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.

 

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

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You have two choices in detonators.


Yeah... in video games.




posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
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'.


Kroll and Kaos, huh?

Or is it Kontrol?

Who Killed John o'niell?

Now that's an interesting question.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 31-8-2006 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
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.


Slap Nuts is right. Check out this site



www.i-konsystem.com...

Multiple levels of security designed into the system including:
• RBB writes unique one-time digital code to a Smart Dongle
• Smart Dongle must be transported and inserted into Blaster 2400R to activate communications with RBB
• All radio signals encrypted with the one-time code and specific address of the RBB
• Protection against stray signals or RF interference.
• If severe continuing interference occurs, SURBS goes into standby mode to allow a safe restart
• SURBS also has a test mode which allows pre-checking of the strength and quality of the radio signal from potential firing locations
Very simple to operate.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

Because David Rockefeller was running the port authority and he is like Mr. Illumaniti unless you heard otherwise in the USA. Besides you and others overlook annother important point and it is the design into the structure of an easy way to bring the building down.


The port authority sent several police officers to help evacuate one of the towers, I think it was like 21-27 police officers, out of those police officers only two survived and they were trapped for an entire day under 20 ft of rubble....so no...the port authority was not behind any conspiracy theory to destroy the towers...

The WTC collapsed because two fricken planes loaded with fuel crashed into them, the buildings survived the crash but the structure was severely damaged, and then the ensuing fires weakened many of the remaining columns bringing down 12 floors on top of each floor below them, precipitating the collapse.


[edit on 31-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Oh for Gods sake get a life... what a load of old crap.
Can't you do domething useful with your time ??
Now I enjoy a bit of this kind of thing now and again but explosives built in to the towers ???????????????? Dream on...



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
The WTC collapsed because two fricken planes loaded with fuel crashed into them, the buildings survived the crash but the structure was severely damaged, and then the ensuing fires weakened many of the remaining columns bringing down 12 floors on top of each floor below them, precipitating the collapse.


So the fire weakened the core columns now? Nice.

I thought it was the "clips" that "un-zipped" causing "pancaking".

Ohh, shoot, the current lie is that it wass it the floor trusses pulling on the exterior columns.

Even the NIST will tell you you are wrong... MAybe they will change their story next week though and you can be right.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

Because David Rockefeller was running the port authority and he is like Mr. Illumaniti unless you heard otherwise in the USA. Besides you and others overlook annother important point and it is the design into the structure of an easy way to bring the building down.


The port authority sent several police officers to help evacuate one of the towers, I think it was like 21-27 police officers, out of those police officers only two survived and they were trapped for an entire day under 20 ft of rubble....so no...the port authority was not behind any conspiracy theory to destroy the towers...

The WTC collapsed because two fricken planes loaded with fuel crashed into them, the buildings survived the crash but the structure was severely damaged, and then the ensuing fires weakened many of the remaining columns bringing down 12 floors on top of each floor below them, precipitating the collapse.


[edit on 31-8-2006 by Muaddib]


No plane hit WTC 7. How did that one collapse then? By fires that have never in the history of tall buildings ever accomplished again before or after?



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   
@bsb: id personally say its not IMPOSSIBLE to shield a cap from an RF signal, the copper mesh you mentioned would be a good place to start, wrap your demo charge in it and you have a little insulation that would be quite effective actually.

@slap nuts: i do have to agree that the actual radio recievers (if that was indeed the case) WOULD likely have been an encrypted signal, when i refer to RF setting off explosives, i specifically mean to the cap itself. also the reason we're still using 1800's tech to blow things up is simple, its nearly perfect
the basic blasting cap was one of those things that was just done right from the start.

@2pac: the problem i see with the c4 in the floors is you start talking about a LOT of C4 and that much volume of explosives would likely have created a shockwave on each detonation that would have carried through the noise of the building falling. anyone thats ever heard a large (by large i mean LARGE) explosion going off will attest that you can feel as much as hear it. ask a guy coming back from iraq how far away you can "feel" a 500lb bomb going off.

the ultimate problem with all of this is that the more components you add to any system the higher the chance of someone finding it or that the system itself is going to fail. remember the addage "keep it simple stupid". simple is best. that is of course, simply my opinion.

also, to the "electric match" post, i worked primarily with military grade stuff so i have no data on that, but unless it acts like a blasting cap, it wont do much. det charges NEED, read MUST HAVE both fire and concussion to detonate. thats why HE charges in fire simply burn, until you step on them to put them out.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
The WTC collapsed because two fricken planes loaded with fuel crashed into them, the buildings survived the crash but the structure was severely damaged, and then the ensuing fires weakened many of the remaining columns bringing down 12 floors on top of each floor below them, precipitating the collapse.

You know if you can proove that conclusively Muaddib, it's literally worth an unclaimed one million dollars.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeoSocialist
Oh for Gods sake get a life... what a load of old crap.
Can't you do domething useful with your time ??
Now I enjoy a bit of this kind of thing now and again but explosives built in to the towers ???????????????? Dream on...


While I do not believe the towers were pre-built with explosives, they were pre-designed for future demolition as all large buildings are.

Also, don't be so quick to write everything off... Can you guess who said the following?

"In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted... they more easily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie... It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously"



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by NeoSocialist
Oh for Gods sake get a life... what a load of old crap.
Can't you do domething useful with your time ??
Now I enjoy a bit of this kind of thing now and again but explosives built in to the towers ???????????????? Dream on...


While I do not believe the towers were pre-built with explosives, they were pre-designed for future demolition as all large buildings are.

Also, don't be so quick to write everything off... Can you guess who said the following?

"In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted... they more easily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie... It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously"


Hitler.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade
Could any of this be possible? Comments?


No, and there are a few reasons why.

First and foremost, the least technical reason is that concrete interferes with radio waves. Try using your cell in one of those multi-level parking lots, all that 'crete plays tricks on the signal. With detonators, we're talking a more direct transmitter, but we're also talking about a lot of concrete. These things don't have an eternal shelf-life.

Second, concrete by nature is not waterproof. Any embedded detonators would have been corrupted by moisture leeching into the concrete over the years. Now, if a sealant was added into the concrete to make it waterproof, nothing even remotely flammable would have been mixed in with it. Waterproof sealant expands within the concrete to serve its purpose, and the resulting pressure would have had some ill effects on the explosive systems, at least ruining the detonators, and at most detonating the C-4 due to the sealant's expansive pressure and resulting heat. (Pressure AND heat, applied in conjunction, can detonate C-4).

This theory is correct in that the C-4 acts against corrosion, but used in conjunction with sealant? Not happening. Especially given the decades involved.

So, ruling out scenarios that would compromise the explosion, the best I can see is explosives without detonators were embedded in the original build, without waterproofing the concrete since this also could cause anomalous behaviour of C-4. This means the detonators would have to have been planted sometime fairly close to 9/11/01, which means people performing activities that would have drawn attention, like climbing around in elevator shafts, busting through sheetrock, and so on.

According to witness clips in lots of CT footage, in the weeks before 9/11 there were a lot of abnormal drills which caused employees to be evacuated for extended amounts of time, as well as many unfamiliar faces moving about the building. Further, security shifts were moved around in an unusual way.

I'd be inclined to say it's farfetched, but certainly plausible.

EDIT: spelling

[edit on 1-9-2006 by Astygia]

[edit on 1-9-2006 by Astygia]



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 06:05 AM
link   

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]


Nah, i think they planted the bombs after Larry Silverstein took over the world trade center.


4am

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:38 AM
link   
i was just reading through google on the subject, i found this thread.
i would be curious why, if explosive were in the building, would you need to controll it via RF? each building already had 2 power systems, and dedicated pa systems ect. how about some artificial horizon type system on the roof, since any explosive system would only reasonably be used in an emergency to control the fall. maybe the building, atleast the south tower started to actually break off. but insted of it falling into space .. 'something' happened and it decides to free fall through its own support system.

i dont think blasting caps really degrade rapidly, land mines stay burried for years. some explosives get more sensative with age before degrading, i dont know if thats always the case.
it may also be relevant to understand what danger a broken 'slurry wall' under the site, and/or the building tipping over from its base -may have posed to surrounding buildings.
(this may be wrong,but) it would seem the buildings could handle 140mph wind sheer, which is fast, but not maximum hurricane type speed. i think you actually had a little more protection in the OEM floors in building 7



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   

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]


So, 30 years ago, the neo-cons were already planning 911 ??



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join