[frantique]

I wish to state emphatically at the outset that my intention in putting this topic forward for discussion is in no way to suggest, seek opinion or in any way discuss any responsibility in relation to the subject. My intention is to engender discussion as to the possibility that what is being suggested could be so!

Phew! Having got that out of the way .... to the subject. The following are excerpts from an article from Deseret Morning News, November 10, 2005:

The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.
In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.

Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.
As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, "I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation."

The rest of the article can be found at : http://deseretnews.c...5160132,00.html

In addition, Steven E. Jones' article which seems to no longer be available on the BYU site can be found here: http://wtc7.net/arti...enjones_b7.html

So, what do you think?

[Advertisements]

I honestly think its just another guy looking for spotlight.
James

[james_8970]

I honestly think its just another guy looking for spotlight.
James

[warriorscot]

Actually in my civil engineering lectures we talked about it and it was pretty weird for the third building to fall down for no reason it would have had to been drasticly off spec to fall down and thats something noticable.

The towers themselves if they didnt fall down straight away it seemed they should have lasted longer, however the building recieved more than its maximum load and would have had to be destroyed.

I suppose it is possible that when it was built explosives were placed to ensure in the case of an explosion by terrorists or an accident to ensure that it would collapse in a relativley controlled manner rather than uncontrolled that would potentially cause much more damage, i would say that is feasible.

[sarahw]

Video that shows all supports collapsing simultaniously, watch.....

"Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."
Dan Rather. CBS news. 11th September 2001 5:30pm

Edited by sarahw, 17 July 2006 - 06:54 AM.

[sarahw]

Now look at the damage by the oklahoma bombing, note the difference. Straight collapse, as per above video. And below a direct explosion on a large building. Different outcome.

[warriorscot]

Well thats a prime example of why it would be a logical safety feature to pre fit large buildings with demolitions for controlled demolition at short notice especially in a place as densely populated as a major city like new york.

If a blast like that had happened the WTC wouldnt last long if at all before it collapsed on its side uncontrollably and then it could kill tens even hundreds of thousands of people.

The aircraft had allready imapcted the building with well beyond the maximum collapse load the WTC was only rated to take an impact of an unloaded unfueled 707 instead of a fully loaded 747 with fuel that meant that it was way into its plastic region it was gonna fall down with a strong wind not to mention the vibration of the people exiting the buildnig en masse.

You can see the reasons why they wouldnt say anything A. Who wants to admit to blowing up a building with people in it, and B. Its a great bit of propaganda.

[sarahw]

Building 7 was the New York headquaters of the CIA.
Although that in itself doesn't prove anything.
I also remember large amounts of gold stored underneath one of the smaller WTC buildings

Wikipedia has alot

Edited by sarahw, 17 July 2006 - 02:48 PM.

[james_8970]

Even if there was dynamite or any other kind of explosives in the WTC, it would be bragging rights that the terrorists would use. They would have mentioned it to brag about thier capabilities of sneaking things though even the most secure places of them all. And i'm on warriors side here for the reason he posted as well as if there was an explosion you'd see it, it'd have to be pretty large to destroy a beem in there, and also the sheer heat add to the masive amout of weight gain would have been more then enough and like warrior said, the amont of movement from people would send LARGE amounts of vibrations thoughout the building.
It has been tested before, as an example walking bridges need to be more stable and absorbe more energy then ones that support cars. Why? When we walk to sway back and forth and when a building begin to sway to over compensate to stay up straight cause more energy to go into the movement of the building.
I'm not seeing enough evidence here to believe that there where any explosives involved. Like i said in my first post, this is a easy way for a guy to get under the spotlight whether its true or all bogus.....It bogus news to me.
James

Edit: for a building to move straight down, takes alot of time an planning, there are only about 80 people in the world that have enough knowledge on this subject. You need blue prints and a never ending amount of time. Something they may find. But consider this in order for a building to drop like this (using any kind of explosives) you must drill a hole directly into the pillar and then weaken it, after doing so you then have to have all the cables going to a device that would destroy each pack at a different interval (some sides will fall faster, so you must destroy them last). This requires lots of work and know how, and you can't tell me that you'd be able to drill explosives into pillars without someone noticing (it takes about 1 month of work to blow a building like this, one month of work inside). The reason why i know this is because i watch a eposode on it In some instances there is more then just what meats the eye, it takes more then just physiques to destroy something.

Edited by james_8970, 17 July 2006 - 03:10 PM.

[warriorscot]

Terrorists wouldnt have known of explosives if it was indeed a safety feature to help minimise damage from a terrorist attack, certainly from an engineers point of view it makes sense to have demolitions placed in large buildings from day one of contruction, also a controlled demolition uses very little explosives there would be little heat blast from a controlled demolition of the buildings foundation, its certainly a plausible if not even likely theory.

Although it is again quite possible the vibrations of people brought it down because the building was well out of its elastic stress region so the stresses would only get worse. Its another possibilty.

PS to the PS, it is quite feasible that any demolitions could have been there from the start the designers knew it would be a terror target and so did the US government there are many features designed to minimise damage controlled demolition facilities could just be another fail safe feature, or they could have been added later perhaps after the attempted attack on the WTC by bombers that happened a long time ago the possibility of a succesful attack and measures to combat it, they were actually supposed to fit a patriot battery to the roof of the WTC but didnt do it on cost and PR basis as they couldnt hide a missile battery on the roof.

There is also more than 80 people that can do a controlled demolition, most civil engineers or military engineers evem have the knowledge to be able to do it given enough time to plan it there might be only 80people that do it but a great many more can, its like nuclear weapons tens of thousands have the knoweldge to make them but only a handful ever will.

Edited by warriorscot, 17 July 2006 - 03:19 PM.

[dsenette]

from my knowledge of controlled demolitions (none personal) you have to do ALOT to a building before you can take it down in a controlled manner with explosives...you have to GUT the building completely...and cut every support beam (at least the ones in the area to go) to their absolute limit of safety...then you have to place explosives in a very VERY specific manner.....buildings (especially tall ones) are built to not come down very easily...and "pre-rigging" with explosives would have made the towers so weak that a breeze would have taken them down...not to mention the fact that controlled demo's aren't exactly easy to hide (no matter how good you are)...they don't exactly set off every charge at once...they're sequential...you would have seen floor 1 go, then floor 2...and so on...you didn't see that in the towers..

[james_8970]

thats what i was trying to say up there in my edit...but i kinda rushed it and it isn't all that clear.....
James

[warriorscot]

Well most saw the collapse it wasnt a controlled collapse but it was pretty close for an accident, im using the term controlled wrong im not meaing traditional controlled because as you have said it takes alot planning and is damaging and obvious, however it is possible to do destroy a building with a degree of control by correctly destroying key structural points it wouldnt be as clean as a controlled collapse but it would give the building in question a better chance of not actually falling on its side which would cause huge casualties and even more damage.

Im not meaning controlled in the normal sense of large scale demolitions but in the emergency demolitions method which is used in certain circumstances and is consistent with what could have been done to the WTC.

[james_8970]

Yes but to destroy the key structual point for the way it fell would have to be hit within a second of one another. All of them. And how would they do this? Without dynamite planted into the pillars you do need a fair amount of dynamite to do damage to them. Enough of which would be in my eye noticable. They are built to with stand a quite a bit, as was seen in the 1995 bombings of the world trade centers in the under ground parking lot. And if dynamite (or any explosive at that) wasn't used what could have been to do it?
James

[warriorscot]

There is alot of different types of explosives and ways to structurally impair a building, but like i said if done properly you could design blast sections into the building without comprimising its strength in anyway, its not about causing alot of damage its causing a little in the right place, its a fairly robust building but it has some structural weak points damged in certain areas the building would on its own pull itself down especially after its allready damaged which would be the design scenario if they did such a thing.

When i read the engineering report on the collapse it never really covered all that much about the mechanisms of its collapse more why it did collapse and an interesting run down of its construction i didnt read through it with a fine tooth comb just enough to do the problem i had at the time(find the plastic moment of the WTC) but it never seemed to directly answer alot of questions.

But if they did use an emergency demolition im just saying it would have been possible to do it with sufficeint planning if they had planned for the possibilty in the construction(as they might have if i designed a building i would have and if ever do design buildings i would put in place the facility to allow if not pre laid explosives for emergency demolition at tleast the facilities to in an emergancy quickly enact a plan to do so.

The emergency services at the scene as soon as they got there would have had to have started thinking about taking the building down safely its not beyond imagination that they did or someone else did.

[sarahw]

I suppose there hasn't been a similar event to compare the effects to.

The shear weight of the top half of the buildings 1 and 2 would cause it to fall in on itself.
But I think building 7 -hours after the collapse of the twin towers- bears a resemblance to an implosion.
Terrorism aside, why would somebody want to demolish the building? Insurance payout is one feasable explanation. But to do so, would require a quick moving team of professionals, which is unsubstanciated by any account or shread of evidence.

There is a (supposed) FEMA report -that I can't find- that concludes generators and diesel fuel at the base of the building caused WTC 7 to collapse. When you think about it. It sounds the most likely scenario.

There are many Pro's and Cons to the theory, but there are too many holes.

I haven't completely read the 911 commision report yet . I might pick it up at the bookshop today.