Basic Demolition Question

[adolfo]

How many people would be required to set up demolitions for the WTC buildings?

[petgoat]

1. That depends on how much time they had available to work,

the quality of their access (did they have to dodge Security
or not?), how many charges they placed, whether they used
radio control or not, and whether they were able to plant
a truck bomb in the basement.

According to the demolitions expert Van Romero the towers could
have been brought down with a few charges in key places.

[MercutioATC]

2. A question about the "few charges" claim...

If that's true, why do professional demolitions companies use hundreds of charges (drilled into concrete supports) to bring down a building?

[Ezlivin]

4. Because they are concerned about liability, not expediency

n/t

[hack89]

5. How many people or companies have the expertise..

to analysis the structure, design a complex detonation system and then install it? It is a small community from which to gather such expertise from - why haven't any 9/11 "researchers" investigated this line of inquiry?

[adolfo]

9. Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC (Securacom)

Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United

George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family..........

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

Edit: Securacom/Stratesec

[hack89]

10. What does this have to do with demolition?

Securacom/Stratesec is a security firm - nowhere can I find any evidence that they have any experience with demolition. Not sure what your point in posting this was - four years after the fact if no one can provide clear evidence that Securacom/Stratesec was part of a conspiracy then perhaps there is nothing there.

[petgoat]

11. The OP asked how many people would need to "wire" the towers

Post #1 pointed out that quality of access was an issue, with
the obvious implication that control over personnel at the Security
company could impinge on that.

That Marvin Bush was for nine years a Director of Securicom is also
connected to the demolition hypothesis because it provides a motivation
for official coverup of any evidence of explosives: because it would be
highly embarassing to Marvin Bush's company.

[hack89]

13. What was Bush's role as director?

Most boards of directors are full of influential, connected individuals who play no role in the day to day operations of the company. What evidence is there that he could influence 9/11 even if he wanted to?

And what of the others on the board? Surely they too are powerful and influential people - what groups are they associated with that could have also benefited from 9/11?

[dailykoff]

14. How about the Carlyle Group?

Just a guess.

[petgoat]

15. Close. Stratesec was financed by an outfit called the

Kuwait-Ameeican Corporation.

[truthmove]

25. re marvin bush/stratesec

and that coincidence doesn't really prove anything. it just seems like more of a sensational "conspiratorial" detail.

[canetoad]

51. Not necessary.

Who was worried about a complex system.

I fear the term 'controlled demolition' has become a mantra. I believe the towers were demolished. Full stop. What's to follow is purely my own musings. If I wanted shock and awe, I reckon dropping the WTC towers is about yer best shot. Only way to GUARANTEE they drop is having a little insurance policy in place.

Could be quick and dirty. Maybe a new explosive. While the rubbernecks are staring at the shock and awe of plane hits, whammo. Not controlled demolition, just pure demolition. Terminology such as CD brings out the logically fallacious straw men debunkers. It has a whiff of planning, preparation, about it. Why could not a couple of guys stuff all sorts of nasty little surprises on the machine floors over the weekend.

Just say you had a team of six drones per building, working all day Sat and Sun. Honestly believing they were planting pretend explosives for fake war games. And don't get me started on what I think about the likelihood of finding nineteen willing suicide bombers.............


Edit:Typo

[MercutioATC]

6. But if it takes hundreds of charges to bring a building down in its own

footprint, why wouldn't it have taken a similar number of charges for WTC 1&2?

In an occupied city, liability is certainly a concern. However, buildings brought down well outside densely populated areas still require hundreds of charges. How would a demolitions team bring down TWO buildings in their own footprints with just a few charges?

[petgoat]

29. with just a few charges?

Ask Dr. Van Romero. He's the expert. And he says it could be done.

[canetoad]

52. Who says?

Sure, a controlled demolition of a redundant building would require them. For all sorts of reasons, Liability Insurance being one of them.

I'm troubled by the assumption that if the TT were brought down by demolition, it was in any more than a very basic way, controlled or sophisticated.

[DoYouEverWonder]

53. If what you say is true

then how the hell did one jetplane take a building down?

[petgoat]

7. about the "few charges" claim...

Ask Van Romero. He's the expert, and he said it. Not me.

[hack89]

8. So you admit you don't understand what you are espousing?

it supports your bias so you accepted it without question?

[petgoat]

12. No, and no. nm

[hack89]

17. Then why can't you answer the question? nt

[petgoat]

18. Won't, not can't. Rhetorical questions; waste of time

And actually I DID answer them (see post 12).

[hack89]

19. Nice evasion.. n/t

[Jazz2006]

27. And Van Romero never said that, either.

Goat knows that.

She just likes to keep repeating it as though he did.

If you ask her to cite the quote, she'll admit that she was paraphrasing.

From an article that Van Romero later insisted be retracted because he was misquoted and was bombarded by conspiracy theorists, etc.

And then she'll tell you that none of that means anything because the same paper that misquoted him didn't specifically say that every single sentence was retracted.

But she'll still use the same misquote and her own paraphrase over and over and over again here while pretending that's what he actually said. Which he didn't.

[petgoat]

30. The Albuquerque Journal says he did.

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.

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABQjournal/


Take it up with Olivier Uyttebrouck, not me.

[Jazz2006]

33. As you know,

he never said the words you keep attributing to him, and he insisted that the newspaper retract that story on the basis that they had misquoted him, etc.

Keep trying, though.

[dailykoff]

36. You could save yourself some embarrassment

by checking your facts.

You wouldn't be as funny, though. :rofl:

[Jazz2006]

40. Right on cue.

But still clueless.

Well done.

[petgoat]

37. Where does he say the paper misquoted him?

I'll admit there's a bit of an inference that when Dr. Romero said "a relatively small amount"
of explosives could do the job, he meant "a few charges".

Since both FEMA and NIST seem to think a few hot trusses could unzip floors and buckle perimeter
columns, it's a reasonable inference. But if he wanted to legalistically contest the point,
I suppose he could, but I've seen no evidence that he does.

[Jazz2006]

41. It's not "a bit of an inference"

It is something that you have been deliberately misquoting repeatedly for a long, long time.

And as you know full well, the links have all been posted before, the same discussion has been had before, you know exactly what I'm talking about, and yet, you keep on pretending that it hasn't been, and you keep misquoting him to suit your purposes.

Like I said, tedious.

[petgoat]

42. The inference is entirely reasonable.

1. Dr. Romero said "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points."

2. The newspaper paraphrases him as saying they'd be placed "in more than two points in each of the towers."

3. What he retracted was his statement that fires could not have brought the buildings down. He retracted nothing else.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html

4. He allegedly told Popular Mechanics (in an article written by Michael Chertoff's cousin):

"I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4

What's interesting is the fact that this statement is set right next to one by NIST's Shyam
Sunder that is obviously a lie: "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing,
it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window." When the floor collapses, the air
under it is shot out the window. But by the time that floor reaches the floor underneath and
starts to pulverize it, the air is already expelled. Had some kind of peeling floors mechanism
been in place, we would have seen the dust belt walking laterally around the building. Instead
we saw dust ejected simulatenously from every window on a floor.

5. So now Dr. Romero has recanted his statements that fires could not bring the building down,
and that exposives definitely did bring the buildings down.

6. What remains is: Explosives could have brought the building down, a relatively small amount
could have done it, and more than two charges would be needed per building.

[Jazz2006]

43. Like I said,

we've been through all of this before, and you know full well that he didn't say the words that you keep attributing to him. Over and over and over and over, you keep attributing to him words that you know full well he didn't say.

You say it's a "fair inference" to use your words rather than his, but you keep attributing your "inference" to him and pretending that he said the words you "infer", which of course, he never did.

You know full well that he disassociated himself from the story in the newspaper you quote, yet you further "infer" that he didn't disassociate himself from the story except to the extent of the words you quote... from the very source that he says got it wrong the first time and from the very source that you say paraphrased him from the outset.

Here's a suggestion.

Why don't you call him on the phone or send him an email and ask him whether your oft-repeated misquote is a "fair inference" of what he actually said before continuing to attribute words to him that he never said and before continuing to post your inferences of other inferences as fact?

[petgoat]

44. Why don't YOU call him? If he was dissatisfied with the

second article in the Albuquerque Journal that said only that he had changed his mind,
then why didn't he issue a statement to that effect at the time?

Why did this "miquoted" stuff only come out three years later in an article written by
a cousin of Michael Chertoff? About the same time that pink picture of WTC7 surfaced.

He said a relatively small amount of explosives in more than two places could have done
the job. To me, "more than two" means five to eight. That is a few charges. He never
disputed or clarified the "more than two" statement.

[Jazz2006]

45. It is obvious that you would never accept

it if I related anything he said to me in a conversation.

Thus the obvious solution ~ call him yourself. Get it first hand. Do some of your own research for a change instead of spouting off about things you know nothing about.

You're the one who keeps deliberately misquoting him. So call him ~ get your info first hand. Not overly difficult.

And as much as you try to pretend that your misquoting of him is new, you know it isn't.

As much as you try to pretend that this hasn't been discussed before, you know it has been.

As much as you try to pretend that you personally haven't been attributing to him words he never said, you know it's true.

[petgoat]

46. You're right, it would be irresponsible to accept the

internet affidavit of an anonymous internet poster. Don't you agree?

He never disputed the "more than two" characterization. That is "a few" charges.

[Jazz2006]

47. There you go again....

demonstrating your lack of ability to comprehend what "research" means.

Here's a hint: it means more than the internet.

You really should try it some time.


And no, your personal interpretation of what you read on the internet does NOT equate to what you've posted and asserted above, and repeatedly, or to what you have repeatedly misattributed to the person in question.


If you are going to limit your research to the internet, you should at least have the decency to only quote direct quotes from them, rather than paraphrase a paraphrase to pretend that the misquote and paraphrased paraphrase means something you want it to mean.

But it would be infinitely better if you actually researched something yourself that is easily researchable, so that you could actually post something that you have knowledge of.

[petgoat]

48. Have you once in your 1400-post career here posted a link? nt

[Jazz2006]

49. Another lame attempt at misdirection, I see.

Since you know that I have.

You've even responded to them.

Why are you so eager to divert attention from your own lack of research and the realities pointed out above?

Nobody is really fooled, you know, by your persistent attempts at deflection in conversation with you. They just get bored with it and move on because it grows wearisome and devolves into nonsense because of your constant deflection while you pretend you've scored a point when you haven't.

[Jazz2006]

50. .

never mind.

See above.

[Jazz2006]

28. No, he didn't.

You know that.

[petgoat]

31. The Albuquerque Journal says he did.

Try using links once in a while.

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABQjournal/

[Jazz2006]

34. See above.

And see previous discussions on this very issue, which I am sure you recall.

He never said the words that you continue to attribute to him.

You know that.

Yet you keep quoting him as though he said words he never said.

Go figure.

[petgoat]

20. You're talking about concrete here.

Since concrete tends to create a monolithic structure, it bridges over holes
and weak spots in unexpected ways.



Here's from the news article about Van Romero's statement: "'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."

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html

From a later article (at the same link):

"He believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building
was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an
electrical transformer or other source of combustion within the building."


Now unless he's talking about the simultaneous detonation of electrical
transformers all through the building, he's talking about the possibility
that a few explosions could have brought the towers down.

Tom Eagar's "zipper theory" as presented in the popular media also put
forth the view that small and isolated damage could bring the towers down.
It basically claimed that if one floor truss let go from its flimsy perimeter
anchor, it would pull down the next, the two would pull down the third, the
floor would unzip and fall on the next floor, which would unzip and then it
would just go "boom boom boom" all the way down.

This story went without challenge from the scientific and engineering
community until NIST decided it was without merit, and proposed a
completely different collapse mechanism.

[hack89]

23. How does this explain all the squibs?

were they caused by something other then explosives?

[Jazz2006]

26. Mercutio,

Van Romero never actually said that it would take only a "few charges".

That's just one of the mantras that petgoat likes to repeat over and over and over again.

If you ask her to cite the quote, she'll admit that she was paraphrasing.

(From an article that Van Romero later insisted be retracted because he was misquoted and was bombarded by conspiracy theorists, etc.)

And then she'll tell you that none of that means anything because the same paper that misquoted him didn't specifically say that every single sentence was retracted.

But she'll still use the same misquote and her own paraphrase over and over and over again here while pretending that's what he actually said. Which he didn't.

[petgoat]

32. Got a link for his claim that he was misquoted?

The Albuquerque Journal article doesn't say he was misquoted. And it's not my
paraphrase, it's Olivier Uyttebrouck's.

[Jazz2006]

35. You know this....

from previous threads.

Why do you continue to assert otherwise?

It is beyond tedious.

[petgoat]

38. In other words, you've got no link. nt

[Jazz2006]

39. In other words,

they've all been posted and discussed before.

And you know that.

[petgoat]

55. Ah, the old "Asked and Answered" ploy. nt

[Jazz2006]

56. Except for the inconvenient fact that it's not a ploy, of course.

[petgoat]

57. Except it is, of course. You have a star, you can search it. nt

[Jazz2006]

58. Like I said, it's all been done before. And you know that.

[petgoat]

59. And still you have no link. Only repetetive banter. nt

[Jazz2006]

60. You know they've been provided before, even though you pretend otherwise.

I've learned that providing you with links and facts and research is somewhat pointless because you simply ignore them and revert to your same old same old lame assertions.

But you know that they've been provided to you. Your pretense to the contrary is exactly that, pretense.

As noted above, it seems you don't even read your OWN links, never mind those provided by others.

And, you still haven't answered the questions about whether you've ever worked in a skyscraper
with modern security and whether you've ever been in the WTC towers.

[petgoat]

61. Not only do I not know it, I do not believe it.

As to my own experience, since anonymous internet anecdotes have no evidenciary
value, I prefer not to waste my time reading or writing them.

Let's just say I've been around.

[Jazz2006]

62. "Let's just say I've been around"

I don't doubt that for a second.

But it seems that you've "been around" the wrong circles.

You know, the ones in which critical thinking is suspended, the ones in which disingenuousness runs rampant, the ones in which all manner of projection is encouraged, the ones in which obfuscation is paramount. Those kind of circles.

[petgoat]

63. When all around you lose their heads, you can learn a lot if

you keep yours.

As I've said, I've learned a lot about denial, about rationalization,
and about obfuscation.

Experience is not necessarily contamination.

[hack89]

3. How do you explain the many squibs on many floors? nt

[rman]

16. No doubt Marvin Bush could have arranged access,

as much as required.

[petgoat]

21. Webster Tarpley quotes Hugo Bachmann,

"professor emeritus of building dynamics and earthquake engineering at the world- famous Swiss
Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule in Zurich -- where Einstein had taught.... According to Bachmann,
"Buildings like the World Trade center can be destroyed without great logistical exertion." .... If
the perpetrators had rented office space, then these "explosive tenants" could have calmly placed
explosive charges on the vulnerable parts of the building "without having anyone notice.""

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:pd1xNzszwwcJ:www.american-buddha.com/911.syntheticterrormade9.htm++tenant+wtc+switzerland+tarpley&hl=en


I wouldn't be surprised if WTC security after hours was pretty much satisfied to monitor the fire
alarms and log the entrances and exits of tenant personnel.

My point is: Collusion with Building Security was not necessarily required. Investigation of the
possibility of explosions may have been shut down simply because it's embarrassing to Stratesec,
not because they were involved.

That being said, I'm open to the possibility that Stratesec WAS involved.

[rman]

24. i hadn't considered that possibility

it seems entirely plausible

[DoYouEverWonder]

54. Good point about the 'explosive' tenants'

Even just posing has a potential renter, would give you access to info about all the available 'empty' spaces in the building. Like the big open space about 12 floors down from the top in this picture.

However, actually moving in makes it so much easier. Then you could work at your leisure and in a huge building like that, it's easy to hide. Also, people make noise. It is easy to hear a security guard or someone else coming if you are working in the middle of the night.




I would think that for the fire to spread across the entire floor like this, means that this space was open.

One thing people who believe jets can turn skyscrapers into dust don't talk about much are firewalls.

The firewalls between floors were at least over 2 hours, because of the amount of concrete and steel between each floor.

Also, between tenants and offices would be additional fire walls, that are put in place when the first occupants develop the space. At a minimum, most fire walls are rated for at least one hour. Plus, wasn't there a sprinkler system in the Towers?


This is one of the few pictures after the fire ball, that shows a large blazing fire. As far as I can tell, this floor wasn't blazing for very long and it happened right before the collapse. Looks more like something exploded deep inside.


Then when the collapse begins, big fire balls explode out of the building. Something had to set off this reaction.

[reprehensor]

22. THE DEMOLITION OPERATION OF THE WTC TOWERS

This anonymous dude says thousands of charges, made by 10 assemblers, 20 installers;

1) One needs to find out the right size and the dimensions of suitable cutting charges and then order 24,000 pieces. One must as well order fitting detonators (detonators were needed a lot more). Fitting detonators usually already exist in stores of military forces (or the CIA). Time of delivery is several months in any case. All detonators must be equipped with some kind of safety mechanism, which will be removed by a radio signal at the final moment.

2) After this, the cutting charges are installed in the selected rooms that are not in use. Some of these rooms may as well serve as temporary storages for charges needed elsewhere. After this the apartment is renovated and circulated to the clients in the WTC. One man continuously assembles maybe 5 cutting charges per hour. With 10 assemblers 350 charges are installed a day. As surplus transportations of supplies, renovators and guards. Maybe about 20 people more were needed (5 of them know what is going on, 15 do not). For the installation of the charges this operation takes at least four months with 30 men. Considering step 1), six months are probably needed. The amount of personnel could not have been increased, but probably decreased, if more time was available.

3) To some of the chosen apartments, no one had access. That is why on the weekend on 9/8/2001 and 9/9/2001 it is announced, that floors up from the 40th floor are being equipped with cables and no normal employee has access to the working area there. The installations of explosives are completed and at the same time at least in the charged areas listening devices are set to find out a possible premature discovery of the plan. If someone finds charges the guards are soon on the scene and will deal the situation in one way or another.

4) One completes the area of secret service in WTC 7 so that its demolition operation can be carried out. A military flight beacon is placed there (planes are homing to it from far away). Remote controls for air planes and radio transmitters to be capable of blowing up at least one third of the cutting charges are placed. At this location, the ability to eavesdrop any area of the WTC, for example by a laserbeam, aimed to a selected window, probably already existed.

more@link