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.


Explosives as Safety Feature?

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 01:45 PM
I'm new to the site, well not new to reading the posts and all, just new to posting. Anyhow, what if these buildings were somehow already laced with explosives in order to detonate them if need be. So that they could control the detonation of the building in order to save more lives instead of just letting them burn and do their own thing. Think of it, they could have put c4 or whatever is used in the buildings, hidden of course, then hit a button somewhere to detonate the explosives, thus controlling how the building fell. I've watching the video of them falling, and it looks pretty controlled to me.

posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 02:10 PM
Hey there welcome to ATS,

Dont let it put you off no one replying straight away. I think you will find this has been discussed quite a few times on ATS which you should be able find quite easily by doing a search

Here is one you may find interesting

There is a few threads on ATS talking about demolitions being planted in the building within weeks of 911 and some even suggesting they were built in to the building when it was built

Have fun reading


posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 02:27 PM
I've read all of those threads about it, but everyone is looking at is as implating the explosives in order to detonate them to ruin the building on purpose. I'm saying that they had these explosives planted in the building, as part of it's design. The probably knew at one point or another that if these things ever did have a fire, or get hit by something, they may need a means of bring the towers down under some sort of control, and explosives is the only way.

So, if all else fails, and there is no saving these buildings, they use the explosives as a last resort in order to control how the buildings fall. That way, they dont tople over, or who knows what else, and cause a larger area of distruction.

posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 05:23 PM
And risk the inadvertant detonation of the explosives? I mean lets think about this, what insurance company is going to insure a building thats wired for demolition? Who would insure the companies renting office space there? Sorry, but the idea that we build office buildings with explosives pre-installed is silly.

posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 05:54 PM

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I mean lets think about this, what insurance company is going to insure a building thats wired for demolition? Who would insure the companies renting office space there?

Devil's advocate: They don't tell anyone about it. Then what?

Btw, I'd be really appreciative if anyone can find the oral histories from the construction workers that built the towers. I've heard before that the floors were often evacuated just before the floor slabs were laid onto the trusses, and you had to have a special security pass to stay as layers of some substance were laid all across the whole floor, for the concrete to be placed over top. The oral histories would be a really nice, and quick, way to confirm or disprove this.

[edit on 3-2-2007 by bsbray11]

posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 05:58 PM
You can't get away with not telling anyone about them. On a build like the WTC buildings there are multiple independent building, safety and code inspectors on the site at all times, watching things go together. Their whole job is to look for stuff out of the ordinary. You cant do it.

The insurance companies have their own inspectors on site. Theres no way they'd insure a build where they can't see every single step is being done properly.

[edit on 3-2-2007 by Tiloke]

posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 06:14 PM
Do federal authorities like the Port Authority have to take out insurance on their property from private companies? I wouldn't know, but maybe someone else here does. I would think there would be alternatives if you are a government authority.

Larry Silverstein took out his insurance policies right after he took over for the Port Authority, which had control over the site since the WTC were built. The site didn't belong to either New York or New Jersey.

[edit on 3-2-2007 by bsbray11]

posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 07:54 PM
its a good point, also explosives mixed in with the concrete seems a logical conclusion as to why all the concrete was pulverised, but risk the premature detonation of the explosives? I think that's probably the biggest reason not to rig a building this way, remember also this was not the first attack on the trade center, if the concrete or building was evenly laced with explosives top to bottom already then they very well might of accidentally detonated the first time WTC got bombed in 93.

posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 08:40 PM
I personally don't think there were explosives put there when the bldg was built. Don't forget the North Tower had a pretty good fire going in 1975, and of course if any fire got really bad it could cause a catastrophe, so for that reason I don't believe there were.

[edit on 3-2-2007 by talisman]

posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 07:49 PM
It's not too far-fetched that certain security features - like protocols for shooting down hijacked airliners - are kept secret from the office renting/flying public for fear of a "lack of confidence."
But otherwide, I've heard this specualted on, but certainly no facts forthcoming to verify it. If so, it'd be kept secret from the public, if not insurance companies. They may say cool, looks safe enough, and good idea but lets not tell the people working there. But they sure didn't bring it up tho in court when trying to minimize payouts - "why did you pull it when people were inside? That's not covered."

top topics


log in