It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTC Built For Destruction By Rockefeller Brothers, And It all Went Horribly Wrong

page: 3
32
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

That has got to be the funniest thing I have ever read! Seriously? This guy said that??? A Bin Laden Construction Company representative asked him where to plant the explosives??
Was Elvis on site with him along with the Easter Bunny too?

I am aware that The family of Bin Laden has a large construction firm, but Osama was a pariah in their eyes and shut off. At that time he was still in college and NOT a radical jihadi. So I do not see how this would have even worked, or even how this is possible since Osama was not even a blip on the radar at this time.

You use PAUL LAFFOLEY, known conspiracy nut as the only purveyor of this claim that BinLaden Construction Company worked on the WTC, and somehow magically planted explosives as a self-destruct method. We only have HIS word, which is dubious at best. And yet, in the end, no proof of explosives was ever found.
edit on 8/25/2014 by GenRadek because: spelling




posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Kester

Well, at least your story is original. No need for sources, just pure imagination. Incidentally, the Sears Tower is now called the Willis Tower. I wonder if Willis knows what he bought?



What chu talking about Willis?
Had to ...



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: GenRadek

Hiding bombs is a hell of a lot easier than you think.

If you control the right people, the conspiracy can be easy to maintain.

It's as simple as saying "those were inspected already, here is the paperwork"

Conspiracies are frighteningly easy to pull off.

Look at 9/11... so far, they have gotten away with it, even though they screwed it all up...

Easy.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: applesthateatpeople

Not if you are hiding them for 40+ years where there are thousands of people in constant contact and proximity.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: GenRadek
You use PAUL LAFFOLEY, known conspiracy nut...

I wouldn't trust any other kind...


“Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories!” ~ George W. Bush



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Kester



The towers were destroyed mainly by the explosives built into the reinforced concrete infill panels in the core walls. You can see the panels blowing out in the photographs of the first few seconds.

And yet these explosives and their wiring survived the impact of the planes and fires?
Please make up another story for us.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
If the bombs are in the walls, NO ONE would see them, and the few people that do know about them could easily prevent anyone from ripping a hole in the wall to investigate.

Think.

Think.

Think.

It's not thermo-nuclear astro-physics.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: applesthateatpeople

But if you put them into the walls you A) make it impossible to service the devices once they go bad, B) severely weaken the structure by introducing gaps and dissimilar materials that behave differently. C) possibility of discovery during routine maintenance.



posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Off the top of my head I can't remember which floors or even which building. It was a major fire that spread quickly through cable access holes in the floors. They made the cable access arrangements fireproof to prevent it happening again.

I suspect it was an attempt by some brave soul to destroy the building bombs.

I'm not checking as I write this due to time restraints so I could be wrong. Aren't there stories of vietnam fighters cooking food over burning RDX? I haven't bothered reading GenRadeck's recent drivel. If he thinks RDX is like gunpowder is he really worth listening to?



posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

The evidence suggests explosives in the core walls on all floors except a few at the bottom. Plenty of other bits and pieces in the basement and elsewhere but the majority of the explosives were in these concrete wall panels. Does this make sense when you study the photographs and video of the destruction?



posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

I did the majority of my research years ago and I don't remember this presenting itself as a consideration verifiable from several angles. I'm working on other issues now so I'll leave it for others to pursue. Thank you for your contribution to the thread.



posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Again I'm not checking this due to time restraints. Did these explosives survive the impacts? Study impact images. Do you see possible partial detonation of core panel explosives? As I remember it there is what may be concrete dust blowing out backwards in some impact images. Two damp squibs that failed to detonate fully necessitating the implementation of one of their flimsy back-up plans. That's how I see it.



posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: applesthateatpeople

I agree.



posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Kester

well lets just say i have a hard time believing the building free fell without anything other than its on weight and a jet liner



posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed



well lets just say i have a hard time believing the building free fell without anything other than its on weight and a jet liner

And over an hours worth of fire.
And structural elements severed.

Naw no reason at all.



posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed



well lets just say i have a hard time believing the building free fell without anything other than its on weight and a jet liner

And over an hours worth of fire.
And structural elements severed.

Naw no reaso


edit on 3-9-2014 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
I have read this theory before that the tower's had a demolition plan before being built ,that it covered 4 buildings on the plaza .

Anyone have anything on this



posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed



well lets just say i have a hard time believing the building free fell without anything other than its on weight and a jet liner

And over an hours worth of fire.
And structural elements severed.

Naw no reason at all.






so what are you trying to say? ...that the buildings were engineered and designed to fall ?



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kester

originally posted by: GenRadek
SMH.

Oh boy the amount of errors in the first OP just makes my head hurt. Where to begin?

For starters, do you know what Operation Paperclip was about? Hint, not this.

Second, the pbs link makes no mention of building explosives into the buildings themselves.

Third, in order to have planted explosives pre-planted "just in case" would mean constant maintenance and monitoring and making sure that NO ONE else finds it by mistake. Explosives deteriorate as does the wiring, the electronics, and everything else that is required for explosives. They would have risked detection by Port Authority and city inspectors any time they dropped in to check up on the structure or during any tenant relocation or construction or renovations of the building. Also you'd have to hide it from the thousands of workers that built the buildings. You'd have to hide it from your every day workers in the building, and youd have to hide it from any one else that needed access to the structure. Oh yes by the way, if it was in concrete in the core, then explain why large segments of the core remained standing after initial collapse? Also, Why dont we see any evidence of the core blowing up, prior to the visible movement of the exterior columns bending inwards prior to collapse? The core was standing.

Fourth, to do any of this would mean that THOUSANDS of people would have been forced to either keep quiet or all paid off for over 30+ years. The Port Authority, city engineers, FDNY, NYPD, contractors, steel workers, etc etc etc, all would have had to been paid off or silenced or kept in the dark. Wouldnt want an outside contractor remodeling a floor and as they remove a panel and see explosives rigged up to the structure.



Apologies for the head hurt. Thinking does that to the less able.

Operation Paperclip was about grabbing information of many kinds. Such as the rudimentary beginnings of this plan. Too many cooks spoiled the broth, methinks. Plus it was a daft idea to begin with.

This is what I wrote with reference to the pbs link. "The pbs link tells us the idea was first proposed in 1946."

There was no "just in case". It was pre-planned mass murder intended to bring political gain on a gargantuan scale.

Deterioration has been covered. It explains the desperation David made evident, the need for extra add-ons, and possibly the detonation failure. Partial detonation is evident in some of the impact images.

I understand renovations, such as holes made in the floors to connect two floors leased by the same firm, were carried out by an in-house team. Your trust in the Port Authority and city inspectors is touching but misplaced.

The construction method made hiding panel emplacement from the "thousands of workers" almost easy. To keep it short, where are the photographs of the interior construction from these "thousands of workers"? The windows weren't installed until a large part of the structure was completed. The obvious danger was enough reason to keep idle sightseers out of the bulk of the building. The workers at the top travelled up in elevators and used materials brought up by the four cranes on top. How could they or any of the ground workers have seen the core wall construction? Narrow window spaces made exterior photography challenging. Inside was a dark space to exterior photographers. The sunrise pictures show the interior from a distance, I know of no other photographs showing the interior during construction. Links most welcome if any of you know otherwise.

Not sure about this "..explain why large segments of the core remained standing.." It was a massive operational failure incorporating several other destructive technologies. But you have hit on the fact NIST couldn't begin to analyse the 'collapse', yet many of us have devoted thousands of hours unpaid to satisfy our need to know.

"Why dont we see any evidence of the core blowing up, prior to the visible movement.." Sounds like an admission that we see evidence of the core blowing up.

The installation of the panels was almost easily kept hidden from the workers due to the method of construction. Lack of outside contractors has also been covered. You wouldn't see explosives within cast concrete. Holes for connectors would be plugged until shortly before the event. They'd just look like concrete infill panels if the drywall was removed for any reason. Modifications made seem mostly to have been holes cut in the floors, not holes cut into the stairwells, lift shafts or rest rooms in the core.

This reply is a bit rushed as I have to get ready for work now. I hope it's an adequate response for the readers.







Where are the floors
in the pictures and the pillars in the left tower do not match up pancake time

edit on 11/2/2017 by stonerwilliam because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/2/2017 by stonerwilliam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:10 AM
link   
A CIA man confesses on death bed !!! just throwing this video out there yournewswire.com...

79-year-old retired CIA agent, Malcom Howard, has made a series of astonishing claims since being released from hospital in New Jersey on Friday and told he has weeks to live. Mr. Howard claims he was involved in the “controlled demolition” of World Trade Center 7, the third building that was destroyed on 9/11.

Mr. Howard, who worked for the CIA for 36 years as an operative, claims he was tapped by senior CIA agents to work on the project due to his engineering background, and early career in the demolition business.

Trained as a civil engineer, Mr. Howard became an explosives expert after being headhunted by the CIA in early 1980s. Mr. Howard says has extensive experience in planting explosives in items as small as cigarette lighters and as large as “80 floor buildings.”

The 79-year-old New Jersey native says he worked on the CIA operation they dubbed “New Century” between May 1997 and September 2001, during a time he says the CIA “was still taking orders from the top.” Mr. Howard says he was part of a cell of 4 operatives tasked with ensuring the demolition was successful.

Mr. Howard says the World Trade Center 7 operation is unique among his demolitions, as it is the only demolition that “we had to pretend wasn’t a demolition job”. He claims he had no problem going through with the deception at the time, because “when you are a patriot, you don’t question the motivation of the CIA or the White House. You assume the bigger purpose is for a greater good. They pick good, loyal people like me, and it breaks my heart to hear the # talk.”


IS the cat out of the bag




top topics



 
32
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join