It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


World Trade Centers Collapse – Alternative Theory

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 12 2006 @ 07:11 PM
First of all I would like to thank everyone that has posted in the forum with their thoughts and theories of what happened on that dreadful day to the WTC Towers – I have read many of the posts and I agree that the story the government is telling us is not the truth. I feel that there are several things that are being held from the public because of what may come if these truths ever come to light.

First and foremost, I am not convinced that the attacks on 9/11 were devised and carried out by the US government to lead us into was with Afghanistan and Iraq. I do have my thoughts as to what may have brought the towers down.

What I entertain as possible reasoning to why the towers fell can be read in the following article:

On day, as the lead consultant engineer was in my lab talking just about "stuff", I asked him, "Sometime in future, in 50 years or so, how are these Twin Towers are going to be taken down as tall as they were going to be and as tight as land is in a crowded city, without causing fast destruction to other buildings?"
He was standing upright. He outstretched his right arm with his palm down. And said, "Bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam" as he lowered his hand down one imaginary floor at a time. All the way down to the floor. I knew that we had to certify these commutators to be able to operate continuously for 50 years without service or repair as our part of the contract. He explained that as the buildings are being built, explosive charges are being incorporated into the structures at key floor joint locations. So, that when the first charges are set-off at the top floors, they will take that floor down to the next. And the charges at that floor will take it down to the next floor. This will continue all the way down. The Twin Towers will come straight down like a stack of pancakes. When the buildings get old and no longer useful or profitable to have and maintain, all it will take is a phone call to take them down.

Here is why I think that it is possible.
1. The towers were built on top of soft ground (as evidenced by the Slurry Wall that needed to be built to keep the Hudson River away from the building when they dug for the foundation. At any point during the construction if the ground started to give way, there could be the need to bring the towers down, and bring them down FAST. This would save thousands of lives (if the tower or towers ever fell over sideways).

2. The decision could have been made (or possibly by design the entire time) to leave the charges in the building if the ground ever started to give way later.

3. On 9/11, the decision MAY have been made, with fear that there was a good chance the towers would fall over and destroy surrounding buildings and countless lives, to bring them down to minimize the loss of life and surrounding buildings.

4. The WTC complex is adjacent to a very large communications hub (The Verizon building at 140 West St.) If the tower would have collapsed onto 140 West St, the communications to all of Lower Manhattan, including Wall St and the Stock Exchange, would have been disrupted for months if not longer. (This is a very small piece of the larger picture, but may help explain why the call to “pull” WTC was made, or at least a contributing factor.

This is again, my thoughts on one of the many possibilities of event surrounding the WTC collapse, I cannot find much for proof, and I apologize for that – however in some strange way to me this theory is possible.

[Mod Edit: Link format - Jak]

[edit on 12/5/06 by JAK]

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 08:25 PM
I did a google search, and this seems to be the only source that I could find who claims explosives were actually built into the building.

Do you know of anymore sources?

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 09:16 PM
There are several articles, but they all quote or just link to this. I've had the idea about this for a while - while searching this information is what I found. In an analytical way the idea has always made sense to me - finding the article added some information.

Please understand that I have no "proof" or am I trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt this is what indeed happened. My post was a way of sharing some of my thoughts about 9/11 and putting together things I have read and making sense of them in my own mind.

I do not want to come of as saying "This is how it happened, I don't care what anyone else thinks", I just wanted to make known my personal thoughts. To me it seems possible, just looking for feedback and input from others on the subject.

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 09:26 PM
This is disinformation, if this were true there would of been no powering down of the WTC Towers before they were demolished.

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 09:39 PM
you mean of the south tower..singular

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 11:28 PM
So how does WTC 7 fit into this? Were all the buildings loaded with explosives or just the towers?

But seeing as explosives are pretty unstable and don't store very well I doubt this story to be true.

posted on May, 13 2006 @ 07:34 AM
I do remember hearing this idea in atleast 1 other thread, but as the debate went on it came to light that it just wasn't practical because the detonators needed to be in place.

I dont see this as a valid way to bring down buildings, it means that alot of buildings being built now are being built with these charges in them, where is all the proof. i.e people who work with this stuff.

posted on May, 13 2006 @ 11:09 AM
So many reasons why this theory simply doesn't make sense.

1. It assumes that this is standard industry procedure, rather than a covert operation. Hence there would be widespread knowledge of this practise in industry and everyone would know about it. As would everyone who was involved in the construction and everone who worked in the building as they would be warned of the presence of the explosives.

2. The position that the explosive demolition of the towers down to the ground showering debris for 600 feet around and killing everyone in the buildings and many outside them in the process would cause less damage and loss of life than a cap simply falling to one side is point blank illogical and unsupportable.

3. If such a measure were put into place, it would be designed to implode the buildings in as neat a demolition as possible, rather than exploding the buildings all over Manhattan.

4. The potential for disaster if the demolition system or any part of it was accidentally triggered would far, FAR outweigh any potential and beyond-vague benefits from the ability to demolish the building at will.

5. Even though it did happen, before 9-11 the perceived likelihood of an event occuring to threaten the actual collapse of the towers would be so low as to make a cost-benefit analysis to be stupendously in favour of simply NOT doing it. A plan like this wouldn't get past the immediate firing of the first nutcase who brought it up. As I said when this came up in another thread, it would be akin to insuring your house for $1M against possible Godzilla attack.

6. WTC7.

[edit on 2006-5-13 by wecomeinpeace]

posted on May, 13 2006 @ 11:59 AM
The points here definitely make sense, and I appreciate the input. Hopefully some day we will all find out the undisputed truth behind what happened that day, and I'm sure it's going to be interesting to say the least. The questions behing 9/11 seem to be showing up on more and more mainstream type media. It's going to take some very important people to stand up and make that truth known. I just hope I am around to see that day.

posted on May, 13 2006 @ 12:16 PM

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
This is disinformation, if this were true there would of been no powering down of the WTC Towers before they were demolished.

Actually the power down of one tower has yet to be verified and seems to be disinformation. Much like this story there is one source when there should be many, and the story really doesn't make any sense.

posted on May, 13 2006 @ 12:49 PM
Unfortunately this is not true, this is disproportionate collapse, which has many building regulations preventing it's happening. Buildings are often collapsed from the ground floor up. Building disproportionate collapse into a building would mean that a single removed pillar would cause the whole thing to be destroyed, and as an engineer, you would expect your source to know this.

posted on May, 13 2006 @ 05:57 PM
The other problem with this theory is that explosives tend to become unstable over time.

Also, you need to guarde against the acidental detonation of an explosive.

Frankly, this is the dumbest 9/11 theory yet.

new topics

top topics


log in