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.

 

How the Buildings came down

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I have been a reader of the boards now for a few months and this is my first post. First about me. I was working that day in lower Manhattan as a Proprietary trader, I traded for myself with the aid of backing from a firm. I was not at my desk yet, as it was a beautiful day outside. I did not work in the buildings, but was "near by".

As the first plane went by the noise made me look up and just as it was about to hit the building I first saw it. Everything from what I saw leads me to believe it was a plane. Not for one second did I think this was an accident, so when we heard the second plane and I looked up, I can say that from everything I saw it was nothing BUT a plane. But that is not what I want this thread to be about. I am not about debunking any theories or causing any big time stirs. I lost a few friends in that building and do not need bring any ghosts back to my mind. What I do want to do is put out a theory and then ask all of you a question.

Feel free to comment on my theory, BUT please comment on my question at the very end of the post. I had spent many days in the buildings either visiting friends, analysts or business aquaintances. I had long noticed constant work on both buildings which all began after the first attack that failed. My theory is as follows: They determined that due to the failed attack, they would be a constant target going forward. Everyone can agree on that. What could they due to ensure the safety of the city? I feel that it was deteremined that the buildings would be loaded with charges, that if attacked and the attack was serious enough, the building could be brought down safely.

I believe the charges had been in place since almost immediatley after the first attack with the hopes of never having to use them. All the work that was going from that point on were strengthen the building and further increase the ability of a safe implosion. Like I said earlier in my post, I am rather new and hope I am not breaking any rules during this post. I do not know if this has been spoken about in the past, so please don't shoot me if it has. BUT here is my question. If, in fact this theory is possible, and the buildings were really brought down by insiders, for the purpose of not causing serious harm to downtown NY, is this still wrong?

I understand that many lives were lost, I personally witnessed many people die that day, either from falling out windows or jumping out on their own. It took place some time after the evacuations were ordered and they possbily could have felt that the fall of the buildings were to take place very soon. Would they really be at fault if they "pulled" the buildings to prevent further loss of life of the thousands of resue workers located around the buildings?

What if the conspiracy is nothing more than bringing the buildings down a bit earlier than they would have come down on their own? What if they saved 10,000 lives by controlling the demolition instead of allowing them to fall? Sorry for the long post, but have been wanting to get your opinions on this matter for a while now. I will sit back and listen to your responses, I am not trying to create further debate on any debunking theories.

Thank you

-traderonwallst

[edit for paragraphing]

[edit on 10-8-2007 by ADVISOR]




posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   
If what you ask is the case, the right thing to do would be to prevent the attacks. I doubt this is the case but, possible nun the less... I do not believe the buildings would have come down and if they had explosives for any reason other then a staged attack, it would probably be to gain profit instead of lose money in the fixing of the buildings.

If this is the case, why would they be telling people to get back to work, and not worry about it. Why building 7? Why building 7?!?



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Why building 7? Building 7 was part of a very large complex of buildings. Thus making it as a viable target as the towers and was probably already wired also. With the building empty, why not take it down too and create a bigger footprint to rebuild? Again.....I am not trying to pick sides in this one. Personally I do not believe in the whole inside attack theory, but will advocate an inside demolition theory. Ridicule me if you may, but I trust my Government on this one. Although I do believe they were caught with their pants down.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Your theory is excellent, way above top secret.

Your eyewitness account about the work on the building is interesting. I Had just read in a thread the actual work orders for the buildings, and they were minimal. Someone posted the work orders for a newer building and it had many more than the towers.

Suspicious to say the least.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
I think it's a fascinating theory that opens doors in many other cities.

If, in fact, the WTC was wired for controlled implosion as a safety measure in terms of a disaster, does that mean that other major buildings in metro areas are wired as well?

It makes you think...the Library Tower in L.A., the Columbia Center in Seattle, Sears Tower in Chicago...are all these buildings fitted for implosion?

In the end...

I doubt it.

I have a hard time believing that wiring a building that way could ever be considered a safety measure...maybe one of our resident demolitions experts can chime in on exactly how plausible it would be to preemptively outfit a building like that.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   
In all honesty, I really don't see anything wrong with "certain" over sized, potentially targeted buildings being wired to prevent a potential disaster. I still work in Manhattan, in an above average sized building, but definitely not a target. I no longer work in the trading industry, as I was completely burnt out after 8 years. Working in a city that is always on alert does make me worry, but to give in to that worry will allow yourself to be defeated. I come to wrok everyday, and look forward to reading all these interesting threads, oh yeah, and get some work done while I am at it.

By the way, the current credit crisis will work its way through the system. Do not worry about a collapse of the American markets, it won't happen. BUT, we do need what we used to consider a washout day. A day where all the people who are worried about the market get the hell out. They final say I give up and capitulation occurs. This is not a bad things, in fact its quiet healthy for the overall market. I do not want to go into great detail, as I am not in the business of doling out financial or trading advice. Atleast not any more.



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join