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.


Could explosives have been put into the World Trade Centers during construction?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 12:29 AM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Detonators are very sensetive to RF interference. And if the detonator goes off, your explosive charge goes with it. If they WERE built in, then at some point you would expect at least one of them to have gone off when someone with a radio or phone was standing too close to one and accidentally set off the detonator.

I don't know what you mean by very sensitive.. but I used to work with radio equipment and was involved in design and modifications and you can shield transmitters even against spurious emission if you know what you are doing. Thus, you can shield a detonator if you REALLY WANT TO.

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 12:32 AM
If you're within about 10 feet of a detonator talking on a cell phone you risk setting it off. And why would you shield a detonator against radio signals, if it's a remote detonator?
You have two choices in detonators. One that plugs into a box and you push a button, in which case the guy pushing the button probably won't make it, or you have the radio controlled detonators. And what are you shielding them against? Oops.

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 01:00 AM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
One that plugs into a box and you push a button, in which case the guy pushing the button probably won't make it, or you have the radio controlled detonators.

Why do you think that the central detonator had to be radio controlled?

Remember we are talking about 1970's technology here. Det cord could have been run to another building within the world trade center complex where someone did push a button, maybe even to building 7. I'm sure there were underground tunnels all over that entire complex.

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 01:04 AM
I started a thread yesterday about roughly the same thing,
The whole plot might have been exposed in a 1960's television show ironically called Get Smart.

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 01:04 AM
So now you have let's say an ADDITIONAL 1000 feet on top of what's in the building. Don't you think this is getting a LITTLE out of control here? You've got the building wired, PLUS what you're running to another building to the control unit. And in 30 years, no telephone repairman, or electrician or ANYONE else, went anywhere NEAR where the detcord was running? And not ONE person noticed it and got suspicious? Or what did they do, build special tunnels just to run the detcord to the control box? And hid the detcord through special framing in the building where no one ever went?

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 01:08 AM
THIS tells me the effective shelf life of det-cord is about 3 years, under PRIME conditions.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: 9/11 Forum Posting Guidelines – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: Post Touched.

[edit on 31/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 01:27 AM

Originally posted by twitchy
I started a thread yesterday about roughly the same thing,
The whole plot might have been exposed in a 1960's television show ironically called Get Smart.

I found that connection most interesting.

Originally posted by twitchy
... the Good Guys were called Control, the bad guys were Kaos... that in itself is pretty profound given the espionage premise of the show.

On Febuary 18, 1967, NBC aired episode 52 entitled "Smart Fit The Battle Of Jericho". Frank Lloyd Joshua operated a KAOS front posing as a construction company called the Joshua Construction Company which seemed to have a history of their High Rise buildings exploding. Max Smart infiltrates the construction company and discovers that KAOS is using explosives in the actual construction of the buildings themselves.

Construction of the World Trade Center began in 1966. This episode aired just 197 days after the WTC ground breaking.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by twitchy

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
-David Rockefeller

It is interesting to note that David Rockefeller was the force behind the design and construction of the world trade center.

Rockefeller Brainchild

The World Trade Center was conceived in the early 1960s ... Chase Manhattan Bank chairman David Rockefeller, founder of the development association, and his brother, New York governor Nelson Rockefeller, pushed hard for the project, insisting it would benefit the entire city.

It does look like it was all pre-planned decades in advance doesn't it.

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 01:48 AM
super funky funny that the real name of the "security blanket" for the towers (ie. the perpetrators) was Kroll.

always with the 'K's, those zany illuminati.

get smrt.

who killed john o'niell?

'frame the patsies'.

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 03:10 AM
well, ive made several posts on this very topic (the detonators not preplaced explosives, no secret i dont think there were ANY explosives, but for the sake of open discussion what i post is going to be very unbiased)

in general zaphod and others are very correct about the nature of electronic blasting caps, but let me emphasize electronic blasting caps

demo 101 without the "how to" part

there are two types of blasting caps, which some will refer to as a detonator.
in reality the detonator is the device be it electrical or non elecrical which initiates the cap.

elecrical blasting caps are made by placeing levels of explosives into a small aluminum tube. one layer is set off by the heat between the leads of two wires which in turn sets off the next layer etc until it gets to the last layer taht is HE.

non elec caps are the same only use things like time fuse or det cord to initiate a larger explosion

almost all explosives require not just flame but concussion to detonate. thats why you use a blasting cap and cant just stick a sparkler, cannon fuse or conventional time fuse into a block of tnt or c4. even dynamite (which is the most unstable of all conventional military grade HE) requires a cap.

the reason that RF signals are dangerous around elec caps is that the energy in the radio wave can initiate the spark, if you will, inside the elec cap and cause it to discharge. any manual on explosives will tell you that the minimum safe distance from even a 1W transmitter to any elec cap is 300m. closer and yer on yer own.

non elec caps are not succeptable to RF but would have been very impractical in the demo of the twin towers (assuming for a minute they were demo'd) because you have to run det cord to EACH charge, and that turns into a LOT of detcord, run very discretely, and would have made a LOT of noise prior to the collapse.
time fuse would have been impossible to have been the initiator based on the guildilines that the CD crowd puts forth. example, each fuse would have had to have been cut, by length to within 10ths of a second for it to have looked so smooth and when you have to use fuse off many rolls, that is nearly impossible. before you say "well im sure the govt has demo experts that could do it", let me say that i was one of those demo experts and within a couple seconds was close as i could cut time fuse. and again you have the problem of size and concealment.

a word on detcord. essentially C4 (its actually, this is off the top of my head so forgive if i mistype, PETN, similar to RDX in many aspects) stuffed inside a plastic tube just bigger than Cat-5 cable. so, imagine stringing a network cable for each charge, and you have BUNDLES of cord. yes, you can just run one to each floor and set up a ring main, but thats still a lot of stuff you have to hope wasnt discovered by accident.

the comments about the demo being placed during construction, well, then youve just impicated dozens more people who havnt said a word in 30 years. remember, humans by nature are horrible with secrets, someone likely would have talked. had they mixed it into the concrete as a 'slurry' the chances that the concrete would have been too weak to hold the building together increase a lot. and the concrete itself would have inhibitted the blast just by the nature of concrete. most explosives need a little more forgiving medium to be able to chain react with itself. (ie plasticizers for c4 or the waxy emultion for tnt. parafin is ok in a bind, also some explosives need a 'wetting' agent IE anfo)

hope that sheds some light on it for ya'll. wish my old posts were still there to link to, i was a little more thorough.

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 03:44 AM

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
What kind of explosives were available 30 years ago for building demolition?

I can't help but wonder if explosives could have been incorporated into the world trade centers as they were being built.

So lets say that you wanted to proceed with the demolition at a latter date. You would probably send in your people to check that all of the charges were still in place a little before the event. Lets say a week or two before hand.

[edit on 30-8-2006 by In nothing we trust]

Why not? Makes as much sense some of the other whacky theories being thrown around and in some cases more.

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 06:27 AM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Detonators are very sensetive to RF interference. If you stand too close to one with a radio or a cell phone, or even a regular phone, then it can go off.

Can you provide a source showing RF transmissions from a regular phone? Mobile I can understand but I've never heard of a landline transmitting RF.


posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 06:36 AM
lets just for arguements sake say that the explosives did still work...and tahts saying a lot...would the construction workers really not realize people building explosives into the building???

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 07:12 AM
so you would have an explosion 1993. That could have been caused by cell phone?

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 08:33 AM
Maybe the 1993 bombing was the implanted explosives going off by mistake. One never knows ...does one?

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Shar
explosions if they were in the WTC the most likely time would of been during the Clinton adminstration when the first attack happen. A van drove in the parking garage and exploded which caused the evaucation of everyone in there.

That's exactly what I think. The place was cleared out after the first "attack" giving all kinds of workers complete access to the buildings.

Good call Shar.


posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:49 AM
OK.... now the first 'attack' is being used as a diversion to wire the building?

Lets pretend that it was.

They placed all the explosives, drilled all the holes and ran all the det cord. doesnt account for the detination cord going off, or the explosives going mouldy.

What about top secret/ classified tech. since we are pretending they did pre plant explosives, seems to be the only possability. I would love to see sumone proove that baby true.

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 10:18 AM
Here's a site I found that explains a totally different approach. I pasted a couple of pertinent paragraphs.

The actual slowdown in construction was when it was revealed by the government agency constructing, and the videographers had to pry for this information, that there was a special anti corrosion, anti vibration resistant coating on the rebar of the concrete core structure. The coating was flammable and special precautions were to be taken, meaning the government would handle the butt welding of the 3 inch vertical bar prior to regular crews running the horizontal minor steel that is tied with wire.

A special crew with armed escorts outside visual screens removed the coating from the bars, beveled the bar ends, welded the bars (welders working on the main steel couldn't be used because they didn't have security clearances) and x-rayed them. After each tier of concrete was poured the welding had to be completed before the concrete forms could be built again.


This was technology invented in the cold war to make self destruct missile silos and submarine bases, perfect for preplanned demolition. The C4 protected the steel from corrosion before the sea water was evacuated by the incoming concrete into the forms. The C4 was encapsulated in the concrete and its 10 year average shelf life extended by many times.


All floors that were sandblasted and cleaned, ready to pour concrete were forcibly evacuated for a period by armed security that watched their work. This factor was in the video!! Upon returning, members of concrete crews had reported to friends that on the first layers spreading the mud they were warned not to step on the green stuff in the valleys of the corrugated deck. That part was NOT in the video but from an oral history of a worker on the tower. Along every corrugation, about 2 feet apart and 4 inches wide, C4 had to have been poured along it the full width of the floor segment. Perhaps a few of these were set with the wrong delay creating what is referred to as premature "squib" blasts. One corrugation perhaps right on line with a detonator in the explosive circuit could create exactly this effect. The C4 of some floors may have lost its viability whereas the totally encapsulated C4 on the rebar of the core was as good as the day it was cast. It was noted by workers that there was a complete circuit formed and that the area surrounding the interior box columns on 3 sides were 4 to 5 times as thick as the green material in the corrugations. Again, this information comes from oral histories of workers on the towers.

Could any of this be possible? Comments?

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 10:33 AM
Here's a paragraph further down that describes how the detonators could be placed & what type they could be:

Inspection ports provided would allow access to the big vertical bar. I remember these mentioned in the documentary as needed to check the condition of the reinforcing bar. When the buildings were leased there was extensive service done on lower elevators. Workers reported delays because elevators were shut down. A gas initiation sytem that utilizes gas filled plastic tubes which is a safer, more stable detonation system would be used here as those blasting caps would sit for months in the occupied building. The gas is lit and burns to a detonator resembling an old fuse, or fire blasting cap. This system will not be inadvertently detonated by radio waves or static and can be left safely for months.

On the weekend before 9-11 the building was unlocked throughout the inside for cable upgrades for almost 48 hours above the 48th floor. Just about the right amount of time to access the inspection ports and complete the work done needed to get exactly the effect described here by the firefighters;

So could it be possible to use such detonators?

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 11:00 AM
I'm wondering why we're assuming electronic detonators can not possibly be shielded from various frequency waves. Waves do not seemlessly pass through everything, which is why (1) you can't see through walls, and (2) microwaves heat fats, sugars, etc., as two examples. Also, to act upon a circuit of some kind would itself require just that kind of interaction from a RF wave or what-have-you. You can even absorb EMP's in simple copper or aluminum. There may very well be known materials that specifically block out the mentioned frequencies, that I'm just not aware of (not a field I'm that familiar with). I certainly don't see it as far-fetched, though, based on the above info.

Point is, one would have to know this kind of information for all frequencies and all insulating materials/etc. to say with any certainty that this or that would have caused premature initiations of electronic det caps.

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 11:08 AM
We have ben over this... the detonation recievers wuold recieve encrypted digital data... like any cell phone can to initiate the detonation. A trillion 1s and 0s in perfect order NEVER trasmitted by accident.

As to the "blasting caps"... why do so many assume they are working with 1800's technology? Read about the electric match... this is just one way to avoid "RF interference accidental detonation".

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in