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.

 

Why were there bombs in the WTC basement? Need advice plz :P

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Ok, i am talking to this guy on an other Dutch forum and he is still questioning
wether or not there are explosives used to take down the buildings.
He asked me the following and i cant answer it because i dont have the proper
knowledge about destruction procedures.

He basically means this:
The buildings came down from Top to Bottom, if the buildings were supposed
to be taken down with explosives and they were gonna do it from top--bottom, then
why would they use explosives in the basement that would risk the building
toppling and make the top--bottom demolition pretty much useless.

I'd like to know the answer myself as well actually, im really pondering why??

[edit on 16-8-2006 by zren]




posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 02:53 AM
link   
They tried this in '93. MOst have forgotten.
If they had used the same mixture McVeigh did in the Oklahoma City bombings, the effects would have been devestating.

He might be talking about the WTC attempted bombing I spoke of.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 02:55 AM
link   
You havent answered the question. WHY would they place bombs there?
Why risk weaken the structure at the base of the building that could cause it
to topple over when they set explosives from top---bottom ?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 03:02 AM
link   
1) Don't believe everything you read about the Oklahoma bombing. There is evidence of an inside job and not just because the same demolition company was used to clear Oklahoma as the WTC (Controlled Demolition Inc). The first local reports did suggest evidence of multiple explosions.

2) Explosives are always used at the bottom of buildings to destabilize, never to bring down (or, at least, thats my take on it anyway).



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 03:02 AM
link   
The Towers were beasts, and would've likely required a series of detonations in various parts of the buildings before their collapses would have been allowed.

Valhall and others have noticed in various videos that during impacts and collapses, the other Tower will exhibit signs of disruptive behavior from the inside. Explosions were reported constantly before the collapses, from just before the impacts (Rodriguez and co-workers' reports in basement floors), through the period of time in which the fires were being battled (22nd floor of at least one building was reported as collapsed, for example; many instances of explosions reported), to just before and during the collapses.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Well, let's see. If you wanted to detonate below, and cause internal structure failure from above, you would have to send recoil to the top, in force.

If you were to use percussion bombs, maybe that's why you would put bombs in the bottom to bring something down from the top.

For me personally, the effects aren't that great, and neither is the devestation.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Bombs in the basements...
To cause the buildings to come straight down and don't fall sideways or crash into the surrounding buildings. The towers fell like free-fall timewise, like there were no supporting structure below. If the official "pancake" theory had been correct, it would've looked differently and the towers would have spent more time during the collapsing process. I don't believe that burning jet fuel can suddenly cause the towers to totally "pulverize" and fall straight down in a free-fall (9 seconds or whatever it was). And the tower which was hit last and also got the less of the burning jet fuel injected inside the building (most of the fuel was spraying out of the building on impact), that tower was the first to fall...



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hellmutt
Bombs in the basements...
To cause the buildings to come straight down and don't fall sideways or crash into the surrounding buildings. The towers fell like free-fall timewise, like there were no supporting structure below. If the official "pancake" theory had been correct, it would've looked differently and the towers would have spent more time during the collapsing process. I don't believe that burning jet fuel can suddenly cause the towers to totally "pulverize" and fall straight down in a free-fall (9 seconds or whatever it was). And the tower which was hit last and also got the less of the burning jet fuel injected inside the building (most of the fuel was spraying out of the building on impact), that tower was the first to fall...


Neither WTC 1 nor WTC 2 fell at or near free fall. WTC 1 fell at 16 seconds (free fall would have been just under 10 seconds) and WTC 2 is reported at 14 seconds (I have not seen where this time came from, but it sounds right based off extrapolating one vid showing part of the collapse). I don't think there's anything odd about it "pulverizing" once the collapse started, but I do find it odd that apparently the official report has the collapse initiating at the 50th floor - well below the impact point of either building.

There are multiuple first-reponder official reports, as well as radio comm transcripts, that have explosions and collapses in the basement (B4 level) and the 22nd floor of WTC 1.

I'm confused by the original poster's question though - who said they cared one way or the other how the towers fell, and therefore why is there any reason they wouldn't have placed bombs on any given lower floor they could access?

[edit on 8-16-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 05:31 AM
link   
Lets for the sake of argument say that they decided to blow up the WTC
from top to bottom to make a 'pancake' story more plausible.

Then why would they have placed bombs in the basement of the building? (as
reported by witnesses, smoke rising from it etc)

Wouldnt placing bombs in the basement threaten the structure to fall aside, or is
there an other reason to place them in the basement as well in addition to the others?

What im pointing at is: Would placing bombs in the basement help the progressive
collapse go smoother? Or would it risk the building falling sideways ?

(For the arguments sake assume there were bombs used through the entire buildings)



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 05:33 AM
link   
1)Trap and/or kill people in the basements
2)help weaken the main shaft
3)Retard the rescue of Survivors



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chickenhound
1)Trap and/or kill people in the basements
2)help weaken the main shaft
3)Retard the rescue of Survivors


These all make sense, and in addition, to say weakening the lower floors "would make it fall side ways instead of straight down" would be incorrect. If you weaken the lower floors it's more likely to fall straight down - especially if a progressive collapse initiates half-way up it. But again, I don't think they cared how the towers fell. They apparently just wanted them fall - completely.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Why not go back to a '70s trilogy, and detonate from the roof?

Proper placement causes simulated "free fall".



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Now could the explosion where the firefighters were have been charges or just collasping floors..and if it was the latter, How come we didnt see any blown windows or dust plumes on those floors,or did we?



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Because there were no bombs in the basement of either tower on 9/11. The impact of each individual plane and the burning jet fuel caused the towers to collapse. The explosions in the world trade centers could have been anything other than bomb explosions, such as falling debris, various pockets of air fueling the fires, generators, etc.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chickenhound
Now could the explosion where the firefighters were have been charges or just collasping floors..and if it was the latter, How come we didnt see any blown windows or dust plumes on those floors,or did we?


If you mean the 22nd floor, that floor was way below the impacted floors in either building. If you look at the structures of the buildings, you'll see how unlikely it is that anything collapsed down there without explosives (trusses and 4" thick concrete slabs under each floor, even more support in the core, and even more support on the mech/skylobby floors, where I-beams were laid into the concrete floors). Without damaging any floors in between, or smoking or anything else, that would have had to have been pretty amazing for the impacts or fire to do that.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
If bombs did go off at the bottom of the tower, would it be heard from outside the building? I've watched different videos but the only people they talk to that heard "explosions" were in the building at least a few floors above ground level (supposedly). Another, how did anyone secretly move all this explosive material into the building without being noticed? Was there bomb sniffing dogs?

I'd imagine buildings the size of the WTC's would take a lot of explosives to take down, especially if you wanted them to be completely demolished. So, how long would it take to rig both the buildings?

If the government put this plan together it would mean they have some knowledge of how to put a big elaborate plan together. Most plans have a backup, I would think that if they really did put bombs in the building they would of had an alternate story, such as terrorists put bombs in the buildings, or even go as risky as having a fallguy incase the people became to suspicious that it was the president or some other extremely high government official. And again, if the government did these attacks and the people were never real (meaning documents found of the "attackers" were fake) then why not make documents about the "terrorists" making bombs and them using the bombs in the attack?

Afterall, if I was ahead of this "project" I would rather people think I just wasn't smart enough to stop an attack than be known as the person who directed the worst act possible in world history.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join