Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

WTC brought down by bombs?

prostetic dong

New member
Explosives Planted In Towers, N.M. Tech Expert Says

By Olivier Uyttebrouck
Journal Staff Writer
Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday.
The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.
Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.
Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.
"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.
Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon.
He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech.
If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said.
"It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said. The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said.
The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said.
"One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device," Romero said.
Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion, he said.
Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would have been the collision of the planes into the towers.
Tech President Dan Lopez said Tuesday that Tech had not been asked to take part in the investigation into the attacks. Tech often assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects.
 
THEY WERE HIT BY AIRPLANES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! going 300 miles per hour...
 
As of yet I have heard no one say that they saw, felt, or heard of any explosions.
How many planes do you think was needed as a diversionay plan?
 
The WTC was brought down because, according to THE GUY WHO DESIGNED AND BUILT THE BUILDINGS, the steel supports melted due to the intense heat from the airplanes that exploded and were carrying A ZILLION TONS OF FUEL.

There were no bombs.

There were no men with big hammers pounding on the walls.

It must be fun to post speculation. I should try it some day.

-Warik
 
The bombs were two 767 airplanes flying at 400 plus mph and fully loaded with fuel.

The buildings collapsed because the heat from the intense fire weakened the structure around where it was hit. When this structure gave way, the weight of the structure above it overloaded the supports below it and it came down. Better known as a cascading failure.

There were no secondary bombs. I too watched and rewatched the video's and saw no evidence to support that theory. I don't even think the terrorists thouhgt that they would cause this much damage.
 
figure 8000 gallons of gas, go get the chem book out and figure out the energy in a gallon of iso-octane or whatever jet fuel is, burn 8000 gallons of it. metal decomposes.....
 
If the WTC could be brought down my using some explosives placed in and around the tower's why boughter using planes at all. Unless Holiywood planned it of course, they love special FX.

Normally when secondary explosions are used as a diversionary tactic it's to normally lure more victims into another area thinking their entering a safe zone, as bomber's have been doing here in Ireland for over 30 years now.

If the intended victims are going to be soldiers it's normally to route them into a killing zone for a final crushing assault. This is explaining it very simple here for civilians, but Chesty knows the tactics which I'm talking about.

The WTC were brought down by murdering bastards flying aeroplanes full of more innocent victims. And these type's of stupid posts here on elitefitness do nothing to help heal the wounds.

Bouncer
 
YES, THE TOWERS WERE BROUGHT DOWN BY BOMBS.

WHEN A PLANE, GOING 300MPH, FULL OF FUEL, HITS A BUILDING AND EXPLODES.......WHAT THE HELL ELSE IS IT??? ITS A DAMN BOMB!!!


KAYNE
 
chesty said:
The bombs were two 767 airplanes flying at 400 plus mph and fully loaded with fuel.

The buildings collapsed because the heat from the intense fire weakened the structure around where it was hit. When this structure gave way, the weight of the structure above it overloaded the supports below it and it came down. Better known as a cascading failure.

There were no secondary bombs. I too watched and rewatched the video's and saw no evidence to support that theory. I don't even think the terrorists thouhgt that they would cause this much damage.
You hit the nail right on the head, with one exception:

Do you think that they figured, "WTF, we'll crash a couple of planes and kill like 500 people"? This was clearly planned for a long time, and it dosen't take a nuclear physicist (sorry BigPhysBastard) to understand and calculate that "cascading failure" would result from taking out any floor below 105. The implosion/demolition of buildings relies on the building "taking itself down" utilizing this theory of cascading failure; the weight of each successive story acts to "piledrive" the next, lower story down. That's why Oklahoma and the previous WTC attack as well as the US Army barracks all were humongous explosions but failed to level their respective target buildings.

Their goal was to SHUT DOWN the US financial system and it looks like they succeeded. A simple crash, burn, repair 10 floors would not have succeeded in this goal.

Even if I'm way off base here, would you rather underestimate your opponent in an upcoming battle? Remember Sun Tzu. We should be very wary, knowing that although they cannot begin to understand and comprehend American patriotism and resolve, (unlike the Soviets in Afghanistan, who had none), surely they have anticipated and planned for many scenarios of a US-led retaliation. A second strike on U.S. soil using "suitcase nukes" and biochemical weapons is not only possible but almost certain. Believe me, this is a holy war for them and we must be prepared for the loss of hundreds of thousands of American lives if we are unwilling to use extreme and definitive force first and quickly.

Just something to think about before we start again with the same complacent arrogance that got us into this position in the first place.
 
With a 400 ton + plane travelling at over 400mph the impact force would be around a million tons. A Boeing 767 has a fuel capacity of nearly 17000 US gallons and the resulting fire would have burned at around 2000 degrees Fahrenheit.The building was simply not designed to withstand this and the longer the fire burned the more inevitable the outcome was!
The main thing for me that blows Romero's theory out of the water is the fact that explosive devices would have detonated either simultaneously in each tower or a certain period of time after each impact, yet the south tower which was hit after 9am collapsed before 10am and the north tower which was hit well before 9am didn't collapse until 10.30am!
The reason for this difference is simple - the south tower was hit lower down by a pilot who even swerved to increase the impact force through added G and on the video replays you can see the differences in the impact. I also clearly remember one of the eye witnesses stating that the 767 crashed into the north tower but the 757 crashed THROUGH the south tower. Add to that the fact that it was impacted lower down meant more weight above the fire and the damaged exterior support columns some of which would have been completely severed by the sheer force of impact. I also have to agree 110% with Chesty in that I don't think the terrorists thought that they would actually bring the towers down otherwise they would have struck them even lower down leaving even more people trapped above the fire or causing almost instantaneous structural failure which either way would've made even this horrific death toll pale by comparison!
 
i also agree that they did not think the buildings would collapse... i also think that is why they are not claiming they did this... in my opinion if the buildings stood and the casualties were not nearly severe (1 is more than enough, yes) then bin ladin would have said "i got you fuckers".... instead, both collapsed.... 6000 plus are dead... and he and the taliban are thinking "oh fuck, we are fucking doomed".
 
The buildigns fell the way they did because they were designed the way they were: their "tubular" design, revolutionary in 1973 placed most of the load bearing on the outer walls of the building. It collapsed in on itself bcause the insides were weakest.

In other news, the planes did not hit lower because flying 350 mph, it is pretty hard to gauge exactly hoew far above other buildings you are. They wanted to be sure to hit their target.
 
The designer's are very proud that the buildings stood for as long as they did after being hit. Allowing hundreds to escape before falling.

Any other bldg would have collapsed immediately killing everyone instantly..
 
Here's an indication of the size of the impact. Taken from another site.


Seismographs picked up Trade Centre's collapse
online.ie 21 Sep 2001



The collapse of the World Trade Centre towers shook the ground with the strength of a minor earthquake.

Monitoring stations throughout the north-east of America recorded the tremors. The closest station, 21 miles north of lower Manhattan, was near enough to register the relatively smaller impacts of the two airliners as well.


Equipment also picked up the smaller signals generated by the collapse of other buildings and walls throughout the area.


All the monitoring stations are operated by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University.


Seismographs collected from September 11 are published on its website. It reports the twin tower collapses were similar in strength to a small earthquake of a magnitude 2.4 on the Richter scale.


Experts say the collapse of the buildings was longer and more complex than the fault shifts which cause small earthquakes.


Bouncer
 
Gotta love the facts...:rolleyes:
400 ton planes traveling 600mph with
17,000 gallons of Jet-a. Uh yeah..right.

Not that it really matters in the overall
scheme of things but.....

Max T/O weight for the 767 varies by
model between 395,000 and 412,000.
They hold upwards of 23,800 gallons of fuel.
600 mph at sea-level is almost supersonic
they were at about 300mph.

Given where these planes were going and
how empty they were, I'm thinking
way under max weight and prolly 12,000 gallons
of fuel.
Obviously still enough to do some real damage.
Also, IMO there was no additional bombs,
The structure was severely weakened by the heat.
 
THE TERRORISTS KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING

AND FULLY INTENDED TO BRING THE BUILDINGS DOWN!!!

Ok, everybody who isn't a structural engineer who has studied tall buildings for years sit down...... good, so is its just me left standing then, good.

The stuff about bombs is BS. The buildings were designed to withstand a severe impact like a plane crash but there is no real way to guard against the kind of fire that was started when the aviation fuel lit up.

A couple of points:
1. As steel is heated it becomes more flexible and therefore will bend more easily and cannot sustain as much load before it deforms.

2. Buildings are only designed to withstand major fires for a certain amount of time (ie. 1-2 hrs). This is generally related to the time it would take to fully and safely evacuate the structure and how long the structure can resist the damaging effects of the heat. The fact that the WTC remained standing as long as it did with that massive a fire load is very impressive.

3. Clen makes it hard for you to concentrate...... shit....

4. If you watch the close up tape of the collapse you can actually see the exterior columns begin to buckle on the burnt out floors and then fully deform as the building comes down.


If they initialy wanted for the towers to fall in then why didn't they hit the towers lower?

Because in a skyscraper, as you get closer to the ground the structure become much more massive and strong because it has to support all of the weight of the floors above. The terrorists knew exactly what they were doing when they hit the buildings where they did. It was at a point where the structure isn't very strong, but there is enough mass above so that when the impacted floors collapse it overloads the rest of the building resulting in a total catastrohpic failure..... and clen makes it hard to concentrate.

The reason for this difference is simple - the south tower was hit lower down by a pilot who even swerved to increase the impact force through added G and on the video replays you can see the differences in the impact. I also clearly remember one of the eye witnesses stating that the 767 crashed into the north tower but the 757 crashed THROUGH the south tower. Add to that the fact that it was impacted lower down meant more weight above the fire and the damaged exterior support columns some of which would have been completely severed by the sheer force of impact. I also have to agree 110% with Chesty in that I don't think the terrorists thought that they would actually bring the towers down otherwise they would have struck them even lower down leaving even more people trapped above the fire or causing almost instantaneous structural failure which either way would've made even this horrific death toll pale by comparison!

Kinda close but no cigar. The south tower went down 1st, even though it was hit 2nd, not because of any swerving or hitting lower down, but because it impacted almost in line with one of the building's faces, and severly damaged that side. This reduced the structures ability to support itself laterally so it literally tipped over after the adjacent columns had been sufficiently weakened by the fire. You can see this in the footage, it looks as if its toppling over, kinda like if you kick out two adjacent legs on a table, while the other tower went almost straight down. THis is the fastest and easiest way to knock down a building like this.

Bottom line, they knew exactly what they were doing and had 100% intent to bring the towers down. They hit the buildings where they were the weakest, if they hit lower down they might not have fallen at all. Oh yeah and clen makes it hard to concentrate... i'm shaking like a leaf here..... shit...
 
don't now for sure

"Because in a skyscraper, as you get closer to the ground the structure become much more massive and strong because it has to support all of the weight of the floors above. The terrorists knew exactly what they were doing when they hit the buildings where they did. "

They intented to shake up the world, not having the buildings collapse. Still if the impact had been lower, the result would have been the same (i think).
I find it hard to believe that they knew exactly what they where doing.....;
Maybe it is not that easy to do for not so experienced flyers.
 
They intented to shake up the world, not having the buildings collapse. Still if the impact had been lower, the result would have been the same (i think).

It would depend how much lower they hit, if it was significantly lower on the building the outcome could have been very different as there would have been some chance of actually fighting the fire. Also, if these people were as organised as they are purported to be it would seem fairly ignorant for them not to have considered the effect of the impacts on the structure, especially since some of the hijackers were engineers....... then again this is speculation, none of us will ever know for sure.
 
Or insure them - unless the government steps in as apparently they've already offered special insurance terms to the airlines!
D O T thats a good point about the attack in '93 I suppose it is possible that they meant to bring the buildings down but the authorities have said it will take structural engineers ages to find out exactly what happened!
 
ok. so by goin g on what most everyone in here thinks, that the planes brought them down, don't you think it is very much a coincidence that both towers came down? and that both towers came down the same way, smooth and precise? like the way buildings takin down by demolition experts crumble on top of each other?
but i guess these stupid "ragheads" as so many sheeple want us to believe, did this only by hijacking planes and crashing them into specific targets and are infact bumbling idiots? i'm sure they ment for the buildings to come down the way they did. 2 the same way? i don't buy it.
i guess well never know.
 
ok. so by goin g on what most everyone in here thinks, that the planes brought them down, don't you think it is very much a coincidence that both towers came down? and that both towers came down the same way, smooth and precise? like the way buildings takin down by demolition experts crumble on top of each other?

......coincidence.....? :rolleyes:
ummmmmm, lets see now, the towers were structurally identical, and they were both subject to almost exactly the same impact and fire loads...... they collapsed down spreading rubble over a number of city blocks..... and a real implosion requires surgical removal of many specific structural members in a specific sequence.

but i guess these stupid "ragheads" as so many sheeple want us to believe, did this only by hijacking planes and crashing them into specific targets and are infact bumbling idiots? i'm sure they ment for the buildings to come down the way they did. 2 the same way? i don't buy it.

Don't be a twit, some of the hijackers were engineers, these were highly intelligent individuals who planned this thing and took a long long time to set it up, and they knew that the planes were all it would take. I'd like to say something poignant here about reacting to crisis and responsible doubt, but I'm tired and my hands are shaking from this GD clen, so go figure it out for yourselves. :)
 
Wrought said:


......coincidence.....? :rolleyes:
ummmmmm, lets see now, the towers were structurally identical, and they were both subject to almost exactly the same impact and fire loads...... they collapsed down spreading rubble over a number of city blocks..... and a real implosion requires surgical removal of many specific structural members in a specific sequence.



Don't be a twit, some of the hijackers were engineers, these were highly intelligent individuals who planned this thing and took a long long time to set it up, and they knew that the planes were all it would take. I'd like to say something poignant here about reacting to crisis and responsible doubt, but I'm tired and my hands are shaking from this GD clen, so go figure it out for yourselves. :)

so what you're saying is that surgical removal of many specific structural members in a specific sequence by some of the "hijackers" that were enginers, highly intelligent individuals who planned this thing out over a long time i might add.
hmmm....but i guess they figured as long as they steal some planes and...oh wait i forgot, get drunk in a bar the night before (muslems don't dig on al-key-hal!), brag on what they have been keeping "secret" for the past five years, and then leave/forget there sorce of enlightenment, there bible on the freakin barstool, pay for all there lap dances and drinks on there own credit cards with there real names on them and give the bartender a photocopy of one of there drivers liscence? this sounds like intelligent men who could keep a secret like attacking the words financial structure at the heart for five years undr wraps?
come on man...wich seems more logical? maybe don't give in 100%, but you gotta have a gut reaction feeling about this shit just not all adding up.
i'm not a consperacy theory nut, i just don't buy everything i hear.
thanks for your thought out answer though bud.
:)
 
Top Bottom