On 9/11 the WTC's demolition was carried out with stealth, and blown apart with unconventional demolition explosives.

How would the WTC be taken down, if they were to be controlled demo'ed in a conventional way, and with the blasters not having to use stealth?

Probably the same way most buildings are demolished, no?

im not sure the conventional bottom down demolition would be suitable for the destruction of WTC 1 & 2, so I guess it would have been top down no matter what.

Landmark Tower demolition.
Landmark Tower, again ('nother angle).

WTC 7 looked pretty much like a conventional CD. It didn't show flashes before the collapse, but not all controlled demos show flashes.

Here's one with no flashes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtmwJVmBvXg&feature=related

Another Sheraton.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g-Br1lJWpY

But, from another angle, you do see a few flashes. Not very noticeable, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GPB74hQ6YM

No it wasn't.

It would be systematically deconstructed, not explosively demolished.

IMO, they would need to be dismantled exactly the opposite of how they were assembled.. with the 4 kangaroo cranes attached to the 4 corners of the core....

AFTER the asbestos was removed.

Any other means would be an unacceptable risk, as the remaining first responders and survivors are finding out.

i think everyone seriosly oversetimates just how much "stealth" would be needed when they blew up the towers. The sheeples at JREF love to claim that "nobody heard or saw any explosions", which is total crap since there's only a million examples on youtube of people saying that they DID. but my main point is this: go to a shopping mall or some other really crowded place, where there's lots of people milling around and lots of background noise. now stand in the middle of a crowd and make the loudest explosion sound you can with your lips. do you really think anybody will notice?

now imagine the noise of that shopping mall multiplied by a hundred thousand and you're maybe close to the panicked confusion around the WTC on 9/11. with all that noise, it's pretty miraculous that anybody heard the bombs go off at all. IMO, that's what the government orchestrators were counting on.

Just my two cents; i don't think the bombs themselves were really supposed to be all that stealthy.

You raise a good point about background noise levels SlickWhistleBlower!

I've often wondered how much the noise masked the sounds of explosions and how much of the audio recorded that day was ruined by heavy background sound levels.

It doesn't take to much to overpower standard microphone recording levels and produce over modulation distortion.

Especially if your set up for normal recording levels or on camera microphone.

MM

Let me also post this here for the 3rd time, because I'm sure you people are interested. It's quite simple, no math needed

=============
http://rapidshare.com/files/80160735/911.w...headon.avi.html

The Rumbling starts at 0.8 seconds (0.77 seconds precisely) for which I used a wave editor. Assuming the camera is about 344 meter away (a very conservative estimation) the 1 second sound delay when corrected should start even before the first frame of the video. In order to determine if the top section has already fallen on the next floor I used an other (and another) video, that one didn't contain sound except a narrator, I looked at the first row of 'squibs' and some pieces of debris that have fallen in order to sync them.



Now they are synced in time and we can use the 2nd (soundless) video which we have to shift back 1.9+0.2 seconds in time

http://i19.tinypic.com/82nazgj.jpg

Now judge for yourself, do we have a rumbling that is proportional with the velocity ? Do we have rumble ~ v(t) ~ sound escaped air pressed out by falling floors ? The damned top section even didn't move.
=============

How does this fit with the crush-up crush-down model ? Just like the 40 seconds of the sound that I posted before doesn't fit also this doesn't fit IMHO.

and there are more things to add to this video, I've found 3 things in this video that contradict the official theory.

Small posting about the problems I see

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=300166

Hello Everyone,

I am new so I appologize in advance if I repeat someone else's post or offend anyone in the forum.

I have been watching other documentaries before loose change and the saw the videos showing evidence of air puffs from the lower floors of WTC as the towers crumpled. This shows signs of charges being put in place in order. THEREFORE SUPPORTING THE THEORY OF THE BUILDINGS BEING DESTROYED INTENTFULLY.

Secondly for the Pentagon blast: these other documentaries have said that it was not a plane that crashed but a missile, as the clips released show the bright light which accounts for the magnesium etc. Futhermore, it tallies up with size of the hole made in the Pentagon upon impact and the fact, that there were no parts from a plane on the ground. Although this theory has one loop hole which is how did it manage to hit the lamp posts etc

Once again this is my 2 cents worth.