that would have been required to detonate them.

The only way you can implode a building is to destroy the metal skeleton of the structure, this is done with explosive charges set into a well configured design of column placement through out the building, from the foundation up. Each of these charges are tied together with demolition chord and set to a single bank of detonators.

In the twin towers, there would have been weeks if not months of set up to do this. Each of the columns would have had to have its column cover removed, and any fireproofing removed from the area that the charges were placed. This isn't something that would be hidden from the public, or something that could be done in the evening and put back together before the next working day. The next step is to set the demo chord...the miles and miles of demo chord to connect the charges so that they could be triggered at a specific, well planned time for each charge so that the building could fall properly. This chord would have been strung and visible to the public. There has not been a single eyewitness report of this, in addition to the fact that the videos of the lower lobby during the fall of the towers clearly shows no such demo chord in place.

I have heard by some that the chord wasn't necessary today since there are remote frequency detonators. The problem with this is, it just isn't possible in those types of buildings. There would be too much static generated by the shell of the building to assure a perfect detonation of every charge for the buildings to fall the way they did.

I know this is hard for some of you to believe...but it's true. There was no huge conspiracy by our government or the building owner to drop the towers on 9/11, no matter how many times you tell yourself it had to be a conspiracy.

I'm more than willing to debate this subject all you want. I have a heavy duty flame retardant suite on, so feel free to flame away.

-TSO

Both Twin Towers went through many months of construction renovations and some of which was on the very support columns that failed on 9/11.

Part of the Construction renovations included the removal and replancing of fireproofing on the steel support columns.

Plus Both Twin Towers just underwent the biggest elevator renovation in history......the elevators shafts in the Twin Towers were located in the core where all the support columns were.

It gets much better and I can go into more discriminating details if you like with verifications.

Oh and demoliltions have come a long way with new technology and types of explosives.

Plus with todays wireless technology the miles of wire you speak of are no longer needed except for cost saving demolitions.

 

[Terral]

Hi Suave:

Ok, I am new here, so I haven't had a lot of time to dig through all of the posts on 9/11 here so I figured I would start my own thread on what I "know" about building demolition . . .

I also 'know' (#3 + my WTC-7 CD Topic) something about building demolition and your Opening Post Conclusions are all wrong. The Official Cover Story LIE says that WTC-7 collapsed from building fires.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo]WTC-7 Was 'Definitely' A Controlled Demolition Implosion[/ame]

Go right ahead and provide these USMB readers with your precedents for modern-day skyscrapers collapsing CD Style into their own footprints at freefall speed from building fires and falling building debris. Step up to the plate and explain how a few building fires compromised the "Compartmentalization" (911Research.WTC7.net) of all girders, columns and beams using concrete slabs and masonry curtain walls for your "Building Fires Did It" Hypothesis. Explain how this ...

... was transformed into this ...

... in 6.6 seconds from "Building Fires/Debris." All I see in Mr. Suave is yet another Official Cover Story Govt Stooge sent here to run diversion for Official Cover Story LIES ...

GL, because you need it,

Terral

 

[TheSuaveOne]

All I see in Mr. Suave is yet another Official Cover Story Govt Stooge sent here to run diversion for Official Cover Story LIES ...

Who sent me here?

-TSO

 

[hjmick]

All I see in Mr. Suave is yet another Official Cover Story Govt Stooge sent here to run diversion for Official Cover Story LIES ...

Who sent me here?

-TSO

DO YOU SEE WHAT YOU'VE DONE?!

They were all quiet for the last week or two, but you had to go and stir them up.

FNG.

Way to go...

 

[TheSuaveOne]

Explain how this ...

... was transformed into this ...

... in 6.6 seconds.

Actually, it wasn't 6.6 seconds...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk"]link[/ame]

More like 13+.

-TSO

 

[Sunni Man]

I would post a link to the Popular Mechanics article concerning WTC7/debunking the 9/11 bullshit conspiracies, but it would serve no purpose as you already know the "truth" so arguing further would be a waste of our time.

Hjmick, how the twin towers fell is not a big deal to me.

Although, Building #7 makes me wonder.

My focus of interest is; who actually flew the planes onto the towers?

And several unanswered questions concerning the plane that hit the Pentagon?